Are you a good sub captain

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Now that's its possible for missiles and torps to home in on dead platforms, that's going to make mass salvo tatics even less productive since several missiles and torps will probably home in on already dead platforms.

Oddly, I've never seen missiles home on multiple platforms, so I doubt it will change much. I think it has something to do with the way they always go after the closest target.

[LoBlo]

I have, but only for the SS-N-27 ASM. It would redirect if the target it was homing on was killed before it got there. I once scored a 100 kill on a spruce, and 20% kill on a Nimtz from 100 nm because the missiles redirected to the center of the formation after the Spruce was killed.

Now though, its more realistic. Just shot a volley of missiles at a OHP and all homed in (the ones that weren't spoofed by chaff) even after the platform was dead. Fun stuff. Will keep players more honest about how effective there attacks are.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Now though, its more realistic. Just shot a volley of missiles at a OHP and all homed in (the ones that weren't spoofed by chaff) even after the platform was dead. Fun stuff. Will keep players more honest about how effective there attacks are.

I don't know how realistic any of it is, honestly. There's a tendancy to pour cruise missiles into ships even after they're probably out of action. Part of that is due to a lack of damage assessment. Realistically, if you're watching a radar screen, you really can't tell how much damage a ship has suffered unless it's totally blown to pieces and simply disappears. There's also, like you said, the tendancy of missiles that are already in flight to home on targets that are already out of action.

The thing is, realistically, different missiles also have different seeker logic. Some, for example, might go to the largest radar reflection, others might go to the closest, they'll probably also have some algorithm in them for trying to recognize countermeasures that might be more or less effective, still others might try to compare the reflected radar signal against a database of radar reflections and go after what it considers to be the highest value target. When you roll it all in together, who really knows what the heck the missile is going to go after? I'm not sure that's easily predicted.

So... one should avoid claims that any particular heuristic in a wargame is more realistic than others. They're all questionable. I think the most important thing is to state the assumption and then let people argue about it, then try to see what matters. It's sort of interesting to me to see how many of the things that even very knowledgable people throw their hands up at and say, "Oh my god! that's not how it works..." and then they make you change it, only to find that you get the same answer.

[LoBlo]

Thats one of the reason I wish there was a seperate CM effectiveness for each sensor type (instead of a blanket CM effectiveness given to the CM). It would allow some artistic license to assign varying sofistication to the individual seekers (torp and missiles) to simulate different anti-CM logic.

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

So... one should avoid claims that any particular heuristic in a wargame is more realistic than others. They're all questionable. I think the most important thing is to state the assumption and then let people argue about it, then try to see what matters. It's sort of interesting to me to see how many of the things that even very knowledgable people throw their hands up at and say, "Oh my god! that's not how it works..." and then they make you change it, only to find that you get the same answer.

I use the claim of realism with some reservation unless I feel that there's a blatant feel of "gameyness" to a behavior. Magic instantaneous disappearance of a targets radar/active sonar signal once it reaches 100% damage was pretty gamey. Now there's some persistance to the signal (at least for a little bit). Its would be hard to argue that's thats not more realistic, unless you consider missiles that "talk" to each other and divide targets in a coordinated fashion. (supposedly shipwreck missiles are rumored to have some sorta function like this).

[Iron Budokan]

You kidding me? I'm awful. I shouldn't be let anywhere near an ocean much less a multi-million dollar submarine! :rotfl:

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Thats one of the reason I wish there was a seperate CM effectiveness for each sensor type (instead of a blanket CM effectiveness given to the CM). It would allow some artistic license to assign varying sofistication to the individual seekers (torp and missiles) to simulate different anti-CM logic.

That's why I like how Harpoon resolves combat. As far as I can tell, in DW the target missiles home on is heavily weighted towards the closest target. In truth it's not always that simple. There are SO many types of countermeasures out there, chaff... flares... floating... hovering... then on top of that is various types of jamming. It's amazing that anybody can manage to hit anything these days.

Its would be hard to argue that's thats not more realistic, unless you consider missiles that "talk" to each other and divide targets in a coordinated fashion. (supposedly shipwreck missiles are rumored to have some sorta function like this).

Who knows? For decades the whole focus of sensors and weapons was how to bounce energy off a target at get as much back as possible. Now you're right up against the physical limits of what is possible, so the big advances in cruise missile effectiveness aren't probably going to be in who makes the one with the better seeker, engine, airframe or warhead. It's going to be who makes the one with the best algorithm on some chip somewhere in the missile to pick out targets, distinguish and ignore countermeasures, avoid the things shot at it, and whatever else. I think they're going to be experimenting with all kinds of strange technologies well into the future.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

I don't know how realistic any of it is, honestly. There's a tendancy to pour cruise missiles into ships even after they're probably out of action. Part of that is due to a lack of damage assessment. Realistically, if you're watching a radar screen, you really can't tell how much damage a ship has suffered unless it's totally blown to pieces and simply disappears. There's also, like you said, the tendancy of missiles that are already in flight to home on targets that are already out of action.

