The new (awsome) GWX aircraft. - Page 3

tater · 10-12-07, 06:45 PM

Well, if I cared about it (and I will at some point because as Baldrick says... "I have a cunning plan") I would simply make random groups of aircraft patrol (allied). They'll fly waypoints.

When I add in the reason to have allied air patrols, then you'll see them. For your own safety, dive anyway

tater

tater · 10-12-07, 06:46 PM

In my tests so far, I have a somewhat reduced merchant visual and I can get within ~1000 yards without being detected at night. Never bothered to test during the day, i was more concerned with night surface attacks.

tater

Ducimus · 10-12-07, 06:47 PM

@ leo

Read it. Thanks for clarification, i didnt know that.

Ducimus · 10-12-07, 06:50 PM

It just occured to me, i wonder if a discussion, similar to this, is why NYGM had their merchant visual sensor, blind to their direct rear.

If your trailing a target.... good news, you an report it, and in terms of game design, who honestly tries for shooting at the stern of a ship moving away form you and actually hit it?

tater · 10-12-07, 06:58 PM

Course a fleet boat would end-around a merchant convoy if he had more than 3 neurons.

A task force, that's the target that you see, and can never hope to catch up to, or even close on much less end around. Those are the contacts that you'd report in RL.

Ducimus · 10-12-07, 07:00 PM

Seriously, think about this for a minute. Lets say merchants are bind to the area directly behind them.In TM, given the map contacts mod, you woudlnt know this. Warships however are not blind.

So youd have to trail directly behind the convoy, keeping profile on just the warships. Any move out of the aft quater makes you much more visible. So its easier, but not with impunity. Plus it requires some manuvering on your part.

Nowfor the sake of argument, lets say your chasing 1 unescorted merchant.
If he knows your there, he zig zags, so he can shoot back becuase his movemnt places you out of the blind area repeatidly. Plus, due to NSM, you can plug him all day from the rear, but if the shots arent below the waterline, it does nothing.

Ducimus · 10-12-07, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Course a fleet boat would end-around a merchant convoy if he had more than 3 neurons.

A task force, that's the target that you see, and can never hope to catch up to, or even close on much less end around. Those are the contacts that you'd report in RL.

Good point. So in theory, assuming this works, then we'd need 4 visual nodes.

Capital warships (blind to direct rear, but large max visual distance)
Merchants (blind to direct rear, less max visual distance then escort)
Escort ( 360 degree, less max visual distance then capital ship)
Aircraft ( 360 degree, Larger max visual distance then capital ship)

tater · 10-12-07, 07:06 PM

No, it makes sense given the semi-bogus notion of reporting a group of merchants instead of attacking them in the first place.

But why not go off tot he side, flank, end around, submerge and sink them, instead?

Even the "fast convoys" I made in a few places can be end-arounded by all but S-boats, though it might take a while.

Wonder why they chose 4500m, it really is a rediculous range.

tater

tater · 10-12-07, 07:08 PM

Oddly enough, I have 4 visual sensors already built (counting stock)

Actually, with my first mod, I have 2 in the regular dat, plus the new dat with 3...

I can make as many as needed.

tater

Ducimus · 10-12-07, 07:09 PM

>>But why not go off tot he side, flank, end around, submerge and sink them, instead?

Im thinking in terms of getting a report off, not so much as attack. Allowing an approach from the rear, you can get your report off, and your really not in a good position to attack.

At the least i think its feasible to implent this concept on task forces where you coudlnt catch them and end up in the rear anyway.

edit:

>>Wonder why they chose 4500m, it really is a rediculous range

Stock Sh3, max visual distance was 6,000 meters. Since Sh4 is built upon SH3, this didnt get changed when they upped the max visual distance to 8,000 meters. An oversight i guess.

leovampire · 10-12-07, 07:10 PM

You might be given orders to attack or to leave it alone. It adds to the game. If you are told to attack it adds to the give list of missions and if you are succesfull you get extra renoun points for compleating it.

tater · 10-12-07, 08:59 PM

The USN would have always told you to attack.

If the contact is running away at 24 knots, being told to attack it will certainly result in mission failure, too.

If I made sensors with a rear blind spot, I'd be inclined to make an identical version without the blind spot.

