Mk 24 FIDO

Jimbuna · 11-25-11, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by privateer

We had some 'insider' information that I'm still not sure is available to the general public.

The charts were compiled by Admiralty intelligence officers in the 1950s. The only known copy is held by the Royal Naval Library in Portsmouth Dockyard,

igorlikespike · 11-25-11, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

The charts were compiled by Admiralty intelligence officers in the 1950s. The only known copy is held by the Royal Naval Library in Portsmouth Dockyard,

Grade for finished homework: A+++ !

andqui · 11-25-11, 02:19 PM

I went throught the GWX SCR campaign file and looked at the minefields- most of the harbor defenses had respectable densities of 50-100 mines per sq km, but the "formidable" mine barrages like the Eastern Barrage, the Scotland-Faroe barage, Dover barrages, and the Celtic sea barrage were only something like 1-10 mines per sq km. For example, at the end of the ordinance list, the "1944" minefields, which overlap the eastern barrage, have densities of only .2 mines per sq km. What were the GWX devs trying to accomplish with such a low value?

Is this value realistic? If not, was it kept low for computer performance? The way it is now, you have to be unlucky to hit a mine while going through the channel, whereas you should have to be lucky to get through. I've bumped up the large minefields to densities to around 25-35 per sq km and will see is that causes any performance issues. Should the values be set even higher? What would be most realistic?

thanks

Jimbuna · 11-25-11, 02:29 PM

If every time you sailed through a minefiels and were destroyed the outcry would be the opposite.

The minefields were populated with a balnce of realism and playability in mind.

It is easy enough making them more dense...ME will do it.

andqui · 11-25-11, 02:33 PM

Yes, ok-

But I'm trying to figure out what values would be realistic. Then I can try it to see if it is playable. Right now I'm just looking for some guidelines as to what the densities of the big minefields should be, and what was intended by using a .2 mines per sq km minefield, so I can replicate that intent with a more realistic density.

Jimbuna · 11-25-11, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andqui

Yes, ok-

But I'm trying to figure out what values would be realistic. Then I can try it to see if it is playable. Right now I'm just looking for some guidelines as to what the densities of the big minefields should be, and what was intended by using a .2 mines per sq km minefield, so I can replicate that intent with a more realistic density.

I doubt anyone could be all that accurate or definitive then because mines drifted and broke free every day.

The Admiralty charts we have show positioning/location but not numbers.

andqui · 11-25-11, 04:32 PM

OK- I set the Eastern Barrage to 35, and the '44 Eastern Barrage to 15. Sound reasonable? Was the Eastern Barrage supposed to be almost inpenetrable?

11-25-11, 02:29 PM	#4
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,552 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	If every time you sailed through a minefiels and were destroyed the outcry would be the opposite. The minefields were populated with a balnce of realism and playability in mind. It is easy enough making them more dense...ME will do it. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

11-25-11, 02:19 PM	#3
andqui Soundman Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 149 Downloads: 195 Uploads: 0	I went throught the GWX SCR campaign file and looked at the minefields- most of the harbor defenses had respectable densities of 50-100 mines per sq km, but the "formidable" mine barrages like the Eastern Barrage, the Scotland-Faroe barage, Dover barrages, and the Celtic sea barrage were only something like 1-10 mines per sq km. For example, at the end of the ordinance list, the "1944" minefields, which overlap the eastern barrage, have densities of only .2 mines per sq km. What were the GWX devs trying to accomplish with such a low value? Is this value realistic? If not, was it kept low for computer performance? The way it is now, you have to be unlucky to hit a mine while going through the channel, whereas you should have to be lucky to get through. I've bumped up the large minefields to densities to around 25-35 per sq km and will see is that causes any performance issues. Should the values be set even higher? What would be most realistic? thanks

11-25-11, 02:33 PM	#5
andqui Soundman Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 149 Downloads: 195 Uploads: 0	Yes, ok- But I'm trying to figure out what values would be realistic. Then I can try it to see if it is playable. Right now I'm just looking for some guidelines as to what the densities of the big minefields should be, and what was intended by using a .2 mines per sq km minefield, so I can replicate that intent with a more realistic density.

11-25-11, 04:32 PM	#7
andqui Soundman Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 149 Downloads: 195 Uploads: 0	OK- I set the Eastern Barrage to 35, and the '44 Eastern Barrage to 15. Sound reasonable? Was the Eastern Barrage supposed to be almost inpenetrable?