The thing is, realistically, different missiles also have different seeker logic. Some, for example, might go to the largest radar reflection, others might go to the closest, they'll probably also have some algorithm in them for trying to recognize countermeasures that might be more or less effective, still others might try to compare the reflected radar signal against a database of radar reflections and go after what it considers to be the highest value target. When you roll it all in together, who really knows what the heck the missile is going to go after? I'm not sure that's easily predicted.

So... one should avoid claims that any particular heuristic in a wargame is more realistic than others. They're all questionable. I think the most important thing is to state the assumption and then let people argue about it, then try to see what matters. It's sort of interesting to me to see how many of the things that even very knowledgable people throw their hands up at and say, "Oh my god! that's not how it works..." and then they make you change it, only to find that you get the same answer.

SQ: I think a seeker model that takes into account different radar reflections and feeds that information into a program/doctrine (possibly involving presets) that determines which reflection becomes the target, is more realistic than an abstracted model that always homes in on the nearest target in the cone. We still get to argue about the programs.

LB: As for the missiles still homing on dead ships...remember first that this option is, well, and option, and if it's producing results you don't like, you can always set it back. In terms of the combat SQ's been talking about, it won't make a difference because a single shooter wasn't going to get more than one ship anyways, and multiple shooters would be shooting from different directions and would acquire different targets.

Generally: I'm really happy about the homing on dead platforms option...I thought it was ridiculous that torps/missiles would pass through the same ship which had just taken its last hit 2 seconds before. It's very much a welcome improvement. That being said, there is a chance of unintended consequences. Assuming missiles can tell a motionless platform from a moving one in RL and would discriminate based upon that, this could mean that ships in the lead of a formation that were sunk with the first salvo may become missile sponges for the survivors during the second salvo. It also means that ships that should have been blown to bits or split in two (small neutrals getting in the way, smaller combattants hit by AS-4's, etc.) will act as missile sponges when they shouldn't even be producing valid radar returns. The circumstances under which these potential problems (only potential b/c we don't actually know the homing logic) occur are much more limited than the original issue this was meant to address, so it's a net gain.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

I have, but only for the SS-N-27 ASM. It would redirect if the target it was homing on was killed before it got there. I once scored a 100 kill on a spruce, and 20% kill on a Nimtz from 100 nm because the missiles redirected to the center of the formation after the Spruce was killed.

Now though, its more realistic. Just shot a volley of missiles at a OHP and all homed in (the ones that weren't spoofed by chaff) even after the platform was dead. Fun stuff. Will keep players more honest about how effective there attacks are.

Because of it's higher speed, the -27 is crosses the distance between acquisition and impact much more quickly than its subsonic cousins. (especially true of the two-stage version, since the missiles inside acquisition range are moving faster than those outside). The first missiles are also much more likely to hit with -27s than with 'poons/tasms. A salvo of -27s is therefore more likely to kill its target before all missiles in the salvo have acquired it...the missiles that acquired the target before it died will not resume seeking and will be removed by the sim when they reach the dead platform. Those missiles that did not acquire before the target died are free to acquire any other valid target. So that's why you see this with the -27 and not the others.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

SQ: I think a seeker model that takes into account different radar reflections and feeds that information into a program/doctrine (possibly involving presets) that determines which reflection becomes the target, is more realistic than an abstracted model that always homes in on the nearest target in the cone. We still get to argue about the programs.

It might be, particularly for more advanced missiles. For other missiles it might not be the case. By talking about radar reflections, though, you're really opening a can of worms because then someone is going to say, "but RCS is aspect dependent!" and they'd be right, so that's a whole new layer of complication. The problem is further complicated by RCS reducing measures aboard a lot of new warships. Arleigh Burkes are probably the most obvious examples with their fasceted superstructures. Another good example would be the LPD-17s, with their masts covered in an RCS reducing fairing. Supposedly LCS is supposed to have a super low RCS. There's also things like the Chinese low observable missile boats, and other ships not modeled in DW. Honestly, I'm not sure the radar model is really up to it in DW.

I'd almost rather the missiles pick out a target in their seeker cone at random.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Because of it's higher speed, the -27 is crosses the distance between acquisition and impact much more quickly than its subsonic cousins. (especially true of the two-stage version, since the missiles inside acquisition range are moving faster than those outside). The first missiles are also much more likely to hit with -27s than with 'poons/tasms. A salvo of -27s is therefore more likely to kill its target before all missiles in the salvo have acquired it...the missiles that acquired the target before it died will not resume seeking and will be removed by the sim when they reach the dead platform. Those missiles that did not acquire before the target died are free to acquire any other valid target. So that's why you see this with the -27 and not the others.

Not really. In my personal version of DW the 27's 2nd stage has some pretty long acquistion ranges and are actively homing in before redirecting. I've never been able to explain the behavior and why its different that a subsonic, but with 1.04 its a mute point

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

You kidding me? I'm awful. I shouldn't be let anywhere near an ocean much less a multi-million dollar submarine! :rotfl:

aha, well honesty is the first step into improvement... errr... or so they say.