Actually, is there anything that disallows 2 of the same type of sensor? Say you have AI_Visual (default) set to be a 360 small warship sensor for the DDs. AI_Visual_A is a Capital ship version with a wedge to the stern, but the range is rather a lot farther than the DDs have. Give the BBs BOTH. At the shorter DD range, they'd have 360 vision, but outside the DD range circle to their horizon they'd have a wedge open astern.

Actually, if this worked, there might be a new technique we could try. Make a long range (as long as appropriate for a ship like a DD to spot another large ship). Give it the worst possible sensitivity for that range to detect a ship at whatever range. Ideally, it would then be blind to a sub to some amingly close range. Say it sees a BB at 8km (assuming the max visual is 8km), but doesn't see a sub until 500m making flank, and won't ever spot a scope. Then add a second visual that only goes to 2000m, but dialed in so it can possibly see a sub depending on speed at night at 2000, but if the sub is good, he can avoid detection til a much shorter range.

tater

Ducimus · 10-12-07, 09:18 PM

Truthfully, i dont send contact reports, so i could care less. I particualrly don't care to see allied planes taking way from MY tonnage

So to me, a rear blind spot isnt that big of a deal. But it would give the added bennfit for being able to trail something to send off a report. Regardless the whole visual sensor needs revamped. I honestly don't know why they went with just AI_visual accross the board...... AGAIN. Im pretty sure DTB got his concept on visual sensor implentation to the games developers, but for the life of me i dont know why they didnt do it. Too much work, too little time to do it in i guess. *shrug*.

tater · 10-12-07, 09:59 PM

Well, new visuals might at least allow night surface attacks.

Course once escorts get radar that seems moot anyway.

Maybe I should put a dumbed down (a little) AI_Visual on DDs, and add a new radar. The new radar would be very short ranged, and could pick up a surfaced sub, but not a scope. Then the sub at night can sneak in to ~1000 yards, at which point the "radar" can spot him. When better (type 21 or 22) radar comes along, it gets replaced since that radar would spot them anyway.

Kind of a weird take on the type 13 problem...

tater

Hitman · 10-13-07, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Actually, if this worked, there might be a new technique we could try. Make a long range (as long as appropriate for a ship like a DD to spot another large ship). Give it the worst possible sensitivity for that range to detect a ship at whatever range. Ideally, it would then be blind to a sub to some amingly close range. Say it sees a BB at 8km (assuming the max visual is 8km), but doesn't see a sub until 500m making flank, and won't ever spot a scope. Then add a second visual that only goes to 2000m, but dialed in so it can possibly see a sub depending on speed at night at 2000, but if the sub is good, he can avoid detection til a much shorter range.

tater

May I suggest you consider the heigth of the sensor? Since a submarine is not as high out of the water (When surfaced) as a medium/large size ship, you could simplify this all by setting a minimal heigth in the long and medium range sensor. That way, only large/medium ships would be see at long distance (Day or night) and subs would be spotted when really close :hmm:

10-12-07, 07:10 PM	#41
leovampire Eternal Patrol Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Waterbury, CT. USA Posts: 2,336 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	But if you make a contact report You might be given orders to attack or to leave it alone. It adds to the game. If you are told to attack it adds to the give list of missions and if you are succesfull you get extra renoun points for compleating it. __________________ AIR_BASE_NAV_MAP_MOD Reflections_on_the_Water

10-12-07, 06:45 PM	#31
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Well, if I cared about it (and I will at some point because as Baldrick says... "I have a cunning plan") I would simply make random groups of aircraft patrol (allied). They'll fly waypoints. When I add in the reason to have allied air patrols, then you'll see them. For your own safety, dive anyway tater

10-12-07, 06:46 PM	#32
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	In my tests so far, I have a somewhat reduced merchant visual and I can get within ~1000 yards without being detected at night. Never bothered to test during the day, i was more concerned with night surface attacks. tater

10-12-07, 06:47 PM	#33
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	@ leo Read it. Thanks for clarification, i didnt know that.

10-12-07, 06:50 PM	#34
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	It just occured to me, i wonder if a discussion, similar to this, is why NYGM had their merchant visual sensor, blind to their direct rear. If your trailing a target.... good news, you an report it, and in terms of game design, who honestly tries for shooting at the stern of a ship moving away form you and actually hit it?

