[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

Ok, let me explain. From what I've tested unlike diving which has proper momentum, turning of the ship is just linked to rudder angle. So, even at full speed going from full 30 deg turn to straight takes as much time as it takes for the rudder to centre. That I think is wrong. So, I significantly reduced the rudder speed (perhaps too much) and increased turn rate to compensate. In the game it means you need to use lesser angles more and if you do a full rudder turn you have to commit to it (as it will probably mean changing the course of at least 90 degrees). You can still use the same evasion methods as before.

OK, that sounds more like something I can get behind. I definitely agree that it feels wierd that a 30 degree turn can center in only ~5 degrees. Maybe I'll test it when you've transformed all the subs to this configuration.

Honestly, this requires some more testing. I know for a fact that helis are still dangerous although it is now possible to shake them off by running deep and silent and changing course.

That's good to hear. Though since you've actually boosted the sensitivity of the helicopter's dipping sonar, it should continue to work just fine.

What I'm concerned most of all are the sonobuoys, because they along with the dipping sonar are unique in the game in requiring discrete search as opposed to the continuous search being undertaken by all the other ships and submarines. Discrete search (which includes sprint-and-drift) tactics are a challenge for AI because the decision of what spacing to use between the searches depends on the predicted detection range, which in turn depends on the sensitivity of the detector.

I don't know how they programmed the AI. For example, it may be a fixed formula where they drop buoys every X yards, or it may be a variable formula that takes into account the buoy's designated sensitivity. If it is the former, then the AI won't adjust its tactics to the new weakened buoys and gaps will form, making the nerf far more serious than intended.

Obviously testing is required, but can Julhelm or someone else shed any preliminary light on this topic?

sinking Sierra with one torpedo, or sinking Sovremenny with two?

I can see the dilemma. Personally, if it comes down to it, I'll agree that Sierra and above can require two torpedoes if that's the only way to ensure a Sovremenny has two torps worth of "health".

What do you mean by "new-generation seeker"? The Mark-48 in the game are not ADCAPs.

I know they aren't. But even the Mk 48 Mod 1, the first operational variant is several precious years more advanced than the Mark 37 Mod 2 at a time when computers are just being introduced and advances in sonar technology are made at a high speed. To give an idea the kind of improvements in this era, If you compare for example the 1967 MGK-300 Rubin sonar versus the 1976 MGK-400 Rubikon, the range actually triples from 60 to 200+ kilometers (obviously, they are assuming a very noisy target). In such conditions do you really think the increase over Mark 37 would only be in the order of 60%, even counting the fact it is faster?

As for 1,600m, I can see two possibilities.
1) That might have been the Mark 46 (with a much smaller and thus less capable seeker head). The FAS site seems to have ingested some Mark-46ish information, including "Min/Max ASROC launching ranges 1500 to 12000 yards" and "Run characteristics 6-8 minutes downward".
2) If it really has to do with the Mark 48, it might reflect its surface detection range. If you look at the below site, for the UGST the Russians claim 2.5km detection range against a submarine, but only 1.2km for a surface ship - presumably the surface ship range is less because so much of the ship is out of the water and the increased surface noise so near the surface. From that, we may infer that a torpedo with 4000m acquisition against submarines may plausibly be reduced to roughly 1.6km against a surface ship.
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/ugst/

Of course, maybe one can argue for gameplay we should nerf the detection range anyway, but the above is my two cents on the "realism" part.

Yeah, I agree that wires brake a bit too much (would be great if we could be able to set break angle from ship). But if you're at 5 or 10 knots and roughly face the direction of a torpedo you can easily wire-guide it for at least 10 KYDS. And I don't agree that wire braking motivates you to setup them properly. In vanilla if I wanted a confirmed hit I just fired a torpedo to activate just as it turned on it's course. The only way it could miss is if there was a wreck between it and the target. A lot of times I just broke the wire myself to load another torp.

Personally, the risk of the target turning out to be very far away has been an effective deterrent against using "gamey tactics", and unfortunately, I've already lost way too many torpedoes within a minute or so of launching them to feel like "easily wire-guide it for at least 10 KYDS" is a reliable idea. In desperation I now stop after launching to try and save my torpedo wires and I consider myself lucky when the torpedo lasts long enough I get to cut the wire.