Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LoBlo
Thats one of the reason I wish there was a seperate CM effectiveness for each sensor type (instead of a blanket CM effectiveness given to the CM). It would allow some artistic license to assign varying sofistication to the individual seekers (torp and missiles) to simulate different anti-CM logic.
|
That's why I like how Harpoon resolves combat. As far as I can tell, in DW the target missiles home on is heavily weighted towards the closest target. In truth it's not always that simple. There are SO many types of countermeasures out there, chaff... flares... floating... hovering... then on top of that is various types of jamming. It's amazing that anybody can manage to hit anything these days.
Quote:
|
Its would be hard to argue that's thats not more realistic, unless you consider missiles that "talk" to each other and divide targets in a coordinated fashion. (supposedly shipwreck missiles are rumored to have some sorta function like this).
|
Who knows? For decades the whole focus of sensors and weapons was how to bounce energy off a target at get as much back as possible. Now you're right up against the physical limits of what is possible, so the big advances in cruise missile effectiveness aren't probably going to be in who makes the one with the better seeker, engine, airframe or warhead. It's going to be who makes the one with the best algorithm on some chip somewhere in the missile to pick out targets, distinguish and ignore countermeasures, avoid the things shot at it, and whatever else. I think they're going to be experimenting with all kinds of strange technologies well into the future.