@ Molon, Furia, OS, Soundken [Archive] - Commanders Academy & Dive Center

Furia

04-18-2007, 02:38 AM

Hi Subbs.
I already posted my oppinion on the other thread.
Since I am bvasically only playing ASW from surface or air unit I have to base my oppinion on how this map is seen from them.
As I told before I really do not like the ROE thing specially in this sittuation where you have an Akula and a Kilo, both outgunning a single FFG and a handicaped 866i (recently submerged and on very shallow waters)

You have thought the map to be played on one way and that way is nice, however it have big holes that can be exploited by the russian subs and win the match easily.

I tell you what I would do if I would be the Russians and I know about this ROE.
The Kilo will go active with Radar to locate the surfaced Los Angeles and the FFG while Akula will go to flank to close on the Los Angeles.
I do not mind being detected by the FFG.
I just close on the Los Angeles as fast as possible. if she submerges I go full Active sonnar. I get near the Los Angeles, lest say 1000 yards and I fire a salvo of torpedoes at her , she will be still on shallow waters so no much maneuvering. If the helo is near I fire on him and I also send 4 or 5 skimmers to the FFG.
Game over.

I know this was not your idea, but nobody can prevent russian players to play that way while the US ones have simply nothing to do.

I suggest you find a way around this such changing the ROE if the russian submarines are within lets say 12 NM from the coast or if they are detected 8 NM from the Los Angeles. Maybe if the west can identify 100% the russian platform including the type then the ROE can change due Intel update.......Well just some ideas

Also Please make sure that all the US knows where the Los Angeles is going, since the last match we played not even the 688i knew where to go.

Sorry for being critic because I think all scenery work deserves praise and recognicement since allow us to have fun with it, but sincerely in the actual sittuation and scenario I would not volunteer to take any of the US side platforms again.

subb

04-18-2007, 07:56 AM

real quick:

who was driving the kilo and akula in the session? I would like to hear their side of the story. I'll look in the the old thread and maybe my answers lie there.

also I'll post a response later on, I just dont have the time to really get into it at this moment.

I tweaked the 688 to prevent spawning aground, EDIT: but your reason still does / doesn't makes sense(more later), especially for AI controlled 688. So we'll definately look into that.

and by all means be a critic furia, that's why we are bringing this up. :) fire away :D

MaHuJa

04-18-2007, 08:25 AM

1) If the 688 starts submerged, the radar is a no-go. I think it does already.
If not, the 688 can be taken down as the game starts, and be under the waves before the kilo can show up.
Note that this early detection is a cornerstone of your issue; if they don't find the 688 they've given away the location of one of their assets for a very low return.
2) The helo will have a good fix on the kilo, and perhaps other weaponry can be allocated towards its position as well. And the akula approach you described isn't exactly covert; they will have an opposed firing solution, such that they are likely to sink the akula too. Who's left to get outside the safety line? At least one of the subs must make it back outside for it to be considered a win.
3) In the described approach, the 688 can go evasive on him. In order to track the 688, even by active sonar, the akula must stay at low speeds, or at least slow down often. If the 688 decides to run, the akula will be very hard pressed to close up enough.
4) Last I checked, russian sub active sonar was a no-go. I don't remember if LW ever got anything done about that.

For these reasons i think that is not an issue.

Molon Labe

04-18-2007, 09:04 AM

Furia

04-18-2007, 09:16 AM

I have not driven a Russian sub for a long time, lol I think since Sub Command. :tongue: I just love the FFG:cool:
I cannot tell you how the active is currently modelled on Russian Subs under 1.04 and LW Mod, however my point is that the fact that US Navy is weapons hold until the Russians do not put a fish on the water makes the sittuation for the US Forces very complicated.
Be sure that the knowing this the Russians will not place a torp on the water until they have a perfect firing solution.
As for the FFG and the Helo, the AI helos are piece of cake for human Sub skippers, specially when you can just surface and take pictures on him because he is weapons hold. He cannot fire until you do and by that time the helo is down.
The FFG only chance against an AKula is to engage it with the helo while that Akula is away and deep.
On a normal sittuation at short range an Akula can kill an FFG at pleasure.
The FFG torps take ages to get ready for a firing solution, and they have a very short range compared with the Akula ones not to mention the missiles.

