Preference for conventional 65 or wakehomer. - Page 2

SquidB · 08-24-05, 02:44 PM

Lol they havent stolen it bellman....you never had it.

We have the long range option of Subrocs or the close in USGT.

Im slightly worried by plans to limit the aquire range for those tho.

However we can always swap back to the orignal database if things are too unbalanced

Bellman · 08-24-05, 03:28 PM

Well the UGST in SCX gave us 37.5 nm range now in this mod we have an active max. range of 16.3 nm and passive of 17 nm..

Re switching - yes but I am aiming to return to MP so it will depend on what the MP community opts for.

Somebody out there is drawing the Aks teeth especialy if the MK 40 detection range is reduced.

SquidB · 08-24-05, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Somebody out there is drawing the Aks teeth especialy if the MK 40 detection range is reduced.

Perhaps, as for MP, i think it will be down to the individual participants as to which mod, if any will be used.

For Competative purposes probably "vanilla" DW.

For what ifs and realism perhaps one of the mods.

What would be nice would be a gizmo that allows you to install/deinstall mods, Ala Lomac's loman etc

Bellman · 08-24-05, 03:46 PM

Yep - switch easily prior dive - that would be magic.

I second that.

Fish · 08-24-05, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellman

Yes Fish - having just recently jumped ship from SW (1 1/2 yrs SC/SCX) to the Ak.in DW.

LufAm transients are fair but they've stolen my 65 baby

SW divers are going to love this mod but its a great pity that the Ak, facing SW, FFG, MH60 and P3 has had
two wisdom teeth drawn. One was enough ! :hmm:

My old model is looking a bit seductive.

Parrott ? :hmm:

Kapitan · 08-24-05, 04:34 PM

dont please no more flaming parrots

Bellman · 08-24-05, 05:13 PM

Parrott ? :hmm:

Parrott ? :hmm:

''This parrott is not well !
That parrott, sir is dead !! "
Monty Python.

LuftWolf · 08-25-05, 02:00 AM

INSERT: I just read the posts in the other poll and I think all that's a good idea, so I guess that makes the following rant old news.

/rant

I primarily enjoy playing the Akula. I find the stock loadout for the Akula *unplayable* and senselessly redundant. In fact, it was the primary motivation for me posting in the Mod forum about interest in a new db mod.

How can you possibly want to fire a torpedo at a sub with a 900KG warhead??? Doesn't something about that bother you??? You want subrocs, asuw missles, shikvals, AND a torpedo with the range of an adcap that can kill ticos with one go (except for that pesky Nixie that stops them ALL the time).

You want to put four 65cms in your tubes, and then fill up the other 12 with a nice assortment of special weapons, all the while not having to think about the shrivled old plain 53cm torpedo weizing in the dusty corner.

What you fail to realize here, is that I haven't taken anything way. I've given you the best weapon the game against surface targets and *balanced* the sub vs sub fights which will make them more INTERESTING. Why haven't I hear any Western divers complaining about this? [Editors note: increasing the range of the UGST sounds good to me, so I'm now contradicting myself. I'm fine with that... hehe] Maybe because they don't want to deal with the same 65cm 20nm guided crap with subrocs droping at 25nm. Now, I will admit, that I'm not playing this game online, but I would guess that this is what it comes down to, often to sometimes enough.

Now, platform specific tactics might come into play more, maybe.

/end rant

I plan on playing this game online soon, so you can make me eat it then.

LuftWolf · 08-25-05, 02:06 AM

Plus, you also fail to realize that if an Akula actually sticks a sub with one of these, it is dead 99% of the time.

It's not that hard. Think about possible tactics... hmm, let's see, it ignors thermal layers completely, so maybe you fire it near the layer depth, maybe you fire one 50 meters below and one 50 meters above, thinking you will catch him trying to maneover from layer to layer after you fire it. Maybe you do it at close range? Maybe at medium and spread out the shots? Follow up with subrocs ahead of dropped decoys? Maybe you fire it in combination with active wire guided torpedos to get him to leave a strong wake?

Maybe you try to lure him into shallow water, so you don't have to worry about depth, and interfere with his sonar?

Bellman · 08-25-05, 02:25 AM

Hope my remarks to Fish about a certain bird did'nt induce 'Bird Flu'

I misunderstood him he meant a person - I though he refered to a bird which repeats itself

.....................
so hence my 'Dead parrot'. This did not in any way allude to your nice mod., which is very much alive and flying.

Is the 65 stuck in game with the 900 kg warhead - cant that be changed ? :hmm:

Well to be more positive the UGST is very cool and would be super cool if, as Amizaur has suggested elsewhere,
it had a little bit more range.

The wakehomer will be (is) awesome v surfs and the 'transients' very neat. :|\

Good work - sorry to seem picky.

