Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
I've been trying to Google accurate information on the specs of the Stallion's payload, but no success so far.
Suffice to say that I'm not interested in enhancing the Stallion's capabilities from a balance agenda.
If there is reason to do so for a realism agenda, then I would consider the change. But if not, I'd leave it as is.
|
The current payload (UMGT-1) is actually historically accurate, but the weapon is quite useless as it is. The batteries inside are also not getting newer. Soon, they'd either have to take the weapon out of service or change the torpedo inside.
I'd actually have preferred using the APSET-95, the one with 50 knot capability and 30km max range (though not both at once). Yes, I know Jane's said it is really a UMGT-1, but Jane's also said the Neu carried a 10-tubed RBU-12000 (meanwhile, to the right of the description, there's a picture that shows the Neu carrying the 12-tubed RBU-6000, just like what everyone else says). Besides, apparently if you trust Jane's, then the APR-3 would have a range of 10000 yards which will make it a a nice nightmare as well.
Further, according to DITG.org, the APR-3 is perfectly fittable onto the long SS-N-27 (reasonable, considering that even the
short antiship SS-N-27 carries a 400kg warhead + a 60kg radar seeker and the APR's only supposed to be 450-475) - in terms of length the assembly comes to only 7.65m (the long-antiship version is 8.2m long), so there's no obvious weight or length problem. It is the short, <=6.2m short SS-N-27 that's forced to use the puny MPT-1UE. So you can argue that forcing it to fit onto a Stallion (thus preventing a theoretical 8-missile shotgun salvo) is already an artificial restriction on the Russian side.
For the circle/snake call, if the snake pattern is more effective, somehow I doubt realistically the Russians would force the torpedo to select "circle". Most probably it'd have both, and if it only had one, it'd be the more effective selection. The only reason to
force the selection of circle is gameplay balance, not realism, IMO.
That above covers realism.
For gameplay, if it consoles you any, the active sonar on an Akula is crap (to make it start to show blips I had to increase the theoretical Active Sonar Nrd to over the Seawolf, which of course is unrealistic but is the only way I've found so far to make it a bit useful), so at least you won't be actively ranged. Without the accuracy provided by active ranging, and only 1.5NM ranges for the APR-3. As a 688I, you
should get first detect and thus first passive TMA solution. Then you can maneuver in zigzags to deny those short-legged torps their solution until you close in and shoot torps.
Further, realistically, if they don't change the torp soon they'd have to stop using it. So if you really hate this, just try and persuade your opposite in MP to not use Stallion - that's the
other realistic option. Or just swap the torp back yourself and persuade your opponent to use your database. But let LW at least develop his APR-3. At least we can stick it on a helicopter or something...