Well, this is my oppinion as skimmer. This scenario is really not winnable for the West if the Russian subs are manned by average skilled players, not too mention very skilled players like Oneshot or Molon Labe.

All your planning goes into that the Russian Subs will be stealthy waiting for the Los Angeles and if that would be the case maybe and only maybe with an extremely skilled guy on the 688i the West could win, but for this the FFG better stay away from the operations area.
If the Russian Subs go offensive from minute one, they will win because US is weapons hold until they fire, and they will fire until they have a solid foolproof firing solution. They can even coordinate the attack on the 3 US platforms at same time.
What do you suggest it can be done to prevent that?

Molon Labe

04-18-2007, 10:30 AM

I'd like to briefly address a few points:

1. ROE. I don't have any problem with scenarios that start at peacetime ROE. If the attacking side has achieved strategic surprise, then it makes perfect sense that the defending side will be at peacetime ROE and the attacking side will have an opportunity to exploit it. This is simply a reality of modern conflict that deserves to be reflected in DW.

2. Balance. It doesn't make much sense to call the scenario unwinnable for the US side, when the US did in fact win the scenario when it was played (in spite of having experienced players like myself and Oneshot playing for the Ruskies).

It also doesn't make much sense to say that the ROE creates an unbalanced tactical situation--such that the Russians can ambush the US without the US being able to respond--when in our game, it was the US that had detected the Russians, while the Russians never had detected the 688, much less had a firing solution. Even if you guys do decide to task the 688I to deploy instead of allowing it to camp, the tactical situation the ROE would likely cause is that of a standoff--where both sides have detected each other and are ready to fire--not an ambush where only one side can make a move. I'm at a total loss to understand how the Russian side can detect the 688I without being counterdetected, especially since the 688I is quieter and has superior sonar. Even if the 688I didn't camp, it is still going to hear the Akula/Kilo before the Akula/Kilo hears it. And the 688I gets to camp if it wants, while the Ruskies have to patrol a rather large area with poor acoustic conditions. The only way the Russians get an ambush is if the US side completely blows it, and then they deserve everything bad that happens.

3. Unrealistic tactics. I think concerns about over-aggressive tactics are misplaced. For one thing, there are asshole players out there who will be assholes no matter what the designer does. The designer should design missions for the people who play the game well, not the doom kiddies. Also, since the US side has a substantial amount of firepower it can bring to bear rapidly, especially with a playable helo around, the scenario already has a built-in incentive for the Russians to use stealth tactics instead of crazy-aggressive tactics. Speaking for myself, even knowing as I do now that the US is at peacetime ROE, I would not change my opening because being detected would make it both harder to complete the objective (the 688I can avoid me if they know where I am--it's quieter and has a higher tactical speed) and harder to survive if I was able to complete it.

subb

04-18-2007, 09:26 PM

@ Furia

We made ROE to simulate a sense of realism. We also tried to make this map as realistic as possible given the scenario. This doesn’t sound like an issue, instead more like personal distaste with a feature of the map. That can’t be helped.

Reading further into your posts I still can’t indicate any additional sign of an exploit, but rather, tactical decisions you would possibly make given a scenario and possible situations to be in. For example, coordinated attacks are very possible, and have happened in MP before, both in favor of the each side, and in favor of no one, meaning the 688 was destroyed but RU didn’t make it out alive.

“What do you suggest it can be done to prevent that?”

Coordinated attacks can be thwarted with a strong US defense, but depending on how attentive and diligent everyone is. The helo and FFG can set up a pretty good defense to try and drive RU away, slow the approach or divert it’s projected course, while in the same time recommending course changes to the 688 driver.

Ya know, I really need to find these AARs because the initial plan was to include publication of them at time of map release, and in reviewing them you will read 1st hand what this map design has to offer from all possible aspects.

