passive detection range comparison between LWAMI and SC

[Hitman]

Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.

SC was a sub vs. sub game, hence it didn't matter as long as it was balanced. However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.

SCX and LWAMI have rather similar detection ranges; just as SC and DW have similar ranges. In both cases, the mods tightened things up a bit. I can't speak for SCX, but in LWAMI this was done for both realism and balance reasons. It's impossible to create a truly "realistic" acoustic model, so there isn't much point in arguing over the slight differences between SCX and LWAMI detection ranges. The truth is that it all depends on acoustic conditions. LW's main goal in making adjustments to the sonar model was to make detection ranges more dependent on the acoustic conditions than they were in stock DW, and that has definitely happened.

SC was a sub vs. sub game, hence it didn't matter as long as it was balanced. However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).

You've analyzed a key balance issue very astutely.

Bringing this back to modding, DW leaves us very few variables in the (very abstracted) acoustic model to play with. So, there is no set of values for sonar sensitivity and PSL's that will yield an accurate detection ranges for all acoustic conditions--no matter what you're going to be too high to be realistic in some cases and too low in others. So which ones values should we use? I would argue, choose the subset that makes the sim most competitive.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Hitman

However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).

Which begs the question why the US didn't introduce submarine launched ASROC? Perhpas the US already did but it's just not represented in DW?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Castout

Which begs the question why the US didn't introduce submarine launched ASROC? Perhpas the US already did but it's just not represented in DW?

The US did, but it has not been in service since the late 1980s. And it's only payload was a nuclear warhead. Which leads me to believe one reason why the US doesn't have a SUBROC in inventory now is that detection of a modern SSK/SSN at patrol speeds, even with a US sensor advantage, would likely be at ranges that would make SUBROC unnecessary. Or it could just be that the reason for its being (Soviet SSBNs) became unreachable after modern SLBMs allowed them to patrol from beneath the ice.

Makes DW twice a better game just basing on that fact alone

DW's sonar model is overall much more polished than SC. It still works within the constraints of the age old NavalSimEngine, but introduces several things that SC didn't have or didn't do as well (more sophisticated ray tracing and bearing error). It's not perfect, but no ASW sim will be. And with LWAMI, DW makes for quite a compelling simulation.

PD

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

The US did, but it has not been in service since the late 1980s. And it's only payload was a nuclear warhead. Which leads me to believe one reason why the US doesn't have a SUBROC in inventory now is that detection of a modern SSK/SSN at patrol speeds, even with a US sensor advantage, would likely be at ranges that would make SUBROC unnecessary. Or it could just be that the reason for its being (Soviet SSBNs) became unreachable after modern SLBMs allowed them to patrol from beneath the ice.PD

Well its sucessor SEALANCE was canceled due to the Soviet Union collapsing. Sealance whent way over budget since it was intended to be both for Submarines and Surface ships with diffrent payloads and huge range (3rd convergince zone range, In other words of longer range than the N-16's 655mm verson but 533mm in calaber!) Sealance's development was folded in to VLA, the Verticle Launched ASROC found on the AEGIES ships. Plus US sub captains didn't like the SUBROC since it genneraly required a ping to use effectivly.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Plus US sub captains didn't like the SUBROC since it genneraly required a ping to use effectivly.

Hmmm...I wonder why the precision of a ping was required? It was after all a rocket with a nuclear depth charge, no?

Bishop,
I guess I stand corrected. Reading that thread again was fun. Ah, back in the heady days of DW.

PD

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Hmmm...I wonder why the precision of a ping was required? It was after all a rocket with a nuclear depth charge, no?PD

Well when people think of nuclear blasts they think of huge city blasting explosions blasting wooden buildings to matchsticks.


But underwater its diffrent. The SUBROC only had a 5kt nuclear depth bomb, even for a tactical nuke that is tiny. Water helps to decrease the effects of the blast, the deeper the less effective the blast (which is why Russian subs were always being made to go deeper) and the blast is spread out over the entire hull of the sub rather than just one part as with a torpedo warhead or a depth charge so a sub is better able to survive a nuclear blast than a depth charge attack. Just to give you an idea how small a punch the SUBROC delivered here is a pic of a live test of a ASROC with a 10kt W44 warhead. Not that big of a blast (the ship is no more than 5 nm away.) Now imagin that much deeper at half the yeld, and you don't have a fancy BSY-1 fire control computer to help you do TMA (All OHP style DRTs). You miss judge the solution and you've got a really ticked off Russian sub out there possably with his own SUBROC getting ready to launch.

[MBot]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

[PIC of nuclear ASROC explosion]

I know nukes are bad, but this is such a phantastic photo. You even see the ASROC launcher of the destroyer still trained towards the explosion. I all their terribleness, nuclear explosions have some kind of weird beauty.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well when people think of nuclear blasts they think of huge city blasting explosions blasting wooden buildings to matchsticks.


