[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

>Kobben manpads
>I'm slightly sceptical about the Grom on Kobben. Not entirely sure they'd ever use that operationally...
I would say the Kobbens themselves are hardly operational, they have maybe 50-75% of their original endurance on batteries.
On the other hand this manpads is just a tube that can be carried easily. It is highly probable
it will be issued to submariners in order to be able to kill a lone subhunter helo, it is so easy to get
into shallow sands somewhere in the baltic and stick your hull up in the air. I know this is not 2WW but this might make
a difference between death and life.

Fair enough I'm leaving it up the scenario author to do the final per-scenario adjustments.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>Kobben sonars:
You know more in this case than me. I have only pointed to the article.

>Radars & OTH
>Hm yeah but there is surface ducting which allows radars to see beyond the horizon.
of course and this is included in the equation I gave you with 3.75*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2))
for radar horison. An equation for optical horison has smaller coefficient, but this is something like 20% less
for most wavelength only. So the ducting is not same as multibouncing in which case it becomes OTH radar
but explain to me why should such radar from 1980 be so much powerful than say swedish Giraffe from 2010?
I am only asking where is the catch, that Russians has something better than all other nations in this subject of surface radars.
Maybe I have missed a huge topic.

I know for a fact that even commercial nav/surface search radars are capable of making surface detections out to 60nm under the right conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct

As far as I know the Giraffe is a target indicator radar, and not really an OTH fire-control system? If the Giraffe is indeed capable of making OTH-SW contacts then I'll update the Giraffe, but would like to back this up with hard facts.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>ESM and multi vs single radar enabling
>Our current implementation is a lot better than other sims like this but as you point out there are still some limitations. The human player can manually select
what radars to use, but there are no AI logics to handle this. We'll look into this later on, but it is a very complex subject.
What I am trying to say, there might be a bug or 'absurdally powerful ESM' syndrome,
since playing in GOD mode I am observing how the ship can be seen from distance (who fires upon me),
and I swear, for two ships 200Nm apart, you can detect OHP by ESM no matter which radar it enables.
Worse, when you enable CRM-200 on type 206 Flaming, you get instant detection from sovremenny just around the hill 120km north-east from Gdansk, what is ridiculous.
since this radar is soemthign like 12NM range 1W (one watt peak!) power, with something like 0.1W under regular conditions.

In real life, ESM systems produce rather impressive ranges. The reason is that the ESM systems have amazing senstitivity and radars are a lot more powerful than they have to be. I'll post up some more info on this in my next post.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>According to our sources the radar horizon is typically 20-30nm depending on sensor and contact height, and visual horizon is 15-20nm. So think our model is fairly
good?
Looks very advanced! It might be interesting to enable editing altitude on generic radars (like for observation posts).
Maybe let's don't tweak in the area. Concerning first contact scenarios, it is sufficient to move the russians further north
at the beginning in order to remove general randomness of this scenario.

Yes we'd like to implement more randomness, but this is further down on our to-do list. Anyway will take a look at the scenario and see if I can create more fog-of-war to make it more difficult for the player.

BTW, antenna height for ground-based sensors is already in the database, so the new RM-100 surveillance radar that I added last night will have a height of 22m above the ground, increasing horizon range.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>Su-22M4
According to my best knowledge those are not carryign any guided missiles at the moment and it is doubtful
if they EVER had (this is about kedge/kerry/kyle toys).
Nothing guided being fired on their exercices ever landed in the press.

There are several sources that state that the Kh-29T (AS-14 Kedge) was used by Poland on the Su-22M-4 during the Cold War. It could very well be that the weapons were later withdrawn as their seeker, warhead and/or rocket motor expired.

So what we need to do is find out when the ex-Soviet A/G missiles were withdrawn. Probably after 10-15 years, so 2000-2005?

Polish Su-22M-4 also used the AS-7:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krzesiny_52RB.JPG

I'm less sure about the AS-9 though.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Now comes more delicate thing:
S-5K and S-8KO rockets differ by a factor of 4 in payload and seriously in penetration (57mm is said to be good for soft
vehicles and infantry, 80mm one is the smallest one good agains airstrips). In the game they both have roughly 1DP and this is unbalanced,
why use S-8KO in the game?