It was pretty much made clear why RU radar emissions is also a non-issue with the human 688 at spawn, pretty much verbatim from last thread. However, it could be an issue with the AI 688 since the AI 688 doesn’t do depth change at spawn but instead sometime farther out from coast. That will definitely be fixed.

Although bad in some areas, all it not lost in acoustic conditions, as they tend to improve farther out from coast, but use of active sonar is a tactical decision to be made by the driver. Considering the playing area, random spawn of both neutrals, bios, the FFG and 688, I find it hard to believe that use of active sonar or radar vs. a human 688 could reveal the exact location each and every time the map was loaded.

I would like to re-emphasize point 3 made by Molon. I couldn’t agree with him more on that. And it was designed to reflect possible real world conditions, for those who really take it seriously, attempt to get their job done, and come home in one piece. If all of the planning, strategy and teamwork required going into your mission and coming out alive or assisting someone in doing so isn’t enough or doesn’t pull something out of you in the process, then I don’t know what is and I don’t know what will. ‘Doom kiddies’ along with skill and tactics associated on that level, will only find their experience to possibly be a short-lived one.

As stated before this map isn’t suitable for everyone, and I think for this reason it needs to be made known immediately and up-front so the driver won’t waste any of his/her time. For this reason I feel the map needs a brief disclaimer along with it as well. I was under the impression that the readme.txt, suggesting reviewing the features list before playing, would pretty much weed out those who aren’t so serious. Maybe that isn’t enough.

Anything else you guys come up with, feel free… and thanks again.

But at the going rate, this is what I gathered:

1.. address 688 tasking and ‘dive point’ issue

2.. fix AI 688 spawn depth to spawn below surface

3.. Add disclaimer to readme.txt, mission description

Furia

04-19-2007, 11:31 AM

Furia

04-19-2007, 11:55 AM

Molon Labe

04-19-2007, 02:29 PM

@Furia:
I meant to quote you...but i hit the edit button on you and messed up your post... sorry. :eek::gdamnit:

Anyways, here is what I was trying to say in response to what the US should do if the Akula's tactic is to do a careless sprint-search:

688I ordered to avoid the area the Akula is operating in. 688I instructed to move at high speed while the Akula is above 6 knots.

FFG ordered to close within 5nm and maintain DEMON and active contact

Helo ordered to close to no closer than 3nm and be prepared to drop on the side of the Akula opposite the FFG.
---checkmate---

Outcomes:
1. 688I avoids the Russian subs. Russians lose.
2. 688I gets unlucky and runs into the Kilo. To die, the 688I must actually come within about 4nm to the Kilo--an unlikely outcome. Russians win.
3. Akula finds the 688I and engages. 688I dies, but Akula is killed by torps fired from the FFG SVTT and from the helo on the other side. Russians lose (unless the Kilo gets away...whatever...the akula still died).

Given these odds, it makes little sense to allow yourself to be detected before you have to.
I'd be much more concerned about how the Russians can prevent ending up in this position since they will not find the 688I without being counterdetected... if the FFG is close to the 688I, this won't take long to set up.

Furia

04-19-2007, 03:11 PM

Hi Molon.
As I have been sunk by your torps many times I have a great respect for your skill as sub driver so I will not question your statements about detction ranges between subs.
However regarding the Akula being killed by the FFG, hehe well I find this very unlikely for several reasons.

First the Akula is the one who decide when the ball starts. that is nobody fires until the Akula does. The FFG Torpedo firing system is not like the subs ones, no wired torps and no real snapshot, basically you have to upgrade the firing solution all the time and for this you need about 1 or 2 long minutes.
So by the time the Akula decides to start the ball, she fires 3 torps to the 688i and 3 to the FFG and haul ass at 32+ knots.
Since the TIW the FFG needs 1 minute to drop a fish (AI FFG is faster but not the human one) since you mentioned a range about 5 NM that is 6 minutes for a torp going at 50 knots.
If the Akula escapes at 32 knots if the initial distance between the Akula and the FFG was 5 NM, if you need 1 minute to fire plus 6 minutes of torpedo run the Akula be by then 8,7 NM away from the FFG, that is outside the FFG torpedoes range.
About the helo, well if the helo is AI I have not much hopes about it. If humman maned and by a very patient pilot that really stays away from the Akula like 3 to 4 NM, maybe it can do something, but having seen how you guys evade torps and use countermeasures I would say we have 50% chances.

