LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #11: Adv. Torpedoes - Page 4

Molon Labe · 05-09-06, 02:09 PM

Am: There's nothing to drag if the torp and sub are moving in the same direction. You'd just be leaving slack wire behind you, when you could be paying it out in front at a later time with the torp further downrange.

I suppose that as the courses separate, dragging slowly becomes an issue and at some unknown threshold it becomes too much. It's not knowing what the tolerance is here that bothers me. I can only say for sure that the way you're doing it would cause a problem when the courses are exactly the same, though, so hopefully the imprecision here is very small.

I just hope you take what Henson said about being more likely to lose the wire to a detonation to a lack of wire to heart. If we end up running out of wire more often than not, this is going to have a huge negative effect on gameplay. If you think stock DW was a frag fest because people were worried about losing torps on decoys, just think about how bad it's going to be when they can't steer a torp on target at range or re-attack after getting spoofed! 6-8 torp spreads might become the rule rather than the exception. Hell, I might even shoot 4 instead of 2.

LuftWolf · 05-09-06, 03:22 PM

A couple of points Molon:

1) If the motion of the wire compared to the water around it along its entire length is anything other than a very small amount, the wire will break. So even if there is plenty of slack, any tension on either side of the wire will break it due to the water tension, rather than the stretching of the wire.

2) You aren't looking at this in its full context. With the advanced torpedo physics, it'll be nearly impossible to score a kill in deep water outside of wire range. Also, reattack features are probably going to be included as automatic features on the wireguided torpedoes.

In this cases, the changes will be quite significant, so it's hard to say what the exact consequences will be. Lets just say, a playing willing to wait for a good solution will have a big advantage. In this day of DW, all a player needs to do is fire 4 torpedos in the general direction of his opponent, wait until they start running, and then triangulate with UUV and TA and its over.

Now, we face the real possibility of having solutions on opponents... and not just solutions, but solutions that let you know where he is, but you still can't have a decent chance of killing him. So you stalk!

Now we are closing in on real submarine tactics.

porphy · 05-09-06, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Now, we face the real possibility of having solutions on opponents... and not just solutions, but solutions that let you know where he is, but you still can't have a decent chance of killing him. So you stalk!

That sounds really promising Luftwolf and Amizaur. Your work keep DW breathing fresh air. How will the ai handle the new torp physics?

Cheers Porphy

Deathblow · 05-09-06, 04:19 PM

What will be interesting is whenever a sub dives deep the loss of torp speed may be just what the sub needs to edge out a successful evasion. It will make things pretty interesting. I know that I'll definately be evading at 1200 feet from now on!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luftwolf

Also, reattack features are probably going to be included as automatic features on the wireguided torpedoes

? What'd you mean? You mean that after passing a CM the torp automatically changes heading by 90degrees in expectation of finding a fleeing target? But perhaps the target evaded straight forward... or vice versa. This could get tricky... :hmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amizaur

Two PDFs about russian torps, can't find them on the net currently:

http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski...-%20oferta.pdf

http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski...ne_Rockets.pdf

Great links! Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKO

But anyone could give an explanation why non electrical torps run slower at high depth, please ?

I'm still wondering about this as well...... I'm going to throw out a *completely* wild guess as to why this would be the case... what if...

... it has something to do with the relationship between torque and rpm. In nonelectric torps torque and rpm are dependent on each other and as the torque requirements of the screw increase with depth to a certain point the rpm start to decrease, probably a result of the piston physics. But in a electric motor perhaps torque can be increased without neccessarily decreasing the rpm of the screw...

... that was a completely wild guess not based on anything I've read at all... but seems to make sense... maybe... perhaps... possibly?

LuftWolf · 05-09-06, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porphy

That sounds really promising Luftwolf and Amizaur. Your work keep DW breathing fresh air. How will the ai handle the new torp physics?

Cheers Porphy

Ah! Now here is the rub.

As it is now, I have to make separate versions of the AI and human torpedoes, like was done in SCX, only much more extreme a difference.

I wish I could tell you, but that is still being designed. :|\

The biggest problem is making the AI smart enough to not fire a torpedo at max speed at a target near max range. I know a few ways I could do it, but I want to have the AI be more lethal, so I'm still thinking about how crazy I want to get with multiple AI fire modes. The good news is that the AI does indeed set a different preset depth for torpedoes when it fires against submerged targets as opposed to surface ships, so based on that I should be able to have at least two modes.

At worst, I'll just have the AI torpedoes limited in the database to the max range at max speed, and the AI will always fire the torpedoes using the short range and max speed setting. But that would be the easy cop-out way of doing it.

In terms of how the AI would handle the decrease of speed at depth, my assumption is that even humans wouldn't fire torpedoes to runout any deeper than they have to (just under the layer). The torpedoes would only go to a deep depth if they were homing on a deep target, so it shouldn't affect the AI any more than human players, even without any changes.

