RA / DWX 1.0 : What do you think about the damage model ?

[goldorak]

The title says it all.
Did you find inconsistencies or quirks that destroy gameplay ?
Some test were done in a specific scenario :

A pakistani Daphne SSK hit by MK 50, Stallions and SSN-27.

The results :

The mk 50 with a warhead of 50kg does 100% damage to the Daphne'
The Stallion with a warhead of 70kg does around 90% damage
The SSN-27-ASW with a warhead of 80kg does 100% damage.

What's your opinion ?

The russian subrocs look consistent, the Stallion has a lesser warhead than the SSN-27 and so does less damage. What about the MK50 with a warhead of 50kg ? Can we ascribe the 100% damage to the superior worksmanhip of US torpedos over russian ones ? Or is something amiss and should be corrected ?

[Castout]

Originally Posted by goldorak

The title says it all.
Did you find inconsistencies or quirks that destroy gameplay ?
Some test were done in a specific scenario :

A pakistani Daphne SSK hit by MK 50, Stallions and SSN-27.

The results :

The mk 50 with a warhead of 50kg does 100% damage to the Daphne'
The Stallion with a warhead of 70kg does around 90% damage
The SSN-27-ASW with a warhead of 80kg does 100% damage.

What's your opinion ?

The russian subrocs look consistent, the Stallion has a lesser warhead than the SSN-27 and so does less damage. What about the MK50 with a warhead of 50kg ? Can we ascribe the 100% damage to the superior worksmanhip of US torpedos over russian ones ? Or is something amiss and should be corrected ?

You can't assume that all warhead can be measured simply by their weight.
First you are comparing two different origin warheads. That of the US and Russia.

You said yourself that Russians warheads exhibit consistency in terms of their destruction capabilities with their weight.

I'm no expert in munition but I'm aware that each country develop and research their own war grade explosive. So it may be possible that a lighter warhead of one country to cause more damage than a heavier one of another.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Castout

I'm no expert in munition but I'm aware that each country develop and research their own war grade explosive. So it may be possible that a lighter warhead of one country to cause more damage than a heavier one of another.

I'm no expert either, but I tend to agree with your hypothesis.
Unfortunately without hard data, or free available sources, trying to convince some players that a 50 kg us warhead can damage 100% a daphne whereas a 70kg russian warhead can't always ends up in flame wars, the mod doesn't work correctly, the american side is being privileged and so on.....
Thats why I asked for opinions, maybe something more concrete can be established in one way or the other.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by goldorak

The mk 50 with a warhead of 50kg does 100% damage to the Daphne'
The Stallion with a warhead of 70kg does around 90% damage
The SSN-27-ASW with a warhead of 80kg does 100% damage.

What's your opinion ?

Why don't you actually open the database to check the warhead values?

Anyway, warheads do differ in their choice of explosive, and then there may be directivity to consider as well.

Still, in this scenario, probably the best move is to cut the survivability of the Daphne - it is hard to believe that little SSK would have survived any hole opened in its side by a close detonating torpedo...

[PeriscopeDepth]

I believe the rationale for this is that modern american torpedoes were designed for killing double hulled submarines and therefore tended to have more powerful warheads.

PD

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I believe the rationale for this is that modern american torpedoes were designed for killing double hulled submarines and therefore tended to have more powerful warheads.

PD

Yes, although I find it very surprising that a 50 kg warhead (mk 50) could have a greater explosive force than an 80 kg russian warhead.


Changing subject, I tested an mk 50 against an Akula II improved and the sub was damaged only to 40%.
That means that to sink an Akula is going to take all your airborne torpedos if you're using a helo.
Is it plausible ?

[Castout]

The thing is damage percentage in DW is not very useful. The vessel suffering damage even to 90% are not affected in any way with regard to their efficiency and lethality..

DW is not so great when simulating damage. it's just numbers without consequences aside now the vessel is more susceptible to being killed.
In RTS games the units come with life bar. In my honest opinion damage in DW with respect to AI controlled platforms is nothing but a life bar with a twist in name only.

I would imagine that even a small diesel electric sub suffering 40% damage would be totally incapacitated. The shock damage to its various war systems, mechanical, sensor and weaponry would deem the vessel basically to be inoperative.

[Ori_b]

Originally Posted by Castout

The thing is damage percentage in DW is not very useful. The vessel suffering damage even to 90% are not affected in any way with regard to their efficiency and lethality..

And thats the bottom (sad) line.

[suBB]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Yes, although I find it very surprising that a 50 kg warhead (mk 50) could have a greater explosive force than an 80 kg russian warhead.


Changing subject, I tested an mk 50 against an Akula II improved and the sub was damaged only to 40%.
That means that to sink an Akula is going to take all your airborne torpedos if you're using a helo.
Is it plausible ?

I just tried the mk50 vs ak2 and i must say I'm disappointed in the results, even more so when I used a mk54 and got 27%.. either case doesn't make sense to me..

either try to understand the rationale and logic of the authors, request change of damage values, or try and hardcode increased damage into the scenario using the editor..

[sertore]

Originally Posted by Castout

The thing is damage percentage in DW is not very useful. The vessel suffering damage even to 90% are not affected in any way with regard to their efficiency and lethality..

DW is not so great when simulating damage. it's just numbers without consequences aside now the vessel is more susceptible to being killed.
In RTS games the units come with life bar. In my honest opinion damage in DW with respect to AI controlled platforms is nothing but a life bar with a twist in name only.

I would imagine that even a small diesel electric sub suffering 40% damage would be totally incapacitated. The shock damage to its various war systems, mechanical, sensor and weaponry would deem the vessel basically to be inoperative.

It's not totally true: even if the damage criteria in DW surely lack of full realistic behavior, there is an attempt to simulate the impact on different stations of a torpedo hit through the percentage of damage.

In the last multiplayer game I got 2 hits by MK50 on AK2: the total damage was 87% (that is a quite strange after 2 direct hits) but I have to say that I suffered the damage of systems increasing according to the location of the sub hits by the torpedos.

My question is: is this behavior really related to the side of the platform hits by the torpedo or is it random based?

I am sure that in case of front collision of a platform with the ground the systems damaged are the front ones, but in case of torpedo hit I am not sure that the damage system behavior is same...

Then, I would like to point out that it is true that russian and american warhead have different efficiency, and this could justify the different kill ratios, but looking at the database damage points, quite similar, I do not understand how the game can simulate these differences...

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Why don't you actually open the database to check the warhead values?

Anyway, warheads do differ in their choice of explosive, and then there may be directivity to consider as well.

Still, in this scenario, probably the best move is to cut the survivability of the Daphne - it is hard to believe that little SSK would have survived any hole opened in its side by a close detonating torpedo...

Some people are going ape over the fact that the stallion makes 90% damage and not 100%.
I mean for all pratical purposes wether the Daphne is hit by the mk 50 and sinks, or is hit by the stallion and survives with 90% damage its the same thing. What can the Daphne do with 90% damage ? Nothing. So it doesn't change the situation.
I could understand if the mk 50 did 100% damage and the stallion 40%, in this case something would be amiss, but whats the difference between 90% and 100% damage ? Very very little, and of no practical consequence.