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

[Bellman]

Would it be possible to have range dependent variable chances of failure ? Egs. 10 - 12 nm 50 % , 13 - 15 nm 75% , 16 nm - 100%

In addition we are warned that wires brake when ownship turns more than 90 deg from torps bearing.
This rarely, if ever, happens but could this be implemented ?

[LuftWolf]

Based on the idea that I don't think its possible for more than 10nm of wire to fit into a the fuel-tank of a torpedo whose total dimensions are 5.79m by .5334m and in light of the data that there is a spool in the submarine as well, here is the current plan:

The torpedo wire length will be limited in two ways:

1) If the true run of the torpedo is over 10nm, the wire will disable. This is simulating the 10nm spool in the torpedo itself.

2) If the launching platform exceeds a total distance of 15nm from the torpedo, regardless of the distance the torpedo has run or if the opening speed of the torpedo and the launching platform is greater than 60+/-5kts (random), with ownship speed contributing a maximum of 20kts to that total (meaning you could fire a torpedo at 35kts and be reasonably sure you can run around all day without breaking the wire), the wire will also break.

Of course the actual distances and speeds can be varied, but with both truerun and ownship conditions, our options for breaking wires are virtually unlimited.

We can do more or less whatever would be ideal.

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Bellman

Would it be possible to have range dependent variable chances of failure ? Egs. 10 - 12 nm 50 % , 13 - 15 nm 75% , 16 nm - 100%

Yes. This could simulate conductivity loss, which is probably variable in real life based on the specific conditions of the ocean, but random based on range would be good enough in game, since range is the only thing we really care about in gameplay terms (as opposed to water temp and salinity).

Originally Posted by Bellman

In addition we are warned that wires brake when ownship turns more than 90 deg from torps bearing.
This rarely, if ever, happens but could this be implemented ?

Possibly... I can reference ownship course and bearing to the torpedo, as well as ownships angle off the bow of the torpedo. I should have enough tools to do the math.

[Bellman]

The 90 deg + breakage (possibility ?) would lead to some tight calls between cut 'em loose and 'scoot and run'
or finesse a turn and 'stay in touch'. Decisions which could increase reality and gameplay.

Could the angle calculation be referenced the bearing from sub to torps actual position, rather than launch bearing ?
Obvious in reality (but in game ?) The tactical possibilities then are extended - egs the offset launch which is resteered.

Edit. Posts crossed LW - I think you answered my last para !

[LuftWolf]

Just so you guys know what has already been done:

Amizaur has completed the core of the Advanced Torpedo Control (ATC) and Wire Break Mod and the Advanced Torpedo Physics, as well as started the work of creating unique doctrines for each playable torpedo.

The work that still needs to be done is the Advanced Sensor Modelling, the integration of the ATC with the Advanced Torpedo Physics, finishing each unique torpedo doctrine and integrating everything with the database.

And that's just the torpedoes... check out the first post in this thread for everything we are working on, for what is now, LWAMI 4.00!

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopi...=406982#406982

Cheers,
David

[Henson]

I may be a little late here, but 10nm (20kyd) is about right. We measure the length of the wire in feet, not yards, if that tells you something. We also don't worry too much about running out of wire...the in-game tactics of running a torpedo out for several miles is, IMO, unrealistic in today's tactical environment. Submarine battles are turning into knife fights, and while a torpedo at low speed will run forever, at high speed it eats up gas pretty fast.

A wire-guided torpedo runs a little bit differently at the very beginning (pre-enable) than an AMO (dumb, straight-run) weapon. It does something called a 'wire-clearance maneuver,' one of the effects of which is to allow the guidance wire to achieve that equilibrium I referred to earlier. That maneuver separates the motion of the torpedo from that of ownship, and has the added benefit of separating the wire from the screw. I don't see reason to model this in-game any further than what has already been recommended however.

Are there limits on O/S maneuvers while launching weapons? YES, but they vary by platform, and are so extreme that it's unlikely you would ever reach those tolerances. One of the main concerns, getting the wire wrapped around the screw in a turn, has been fixed by the wire-clearance maneuver. That limits some platforms in speed at time of launch, but not nearly enough to be a problem. If you're launching weapons at that speed you have bigger problems than losing a guidance wire.

The main limitations in course changes come from turning across the wire at high speed and catching it in the screw (note that this doesn't happen if you turn into it instead), and limitations that are placed upon the weapon before it enables designed to keep it from acquiring ownship (look to the experience of Dick O'Kane to find the reasons for that). There is a limitation on how far 'over-the-shoulder' we can launch an ADCAP because of that, but once again, it's a very small area that we're talking about, and not likely to ever be a concern. If it is a concern it's always possible to steer anyway, and is not very tactically limiting.