But underwater its diffrent. The SUBROC only had a 5kt nuclear depth bomb, even for a tactical nuke that is tiny. Water helps to decrease the effects of the blast, the deeper the less effective the blast (which is why Russian subs were always being made to go deeper) and the blast is spread out over the entire hull of the sub rather than just one part as with a torpedo warhead or a depth charge so a sub is better able to survive a nuclear blast than a depth charge attack. Just to give you an idea how small a punch the SUBROC delivered here is a pic of a live test of a ASROC with a 10kt W44 warhead. Not that big of a blast (the ship is no more than 5 nm away.) Now imagin that much deeper at half the yeld, and you don't have a fancy BSY-1 fire control computer to help you do TMA (All OHP style DRTs). You miss judge the solution and you've got a really ticked off Russian sub out there possably with his own SUBROC getting ready to launch.

I respectfully disagree on this point. Commodore Ward my ex CO spoke of this on occaison. Russian Subs were designed to go deeper to flee the MK-48. The threshold of a conventional torp is affected by water pressure. But a nuclear warhead it actually aids its intention and design. It dramatically increases water pressure. The goal is to implode the enemy with pressure produced by shock waves. Not to incinerate them.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.

well I would like exactly that. I mean I only care about realism and don't give a damn about playability balancing. The war machines were never built with regard to balance with the enemy capability but rather to give it the edge to outstealth, outdetect, outmaneuver, outgun, and outkill its opponent or would be opponent. War was never meant to be fair. So war simulation should not give a damn about balancing imo. Balancing could be done through careful scenario design imo. Like starting the game farther out from the enemy detection range for example.

Scenarios would need to be readjusted in order to reflect the changed parameters though.

I for one perhaps a few more out there wish there is a mod out there that address this realism issue in passive detection ranges in DW.
I believe they are rather short at the moment.
I as long as I can remember never once used the ASROC unless tha data came from radio link when playing the Akula. Or attacking a warship with ASM at long ranges unless it was emitting its radar or was pinging. Furthermore on few occasions I've felt I'm cruising too blind(or deaf) so that enemy warships could get into dangerously close ranges with me only realizing it almost too late.

[GrayOwl]

Originally Posted by Castout

well I would like exactly that. I mean I only care about realism and don't give a damn about playability balancing. The war machines were never built with regard to balance with the enemy capability but rather to give it the edge to outstealth, outdetect, outmaneuver, outgun, and outkill its opponent or would be opponent. War was never meant to be fair. So war simulation should not give a damn about balancing imo. Balancing could be done through careful scenario design imo. Like starting the game farther out from the enemy detection range for example.

Scenarios would need to be readjusted in order to reflect the changed parameters though.

I for one perhaps a few more out there wish there is a mod out there that address this realism issue in passive detection ranges in DW.
I believe they are rather short at the moment.
I as long as I can remember never once used the ASROC unless tha data came from radio link when playing the Akula. Or attacking a warship with ASM at long ranges unless it was emitting its radar or was pinging. Furthermore on few occasions I've felt I'm cruising too blind(or deaf) so that enemy warships could get into dangerously close ranges with me only realizing it almost too late.

Can imagine Shturmovik IL-2 with balance??? LOL

If it sim - in him can not be of any balance.
If DW is sim. LOL
I simply enjoy by the order - "Full Ruder Left" or "Full Rudder Right".
Excellent sim, excellent Physics! The sub is floating where it would be desirable her, but not there where I wish.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Castout

well I would like exactly that. I mean I only care about realism and don't give a damn about playability balancing. ...

I for one perhaps a few more out there wish there is a mod out there that address this realism issue in passive detection ranges in DW.
I believe they are rather short at the moment.

They are short in some and long in others. A mod CANNOT be made to be more realistic in this regard. If you change the values to better represent detection ranges in some situations, you also make sim represent detection ranges less realistically in others situations. It's a zero-sum game that there is no way to win, short of remaking the NavalSimEngine.

I as long as I can remember never once used the ASROC unless tha data came from radio link when playing the Akula. Or attacking a warship with ASM at long ranges unless it was emitting its radar or was pinging.

Then you're doing it wrong. The SUBROC is the Akula's primary ASW weapon in DW, accounting for far more kills in MP matches than the UGST, and in many cases, at ranges that a UGST would not have been likely to score a hit (beyond 10-15nm). As for warships, the max range you can get ESM is something like 15nm. You can track skimmers in CVs out to at least 90nm and get direct path detection ranges beyond 30nm. So, again, if you can't track them unless they have their radars on, you're doing something wrong.

If your evaluation of the realism of the detection ranges is based on the experiences you've related here, then you're going to have to go back and look at the sim and see what's really possible.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

They are short in some and long in others.

Whaaa. . .at Hey there might be female simmers here :rotfl:

Some people like to quote the bible just like that short, simple and wrong.

[To be]

Originally Posted by Castout

Whaaa. . .at Hey there might be female simmers here

I am sure there are. What is your point?

Originally Posted by Castout

Some people like to quote the bible just like that short, simple and wrong.

Again, what is the relevancy to this thread?

Perhaps you should review this: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

[Molon Labe]

the first one was just a little semi perverted joke.

the second one... probably also a joke but i don't understand its relevance either.