Now Available for Download---LWAMI v3.03!!!

[LuftWolf]

Here is the v3.03 addition to the readme.

XX-Changes for LWAMI 3.03-XX
SLAM-ER Upgrade-We have enabled ASuW capability for the SLAM-ER equipped on the player P-3 Orion. The missile can now function in Strike mode and ASuW mode. To set the missile for Strike mode, use as described in the manual as before. Be sure to make the final waypoint directly over the target or the missile will likely cause only light damage (as the SLAM-ER has a much smaller warhead than the TLAM, about half). To use the missile in ASuW mode, set the two approach waypoints such that the missile is headed at the surface target as it approaches the final waypoint and ***set the last waypoint over water*** (this is how the missile is able to distinguish Strike mode and ASuW mode... if the last waypoint is over land, it will operate in strike mode, if it is over water, it will operate in ASuW mode). The last waypoint is the enable point for the weapon. At the enable point, the missile will drop from its skimming altitude of 30ft to just above wave-level. At this point the weapon will enable, and if it immediately has a target, will stay low to the sea and home the target. If the missile does not immediately acquire a target, it will slowly climb back to search altitude of 30ft, and travel in a straight line, searching and homing using a radar seeker. The sequence described is a "stealth enable" feature that should improve the survivability of this weapon over the standard Harpoon. In this mode the weapon resembles a Harpoon with upgraded stealth, range, warhead, and waypoint capabililty. In terms of warhead power, two SLAM-ER hits will destroy a FFG7 OHP. The AI F/A-18 Hornet and P-3 Orion previously equipped with the SLAM-ER have been given an appropriate load of SLAM's for Strike capability and Harpoons for ASuW capability as the AI is not able to properly use the SLAM-ER.

Helo Dipping-Several internal changes have been made to the helo doctrines to prevent dipping sonar "dragging" and limit crashes. There is still work to do, but it will have to wait for the changes in DW 1.04.

The files are currently available for download from the CADC, courtesy of OneShot, in this thread http://www.commanders-academy.net/sh...=8557#post8557 , and I'm sure Bill Nichols will have it posted to www.subguru.com soon as well.

I hope you enjoy the new version, and as always, be sure to let me know if you find any bugs, etc.

Thanks!

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Just so you guys know, expect another version of LWAMI 3.xx in the next two weeks or so that will address any bugs found in 3.03, introduce more helo tuning, add the HellfireII to the US Navy arsenal (fire and forget version of the Hellfire allowing the MH60 salvo capability) and perhaps add the expanded playable unit list that is included in the LWAMI 4.xx playtest (I still haven't decided if that will be exclusive to the "next-gen" version of LWAMI, but probably not).

Be sure to give me your ideas as well.

Cheers,
David

[UglyMowgli]

Thank's a lot for the work along waited news for our maritime Patrol crew. I will publish the news at MS when the webiste will be online (got a lot of trouble with it ).

[LuftWolf]

I should have ported this over to LWAMI 3.xx sooner.

Without proper ASuW capability the P-3 is really hamstrung.

Oddly enough, it took me some time to come over to the camp of people who thought such a change was necessary... perhaps it coincided with the discovery of a way to fix it.

The P-3 really ought to be feared in MP now. Even if the SLAM-ER's effectiveness proves to be low for a single missile, the fact that it can carry so many of them, and the TACCO can vector them from so many directions at once, means any single FFG caught outside an AEGIS umbrella is going to have a serious problem.

I suspect some previous cake-walk FFG scenarios will be tipped in favor of the P-3's now (I'm thinking specifically about some of your's Molon... Taiwan...).

I also hope more people decide to take the P-3 as a primary platform in clubs, etc., that can only be good for DW.

Cheers,
David

PS They're also going to be getting the Mk60 CAPTOR Mine.

[sonar732]

Good news on the Captor mine! The Captor was a common tactic in the SOSUS-lined area waiting for the Soviet subs to come across them and BAM! Please make sure that this is implemented as it will cause problems for friendlies!

Its acoustic detection system is designed to seek hostile submarines, ignoring surface craft and friendly submarine acoustic signatures.

[Bill Nichols]

Excellent news! Now all we need is for XabbaRus to finish his work on the new models for DW.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I should have ported this over to LWAMI 3.xx sooner.

Without proper ASuW capability the P-3 is really hamstrung.

Oddly enough, it took me some time to come over to the camp of people who thought such a change was necessary... perhaps it coincided with the discovery of a way to fix it.

The P-3 really ought to be feared in MP now. Even if the SLAM-ER's effectiveness proves to be low for a single missile, the fact that it can carry so many of them, and the TACCO can vector them from so many directions at once, means any single FFG caught outside an AEGIS umbrella is going to have a serious problem.

I suspect some previous cake-walk FFG scenarios will be tipped in favor of the P-3's now (I'm thinking specifically about some of your's Molon... Taiwan...).