[LuftWolf]

Pure Gold.

Thank you Henson.

Cheers,
David

[Deathblow]

That's some pretty ingenious doctrine fixing LW. Wow. :|\

@Henson: Ditto what LW said, its interesting to know whats reality versus Hollywood. I have to admit that my own perceptions of wire breaks were guided mostly by Tom Clancy books

Sounds like sub speed breaks aren't really the issue they seemed to be...

On a semi-realted note...what if... an ADCAPs snake is removed and the torp is near the limits of its wire. How does one know whether the torp is not responding to course changes because its wire has already broken or rather because its homing into the target... the only way that comes to mind is to temporarily preenable the torp to see if it actually turns off... anyone other way that one can think of?

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I gave the wireguided torpedoes an all-aspect visual sensor that is capable of tracking everything within about 15nm.

When the torpedo is fired, it detects the launching platform immediately and a special doctrine is called which tracks the launching platform.

Brilliant idea ! Little complicated, but I'm afraid all the simple options are already used...

I'll try to answer some questions too tomorrow, about how it works and what do I know about torp wires and depth related slow-down. The 10nm of wire for ADCAP (20k yards) comes from various sources, 10nm in the torp and half of that on the spool like it was said already. I heard that before ADCAP, the Mk-48 had only in-torp wire (and less than 10nm) and launching subs were restricted in movement after torp launch because the wire would be broken if they went too fast or too far from launching point... the hundreds and thousands feets of wire in the water have to make very high drag if something tried to move (pull) it through the water, and would just break. So forget about summing up those two lengths. Wire in torpedo is for torpedo movement, wire on the spool is for sub movement in general, well at least at ranges greater than few hundreds yards. The wire can't be too thick and strong and as I said you just can't pull and drag a few thousands yards of wire through the water without breaking it... you can only move if you are losening free wire from a spool at your end of the wire. It's like walking few hundred meters on a field laying a thin wire or thread on the ground, and then trying to run without unrolling some more thread free - it would just break...

Have no idea what practical limitations are on launching platform to prevent wire breaking. I only heard that wire breaking was a major problem years ago (Mk-37 times for sure, maybe Mk-48 time?), but now it's resolved and chance of wire break is very small, even if launching sub is maneuvering... but... I think (or feel) that 180deg turn and all ahead flank could break a wire even today, with spool in the tube, and, well, exactly 180deg turn and run would cause the wire to get into screw I think...? There must be some forbidden maneuvers.

So I think that torpedo wire should break when torpedo runs more than 10nm from the launch point, or sub moves more than 5nm from the launch point, and personally I think that when sub is making some really extreme maneuvers too (high chance of breaking if turning close to 180deg or going flank or something like that). The last condition (ownship maneuvers) recquires that additional sensor and doctrine Luftwolf has made... I'll write more tomorrow, it's 1.42 AM here :-)

P.S. I liked very much the comment that combat between modern subs is like "knife fight" at close ranges , it's exactly what I thought and said many times after learning some about modern sub's noise levels, sensor limitations, real life tactics and scenarios. Yes, I know it's unplayable... but this is what happens when very modern subs can detect each other from as close as few hundreds yards, or few thousands at best... Then no wonder that 10nm of wire is more than enaugh, and that small range of many rest-of-the-world torpedos is usually enaugh too... Knife fight... usually doesn't matter than your knife is longer than mine ;-)

[Amizaur]

...

[Molon Labe]

I'm a bit bothered that the wire would break at the same time whether the sub was moving in the same direction as the torp as it would if it was moving directly away. There needs to be a way to account for relative motion for this to feel right.

Also, if we are supposed to lose the wire due to detonation and not have to worry about losing a 10nm wire, then we need to re-evalutate sensor performance and/or NLs.

[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Also, if we are supposed to lose the wire due to detonation and not have to worry about losing a 10nm wire, then we need to re-evalutate sensor performance and/or NLs.

The ongoing "gameplay versus realism" debate once again looms. Should this be modeled as a "game" with fudges to promote action and provocation, or as a "simulation" to indeer the realism of real life operations. Although these two ideas are not diametrically opposed, they are not always mutually achieveable... and the desirable balance totally dependent on the subjective preferences of the user...