FFG and helos fight on a different way and I see that you subbies think on a different way.
Of course I am not going to discuss here my tactics, lol I have enough to try to stay afloat with the extremely handicaped FFG in DW but surely I would not face a combat the way you described.
Actually Molon this was exactly how it was when you killed me the other day. I was about 3 to 4 NM from you. I knew your possition and so did the helo. But you killed us both and neither Ken and I are noobies.
We simply had no other way to face the mission but we knew we were doomed.

Maybe we can play it one day you on the FFG and me on the Akula :you_rock: so you guys can demostrate those nice tactics :tongue:

Molon Labe

04-19-2007, 03:19 PM

The FFG and helo need to be updating their solutions constantly for this to work. It will be a tense time. But, with a valid solution, the FFG only needs to go to the torp station and order the shot... 15 sec or so later, the weapon will be away. What the FFG really needs to be worried about is a Shkval salvo--in that case, you might not have time.

The Akula should not be able to escape torps coming in from two sides, though. I'm expecting that the FFG fires 2 torps in a spread and that the helo drops one directly on, and then follows it up when the evasion course is run.

If you think this posture isn't offensive enough, you can bring the helo in to 1nm of the sub. The helo keeps his finger on the Penguin trigger. If the sub surfaces, he gets the Penguin and maybe an SM-2 from the FFG. If he doesn't, gets one-shotted by the Helo after he takes the shot at the 688I.

Edit: I was about 10nm away from you when I killed you. Your solution was way off, and it took Soundken several minutes to find me. Had you been within 5nm, you would have been able to respond, but you allowed me to move away. And don't forget that I never found the 688...

MaHuJa

04-19-2007, 06:02 PM

Consider the power a helo has in this situation without ROE: It can cover large areas with buoys, detect the enemy subs... and ambush them completely out of hand. There are three countermeasures to this.

One is the "helohunter"; if we could avoid forcing players to use this "tactic" all the better.
Two is increasing the size of the mission area. This would extend the mission time beyond what it is now, which can be said to stretch the limits of what is acceptable playing time.
The third option we found was ROE. Taking the initiative away from the helo.

Even so, when the enemy subs are detected, the 688 will pretty much know where not to go - conversely, where to go. And win without ever firing a shot.

Furia, here's what will happen in the use of your "tactic":
As it runs on flank, the akula will be detected if the US does its job.
The 688 then runs at flank away from where the akula is. The goal is to stay at least 10nm away - and I think this is quite achievable, esp when the location and course of the akula is known to the us, but not the opposite.

In these sonar conditions, subs are deaf to anything outside ~10nm even if it cavitates.

The russian active sonars are, by my experience, pretty useless except as beacons. Even more so if the 688 doesn't show its broad side. Do you think, that when the akulas position is known, the 688 actually will show its broadside?

Ergo, the akula will never locate the 688 with this tactic. That is, except by a great amount of luck. (And the whole point of a strategy/tactic is to minimize the amount of luck needed.)

Ps1: Did you ever try to shoot down a helo that consistently put flares between your sub and itself?

Ps2: The FFG does take considerable time to get a torpedo into the water - first you enter the firing solution data, press the 'ready' button, and wait a good while for the launch button to lit up. (unless the quick weapons 'cheat' is on) For this reason I usually have snapshots set up in a spread pattern so I can just hit a few launch buttons when the need arises. That takes a few seconds.

subb

04-19-2007, 11:16 PM

Maybe a fix for this could be that you consider the use of active sonar by the Russian Subs as an offensive act and that this changed the ROE.
They still can make fast runs and stops to scan the whole ocean unopposed but at least they will have it harder to find the 688i.
If I am not wrong the use of active sonar can be considered an hostile act in real world as much as opening the tubes.
Just an idea.

