LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #11: Nuke Speeds

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

If you want to improve the Akula, give us sensitivity or washout speed improvement.

It's not about improving, it's about realism...

The game interface does a good enough job of modeling Russian sonar inferiority that you don't need a Nrd differential anyway...

Did you know, that in late 80's and early 90's Russians themselves estimated that their best sonars has 3 to 10 times shorter det ranges than US sonars ? Yes, subs were very quiet, but sonars were much worse... time has passed but how much this gap have closed ? With western technology still improving all the time ? So, having 30% det range penalty is just fantastic thing to have in DW :p in russian subs which are (with exeption of SW) faster, deeper diving, and have better (with exeption of ADCAP) and more universal armament ?

Or change the SS-N-27's airdropped torp back up to 55.

And this would be justified by what ? Do you expect very small and not most modern russian electric torpedo that is used in SS-N-27 system to have speed of 55kts ??

Or reduce the 688I's diving depth to 300m, since some sources suggest its dive depth is reduced to cram in the speed and reactor. With the Advanced Torp Mod, it has the effect of not allowing it to use depth to slow the approaching torp - in torp evasion, relative speed is important.

This is much better proposition. 688 diving depth is often stated as 300m (984ft) with 450m (1476) crush.

But I'm afraid we can't simply put correct values into database (even that they would be only little less than now from 492m --> 450m). Because if we put correct crush depth into DB, then not much changes - just like now every 688 in game would be runing 10m above crush depth... in game you are sure that nothing wrong will happen. In real life I suppose no one sane captain would dive even CLOSE to his boat's crush depth even if running for life... at this depth sub is supposed to collapse, so even 10% less would be very, very dangerous, probably more dangerous than torpedo that is chasing him. I don't think (personally) that anyone would exceed 400m in RL with 300m test and 450m crush depths - even in worst situation .

But we can't also set 300m into db as crush depth - in RL subs can go deeper if needed, just not all the way to crush depth. Maybe we should assume some % of crush depth that in RL would be maximum used, and set it in DB - for 688i it would I think be not less than 350 (1150ft) but not more than 400m (1312ft). And rework all sub's depths with this scheme.

Currently crush depths are:

492m for 688s (1614ft)
656m for Seawolf (2150ft)
569m for Akulas (1866ft)

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Originally Posted by Amizaur

In real life I suppose no one sane captain would dive even CLOSE to his boat's crush depth even if running for life...

When a weapon is in the water, and you are the target, all bets are off. You use every bit of the performance envelope that you have. Redline a reactor plant for the extra knot or 2?? Take her deeper cause there is a layer 200 feet deeper but not quite at crush that MIGHT save your butt?? Oh yeah, count on it. You would 'break the rules' on the performance envelope if you have to in order to stay alive and come back to kill the OTHER guy.

We used to have discissions about it all the time in the division and with other divisions on the boat. Little "What if's" in the corners of the boat while tossing cards around. We even joked about it. It ended with 'the shipyard can fix it if we are still around to get it there.'

Added:

One thing here that probably irks us real bubbleheads is that there are operating limits and absolute limits on submarines. The game deals in absolutes while we think in terms of the operational limits that were imposed on us. You have a safe range of speed and depth that work inside of. Outside of this range you are getting into dangerous areas. Too fast and too deep mean you hit your crush depth before you can recover from flooding etc etc. Crush depth is an UNKNOWN thing till you find it the hard way.

I think the game does a good job in balancing the the various classes but what needs to be done is something on the same order. I realize that is can not be done my a mod probably. What you do is make variable ABSOLUTE limits and impose operational limits. That way a player has an envelope to play in but then makes a choice to operate outside those limits and risk breaking things or crush.

Put down that a 688i has a safe operating max depth of 800 feet (otherwise known as test depth). Crush depth is something deeper than 1200 feet but put a variable on it. It might actually be 1141 for that ship. Maybe the welders had a good day and on another ship of the same class crush depth is 1487 feet. Make it random each time you dive for each ship. That way you can not guess how deep you can REALLY go.