Hey now, the whole purpose of the FFG in that one was to create an AAW "bubble" that the P-3 coudn't operate in unless the Kilo's got the job done. Both side's missions are dependent on the performance of other platforms on ownside. If the P-3 could win that one all on its own, that would be a Bad Thing. If there is anything I've tried to avoid in any mission design, its setting it up so that one player can launch a missile volley right in the beginning and win right there. The original version, made for stock DW, disabled most of the P-3's pylons to prevent this from happening with the "SuperMav" going up against the non-functioning RAMs. As it stands now, if the P-3 really wants to hit the FFG instead of supporting the Kilos or locating the 688I, it can successfully attack the FFG while the FFG is busy handling an AI missile volley. You know, unless the FFG guy has figured out that 1.03's phalanx won't miss and isn't bothering with the SM2's.

You are right that the FFG doesn't have to face much that it can't handle, but the P-3 isn't the problem there. The piss-poor performance of subsonic SSMs versus the now-100% effective Phalanx and the near-100% effective RAM SAMs are the problem. The single best way to improve the balance of that mission would be to add supersonic land based SSMs, or maybe to turn down the CIWS to pre-1.03 performance. =P

[Molon Labe]

I just tried 4 times to hit a lone Udaloy...got nothing.

In one attempt, one missile did get through, but then as the missile was inside Rmin for the SA-N-9, it suddenly pulled up and dissapeared. Is this what a spoofed SLAM will do? Another missile that I know was spoofed was seaskimming rather than climbing to chase the chaff, but was shot down before Rmin so I couldn't repeat it.

It seems like the acquisition range of the seeker is about 8nm, which is about the same range the SA-N-9 is fired. (Guns engagement begins around 13nm) At least against the Udaloy, the SLAM-ER doesn't seem to be getting any benefit from its flight profile. The salvo must pass through the entire engagement range of the Gauntlet. Since the detction range for the Udaloy is at least 13nm and the seeker range is only 8nm, and the missile won't drop to seaskimming mode unless it has acquired a target, effectiveness does not change whether the enable point is set right at 8nm or if it is further out. Although, to be totally fair, the SA-N-9 (SA-15) is pretty badass, probably at least as good as the ESSM. (although the near 100% hit rate we're seeing in DW is probably a little too badass).

Trying against a Sovremennyy, detection/guns engagement took place at 15nm. The SA-N-7 Gadfly (SA-13) engaged around 8-9nm and was about 40% effective, which is in line with Globalsecurity estimates. But the Sov's CIWS picked up most of the slack. Between two tests, one missile got through (and caused a CTD). In both, the division of labor was about half and half between the Gadfly and CIWS. (In comparrison, an AGM-65 run against the Sovremennyy scored multiple hits for 76% damage.)

Against an AI OHP, the OHP engaged with, sigh, single SM-2 shots (should be 2 at a time!) from 15nm out. It shot down 4 with SM-2s, 2 with the CIWS, and spoofed the other with chaff.

Against a Krivak, it detected the missiles and engaged with guns at about 12 nm, shot down 1 with the SA-N-4 (SA-8), shot down 4 with its CIWS and spoofed the other two.

So I shot 56 SLAM-ERs today and got 1 hit out of it.

It seems that the SLAM-ER is just as ineffective as the Harpoon is, with its improved flight profile having little to no effect. In any case, the overwhelming effectiveness of the Gauntlet and CIWS systems is more than a match for this or any other subsonic missile.

[LuftWolf]

I'll respond in more detail to individuals who have PM'ed me etc.

Well, it's not MY fault that the US doesn't build SSASM's. :p

The overall radar parameters need to be tweaked, but given the fact that DW uses a reasonably simple threshold detection, there is no way to have a probabalistic detection of small missiles, which is probably a more accurate reflection of how detection behavior occurs in real life. In other words, I can tweak the radar ranges or missle Radar SL to make detection occur later, but the danger is in making the ships way TOO myopic in other circumstances or the missiles much too stealth.

It's a balancing act, and the radars have never really been addressed.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I'll respond in more detail to individuals who have PM'ed me etc.

Well, it's not MY fault that the US doesn't build SSASM's. :p

The overall radar parameters need to be tweaked, but given the fact that DW uses a reasonably simple threshold detection, there is no way to have a probabalistic detection of small missiles, which is probably a more accurate reflection of how detection behavior occurs in real life. In other words, I can tweak the radar ranges or missle Radar SL to make detection occur later, but the danger is in making the ships way TOO myopic in other circumstances or the missiles much too stealth.

It's a balancing act, and the radars have never really been addressed.

Cheers,
David

I think the detection range is fine. That's going to be decided by geometry anyways. One approach to tweak that, though, might be to make actual detection take a bit longer based on the speed and altitude of the missile, and the scan rate of the radar (esp. rotating vs. phased-array). I don't know if that's possible though. Certainly, the last thing we should do is make the detection ranges for supersonic missiles even shorter!

I'm more bothered that the Gauntlet and CIWS systems seem virtually impenetrable--even for the rather poorly-defended Krivak.