Molon Labe · 05-09-06, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

A couple of points Molon:

1) If the motion of the wire compared to the water around it along its entire length is anything other than a very small amount, the wire will break. So even if there is plenty of slack, any tension on either side of the wire will break it due to the water tension, rather than the stretching of the wire.

2) You aren't looking at this in its full context. With the advanced torpedo physics, it'll be nearly impossible to score a kill in deep water outside of wire range. Also, reattack features are probably going to be included as automatic features on the wireguided torpedoes.

In this cases, the changes will be quite significant, so it's hard to say what the exact consequences will be. Lets just say, a playing willing to wait for a good solution will have a big advantage. In this day of DW, all a player needs to do is fire 4 torpedos in the general direction of his opponent, wait until they start running, and then triangulate with UUV and TA and its over.

Now, we face the real possibility of having solutions on opponents... and not just solutions, but solutions that let you know where he is, but you still can't have a decent chance of killing him. So you stalk!

Now we are closing in on real submarine tactics.

I AM looking at this in context. Looking at how this effects interact with other aspects of gameplay is EXACTLY what my last post was about. Of course, the deep water thing makes the shorter wire problem worse, not better... I'm hoping the ATCM makes up for this in part, and closer contacts bring in the rest.

I did say that this has a lot of potential if you get it right... :P

LuftWolf · 05-09-06, 05:19 PM

The bottom line is: if you fire from over 8nm, your chances of a kill drop to near 0 the farther out you get regardless of how many torpedoes you fire.

Molon Labe · 05-09-06, 05:24 PM

Let's talk re-attack.

We'll want to make sure the torp doesn't turn around too soon, right? Or else the running while farting CM's all over will work perfectly. The torp should resume it's search forward for a short time, and if it detects a new target it should attack it, but if not, it should turn around and look the other direction.

Which way should it turn? Could it maybe anticipate which side of the last target to look to?

How far should it go? The last thing we want is a torp out of wire doing a cirlce run on ownship, or generally heading in a random direction. Maybe reattack mode should just be a switch to circle search if it loses its target and doesn't find a new one on snake.

Can anything be done to prevent "under the keel" proximity explosions when the target is a submarine? It kinda sucks that you can sometimes evade a torp because they have to set the ceilings too low to hit a shallow sub, and with wires being lost setting a ceiling becomes more important...

Molon Labe · 05-09-06, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

The bottom line is: if you fire from over 8nm, your chances of a kill drop to near 0 the farther out you get regardless of how many torpedoes you fire.

As long as you're within range to get a torp on target, having the ability to guide the weapon means you need fewer weapons to cover the possible areas he might be in by the time the weapon gets there. Don't kid yourself about what this will mean if, in the majority of cases, you lose the wire before detonation.

LuftWolf · 05-09-06, 05:28 PM

My plan right now is to do what torpedoes do in real life. That is, if you set it to attack submerged targets, it will ignore surface contacts entirely (since the homing seeker gives depth). This will be done for all torpedoes.

The reattack capability will be disabled for decoys, since the torpedoes can tell the difference once they have burned through them.

LuftWolf · 05-09-06, 05:31 PM

My suspicion Molon is that the majority of players will keep using the pedestrian tactics they have been, while the advanced players will be quite adept at maximizing the potential of the new system.

The new torpedoes make quality shots so much more important than the quantity of shots.

Let's not kid ourselves, spraying tactics are quite common now, and when wires can guide six torpedoes at 25nm, a SW player should never really lose.

I don't see how this will make anything worse, only give the best a better shot.

Molon Labe · 05-09-06, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

My plan right now is to do what torpedoes do in real life. That is, if you set it to attack submerged targets, it will ignore surface contacts entirely (since the homing seeker gives depth). This will be done for all torpedoes.

So surfacing will make the sub safe every time?

Quote:

The reattack capability will be disabled for decoys, since the torpedoes can tell the difference once they have burned through them.

What do you mean? That it will remeber the location of the decoy it burned through and ignore that one?

LuftWolf · 05-09-06, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

My plan right now is to do what torpedoes do in real life. That is, if you set it to attack submerged targets, it will ignore surface contacts entirely (since the homing seeker gives depth). This will be done for all torpedoes.

So surfacing will make the sub safe every time?

Quote:

The reattack capability will be disabled for decoys, since the torpedoes can tell the difference once they have burned through them.

What do you mean? That it will remeber the location of the decoy it burned through and ignore that one?

Give me some credit Ken.

IF TgtClass $= "surf" THEN Drop

IF TgtClass $= "weap" THEN Reattack=0

Molon Labe · 05-09-06, 05:54 PM

So the torp can tell the difference between a skimmer and a surfaced sub?

I can't make heads or tails of the other one.

LuftWolf · 05-09-06, 06:01 PM

The database classifies surface contacts as "surf" and countermeasures as "weap".