Why did I bring this up?? With all the discussions of changing speed someone asked what does a knot or 2 matter? It can literally be the difference between life and death. Remember back when I started posting I said something about how FAST a bell is answered. That normally the throttleman will NOT cavitate unless ordered but when told to GO, he answered it quickly and without hesitation. When torpedo's are in the water speed IS life. You will get told to stand on the power and the boat will speed up REALLY quickly. Speed gets you out of the detection cone of the weapon. Speed gets you clear of the datum and tosses his solution out the window. Speed makes the boat more manuverable. Speed is more imporant than depth in a lot of ways when weapons are in the water.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Amizaur

It's not about improving, it's about realism...

I'm wondering how they figured out (even guestimated) the washout speed. I suppose you can guestimate sensitivity by looking at the array size and making some estimates as to the influence of processing power, but washout speed - beyond the general assumption the US would have a higher one?

Did you know, that in late 80's and early 90's Russians themselves estimated that their best sonars has 3 to 10 times shorter det ranges than US sonars ?

I read something similar, except it was 1/3rd as sensitive, which roughly collaborates with what L/W seems to be shooting (2Nrd difference = 4dB, = 2.5 times difference), but that correlates with a lot less than 3 times, depending on conditions. 10 times might hold true at higher speeds or in wierd hydroacoustic conditions - hard to see it in normality.

And I entirely agree with this general concept, except:
1) Does the mentioned difference (from the sources) take account the Display Influence?
2) "-8" (or =TB-16, 2Nrd less sensitive vs new TB-23) is more than fair for the Improved Akulas, which are rough contemporaries of the 688I and in accordance to the 1/3rd as sensitive guide. But not the Akula-IIs, which are roughly contemporary with SW. Assuming this +2Nrd sonar lag holds, the Pelamida II should have a sensitivity of closer to -10 to compare with the SW's -12 (or was it -14?) - take the higher washout of US arrays into account as well...

And this would be justified by what ? Do you expect very small and not most modern russian electric torpedo that is used in SS-N-27 system to have speed of 55kts ??

OK, maybe not 55, but 50. This is like 10+-year old tech (French NTL-90 came in about '92), so even assuming the usual 10-year gap it is not unreasonable to assume the Russians would have gotten around to it in their newest ASW weapons. Besides, some sources suggest making a 50-knot small torp is not impossible for the Russians.

This is much better proposition. 688 diving depth is often stated as 300m (984ft) with 450m (1476) crush.

Since MaxDepth in DW = Max 100% Safe Depth, I suggest initial calibration can be set for Never Exceed Depth (in the Ak, it is 1804 feet according to GlobalSecurity, which is similar to what's there now).

Fine calibration between that and crush (estimated at about 1970-2160 feet) to aim for a 50% chance, with the condition that Never Exceed Depth should be perfectly safe.

For those without Never Exceed Listed, I suggest starting out halfway and then calibrating within the gap between test (300m for LA) and crush (450m) so that at the real crush, we get roughly a 50% chance of death as possible.

[LuftWolf]

modern akula II class submarines were at least as quiet as the 688i and I don't think this is modelled in the game (vanilla or lwami mod).

GD, yes this is modelled in LWAMI. The Akula II's are more quiet than the LAi's up to about 6-7 kts. At higher speeds, the Akula II's are known to be louder than the LAi's because the active noise cancellation systems used on the AKII's are ineffective above low speeds.

I like the figures Amizaur listed.

688/688i - 32kts
Akula -35kts
Seawolf - 37kts

Cheers,
David

PS Keep in mind, if you are worried about play balance, you have to keep in mind that this is in the context of LWAMI4, in which the torpedoes are by far going to be the biggest balancing factor. Interestingly, the strength of the ADCAP over the UGST (the gap between the torpedoes is much wider in LWAMI4) will help the 688i considerably, while the overall changes to the torpedoes such as "basic" torpedo physics and wirelength limits will help tone down the power of the SeaWolf. All in all, I think the game will be even more balanced once these changes are all implimented.

PPS And for the record, this should be LWAMI Poll #12. :-P

[Molon Labe]

In terms of depth, the way the game works now is that it chooses at random an actual crush depth that is somewhere below the given crush depth. Every little bit you go below increases the risk of implosion.

[Deathblow]

Hey look! Numbers pulled outof thin air and toted as realism! Whooptie do.

