Killing the game
 

It is usually said that only dumb never change mind. I would say that is what happened with me. That’s right, I changed my mind. Sometimes ago, I was defending strongly the Kilo, what I could call a missile boat, until I decided to switch to the Akula II as long as the infamous BB bug will not be fix by a new patch. Akula is rather similar to the Kilo, if we are talking about sonar screen and the use of the same missiles. And then, I discovered something very disturbing; the SS-N-27 is really killing this game, when playing MP session. Proud member of the community of the Seawolves, I noticed a pattern in the duration of our dives. From dives that often last 2 hours (of course it doesn’t mean that were good), we have nowadays dives that can last 14 min, or 10 min on weapons hold + 4 min on weapons free. Where is the fun in these kind of dives, where the fastest to shoot will mark a kill.
It is funny that a former Kilo driver and an Akula user talk like that but it is my feeling and worst, I am afraid that many peoples will lose interest in DW as long as Sonalysts will not do anything to reduce the supremacy of these missiles in this sim, e.g. acquisition range, precision of the rocket, over efficient AC TMA …
Do some of you think like me?

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's actually a combination of factors that's causing this. The auto TMA is the biggest offender. I was griping about the way it works from the day after I got DW. SCS doesn't seem the slightest bit concerned that the aTMA uses data other than what would be available to the player, or even that aTMA is updating targets for which no new data is generated (or example, ESM air contacts updating after being submerged for 30 minutes, or sub contacts updating when they are behind a seamount). I think part of the reason they don't care is just that there are a lot of people on this forum who don't care if the aTMA cheats, as long as it makes it easier for them to play... :damn:

Combine the cheating aTMA with super long-range torpedo acquisition and a 70 knot top speed... you end up with a game out of balance and unrealistic.

As far as playing with the Seawolves goes, I think the best way to handle the aTMA/SS-N-27 problem is either to play with manual TMA, or to play two games, switching subs for the second roung (or both). :shifty:


Edit:
I should point out that the LW/Ami mod changes this balance significantly. The dominance of acoustic conditions in determining detection ranges increases the American subs edge in relative detection range. Also, the shorter detection ranges mean that conventional torpedoes can close the gap much more quickly than they could before. The Type 40 has been removed in favor of a torpedo with a 55 knot top speed. The Shkval might actually be more dangerous than the -27 in this mod, at least in shallow water. :up:

I disagree.

In particular the comment about airborne contacts being updated without data.

If I pickup a contact on ESM and get a couple of sweeps and the submerge the TMA is going to update his position on last known speed and direction so of course after 30 minutes the position of the air contact on the map is going to be updated but only on that assumption. If you turn on show truth you'll find the target completely off of track.

Orm,stop bitchin' for now! Complain after 1.02 patch!

I'm with you on this one. When the contact age listed on the navigation screen is non-zero, the location of the target indicated is really more of an indicator of the radius of the area of uncertainty surrounding the last known contact. That's why I spend a lot of time marking up my navigation screen and drawing circles around stuff.

Sometimes I wonder if a lot of people who use manual TMA, work for solutions which are more precise than they really need to open fire with a reasonable probability of hitting their target.

DivingWind wrote

I know that some very important bugs will be fix :up: , but I am not very sure that this patch will address the AC TMA and the subrocs unrealistic dominance. :down:

That is the whole point of SUBROC.

First look first kill.

You don't even need that great a solution for a kill with subroc.

Truth and gameplay have verified that the solution was accurate. I've come to PD and spotted incoming aircraft on the given bearing, and turned Truth on during single player. It's on the mark.

Considering the torpedo is circling instead of snaking, and can't be resteered, having an accurate range is crucial for an accurate ASROC shot. Or are you talking about nuclear depth charges? In that case, yeah...

As far as I'm concerned, when the Type 40, ADCAP, MK50 and E15 (1960 torpedo) share the same seeker parameters, you've got a gameplay balance problem. ;)

It is essential that torpedos have different seeker parameters or every ship in the water is armed with torpedos with state of the art (read: much better than any real world specification) guidence.

The question we were talking about is not whether an accurate range is necessary or not, but rather precisely how accurate a range is necessary. I'd argue you don't need one as accurate as most people seem to work for.

The suspicion I was voicing is that a lot of players, in developing a firing solution, narrow down the area of uncertainty much smaller than what they probably really need to in order to have a reasonable chance of killing their adversary. If the area of uncertainty is slightly larger than area searched by the torpedo, then the torpedo has a pretty good chance of homing on it's target no matter what.

After firing multiple rockets into the same AOU, the probability of scoring a hit ought to be substantial. You don't necessarily need a perfect firing solution to be lethal. You really just need enough sniffs of the target to have an area of uncertainty on the order of the search area of the torpedo.

What was the tactic the aircraft was engaging in? If it was transiting in a straight line, or in an air corridor, then the firing solution you achieved with ESM would most likely remain accurate.

If the aircraft was using some other tactic, then the solution should not be accurate.

In the standard database, the problem with the SS-N-27 is that the torpedo it drops, Type 40, has a seeker range of 4500m, like all other torpedos. This means that if you fire four of them in a square pattern, with their circle search area, you have just guaranteed that you will find a submarine within a greater than 9km by 9km area.

I'd say that's a pretty light solution requirement.

Or, if you have a bearing line, you can fire six of them along that bearing and cover a potential range of around 16nm, which is nearly the entire spectrum of detectable ranges for submerged contacts!

This, combined with the huge detection ranges in the standard database, and the lack of underwater missile-launch transients, means that the Akula is a nearly undefeatable opponent.

The solution to this, even if you don't want to reduce the mean detection range, is to add underwater missile launch noise and greatly reduce the seeker range of LWTs and SUBROC torpedos, as is realistic, and as has been done in the LWAMI mod, and it's working wonderfully. ;)

This is a ridicolous statement, in a game where every sub is easily 0wn3d by ANY aircraft, and where active sonars work like instant sub-o-finders.

I know you didn't mean it like *that* LW, but still...

Personally when discussing Akula weapons I'd love to see Shkval becoming MUCH more deadly, before ASROC deadliness is reduced.

I think it's fairly clear that I meant in "sub vs. sub Multiplayer combat with all other factors being equal."

And yes, the huge advantage of aircraft in the stock database and active sonar detections are separate issues that we've dealt with too, partially... :cool:

Anyway...