I’d say the deployment of any weapon is clear enough evidence that intentions are definitely hostile. More so when they come within proximity of ownship, by all means, fire back!!! Tubes opening could be a play on politics where actual intentions are still unknown but could be hostile. I wouldn’t think active sonar would be considered a hostile act because still a weapon wasn’t deployed, and intentions are still unclear, only now he has drawn attention to himself and more than likely his mission has been compromised. I wish tubes opening could be detected.

I wonder if there is way that can be done in editing. I think I can do it in human vs AI platforms, even hull popping and report the bearing of the source, but not in human vs human.

Molon Labe

04-20-2007, 02:04 AM

It can be done....

Doctrine language...detect Akula/Kilo with sensor Active Intercept.

Furia

04-20-2007, 02:25 AM

Molon. I would like you to explain us how you can
FFG ordered to close within 5nm and maintain DEMON and active contact with the FFG?
Had no clue the FFG had such DEMON system :eek:

About firing the torps in 15 seconds as Mahuja said if we are not using auntocrew for the torps wich I do not use neither the quick weaposn shoot, the only chance is to get a manual solution updated constantly and hoping the tartget does not change much his bearing on you.
Anyway to fire the torps you have to press the ready button and wait at least one minute, at least on my sim. Of course if you want to be precise you cannot move much on speed or headingduring that readying time because your solution go to the trash. so there you are with 3 toprs incoming and you sitting there broadside awaiting 1 minute for firing a torpedo.

What mahuja said can be useful for forcing the sub to break the wires and run just in case, but as I said the sub can nicely outrun your torps if she is at the proper distance. Distance she can carefully select because she is the one that decides when and where the shooting starts.

Mahuja about the Akula going flank and the 688i as well you have forgoten that there is a silent kilo listening and sonner or later he will hear the 688i at flank and help the Akula to narrow on him.

Ok gents I suggest we play this match this way.
Molon on the FFG
Mahuja on the 688
Subbs on the Helo

And me on the Akula with another player on the Kilo.
Then you can demostrate your theory :cool:

Molon Labe

04-20-2007, 07:40 AM

Molon. I would like you to explain us how you can
Quote:
FFG ordered to close within 5nm and maintain DEMON and active contact
with the FFG?
Had no clue the FFG had such DEMON system
ROFLMAO! SCS Dangerous Waters, 7-41 - 7-42.

Anyway to fire the torps you have to press the ready button and wait at least one minute, at least on my sim. Of course if you want to be precise you cannot move much on speed or headingduring that readying time because your solution go to the trash. so there you are with 3 toprs incoming and you sitting there broadside awaiting 1 minute for firing a torpedo.
Looks like you're closer. I just timed the whole cycle at 44 seconds.

What mahuja said can be useful for forcing the sub to break the wires and run just in case, but as I said the sub can nicely outrun your torps if she is at the proper distance. Distance she can carefully select because she is the one that decides when and where the shooting starts.
The sub isn't outrunning shit if the torps are coming from both sides. It's also not outrunning shit if its on the surface shooting at the helo, and if it's not shooting at the helo its getting one dropped on its head.

Mahuja about the Akula going flank and the 688i as well you have forgoten that there is a silent kilo listening and sonner or later he will hear the 688i at flank and help the Akula to narrow on him.
In these conditions, the Kilo is not going to hear the 688I unless the 688I runs it over. The risk is negligible. And even if the Kilo does find it, it won't do the Akula any good. Any torps fired will be outrun unless the Akula was already within about 8nm. Any missiles fired will be shot down. As I've already stated, the Kilo can't kill the 688I itself unless it gets within about 4nm. It's a big map, so that's not very likely at all.