In the doctrine, I can use those classifications to specify different kinds of behavior for the torpedo, based on the classification of the target.

For example, for the ADCAP, I can script the doctrine so that if you set the enable depth at under 60ft, the torpedo will simply ignore all surface contacts.

View Poll Results: How extreme do you want the torpedo mods to be? (please see the message body for explanation of term
As is: general bug fixing and AI enhancement.	6	12.77%
Above with: Advanced Wire Control and Sensor Modelling	5	10.64%
Above with: Wire Lengths Limited to 10-13nm from launchpoint (reported as realistic)	7	14.89%
Above with: Advanced Torpedo Physics	29	61.70%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

05-09-06, 03:22 PM	#2
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	A couple of points Molon: 1) If the motion of the wire compared to the water around it along its entire length is anything other than a very small amount, the wire will break. So even if there is plenty of slack, any tension on either side of the wire will break it due to the water tension, rather than the stretching of the wire. 2) You aren't looking at this in its full context. With the advanced torpedo physics, it'll be nearly impossible to score a kill in deep water outside of wire range. Also, reattack features are probably going to be included as automatic features on the wireguided torpedoes. In this cases, the changes will be quite significant, so it's hard to say what the exact consequences will be. Lets just say, a playing willing to wait for a good solution will have a big advantage. In this day of DW, all a player needs to do is fire 4 torpedos in the general direction of his opponent, wait until they start running, and then triangulate with UUV and TA and its over. Now, we face the real possibility of having solutions on opponents... and not just solutions, but solutions that let you know where he is, but you still can't have a decent chance of killing him. So you stalk! Now we are closing in on real submarine tactics. __________________ LW

05-09-06, 05:19 PM	#7
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	The bottom line is: if you fire from over 8nm, your chances of a kill drop to near 0 the farther out you get regardless of how many torpedoes you fire. __________________ LW

05-09-06, 05:24 PM	#8
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Let's talk re-attack. We'll want to make sure the torp doesn't turn around too soon, right? Or else the running while farting CM's all over will work perfectly. The torp should resume it's search forward for a short time, and if it detects a new target it should attack it, but if not, it should turn around and look the other direction. Which way should it turn? Could it maybe anticipate which side of the last target to look to? How far should it go? The last thing we want is a torp out of wire doing a cirlce run on ownship, or generally heading in a random direction. Maybe reattack mode should just be a switch to circle search if it loses its target and doesn't find a new one on snake. Can anything be done to prevent "under the keel" proximity explosions when the target is a submarine? It kinda sucks that you can sometimes evade a torp because they have to set the ceilings too low to hit a shallow sub, and with wires being lost setting a ceiling becomes more important... __________________

05-09-06, 05:28 PM	#10
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	My plan right now is to do what torpedoes do in real life. That is, if you set it to attack submerged targets, it will ignore surface contacts entirely (since the homing seeker gives depth). This will be done for all torpedoes. The reattack capability will be disabled for decoys, since the torpedoes can tell the difference once they have burned through them. __________________ LW

05-09-06, 02:09 PM	#1
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Am: There's nothing to drag if the torp and sub are moving in the same direction. You'd just be leaving slack wire behind you, when you could be paying it out in front at a later time with the torp further downrange. I suppose that as the courses separate, dragging slowly becomes an issue and at some unknown threshold it becomes too much. It's not knowing what the tolerance is here that bothers me. I can only say for sure that the way you're doing it would cause a problem when the courses are exactly the same, though, so hopefully the imprecision here is very small. I just hope you take what Henson said about being more likely to lose the wire to a detonation to a lack of wire to heart. If we end up running out of wire more often than not, this is going to have a huge negative effect on gameplay. If you think stock DW was a frag fest because people were worried about losing torps on decoys, just think about how bad it's going to be when they can't steer a torp on target at range or re-attack after getting spoofed! 6-8 torp spreads might become the rule rather than the exception. Hell, I might even shoot 4 instead of 2. __________________

05-09-06, 05:31 PM	#11
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	My suspicion Molon is that the majority of players will keep using the pedestrian tactics they have been, while the advanced players will be quite adept at maximizing the potential of the new system. The new torpedoes make quality shots so much more important than the quantity of shots. Let's not kid ourselves, spraying tactics are quite common now, and when wires can guide six torpedoes at 25nm, a SW player should never really lose. I don't see how this will make anything worse, only give the best a better shot. __________________ LW

05-09-06, 05:54 PM	#14
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	So the torp can tell the difference between a skimmer and a surfaced sub? I can't make heads or tails of the other one. __________________

05-09-06, 06:01 PM	#15
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	The database classifies surface contacts as "surf" and countermeasures as "weap". In the doctrine, I can use those classifications to specify different kinds of behavior for the torpedo, based on the classification of the target. For example, for the ADCAP, I can script the doctrine so that if you set the enable depth at under 60ft, the torpedo will simply ignore all surface contacts. __________________ LW