LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #2: Torpedo Feedback
 

We need feedback on the torpedo feedback feature from users of the mod.

Players have so far reported that it makes a mess of their auto TMA (we knew this) and it is hard to compensate, when turning off the auto TMA is not a palatable solution.

I have made the point that all torpedo seeker feedback contacts are at extremely short ranges (under 1000m in all cases that I know of, even for ADCAP, others are shorter), so when you get a bearing on a contact, you know its location relative to the torpedo instantly, meaning that it is possible to compensate either through turning off the TMA or just replotting the target in your head based on the torpedo movement and plot behavior (note: a new contact message from a torpedo near a target usually means a decoy, very helpful information to get).

Auto TMA is a cheat that can be turned off at any time....

I think the better question would be if this makes evasion close to impossible for the target sub. We wouldn't want the only valid evasion tactic to be running out of range...

I cant sink Udaloy with single ADCAP (with under the keel explosion).Please comment this.

There is no under keel explosion modelled in the DW engine at all. There is no mod that can fix this.

The Udaloy has a greater damage value than the ADCAP has warhead strength, for general gameplay reasons. I have raised the damage rating of some ships to provide some consistency that was lacking entirely before in the way damage values were assigned to ships.

That what I was afraid of. :cry:

SCX was able to do it, though.... It was one of the best improvements they made! :shifty:

In thinking about it, I'm sure there could be some kind of doctrine level fix (something like "IF ADCAP AND target=surface THEN damage=warheadx2"). I'll have to ask Amizaur about that... am I correct in thinking that all it does practically is add damage to the ADCAP's warhead when it strikes a surface ship?

Oh, you haven't played it, have you?

SCX torp damage modeling was awesome! If the torpedo impacted the ship in the side of the hull, it did "normal" damage, which wasn't all that much...multiple hits required to sink about anything.

However, if you set the ceiling so that the weapon passed underneath the hull, the torpedo would explode under the ship and cause about 3x the damage it would have done had it hit the side of the hull.

I can only guess about how it was done, maybe a MAD sensor was modeled for the weapon. But it was fundamentally different from the normal SC, since in the stock game a torp would NEVER explode if it passed underneath a ship. The only downside was that in SCX, you had to set a ceiling lower than 180ft to ensure that the torpedo would NOT explode underneath a neutral.

If I were the philosopher-king of DW programming, I would set up the doctrine so that if the target assigned to the weapon in fire control was designated SUB, the weapon would function as it did in stock Sub Command, requiring a direct hit to detonate. But, if the target was designated SURFACE in fire control, under-the-keel proximity detonations would be enabled and the damage done would be significantly higher (as was done in SCX).

That sounds a little "gamey" to me... :hmm:

I'm not sure that effect would be realistic for all torpedos.

Was it ADCAP only?

I think a doctrine level addition something along the lines of what I have only for the ADCAP would be a better way of accomplishing that, especially given the capability of DW's doctrine system.

I wouldn't want a system like the one Molon described, WAY too invasive on gameplay for my taste. :up:

I think it worked for the UGST too.
I never bothered trying it with a 65-76, they were so big they took out just about any ship with a single hit to the side anyways.

What was gamey?

For me, the artificial restriction on depth and how you had to handle the torpedo in general.

I am almost sure that a modification to doctrine could create this effect automatically for specified weapons with very little intrusion on gameplay.

I know nothing of SC, however, I do know that the doctrine system of DW is *amazing* as Amizaur is showing with his programming skills. :rock:

Well, I see what you mean. I guess using the ceiling to program a UTK is a bit gamey, but they made very clever use of what they had. It's also worth noting that UTK wasn't 100% effective. It was possible that the torp would pass under without detonating, and have to turn around and try again (I think this was especially true in high sea states). So, giving the player the option to go for a UTK instead of it just being programmed automatically contributed to tactical choice--granted, a minor choice.

It could still be added as a player choice.

If you set the torpedo to 10-20 ft, it could default side hull. If you set the depth 20-40ft, it could be enabled to give a 60 percent chance of exploding under the ship and 40 percent chance of dropped target and anything under 41ft depth would be treated normally.

I believe this could be done with doctrine, but it would require a fair bit of work.

Under the keel explosions are easy to create. Give the torp a MAD sensor with a range of ~50 ft. The player then sets the ceiling of the torp to 30-40 ft. When the torp reaches its target, it will explode under the ship. I have had one ADCAP destroy the Kirov on a number of occasions. It is a very simple addition to make. :rock:

cheers, jsteed