Ok gents I suggest we play this match this way.
Molon on the FFG
Mahuja on the 688
Subbs on the Helo

And me on the Akula with another player on the Kilo.
Then you can demostrate your theory
There's no point in us playing like dickheads. See 3 (http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10195&postcount=7). It's enough for me to know that using that tactic decreases the chance of success.

subb

04-20-2007, 08:10 AM

@ furia

It’s a date!! Also it looks like we came up with a fix for those issues you all found plus we found and resolved others we overlooked. All I need to do now is code it in. And before new version release we want to run a test with the fixes in place. It should be ok. Under the conditions you specify it’s a good test for all of us. :smile:

EDIT: oh i didn't read molons post yet, but I know what was meant by '3'. Heavy emphasis on 3, remember the audience this map is made for. You guys don't strike me as doom kiddies.

@ molon

I’m sorry I should have been more specific; I was referring to detection of tubes opening. I figure it could be done when ROE changes to wartime on enemy AI platforms and use of the report bearing script would ‘simulate’ detection of doors opening for the human.

Furia

04-20-2007, 10:02 AM

ROFLMAO! SCS Dangerous Waters, 7-41 - 7-42.

Hehe, yes I know there is a DEMON Capability to determine the contact speed :tongue: Maybe I expresed myself wrong because what I understood is that you were suggesting keeping a contact with a system called DEMON and the way I knew the DEMON on the FFG just processes Towed Array Contacts and just determine speed so basically what you should have said was keeping Towed Array and Active Contact.
Hehe but it is right I did not expresed myself quite clear either.

About what is realistic or no, if the Kilo would hear or not if the FFG player would be like Billy the Kid and drop Flares, Countermeasures, SM-2, deliver a salvo of 3 torpedoes and keep Demon ,active and TMA tracking all in 15 seconds, well I do surely do not fit on the super skipper profile so I declare myself unable to do so, thus my chances of survival must not be as good as you think.

Anyway as you wisely say all this is kind of unrealistic, my tactic proposal as the scenario.
For me the way it is now is not interesting as average skill FFG skipper, be realistic or not.
I had played once and I do not feel this is an scenario I would like to play as FFG, 688i or helo.

Molon Labe

04-20-2007, 10:42 AM

If you want to turn this around I'd be happy to take either the 688I or the helo. I'm not interested in testing how the match would turn out as a result of douchebaggery, though.

subb

04-20-2007, 08:26 PM

ok
tell me what will you do at this scenario.
You drive the FFG and I drive the Akula. At game start I make flank towards the coast.
Lets imagine the LA submerges, so no radar contact.

You detect me with the Helo. I do not mind I keep at flank.
I pass the FFG and get closer to the general start area of the LA. Waters are not very deep so no layers to hide.
Once I get near the coast I start making spings and stop and do an Active sonar search. All the time I have your helo on my head but I could not care less.
If the 688i is very slow to avoid detection I will find him with the active sonar at one moment or another. Making spring and dash runs at 32 knots allow me to cover a lot of space and the active sonnar even if not very good, would be enough.
On the other hand if the 688i goes fast, it will make noise and either the Akula when slowing down or the Kilo making a slow approach will sniff him. No matter what with an agressive tactic I am sure I can find the 688i.

Actually if the 688i play hide, it will never reach that dive point in time if I really make a fast dash with the AKULA to get close to the start area.
On the meantime, your helo and FFG can do nothing, just watch.

Once I find the 688i, I nicely get into his baffles and tell my buddy on the Kilo about his possition.

Now I can decide when to attack, which sub fires on what and how.
If your helo is near he will get the first SAM even before I put one of the 6 torpedoes on the water. If the FFG is father than 7 NM her torps are harmless to me, but if she is near of 15 NM she will have to fight for her life.

I seriously doubt that using aggressive tactics will make things easier in finding the 688. A novice driver probably would shoot back and forget why he is driving the 688 in the 1st place, mistaking it for death match. Average driver would probably think twice and stay focused on the mission. At any rate, you have given away intelligence about your location. Also remember that if you do destroy the 688, either one of you will have to make it out alive to complete your objective, unlike deathmatch and majority of other mission objective scenarios I've played.

We also have to get out of this ‘linear’ thought process of IF….THEN cases. This map is a non-linear design and there is just too much that EDIT: can and / or can't happen between moments of by the second, by the minute and/or by the hour.