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

Hey look! Numbers pulled outof someones $#@ and toted as realism. Whooptie do....

1) The numbers currently in the database are no less arbitrary.

2) So you've got better data?

3) The tools are all publicly available, so you should make your own mod, since you feel strongly about it. That's what I did, and now seven months later, there is still a lot I want to change.

4) Please stop spamming my threads. Thanks.

[LuftWolf]

Ok, so for the full-torpedo mod playtest, the submarine speeds will be set as follows:

688/688i - 32kts
Akula I - 33kts
Akula ImpI/II 35kts
SeaWolf - 37kts ( I really do believe that this submarine is probably this fast... but there is really 0% chance of knowing this for sure... I've heard everything from 35kts to 47kts... but some speeds would "break the game"...)

Just for reference SCX had the speeds set at:

688 - 32kts
688i - 33kts
Akula I - 33kts
Akula ImpI/II 35kts
SeaWolf - 35kts

[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

1) The numbers currently in the database are no less arbitrary.

2) So you've got better data?

3) The tools are all publicly available, so you should make your own mod, since you feel strongly about it. That's what I did, and now seven months later, there is still a lot I want to change.

4) Please stop spamming my threads. Thanks.

Hey! .... I'm not spamming... ... just being really tacky about how to express my opinion... But come'on... show us your data sources Its fun to share data.

[LuftWolf]

Well, the ranges for all the submarines are about 28-35 for 688i, 28-35 for the Akula, and 35-47 for the SW.

Anyone could reasonably justify setting the speeds for the subs anywhere in here.

Now, it just so happens that one can reasonably project for the 688 from the previous US classes, and also one can suspect that the 688i is no faster than the 688, based on the specific improvements known to be done to that class. My estimates, and about 75% of the opinions I have read, place the 688i speed at 31-32 kts.

For the Akula, the generally reported speed for the original Akula is 33kts. In regards to the Akula ImpI/II, there is a lot of dispute over just what the difference between ImpI and II is exactly, but the best sources place the speed of the Akula II at about 35kts. However, since the sources also show that the ImpI and II have more in common than the I and ImpI, it stands to reason that the reactor and major drive elements are shared more or less the same between Imp I and II, with the differences mainly being in the transmission and active sound reduction systems.

For the SeaWolf, that really is anyone's guess...

There is no single source that one can point to most of the time and say that this value should be used over another, but rather a process or sorting through the data and deciding on what would work best in game.

And since I'm the one currently doing the work, I get to make those calls. It's a bitch, but someone has to do it.

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead Nuke

We used to have discissions about it all the time in the division and with other divisions on the boat. Little "What if's" in the corners of the boat while tossing cards around. We even joked about it. It ended with 'the shipyard can fix it if we are still around to get it there.'

Yes, but crush depth is a depth at which sub is supposed to collapse, it's designed to it... of course it can withstand little more, but maybe little less... So I don't think anyone would dive to crush depth even if a evading torpedo, because... shipyard can't fix this kind of damage and you won't get back.
Something like diving a fighter plane below ground level to avoid a missile... or better, to dive a fighter plane, in a fog, to or below 0ft altitude to avoid a missile...

P.S. After reading the add on I see that actually we agree in general

One thing here that probably irks us real bubbleheads is that there are operating limits and absolute limits on submarines. The game deals in absolutes while we think in terms of the operational limits that were imposed on us. You have a safe range of speed and depth that work inside of. Outside of this range you are getting into dangerous areas. Too fast and too deep mean you hit your crush depth before you can recover from flooding etc etc. Crush depth is an UNKNOWN thing till you find it the hard way.

This is exactly what I had in mind writing. There are NO operational limits in game, that anyone would care about them. Maybe if game penalized after the mission if operational limits were exceeded... something like with friendly fire but not that serious. So we have ABSOLUTE limits only in game. To get people to behave realisticaly (and dive within operational or emergency limits, but NOT crush depth) we would probably have to set not exceeded in real life even in emergency... isn't it called "safe excursion depth" or something like that ? Never exceed depth ?

There is IIRC 150% safe margin in US designs between operational (test?) depth and crush depth... Or was it 175% ? I remember german standards are 200% of operational depth.

