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

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

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.

So, is a surfaced sub considered a surface contact to the torpedo, or will the database help the torp to know something it probably shouldn't know?

And you meant ceiling depth, right?

[LuftWolf]

Yeah, I mean ceiling depth.

The classifications are not variable. A submarine is always a "sub" and a surface vessel is always a "surf" and a countermeasure is always a "weap".

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Yeah, I mean ceiling depth.

The classifications are not variable. A submarine is always a "sub" and a surface vessel is always a "surf" and a countermeasure is always a "weap".

That's what I was worried about.

Is there any way to make the way the torp behaves in this regard dependent on the classification on the nav map instead of on Truth?

[LuftWolf]

No, once you fire the torpedo, it is on its own to figure out what stuff is.

Keep in mind Molon, modern torpedoes are very smart, even the MK46 has the ability to distinguish between surface targets and submerged targets.

In real life, there are many reasons a commander would not surface to avoid a torpedo, so if the torpedoes don't ignore targets based on ceiling, and rather based on classification, this is simply walling off a cheat before it comes into existence.

Since you are the lead tester, can you reserve these concerns for the evalution process once the mod actually comes into a testable stage.

A lot of these concerns are more design related than limitation related... the sim is far more flexible than most people realize. I think we are on the same page in terms of what would be "gamey"... I hate "gamey".

[Molon Labe]

A lot of people do an e-blow in last-ditch evasion. Some people surface to shoot at choppers. Anyways, to me, surfaced submarine is a surface platform. :P

So, when do I get something to test? :hmm:

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

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.

It's interesting to see you describe how the doctrine and database interact. It seems like DW is ultimately a modeling language.

[MaHuJa]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Keep in mind Molon, modern torpedoes are very smart, even the MK46 has the ability to distinguish between surface targets and submerged targets.

Keep in mind the difference between a "surface" and a "submersible surface" contact.

The ceiling setting will keep it from actually hitting said surfaced sub, but if it treats that contact specially because it's submersible, now that *will* be a cheat - unless you can point to real torpedoes doing this?
(It will force the sub to stay surfaced, vulnerable to ASMs.)

Instead of looking up the contact type, check its depth. If it's surface, then assign it a tactic that will check its depth (and when below the "limit depth" change to the proper homing tactic) but otherwise ignore it.


Essentially you can make a gamble, if surfacing is safe, that the torpedo was sent with such presets. That should not make the torpedo circle around you, forcing you to stay on the surface and marking your position for the enemy sub. (The weapons position is always available on the navmap, as we all know)

In real life, there are many reasons a commander would not surface to avoid a torpedo,

In game, there is ice, there are surface/air platforms with anti-ship capable weapons that will hurt a surfaced submarine, plus you essentially notify anything with a radar of your position.

Was there any others? Ah, I guess satellites; those aren't in DW. Though that isn't much of a concern if the enemy already knows you're there, having shot a torpedo at you. It would have to be somebody elses satellites you were afraid of. But afraid enough to lose the whole ship?

so if the torpedoes don't ignore targets based on ceiling, and rather based on classification, this is simply walling off a cheat before it comes into existence.

Surfacing is hardly a cheat - pretty much the same restrictions from the real world apply in the game.

Or were you referring to something else? I can't see anything else relevant.

edit: removed redundancy

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by MaHuJa

Instead of looking up the contact type, check its depth. If it's surface, then assign it a tactic that will check its depth (and when below the "limit depth" change to the proper homing tactic) but otherwise ignore it.

Oooh oooh ooooh! Me likey! Let's say if a certain "skimmer safe" ceiling is set, the torp ignores anything with a depth shallower than the maximum skimmer draft. Or something like that.

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Oooh oooh ooooh! Me likey! Let's say if a certain "skimmer safe" ceiling is set, the torp ignores anything with a depth shallower than the maximum skimmer draft. Or something like that.

This is how the original anti-surface casualty mod worked that Amizaur developed, and people complained that their opponents were surfacing to avoid being sunk and that this was a cheat... of course, we can do this again if that's the general consensus.

In any case, the way torpedoes handle ceiling now is not correct... in real life, if my information is correct, the ceiling value actually reflects the shallowest possible contact the torpedo will track, so I could just use that value directly in the doctrine.

That is to say, the ceiling will go from being the shallowest possible run for the torpedo, to the shallowest possible contact depth the torpedo will track. In fact, I'm not sure why the doctrines aren't designed like this already, as it makes more sense in every way. :hmm:

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

people complained that their opponents were surfacing to avoid being sunk and that this was a cheat... of course, we can do this again if that's the general consensus.

Which is what the ARA Santa Fe did to avoid being torpedoed by Royal Navy helocopters in the Falklands war.

Considering all platforms except most of the Kilos have ASMs (the kilos have 53-65K ASuW torpedoes though) I don't think this is a problem.

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Which is what the ARA Santa Fe did to avoid being torpedoed by Royal Navy helocopters in the Falklands war.

Well, there you go.

[MaHuJa]

I agree absolutely that is makes more sense with ceiling limiting what it can track than where it can go, and that it is pretty much how I'd want it.

However, there are a few points.

First, make sure no ships (except lcac) aren't at shallower than 9ft in the doctrines.

Secondly, it shouldn't outright reject them, as much as ignore them until they do go within allowed boundaries. Way I see it, if it has been within the allowed boundaries it's a valid targets wherever it is now.


I cannot remember anything in the past being quite like this. I remember there was a doctrine that had me fired on by an ai, as a ffg, with a ceiling too low to hit me. Repeatedly. And similar problems. Though I guess that if the AI consistently, predictably, uses this, then that too will be a problem.

[MaHuJa]

Wolfy put me on an important point here, regarding the wire breaking.

This is, all in all, about the 688i/akula matchup. The simple fact is, the 688i pretty much depends on wire guidance.

The 688i has an edge in detection. To successfully use this, for this to make a difference, however, depends on having a weapons range to match.


Currently, the 688i is on equal footing because of its better detection capabilities and a weapons range to match. Once that game is on, the akula can counter well enough with its extended weaponry. Now, with wires getting cut, the effective weapons range will be severely limited.

Which requires getting closer. Well within the detection range of the akula, where the asrocs are. Where your advantages are eroded and the akula holds all the cards. In the end, you'll be so busy evading asrocs that you can't get to effective range to fire your own weapons...

>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.

Max range for the Shkval is 6nm. I consider this the minimum range against the akula. That gives you a very thin band to operate in - a very thin band that is far easier to saturate with asrocs.

[MaHuJa]

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.

Thinking closer about this, isn't this pretty much the opposite of what will happen?

For a target that does not maneuver, one torpedo fired on a good solution will always get close. However, I actually expect the target to start maneuvering possibly just seconds after I launch.

Even if the torpedo will be able to handle CMs and evasion patterns intelligently on its own (actually regardless of it), there is still the matter of getting one close enough for that stuff to actually begin - which, in the absense of wire guidance, can best be done by... the spread.

[LuftWolf]

Well, as I said once to Molon, I'm not going to let the tactics of the cheapest players decide what will and won't be in LWAMI, especially when something is so grossly incorrect as full run distance wireguiding.

Most of my games, including fleet games, are ruined by three or four players taking SW's and firing four to six torpedoes at a time, how could it get worse?