P-3 vs Sub match feedback

[Molon Labe]

Okay, we've had two battles so far so I should be able to get some feedback from you guys to see if you're OK with the setup.

After watching both replays, detections seemed a bit quick overall, especially considering that the SW is nearly undetectable passively in this mod. I think the Op Area will be bigger next time around.

Another idea I'm kicking around is making the transit a necessary objective for success. The way I'd do this is have the sub entering the hex instead of being in the middle of it. In order to successfully take the hex, the transit must be completed.

What do you guys think? Is the goal line system working OK?

[OneShot]

Well, in a battle P3 vs sub the goal lines make the job to easy, especially with this constricted Area of Operations. All you have to do is lay down a couple of buoys active/passive and wait for the sub to run into them. The detections are pretty quick because even tho the Mod reduces the MAD range and thus allows the sub to escape at least one of the sensors, the buoys are still to powerfull without the benefit of a layer. So it comes basically down to how much time the P3 needs till it detects the sub ... not if it detects it at all.

Unfortunatly I dont have a solution for this problem yet, given the constraints. If however we can switch to the 1.03 Patch, the playing field will be leveled and the outcome of such a match wouldnt be determined anymore.

Just my :2ct:

[LuftWolf]

This is the report I sent to Furia:


Furia,

Well, basically my report is simple: dropped a line of DICASS buoys directly
in front of me, he had me on active within 15 minutes of the game starting,
then he dropped two more DICASS behind me and one directly in front of me,
then put two TIW, one active and one passive. I dodged the active and while
maneovering around a seamount, I hit a ridge at 33kts and died... although
even if I didn't mess up this was pretty much a turkey shoot.

I think we need to evalutate sending subs into areas where we have no
aircover or friendly surface assets around; the game was over before Oneshot
in his p-3 was even able to get close to the operations area. Also, the op
area was so small, he basically told tlam where I was. It should have been
at least 2-4 times bigger, unless of course the Tyrians had very precise
intel. But they had me narrowed down to a circle of about 10nm diameter or
so, its a big ocean... :-\

So, sorry for getting sunk. But I think we have learned some lessons... now
what are we going to do about rescuing me and getting a new sub? LOL ;-)

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Here are some other comments I had:


LuftWolf (10:32 AM) :

I was doing some thinking last night... I think any future mpa vs sub matches should be in operations areas at least 2-4 times bigger than the op area for the last mission

LuftWolf (10:32 AM) :

you basically told him where I was... a space that size can easily be covered in sonobuoys by a p-3

LuftWolf (10:33 AM) :

its a big ocean, and I don't see why we have to fight in such small spaces... in conventional missions you want to have a kill as a result, but in this circumstance I'd design to the mission so a kill was unlikely

LuftWolf (10:33 AM) :

since its a campaign

LuftWolf (10:33 AM) :

its ok for nothing to happen

LuftWolf (10:34 AM) :

unless you can credit the other fleet with some very specific intel, I think searches should be over MUCH larger areas

LuftWolf (10:34 AM) :

I had basically no chance to survive that... oh well, the plot thickens :biggrin:

[TLAM Strike]

Yes a larger area would be better (I trained for this mission using a 100 Nmi wide area of search) twice as big as before would be good. I did like the three starting lines/three goal lines idea.


BTW I didn't check in game ML but did you decrease the P-3's fuel? Might be a good idea to reduce the fuel by 50% (or whatever was used up to that point) and have a 'Bingo' fuel level (be generous they probably have a 'time of war reserve' ala THFRO "Lets see if this thing runs on fumes...") It might force the P-3 to fly at lower speed, maybe even feather the #1 engine. :2ct:


Right when I was getting ready to take a 3rd shot at LW EW detected a P-3 Radar painting the area. Oh well I guess OS got to see a good show... :wink:

[LuftWolf]

Right when I was getting ready to take a 3rd shot at LW EW detected a P-3 Radar painting the area. Oh well I guess OS got to see a good show...

He was there to detect my distress call. :cool: :smile:

[Molon Labe]

Since people have got me thinking about this again, I've thought of a few ways in which the P-3s power can be limited. This goes beyond the scope of how the matches are set up, so it's a little OT, but it fits well enough that I don't want to start a new thread.


1. Match setup
1a. I agree with the consensus here that the search area needs to be significantly larger
1b. To allow for a larger search area while still having a clearly defined "goal line" of some sort, I propose a system of dynamic spawns, each of which has an associated destination goal at the exact location of the spawn. The size of the destination goal will be the required transit distance for the sub's transit to be considered successful. What size is that? Depends on match time, but I'd estimate something like 20-30 miles. Enough to force the sub to maintain a transit speed, and probably also enough to force a Kilo to transit on the surface in the case that its batteries are not fully charged. The duration of the goal will be set to match the mission time. Thus, if the goal is "accomplished," the sub has in fact failed its transit objective. The result is that the sub player knows how far, and in what general direction, he/she must transit to successfully occupy that space in the combat phase. The Orion pilot, however, does not know where the target sub began or where it will end, because the "goal line" is unseen.

2. Detection Rule
P-3s were considered to automatically detect a sub in a hex in which it performed an ASW search. This could be changed to a chance of detection rule. The chance would vary based on the sub type and whether it was patrolling or transiting at the time, and might even vary based on environmental conditions (time of day-->presence of layer/CZ, littorals, etc.) A P-3 could increase its chances by expending multiple ASW searches in the same hex (it would get to roll twice for detection, for example).

3. Mobility restrictions
The current GDT rules already restrict the mobility of the P-3 to a less than realistic range (a "nerf" for gameplay purposes), but there may be a better way to do it. Instead of artificially reducing its range, a P-3s may be disallowed access into spaces on account of fighter cover. A simple way to accomplish this would be to assume that friendly controlled airports possess fighter squadrons, which can effectively patrol a radius around the airport. Enemy P-3s would not be allowed to enter this airspace. In the case where the areas covered by one airport conflict with the area covered by another, the area would be divided into 3 zones: Two side-controlled zones where only that side's P-3s are allowed to operate, and a contested area in the middle where neither side's P-3s are allowed. This could be made more complicated if desired, where the sides have a certain amount of airpower to "bid" for a contested space; the high bid wins. The low bidder might even lose airpower for the next turn. This system would also provide a good reason to include aircraft carriers, which would become mobile airports which can be used to create valid P-3 operating zones in forward areas and/or deny access to enemy P-3s in turf that would otherwise be theirs.

Also, the establishment of controlled airspace over an enemy base could result in a force multiplier being given to invading forces (abstracting CAS missions) and base facilities could be degraded (abstracting strike missions).

[OneShot]

Some interesting ideas in there ... the only "problem" I see here is that the effort to control everything and set it up properly while following all the rules is increasing at an alarming rate which in turn would mean that you need more manpower (or somebody with a whole lot of time on his hands) to manage something like a GDT2 (using the advanced rules).

Dont get me wrong, I think everything mentioned here as well as in the other thread is clearly heading in the right direction and sounds quite intriguing but we do have to find ways to lower the workload for the admin of such a campaign (or whatever it may be called).

@ML : Can you send me a few of your existing rules and stuff, for example for the movement/mobility calculation and I try and come up with some tool or other (Excel sheets or I code a tool in C#) ... it'll be worth a try ...

[Molon Labe]

Of the solutions above, only the airspace-control method is administratively intensive--and it is only that way if a "bid" system is used to determine contested airspace.

Let me just post a copy of the old rulebook for you...