In Command, the S-8KO is capable of penetrating 201-500mm RHA while the S-5K can only penetrate 91-140mm RHA.

The S-8KO has a 3.6kg HEAT warhead with 0.9 kg HE, so it has 0.9 damage points (DP). S-5K has a 1.36kg HEAT warhead, but I do not know how much HE it had and so temporarely used 1DP for this warhead. I've now recued it to 0.35 DP, but if you have info on the exact HE weight please let me know.

If you know the exact exposive type that would help also, as we're simulating a whole bunch of different exposives types and convert the explosive power to TNT equivalents.

For instance, the Mk84 2000lb GPB has 429kg/945lb of Tritonal which is equal to 643.5kg of TNT. In Command, 1x Damage Point (DP) = 1kg TNT, and the sim handles the conversion from Tritonal to TNT equivalents automatically. Thus, the Mk84 will inflict 643.5 DP rather than 429 DP.

Neat, huh

Originally Posted by kbosak

Personally I find a few details annoying during gameplay:
-cannot change aircraft Callsign once they are in a base, this makes difificult to make true-to-life names

This is high on our to-do list (esp my own to-do list!), along with deleting a specific aircraft. We've had so many other issues that have been given higher priority, but we'll probably get to this one pretty soon.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-in many cases when trying to assign correct amoutn of stock ammo on airfields, it would be so much more convenient
to have max value+current value instead of being forced to select among 2/2 and 10000/10000 style mounts.

We always recommend using the 0/10000 weapon record for ammo dumps.

If you want to save time when adding weapons to ammo dumps you can create an SBR INI file and load the magazines all-in-one.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-you can destroy 3000m long airstrip with 3 batteries of Grad missiles just by putting it into fire.
no imagine salvo of 24 grad launchers killing entire Czerniakhovsk airbase. Makes no sense, they shoudl cover at best 3km2
of soft targets, while the base is 6km2 full of bunkers, trenches and uderground fuel dumps (Google Maps).

Yes this sounds unrealistic. Can you send me a savegame showing this and I'll look into it. Thanks!

Originally Posted by kbosak

-MLRS launchers are not counted as single rockets. This is problematic: consider mlrs above 200mm,
Uragan in particular with 300mm. What happens you cannot interecept them in teh game due to special handling logic.
Net results you can take uragan and pick with 1-3 missiles as many single targets as you want and nobody will respnd with aa fire.
This is ridiculous, those rockets are in the size of anything that polish AA would be happy to fire even until lack of ammo.

Hmmmm yeah this is a tough one... Can you send me a list of the battlefield rockets you think should be interceptable by SAMs, so that we can discuss this?

We currently have the M26 MLRS rockets implemented as interceptable rockets, where as 155mm GPS-guided arty shells are not. So should probably implement the BM-27 the same way.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-For artillery, arror is often given in % of azimuth and % of range, we have this data here or there so it coudl be implemented

Yeah we currently use CEP at max range.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-ammo logistics for US guided bomb munitions ammunitions is more complex as the guidance pods are attached to the iron bombs.
for example, Poles have ordered:
340 bombs Mk82
230 bombs Mk84
270 conversion kits making a bomb
Mk82 into GBU-38B/B (Mk82)
or
Mk84 into GBU-31B(V)1
270 conversion kits making a bomb
Mk82 into Paveway II
or
Mk84 into Paveway III

Okay but the JDAM tail kits for Mk82 and Mk84 aren't interchangeable, ditto for the Paveway kits esp since they are PW II and PW III. So there are some rather important details in the kit quantities that have been left out.

So what we basically know is that there are 570 bombs and 530 guidance kids, so 40 bombs have no kits.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Therefore there is a mix of what can become what depending on targets, note that
MK84 is twice as heavy as Mk82 but less of the former are carried.
This creates completely irregular usage patterns.
For example all mk84 can become either laser or tv guided,
but there is not enough kits to do the same with MK82, and even if you make all MK84 as tv,
all MK82 must then become either laser or unguided.