Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LoBlo
Now though, its more realistic. Just shot a volley of missiles at a OHP and all homed in (the ones that weren't spoofed by chaff) even after the platform was dead. Fun stuff. Will keep players more honest about how effective there attacks are.  |
I don't know how realistic any of it is, honestly. There's a tendancy to pour cruise missiles into ships even after they're probably out of action. Part of that is due to a lack of damage assessment. Realistically, if you're watching a radar screen, you really can't tell how much damage a ship has suffered unless it's totally blown to pieces and simply disappears. There's also, like you said, the tendancy of missiles that are already in flight to home on targets that are already out of action.
The thing is, realistically, different missiles also have different seeker logic. Some, for example, might go to the largest radar reflection, others might go to the closest, they'll probably also have some algorithm in them for trying to recognize countermeasures that might be more or less effective, still others might try to compare the reflected radar signal against a database of radar reflections and go after what it considers to be the highest value target. When you roll it all in together, who really knows what the heck the missile is going to go after? I'm not sure that's easily predicted.
So... one should avoid claims that any particular heuristic in a wargame is more realistic than others. They're all questionable. I think the most important thing is to state the assumption and then let people argue about it, then try to see what matters. It's sort of interesting to me to see how many of the things that even very knowledgable people throw their hands up at and say, "Oh my god! that's not how it works..." and then they make you change it, only to find that you get the same answer.