Here’s my perspective of the 688 w FFG and helo escort vs your aggressive tactics:

Now let’s assume that US forces now know where to go since that will be fixed.

You really can’t say the 688 is sitting still somewhere because the 688 has a deadline to meet, and is mobile and in route.

As commander of the USS Albany, I have an agenda to keep and a time schedule to meet, and in route to destination point, relying on personal skill set as well as teamwork to stay abreast of the situation, attempt to counter any form of tactics used in locating my ship and attempt to reach my destination on time and unharmed.

The taskforce is there to help her reach her destination, and are expendable. The clock is basically ticking for both sides. As soon as you are detected(the sooner the better), I would basically know about it in real-time. A short amount of time passes while they are tracking you, i then have a projected course of your attack run then i start making my maneuvers. 50% chance i will or will not run into the kilo unless the helo or ffg drops enough buoys to monitor you and then finds the kilo. WIth the kilo found I now have a plan of escape. and there is a very good chance you or the kilo won't find her at that point.

Considering I’m aware of sprint tactics I’ve learned in experience how to use that to my benefit, and make it contribute to evasion of the akula, especially at flank speeds. However, I couldn’t say the same in a DM situation, there really isn’t a strategic benefit to be had under those conditions other than close distance -> TMA on you at 32 kts & ‘I guess I’ll shoot 1st’. Even if we lost the helo and ffg, the intelligence you have provided is just enough for the 688 driver to work with and try to avoid being found by the akula.

@ molon

I need you in the 688 anyways, at least long enough to receive the radio tasking. Wasn't it you that pointed that out? I need to know if you will be a happy customer or not(as soon as I code in the fixes) I won’t mind taking the helo or trying my hand in the ffg either.

subb

04-20-2007, 08:26 PM

i guess I'll get to work (loads DW editor)

Molon Labe

04-20-2007, 08:51 PM

My gripe was that there was no specific tasking for the 688I...just that it had to be "somewhere" in 4 hours. I didn't have any technical issues with comms, if that's what you mean.

soundken

04-22-2007, 04:38 AM

Briefings:biggrin: a little backstory regarding what situation things are in might go a long way in sorting out the ROE issue why do the russians wanna sink this sub are they willing to risk a international incedent or no, this was a big cotributor to the 688 camping issue ,also the grim reality of yes you will only travel 9 nm in 3 hours time at 3 knots , and me not being sure of the ROE, and i playtested this mission twice for 2 hours each time previous) im sure thre was somthing in the readme but this stuff needs to be on the briefing screens

going back to my disqualified sub issue, and yes i realize that subs dont just get discoverd and wave there arms and go oh thats it im going home now, however its a much bigger deal if the russian subs have to acomplish this undetected ,ie in a clandestine manuver where the 688 has some test equipment that could damge the russians polliticaly in which case an identified sub could have to retreat instead of causing a biger issue read WW3, or as an act of open warfare which would be the start of a major millitary response possibly nuclear , and then if possible a 100% positive id could change the roe, im not sure if theres a trigger for that im kinda curious myself.

Im also curious what the most realistic ROE conditions are for a identified submarine and under what conditions i did some poking around on the internet but couldnt come up with much, however the do not fire until fired upon rule always seems to be more hollywood than anything. other scenarios in DW hint at a blast them with active sonar until they are "forced to surface" however that doesnt seem plausible either. however letting them close to fatal distance of surface assets in mexican territorial waters also seems very unplausable

i wonder however would this mission be any diffrent if it was under wartime ROE ans apossed to peactime the objectives remain the same the 688 has to get away the red subs have to sink her. it almost seems like your trying to force a sub vs sub engagment before air and surface units come into effect in which case mabey you should move the subs closer together and distance the other units a lil more possibly the 688 could have to come to coms depth to radio that its been attacked

also i needs to be clear early on to where or what general vicinity the 688 has to get to this can still be dynamic i usuaaly acomplish this by putting a line on the map and making a trigger with a really big radius where the outside edge touches the line giving the retreating unit many miles at which to reach its escape

