Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II
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.
|
They seem to work nice during my testing. Right now it works something like that. If he's let's say about 500 yards away he won't get a precise solution if you're sailing deep and in silent mode. But as soon as you go to as much as 10 knots he can track you easily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II
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".
|
Well, we have 300 tons of displacement between them so there is some leeway here. Perhaps I should fine-tune it so that a Mark 48 can just barely kill a Sierra but just almost kill Sovremenny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II
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. |
Well, there's also the case of self noise. A very good sensor may be just as effective on a noisy platform as a worse sensor on a quiet one. That could explain them having similar detection ranges. If you compare propulsion, all Soviet torpedoes use electric batteries, while Mk48 uses piston engines along with pump jets. It also has two propellers. I think that can create a lot more noise that relatively quiet electric motors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II
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.
|
That's why, after some time with the game I quickly started to set torpedo waypoints close and only after they didn't break I moved them closer to target. But the patch seemed to improve that as right now Mk48s have 10% chance of braking the wire instead of initial 25.