... while some die hard fans want only the most realistic and unyielding representation of RL at their fingertips, even at the expense of larger periods of uneventful gametime and asymetrical gameplay, others would hedge these factors for faster avenues toward firefights and increased visibility for greater propensity for "gunslinging" matches...

all completely subjective to what each players personal preference is. Something to keep in mind if the SL are to be tweaked once again.

[Doc Savage]

Hate to be the only one to ask but, is it posible to mod either the -27 ASW or the Stallion to drop a torpedo in snake pattern rather than circle?

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by Doc Savage

Hate to be the only one to ask but, is it posible to mod either the -27 ASW or the Stallion to drop a torpedo in snake pattern rather than circle?

Of course it is, but it would be always snake or always circle... hm making both patterns possible to chose is little hard, it could for example base on heading (even heading number - circle, uneven - snake) or something like that, but this would confuse players that don't read user manuals
And you still could not chose direction of snake after torpedo enters water (only same sa missile is possible, or other fixed setting) so the enemy would know launching sub bearing by observing torpedo course...

I'm a bit bothered that the wire would break at the same time whether the sub was moving in the same direction as the torp as it would if it was moving directly away. There needs to be a way to account for relative motion for this to feel right.

Hm I though I answered that - you can't just drag the long wire through the water, it would break. That's why second spool of wire in torpedo tube was needed. If you could just drag the wire then one spool would be enough, just like in Mk-48... But second spool for sub movement was added. And even common sense says that you can't drag few MILES of thin wire left in the water or laying on the bottom without breaking it... So, with ADCAP it doesn't matter if the sub is moving in the same or the opposite direction, the "center" point of the wire of the wire stays in the water at or close to launch point and both ends are unrolling from spools (one on torpedo, one on the sub). If EITHER of the spools ends, the wire is broken. So if the sub moves more than 5nm in any direction or torpedo moves more than 10nm in any direction.

The UGST is said to have 25km (13.5nm) of wire, but I don't know if it's all in torpedo or how the length is divided between torpedo spool and torpedo tube spool. Anyone knows ? In comparison, the ADCAP would have total of 15nm of wire (10nm in torpedo, 5nm or so on torpedo tube spool). But UGST is much longer torp than ADCAP (7.2m for UGST and only 5.8m for ADCAP) so it's probably possible to fit whole 13.5nm of wire into the torpedo... but that would leave sub with limited maneuver so probably similar two spool system is used on UGST ? It was said somwhere that full length of UGST + "wire coil" is about 8.2m... On a picture of TEST-71 two wire reels are described - internal and external. So UGST most probably use same system too... yes, I just found info that UGST has internal fuel tank wire reel and external left-behing (although described as "towed")wire reel. Even more interesting UGST info:

telecontrol wire, km: torpedo guidance wire reel - up to 25
towed guidance wire reel - up to 5

So 25km (13.5nm) wire in the torpedo and 5km (2.7nm) of wire in torpedo tube. So guided torpedo run 13.5nm, free sub movement after launch 2.7nm. Seems UGST has advantage over ADCAP in guidance wire length :-), probably because it's much longer torp.

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

fixed version of ATC mod demo:

http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski...rolBeta101.zip

Torpedo doctrine used in LwAmi 3.x mod merged with ATC mod (so you could try replacing normal LwAmi Torpedo doctrine with it) - but not tested at all !!! so I'm sorry if it doesn't work... but it should :-)

http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski...h_ATC_beta.zip

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

The ongoing "gameplay versus realism" debate once again looms. Should this be modeled as a "game" with fudges to promote action and provocation, or as a "simulation" to indeer the realism of real life operations. Although these two ideas are not diametrically opposed, they are not always mutually achieveable... and the desirable balance totally dependent on the subjective preferences of the user...

... while some die hard fans want only the most realistic and unyielding representation of RL at their fingertips, even at the expense of larger periods of uneventful gametime and asymetrical gameplay, others would hedge these factors for faster avenues toward firefights and increased visibility for greater propensity for "gunslinging" matches...

all completely subjective to what each players personal preference is. Something to keep in mind if the SL are to be tweaked once again.

As is the possibility of new opportunities being opened. We do have an ongoing balance issue, which at times is so serious as to make a lot of scenarios that should be fun become unwinnable. A lot of scenarios that I thought about writing I've had to scrap because there was just no way they could work in DW how it is today.

Henson's contributions suggest that there is a realism problem contributing to that balance issue. A calculated tweak would likely advance realism, balance, and fun gameplay all at the same time.