(DW) USN V IRN
 

made a mission in which i was in the frigate on the american side, it was basicaly an exercise to see how efectivly i could fire missiles at enamys in a battle group, came out with shocking results.

USS fitzgerald Arliegh burke DDG sank in the first 3 minuets

almost one minuet after that the perry frigate vandergrift was sunk (caught the nasty end of a SS-N-19)

Gonzalez (arliegh burke) who was protecting the carrier was sunk in 5 minuets not long after the USS George washington was sunk buy 7 SS-N-19's

USS Loyal was also sunk in the same wave

we are now only 10 minuets into the game russia has yet to loose a single ship.

USS princeton scored a nice hit on the battle cruiser Peter the great and sucsessfuly sank her after 20 missiles were fried.

however the sovermenny right behind the peter the great scored revenge later on buy smashing the princton to bits but princeton remained alive for 29 minuets and was the last unit left on the map bar the USS Chicargo.

sacramento an auxilary was hit by a TASM that got fire wrong from the USS Stout so it was a blue on blue

USS Stout and USS choslin were both sunk with in a minuet of each other over come buy missiles.


USS Mitscher was the last hope protecting me and she was the last burke to be sunk and folling that i too was sunk by the princeton with TASM missiles

so in all not alot gained in lest than half hour the entire group was sunk russians loose 2 ships

You never posted what exactly you brought the USN Task force against. For all we know, you could've used a flight of Badgers and Backfires also. Not to mention what the tactics were of the USS Chicago and how far away from the battle it was. :hmm:

Can we just get a copy of the mission to play with?

EDIT: I just realized that the "E-mail" button doesn't show my E-mail and won't send attachments. OK, at risk of spam, if you can send it to kazuaki(at)netvigator.com (change the "at" to "@"), thank you :D

And there you have it: Indisputable proof of the superiority of the Russian navy and concrete evidence of the delapidation of the US fleet.

sure you can have a copy

takeda it was a fair fight but there was some issues with it for a starters the entire battle groups were too close the chicargo was out front to one side not far from the USS MITSHER

as for delapordation of the USN no think you find this was a one off normaly whn ive done this russia looses or it breaks even.

issues i found with the particular mission was;

1) too close together
2) USN battle group was spread out a bit to far (10nm2)
3) i changed the russian CVBG to form an arrow head posture

think is may have alterd the out come but not sure il re try and see if i can get the same out come.

:roll:

Are you using stock 1.03 or LWAMI 2.03+?

The AEGIS performance is dramatically enhanced in LWAMI.

just played it with LWAMI mod and yes it is diffrent big diffrence,

played it three times twice the russians lost and once the won (baseing on if the carrier killed mission fail) russians got a lucky shot into the carrier and the sovremenny finnished the george washington with SS-N-22 so one game in 3 aint bad

and yes il send it to you soon ive got about 3 dives to do in multiplayer so i cant send now but its the first thing to do before i start tommorrow.

LOL Takeda. I said long time ago we need some sort of "crew proficiency" factor when doing scenarios for DW. That way we could give Russian Kilo crews, say, proficiency rating of 75% (I certainly think they deserve that much) while Iranian Kilo would be 50%, at best. That would help with realism feel and not "every Kilo is the same" as we have now.

Russian surface units would have their proficiency reduced (in a realistically designed modern scenario) to portray the poor state of their fleet and training etc. Not to mention they could barely scrape 2-3 units, fuly armed, operationally ready, anywhere.

In the end it would make things easier, perhaps too easy for most players in most scenarios, as majority of drivable platforms in the game are US, so where's the challenge in fighting 50% proficiency opponents?

Also, there is this alarming tendency in DW scenario design, to overpopulate the area with TONS of units from all sides. Inevitably, chaos ensues, with many ships sunk or damaged within minutes of starting the scenario.

Even very experienced scenario designers sometimes do this. DW, as SC before it, works best when it's "solo player vs several units" or "2-3 units vs 5-6" (at most) with some neutrals for good measure. Some scenarios try to portray major fleet actions, modern Tsushimas and Jutlands, which simply does not work, and ends up in total chaos and confusion. Such scenarios can have very random results.

Oleg

Well, good. I can test it on my personal config. It is based off LWAMI 3 beta of course (I hardly have the expertise to redesign all from scratch), but among other things I gave a few Russian missiles seaskimming ability - some, like the SS-N-22 and -25, are genuine seaskimmers but for some reason the database would load the standard "missile" doctrine which sets altitude at 500 (meters? - even feet it is way too high), some of the others like -19/-12 - I've heard of the -19 being a skimmer, and I don't think "low" means it flies at 500m seeing even the SS-N-9 can go as low as 40m. I also upped the performance of missiles like the Grumble and Gadfly a bit - the Grumble was like 60% when I walked into the DB...

Back in 688I, they did indeed have a four stage Proficiency setter. I suppose it went out after they realized the lower ones (like Beginner) were almost useless.

I suppose the mission creator could enter special scripts to enhance the performance of the AIs they want to do better.

I don't think a "crew rating" is necessary. It's also kind of squishy what it would really mean, anyway. A lot of the sorts of "skill" issues can be simulated in mission design. Doing things like choosing less than optimal tactics or a given situation, or else purposefully setting them to not be so clever.

What bothers me is less the numbers of units and more the density of them. A typical naval battle takes place in a piece of ocean the size of North Dakota. In an effort to make a scenario exciting and speed up game play, it seems like a typical thing to do, is to artificially "squish" the units together, so that the shooting starts quickly.

To me, this is frequently unsatisfying, because what makes naval tactics subtle, is not exchanging salvos, but rather the search leading up to it. To really get a feel for that, people need to be willing to accept a much more slow playing scenario.

I mean... geez... a typical Harpoon scenario can take a few days to play through. Why do people expect DW scenarios to be done in a few hours?

Because we only have 16X time compression. I can't speak for everyone, but I generally play Harpoon at 30X time compression, going as high as 1800X when I'm going about area ASW and nothing else.

Because I've seen DW crash when it tries to write a save file for a mission that takes place over a 8 hours with a dozen ASW warships and a whole bunch of ASW aircraft. :x