LuftWolf · 08-25-05, 02:28 AM

I'm humorously posting, of course, way late at night. :|\ :|\

I want to make the game reflect reality in a balanced manner, so in light of all the other stuff from the other poll, I think you guys are all making sense.

I just want to see some distinction between the 65cm and the multipurpose torpedo used on the Akula. To me, the game works better with the 53cm functioning in the multipurpose role.

Adm. Ahab · 08-25-05, 12:24 PM

I am all for a more realistic presentation of the weapons. I had been forcing myself to use the 53's for ASW Smaller ASuW but they were too slow. I am glad they reworked more to the UGST specs. I don't think I lost the 65 so much as gained the 53 (UGST)

I drive mostly AK1imp and sometimes 688. No Sea Witch for me

..... Would be nice if the torpedoes fed targeting info back to OS. Or you could direct them above/below layer (like in Red Storm Rising) and they increased to max speed on activation or homing.

Amizaur · 08-25-05, 03:27 PM

Enabling data feedback from torpedo to the sub is possible. It would work exactly like UUV. Unfortunately this means very great number of new contacts from torpedo (mostly passive) and quite a mess on map, but helps a lot in choosing real target from decoys :-). Disabling passive sensor for active torps would help in decreasing number of new contacts to acceptable value, but means also "dumber" torpedo, currently active torps use both sensors simultaneously and this increases effectiveness, that's why launching passive decoys is important too :-).
Unfortunately for you, from what I know UGST has one-way datalink, only steering commands are transmitted to torpedo, no data is transmitted back to the ship.
Increased speed on activation and homing is possible and was used in SCX doctrines for example. My ADCAP doctrine uses it too. If I find some really free time, I'll make variations of my ADCAP mod for few most important player torpedos, with range, speed and depth depending from each other and simulated finite guidance wire length. Adding new features to it is just mater of more work and this how complicated the controls could be for player...
Theoretically you could program into doctrine possiblity to change ALL torpedo parameters in flight (speed, mode active/passive, depth, even ceiling and floor), the problem is that there is exstremly low number of tools you can use to send those commands to torpedo (doctrine), the only possible tools is "enable/preenable" button and torpedo course arrows < >. You could control all torpedo parameters this way but this whould be extremally complicated, and would feel like programming an old non-OSD video ;-), long manual would be needed and you would be never sure at which mode the torpedo actually is if you made error in counting "clicks"... If there was one more custom button and better yet a button and second custom left/right type control (like for torp course), then it would be MUCH more simple to implement and - more important - to use by player. Is adding one button and one <> control to Fire Control screen difficult for a programmer ?

View Poll Results: Which 65 torp do you prefer ?
Conventional wire guided	8	38.10%
Wakehomeing (No wire gudance)	13	61.90%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

08-24-05, 03:28 PM	#17
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Well the UGST in SCX gave us 37.5 nm range now in this mod we have an active max. range of 16.3 nm and passive of 17 nm.. Re switching - yes but I am aiming to return to MP so it will depend on what the MP community opts for. Somebody out there is drawing the Aks teeth especialy if the MK 40 detection range is reduced. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

08-24-05, 03:46 PM	#19
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Yep - switch easily prior dive - that would be magic. I second that. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

08-24-05, 04:34 PM	#21
Kapitan Sub Test Pilot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UK + Canada Posts: 7,130 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 7	dont please no more flaming parrots __________________ DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/ Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/ Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

08-24-05, 05:13 PM	#22
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Parrott ? :hmm: Parrott ? :hmm: ''This parrott is not well ! That parrott, sir is dead !! " Monty Python. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

08-24-05, 02:44 PM	#16
SquidB Officer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Lytham UK Posts: 244 Downloads: 169 Uploads: 0	Lol they havent stolen it bellman....you never had it. We have the long range option of Subrocs or the close in USGT. Im slightly worried by plans to limit the aquire range for those tho. However we can always swap back to the orignal database if things are too unbalanced

08-25-05, 02:00 AM	#23
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	INSERT: I just read the posts in the other poll and I think all that's a good idea, so I guess that makes the following rant old news. /rant I primarily enjoy playing the Akula. I find the stock loadout for the Akula unplayable and senselessly redundant. In fact, it was the primary motivation for me posting in the Mod forum about interest in a new db mod. How can you possibly want to fire a torpedo at a sub with a 900KG warhead??? Doesn't something about that bother you??? You want subrocs, asuw missles, shikvals, AND a torpedo with the range of an adcap that can kill ticos with one go (except for that pesky Nixie that stops them ALL the time). You want to put four 65cms in your tubes, and then fill up the other 12 with a nice assortment of special weapons, all the while not having to think about the shrivled old plain 53cm torpedo weizing in the dusty corner. What you fail to realize here, is that I haven't taken anything way. I've given you the best weapon the game against surface targets and balanced the sub vs sub fights which will make them more INTERESTING. Why haven't I hear any Western divers complaining about this? [Editors note: increasing the range of the UGST sounds good to me, so I'm now contradicting myself. I'm fine with that... hehe] Maybe because they don't want to deal with the same 65cm 20nm guided crap with subrocs droping at 25nm. Now, I will admit, that I'm not playing this game online, but I would guess that this is what it comes down to, often to sometimes enough. Now, platform specific tactics might come into play more, maybe. /end rant I plan on playing this game online soon, so you can make me eat it then. __________________ LW