I'm OK with a lot of these results...I do think it's fair that the Gauntlet and CIWS combined can handle 7 missiles--although the nearly 100% hit probability of the Gauntlet is hard to swallow. The performance of other SAMs looks OK. I'm also happy that I don't need to re-tweak my missions. =P I do think the CIWS was way too good though, smacking down as many as 4 missiles in less than 5 seconds. You would think 4 missiles would be enough to oversaturate a CIWS.

I got the impression that you were trying to create a flight profile that would make it survivable enough to attack combattants that the Harpoon and TASM couldn't manage (in salvo sizes less than 10, anyways). As it stands, the SLAM-ER is a threat to the same ships that the Harpoon and TASM are, but no more.

[LuftWolf]

Actually, the stealth enable was a consequence of the mechanics I used to make the missile enable, and I had a choice to either fight the NSE or work with it to "featurize" the unintended function, so I decided to work it into a feature, since it was also happily in line with what's known about the behavior of small, modern subsonic ASM's, so it was really a happy accident.

Also, keep in mind that firing seven missile against the AI is not the same as firing the same number of missiles against a human player. I'd imagine that hearing seven vampire warnings from seven different bearings would test the nerves of most FFG players... you can't say for yourself that you'd be 100% sure of not letting at least one go through, which would effectively be a mission kill for you.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Want to MP test the OHP? I'm betting the CIWS takes out about 5 on its own anyways.

I've run through this a few more times. It is possible to increase the concentration of the salvo a bit more than I did in the above tests. It doesn't make a huge difference, but it's more than I thought it would be. If you get the P-3 going as fast as it can go, and fire all the missiles on the same initial course, you can get the the missiles salvo as tight as 4 seconds. In the tests above the grouping was probably in the 6-8 range.

The practical effect of that means that you can get the Krivak, and you have a slim chance of getting some decent hits on the Sov (both the Gadfly and CIWS have to perform below par). The OHP and Udaloy are still out of reach (unless the stupid AI OHP doesn't turn to bring its CIWS to bear).

[LuftWolf]

MP in DW... wow? it's been a WHILE.

Actually, give me a couple of days, I'm 40% done with the documentation and an update to LWAMI 4.xx. We can test a few things then.

I'm right now in the process of rounding off the edges of a distributable next-gen mod (that should be treated as an Alpha, but it's definately playable as nothing is left intentionally broken... in other words, I need it to be played).

Cheers,
David

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I'll respond in more detail to individuals who have PM'ed me etc.

Well, it's not MY fault that the US doesn't build SSASM's. :p

The overall radar parameters need to be tweaked, but given the fact that DW uses a reasonably simple threshold detection, there is no way to have a probabalistic detection of small missiles, which is probably a more accurate reflection of how detection behavior occurs in real life. In other words, I can tweak the radar ranges or missle Radar SL to make detection occur later, but the danger is in making the ships way TOO myopic in other circumstances or the missiles much too stealth.

It's a balancing act, and the radars have never really been addressed.

Cheers,
David

Thanks for the responses, and for your work on giving us this great mod. The only thing I'm wondering about is missile effectiveness of US ASM's. I'm wondering if they are so easily dealt with in real life. I think the balancing act you speak is a difficult one because it's hard to gauge just how effective ASM's and their SAM counterparts would be against one another in real life. Are you looking at certain stats to gauge this? I find it difficult to believe that me and a Ticonderoga CG can fire alot of Harpoons (10) against 1 single Sovremenny and get no results. I know the Sov's SA-N-7's have much more time to deal with the subsonic profile of the incoming missile, but does the Sov radar really pick them up early enough to engage all 10 within that range. And the Sov's SAM's seem to have a high PK against them. Something tells me I should get at least 1 or 2 hits against a single Sovremenny with 10 or more Harpoons. And all of them getting there close to the same amount of time.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Thanks for the responses, and for your work on giving us this great mod. The only thing I'm wondering about is missile effectiveness of US ASM's. I'm wondering if they are so easily dealt with in real life. I think the balancing act you speak is a difficult one because it's hard to gauge just how effective ASM's and their SAM counterparts would be against one another in real life. Are you looking at certain stats to gauge this? I find it difficult to believe that me and a Ticonderoga CG can fire alot of Harpoons (10) against 1 single Sovremenny and get no results. I know the Sov's SA-N-7's have much more time to deal with the subsonic profile of the incoming missile, but does the Sov radar really pick them up early enough to engage all 10 within that range. And the Sov's SAM's seem to have a high PK against them. Something tells me I should get at least 1 or 2 hits against a single Sovremenny with 10 or more Harpoons. And all of them getting there close to the same amount of time.

10 missiles should be enough to get past a Sov at least part of the time...if the salvo is tight enough. The AI skimmers pause about 2 seconds between each missile shot--so they really can't hit much.

But considering the real-world performance of the Exocet and C-802, I'm surprised that it takes 10+. I really wish we had better data on CIWS performance...