Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Fair enough to yours as well. I'll go yell at LW some more about the ballistic doctrines....
|
Well... the thing is, I think early on people were way too worried about the techno-weenieness of the database and trying to decide what the specific numbers are for the various platforms. Personally, my first priority would have been to add in the glaring omissions. They have US LSDs but no LPDs? Only one kind of Arleigh Burke? How come there's only once choice of carrier air wing? Next I would have added near-future platforms because that is how you give the game longevity. A non-playable 774 class would be fine in my book. Add in an SSGN. Add in the F-35 variants. How about the LHA(R) class? At the time there was no LCS. LCS is a real warship now, but nobody seems to care. What about a DDG-1000 or two?
I'd rather see a variety of land-based ASCMs and ballistic missiles with anti-ship capabilities and cluster warheads than SSBNs that can shoot ballistic missiles. To me, these things are much more relevant.
Obsessing over "well... the beam pattern of the towed arrays doesn't look right" or "this boat is too quiet" or "this boat is too loud" because someone somewhere in some unclassified popular submarine novel read that someone did or didn't make a detection at X nautical miles is just kind silly to me.