[farnsworth voice]Great news, everyone![/farnsworth voice]
The heavyweight torpedo damage scaling project is about 80% done at this point. That means the whole scaling project is about 95% done.

As of right now, the floor is still open for comments concerning how the scale should be set, and we are interested in your opinions. We are especially interested in any additional real-world data that we might consider in setting a scale, or any different interpretations of the real world data already mentioned above (posts 110 and 114)*. We will also consider the effect on competitive balance in choosing between different scaling options that fit the data. However, we will not consider using a scaling curve that does not fit the data.

If you feel you have a stake or an interest in how this scaling comes out, now is the time to pipe up. Arguments made before a semi-final scaling has been announced will carry more weight than those made after, because they are more likely to be objective, thought-out, and unbiased.

Thanks in advance.

------------------
*In addition to the data mentioned in these posts, I have also looked at: 1. the INS Khukri, a frigate which was hit by what was probably a French-made UTK capable homing torpedo and sunk in only two minutes; and 2. USS Oklahoma, which began to capsize after being hit by three Japanese Type 91 Mod 2 torpedoes (205kg warheads). While not very useful, these data points are generally consistent with the possible scaling curves that result from fitting the curve to the data from posts 110 and 114.

Don't forget tests of these modern torps, they have sunk ships. Though there was no damage control effort, there is so little data out there at all they would still be useful data points.

Links, please.

I have a suggestion. I was playing a quick mission today and was able to dodge 18 torpedoes from an AI Kilo just by doing a 180 degree turn at flank. Could the doctrine for submarines engaging surface ships be modified so that if the target is moving greater than 15 knots the sub will fire a spread, say 1 fish 10 degrees lag and another 10 degrees lead from the standard intercept bearing of the torpedo shot? :hmm:

The doctrine for AI engagement needs to be modified for the changes of 1.04... That might clear up the issue once it's done, but if it doesn't then maybe more can be added...

One question regarding doctrine editing: Is there a special tool/program for editing it? I mean you can edit it quite well with notepad etc. but is their a program which supports that language? I'm asking because it would be much easier to learn if the layout/syntax would be displayed 'correctly'. With notepad it looks a bit weird sometimes....

Phil

PS: Sorry if this is already posted somewhere, i haven't found it...yet.

We dont have a tool for that ... right now everything is done via some texteditor or other. And I dont think SCS will put up their tool (which they definitly have) for download. Either someone with the skills sits down and makes a tool or somebody modifies the appropriate files for a texteditor like UltraEdit32/UEStudio.

SCDoctrineChecker.exe: Superb -JSteed- Tool For Check a Syntaxis Doctrine Language. For DW this tool still valid.
------------------------------------------------------

This program will analyze a SC doctrine file and report any errors
it finds. The program will not find all errors, only the ones which are
most likely to occur. Below is a list of mistakes the program will search
for.
1. A space between each element of a doctrine instruction. These include
parenthesis, brackets, operators, variables, reserved words, comment
delimiter, etc.
2. The program will check that operator symbols, (-+!$&|*/<>=), are used in
the proper manner.
3. It will also check that logical operators, (and, or, not), are used in
a straightforward way, although no attempt has been made to make this
feature exhaustive.
4. A check will be made for correct spelling of all reserve words and user
variables. It will flag any words it does not recognize.
5. Conditional statements are checked to make sure that all the necessary
elements exist. Note that the program does not check the logic of any
conditional statements. Compounding them in some strange way may make
the doctrine un-runnable, but will pass this check if all the elements
are present. This is similar to modern program compilers.
6. The number of parenthesis in each line are checked. If they are
unbalanced, an error will be generated.
7. Too much white space is also reported as an error. If there are 2 or
more spaces between elements or at the end of the line, an error is
generated. The existence of too many spaces may not actually be an
error, but I decided to err on the side of caution. If everything
appears to be OK then the extra spaces/tabs are at the end of the line.
8. String variables: Mission, Order, TgtClass, TgtID, TgtSource are
checked. The program checks that a '$=' follows one of these variables
when used in conditional statements. It also checks that a valid
string follows. The program will also check that a '$=' follows
OwnName and TargetName in conditional statements. TgtMissileClass,
which is a boolean function, is also checked for the correct string
inputs to this function.
9. Do not put a comment line at the end of an instruction. The program
does not allow this and will generate an error. Actually, many errors.
Comments can be placed after declaration statements.
10. Do not write a single instruction over more than one line.

Thanks OneShot & GrayOwl for the replies. I'll try that program if i find it. Do you have a link?
I've found an old thread where the doctrine Syntax is explained, but it will take some time for me to learn...

Still no new Lwami?

It's not like anyone has announed an expected release date or anything.

I'm in the process of modifying the aircraft loadouts for LWAMI and I wonder if anyone knows if the launchers loadouts are handled diffrent than the subs? Do aircraft only carry weapons specific to their task from what weapons they have aviable in their loadout. or do they carry all the weapons in their loadout. THis really effects aircraft like the F/A-18 and Su-33 since they have many diffrent weapons aviable for them to carry.

Specific to task. I know this for a fact since changing the loadout fixed a big problem on my map. The TU142 bear for example can do either ASW or ASUW, but will only carry what you tell him to carry.

So an Aircraft armed with AAMs, ASM, and LAMs set to fly a 'Strike' will carry LAMs on its hardpoints in prefreince over ASMs etc?

Thats great! I'll updated several Aircraft tonight.

Thanks for the info.

you are welcome

That's part of the reason why I made interceptors and bombers with randomized departure times to counter a surface taskforce with air support. I couldn't find a 'jack of all trades' capable of multiple roles at the same time.