Put down that a 688i has a safe operating max depth of 800 feet (otherwise known as test depth). Crush depth is something deeper than 1200 feet but put a variable on it. It might actually be 1141 for that ship. Maybe the welders had a good day and on another ship of the same class crush depth is 1487 feet. Make it random each time you dive for each ship. That way you can not guess how deep you can REALLY go.

In game manual is written (again IIRC, didn't read it for long time ) that real crush depth is randomised each mission, so you don't know HOW MUCH you can exceed crush depth actually. However it doesn't simulate that real crush may be LESS than is written, so we should set game crush limit to something less than crush depth we want to use.

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

I'm wondering how they figured out (even guestimated) the washout speed. I suppose you can guestimate sensitivity by looking at the array size and making some estimates as to the influence of processing power, but washout speed - beyond the general assumption the US would have a higher one?

I have no idea what washout speed are or should be. So I just don't take a position in any discussion about it, leave it to others...

I read something similar, except it was 1/3rd as sensitive, which roughly collaborates with what L/W seems to be shooting (2Nrd difference = 4dB, = 2.5 times difference), but that correlates with a lot less than 3 times, depending on conditions. 10 times might hold true at higher speeds or in wierd hydroacoustic conditions - hard to see it in normality.

I have read that Russians thought it was 10x det range, but actually it was not that bad and about 3 times

And I entirely agree with this general concept, except:
1) Does the mentioned difference (from the sources) take account the Display Influence?

Don't know, I don't touch sensors. But this influence SHOULD BE MEASURED I think, and measured on more than one comp to see if GFX card makes any difference between US and Russian interfaces.

OK, maybe not 55, but 50. This is like 10+-year old tech (French NTL-90 came in about '92), so even assuming the usual 10-year gap it is not unreasonable to assume the Russians would have gotten around to it in their newest ASW weapons. Besides, some sources suggest making a 50-knot small torp is not impossible for the Russians.

Only most modern electric torps like MU-90 with very advanced batteries are said to be in 50kts class speed. The torpedo used in SS-N-27 system is MPT-1UE very small electric torpedo, not designed for it and used previously in russian eqiuvalent of CAPTOR mine. Not most modern probably, some years design.
Very small, very light (that's why they used it instead of great APR family - oh yes, APRs ARE fast, but too heavy for that system... but APRs could be raplacement for Stallion torps).

From the link you gave, do you thought about 400 mm (15.75") APSET-95
torp ? Come on, 30.000m of range for 400mm torp ? It's very questionable one, probably two different torpedos are mixed here, the name from one and specs (guessed) from another...

Since MaxDepth in DW = Max 100% Safe Depth, I suggest initial calibration can be set for Never Exceed Depth (in the Ak, it is 1804 feet according to GlobalSecurity, which is similar to what's there now).

Fine calibration between that and crush (estimated at about 1970-2160 feet) to aim for a 50% chance, with the condition that Never Exceed Depth should be perfectly safe.

For those without Never Exceed Listed, I suggest starting out halfway and then calibrating within the gap between test (300m for LA) and crush (450m) so that at the real crush, we get roughly a 50% chance of death as possible.

100% agreed I would like to do it exactly this way !

[XabbaRus]

I'd go with SCX speeds.

Henson, Russian subs use PWRs the Alfa was the only operational Liquid Metal reactor sub.

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

Hey look! Numbers pulled outof thin air and toted as realism! Whooptie do.

All we can do is to use BEST POSSIBLE data and estimastes, put it into game and say we aim at realism. If we get better data, we'll update it.
If you call it "from the air"... well, would you call a data take from a webpage or a book (even if it's clearly absurd value) better and more realistic ? Becaue it's "official" ?

But come'on... show us your data sources Its fun to share data

The problem is that in most cases it's not a single source... it's multiple sources with sometimes different data, but most probable, most often cited and making most sense one taken. Or not any single source at all, just compilation of oll knowledge in the subject combined with physics and common sense...

[Henson]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I'd go with SCX speeds.

Henson, Russian subs use PWRs the Alfa was the only operational Liquid Metal reactor sub.

Good gouge, thanks.

And it makes sense. I got the info off a public interview by some old soviet bubblehead.