10-12-07, 06:58 PM	#35
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Course a fleet boat would end-around a merchant convoy if he had more than 3 neurons. A task force, that's the target that you see, and can never hope to catch up to, or even close on much less end around. Those are the contacts that you'd report in RL.

10-12-07, 07:00 PM	#36
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Seriously, think about this for a minute. Lets say merchants are bind to the area directly behind them.In TM, given the map contacts mod, you woudlnt know this. Warships however are not blind. So youd have to trail directly behind the convoy, keeping profile on just the warships. Any move out of the aft quater makes you much more visible. So its easier, but not with impunity. Plus it requires some manuvering on your part. Nowfor the sake of argument, lets say your chasing 1 unescorted merchant. If he knows your there, he zig zags, so he can shoot back becuase his movemnt places you out of the blind area repeatidly. Plus, due to NSM, you can plug him all day from the rear, but if the shots arent below the waterline, it does nothing.

10-12-07, 07:06 PM	#38
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	No, it makes sense given the semi-bogus notion of reporting a group of merchants instead of attacking them in the first place. But why not go off tot he side, flank, end around, submerge and sink them, instead? Even the "fast convoys" I made in a few places can be end-arounded by all but S-boats, though it might take a while. Wonder why they chose 4500m, it really is a rediculous range. tater

10-12-07, 07:08 PM	#39
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Oddly enough, I have 4 visual sensors already built (counting stock) Actually, with my first mod, I have 2 in the regular dat, plus the new dat with 3... I can make as many as needed. tater

10-12-07, 07:09 PM	#40
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	>>But why not go off tot he side, flank, end around, submerge and sink them, instead? Im thinking in terms of getting a report off, not so much as attack. Allowing an approach from the rear, you can get your report off, and your really not in a good position to attack. At the least i think its feasible to implent this concept on task forces where you coudlnt catch them and end up in the rear anyway. edit: >>Wonder why they chose 4500m, it really is a rediculous range Stock Sh3, max visual distance was 6,000 meters. Since Sh4 is built upon SH3, this didnt get changed when they upped the max visual distance to 8,000 meters. An oversight i guess.

10-12-07, 08:59 PM	#42
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	The USN would have always told you to attack. If the contact is running away at 24 knots, being told to attack it will certainly result in mission failure, too. If I made sensors with a rear blind spot, I'd be inclined to make an identical version without the blind spot. Actually, is there anything that disallows 2 of the same type of sensor? Say you have AI_Visual (default) set to be a 360 small warship sensor for the DDs. AI_Visual_A is a Capital ship version with a wedge to the stern, but the range is rather a lot farther than the DDs have. Give the BBs BOTH. At the shorter DD range, they'd have 360 vision, but outside the DD range circle to their horizon they'd have a wedge open astern. Actually, if this worked, there might be a new technique we could try. Make a long range (as long as appropriate for a ship like a DD to spot another large ship). Give it the worst possible sensitivity for that range to detect a ship at whatever range. Ideally, it would then be blind to a sub to some amingly close range. Say it sees a BB at 8km (assuming the max visual is 8km), but doesn't see a sub until 500m making flank, and won't ever spot a scope. Then add a second visual that only goes to 2000m, but dialed in so it can possibly see a sub depending on speed at night at 2000, but if the sub is good, he can avoid detection til a much shorter range. tater

10-12-07, 09:18 PM	#43
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Truthfully, i dont send contact reports, so i could care less. I particualrly don't care to see allied planes taking way from MY tonnage So to me, a rear blind spot isnt that big of a deal. But it would give the added bennfit for being able to trail something to send off a report. Regardless the whole visual sensor needs revamped. I honestly don't know why they went with just AI_visual accross the board...... AGAIN. Im pretty sure DTB got his concept on visual sensor implentation to the games developers, but for the life of me i dont know why they didnt do it. Too much work, too little time to do it in i guess. shrug.

10-12-07, 09:59 PM	#44
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Well, new visuals might at least allow night surface attacks. Course once escorts get radar that seems moot anyway. Maybe I should put a dumbed down (a little) AI_Visual on DDs, and add a new radar. The new radar would be very short ranged, and could pick up a surfaced sub, but not a scope. Then the sub at night can sneak in to ~1000 yards, at which point the "radar" can spot him. When better (type 21 or 22) radar comes along, it gets replaced since that radar would spot them anyway. Kind of a weird take on the type 13 problem... tater