08-25-05, 02:06 AM	#24
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Plus, you also fail to realize that if an Akula actually sticks a sub with one of these, it is dead 99% of the time. It's not that hard. Think about possible tactics... hmm, let's see, it ignors thermal layers completely, so maybe you fire it near the layer depth, maybe you fire one 50 meters below and one 50 meters above, thinking you will catch him trying to maneover from layer to layer after you fire it. Maybe you do it at close range? Maybe at medium and spread out the shots? Follow up with subrocs ahead of dropped decoys? Maybe you fire it in combination with active wire guided torpedos to get him to leave a strong wake? Maybe you try to lure him into shallow water, so you don't have to worry about depth, and interfere with his sonar? __________________ LW

08-25-05, 02:25 AM	#25
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Hope my remarks to Fish about a certain bird did'nt induce 'Bird Flu' I misunderstood him he meant a person - I though he refered to a bird which repeats itself ..................... so hence my 'Dead parrot'. This did not in any way allude to your nice mod., which is very much alive and flying. Is the 65 stuck in game with the 900 kg warhead - cant that be changed ? :hmm: Well to be more positive the UGST is very cool and would be super cool if, as Amizaur has suggested elsewhere, it had a little bit more range. The wakehomer will be (is) awesome v surfs and the 'transients' very neat. :\|\ Good work - sorry to seem picky. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

08-25-05, 02:28 AM	#26
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I'm humorously posting, of course, way late at night. :\|\ :\|\ I want to make the game reflect reality in a balanced manner, so in light of all the other stuff from the other poll, I think you guys are all making sense. I just want to see some distinction between the 65cm and the multipurpose torpedo used on the Akula. To me, the game works better with the 53cm functioning in the multipurpose role. __________________ LW

08-25-05, 12:24 PM	#27
Adm. Ahab Seaman Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 41 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I am all for a more realistic presentation of the weapons. I had been forcing myself to use the 53's for ASW Smaller ASuW but they were too slow. I am glad they reworked more to the UGST specs. I don't think I lost the 65 so much as gained the 53 (UGST) I drive mostly AK1imp and sometimes 688. No Sea Witch for me ..... Would be nice if the torpedoes fed targeting info back to OS. Or you could direct them above/below layer (like in Red Storm Rising) and they increased to max speed on activation or homing.

08-25-05, 03:27 PM	#28
Amizaur Sonar Guy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poland Posts: 398 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Enabling data feedback from torpedo to the sub is possible. It would work exactly like UUV. Unfortunately this means very great number of new contacts from torpedo (mostly passive) and quite a mess on map, but helps a lot in choosing real target from decoys :-). Disabling passive sensor for active torps would help in decreasing number of new contacts to acceptable value, but means also "dumber" torpedo, currently active torps use both sensors simultaneously and this increases effectiveness, that's why launching passive decoys is important too :-). Unfortunately for you, from what I know UGST has one-way datalink, only steering commands are transmitted to torpedo, no data is transmitted back to the ship. Increased speed on activation and homing is possible and was used in SCX doctrines for example. My ADCAP doctrine uses it too. If I find some really free time, I'll make variations of my ADCAP mod for few most important player torpedos, with range, speed and depth depending from each other and simulated finite guidance wire length. Adding new features to it is just mater of more work and this how complicated the controls could be for player... Theoretically you could program into doctrine possiblity to change ALL torpedo parameters in flight (speed, mode active/passive, depth, even ceiling and floor), the problem is that there is exstremly low number of tools you can use to send those commands to torpedo (doctrine), the only possible tools is "enable/preenable" button and torpedo course arrows < >. You could control all torpedo parameters this way but this whould be extremally complicated, and would feel like programming an old non-OSD video ;-), long manual would be needed and you would be never sure at which mode the torpedo actually is if you made error in counting "clicks"... If there was one more custom button and better yet a button and second custom left/right type control (like for torp course), then it would be MUCH more simple to implement and - more important - to use by player. Is adding one button and one <> control to Fire Control screen difficult for a programmer ?