other than that i think its a good mission just the way it is and enjoyed playing it one of the things i enjoy most has got to be that molon had no idea where the 688 was while furia and i are arguing over who is going to go on a suicide mission because "if he(molon) gets any closer he;ll have him(688) for sure and he's driving straight at him"

these are just my random thoughts since you addressed this post to me its nice to see people out there making missons and this is one of the better ones ive played so thanks for your hard work:2ct:

subb

04-22-2007, 12:36 PM

@ Soundken

“a little backstory regarding what situation things are in might go a long way in sorting out the ROE issue why do the russians wanna sink this sub are they willing to risk a international incedent or no”

We have to be careful here. If this was a SP map, then of course I can cook something up as to why this is a target of interest. The same concern was expressed at subsim.com Instead the scenario is much simplified by just giving you want you need to know to get the job done. Also be mindful of what ‘scenario’ means. To me its one of many possible situations to be in, subject to the designer.

“and me not being sure of the ROE, and i playtested this mission twice for 2 hours each time previous) im sure thre was somthing in the readme but this stuff needs to be on the briefing screens”

ROE conditions are specified in tasking… I have to ask if you read the tasking.. it’s in there. I should say radio tasking received in spawn, not breifing when you can select platforms. We did that on purpose for a reason.

“Im also curious what the most realistic ROE conditions are for a identified submarine and under what conditions i did some poking around on the internet but couldnt come up with much, however the do not fire until fired upon rule always seems to be more hollywood than anything. other scenarios in DW hint at a blast them with active sonar until they are "forced to surface" however that doesnt seem plausible either. however letting them close to fatal distance of surface assets in mexican territorial waters also seems very unplausable”

I can think of one reason why to be weapons hold for a Los Angeles attack submarine leaving port, and that is to not compromise it’s mission prematurely. Our goal was to make this scenario to reflect possible real world conditions, and for that reason ROE made sense. Otherwise, Imagine the state of the world if all opposing military forces were tasked at weapons free. There is nothing trivial about it, and we didn’t put it in there to be a ‘bug’ or a hang up or to sway the tactical advantage. It simply made sense.

Everyone is aware of the mission tasking, it was pretty much made clear the role they are fulfilling (hopefully you were aware of that) and its assumed everyone on the US side knows where they are going since that has been fixed, so allowing RU to get close to fatal distance says something went wrong on the US side in terms of planning and teamwork, or RU maintained the element of surprise long enough to be in a position to bag the 688. There was no reason why I chose mexican waters other than the purpose it served for the mission I had in mind. I would have reconsidered changing that, but after some 400 triggers into the map, I left it as is.

“i wonder however would this mission be any diffrent if it was under wartime ROE ans apossed to peactime the objectives remain the same the 688 has to get away the red subs have to sink her. it almost seems like your trying to force a sub vs sub engagment before air and surface units come into effect in which case mabey you should move the subs closer together and distance the other units a lil more possibly the 688 could have to come to coms depth to radio that its been attacked”

The difference here is you will have yet another death match map on your hands, something that requires minimal to 0 skillset, because the conditions you specify and after playing the map the 3rd time or so, you pretty much won’t need your brain to do anything but fire torpedoes, AND you then have another A-B-C format MP map that assumes a linear design with no more than one outcome per side and platforms sitting around waiting to be shot at. Don’t get me wrong, nothing is wrong with that if that is the intention of the design and the audience the design is for. But I (and a lot of others I know) have a problem with maps like that, because they are simply boring and don’t require much of the player to be frank. Death match(i.e. sub vs sub) was not the core reason for this design, otherwise we wouldn’t have needed to make the map in the 1st place, just load 1 of 1000’s of maps currently out like that. The core reason of this design is to attempt to make a non-linear design on the MP level with in-game dynamics to reflect possible real world conditions, possibilities and choices a skipper or a naval force could possibly face. To have a chance at surviving under those conditions will require what the skipper was taught in naval academy as basic fundamentals to build from, EDIT: personal experience level and his / her abilities in making critical decisions, sense of priority, teamwork, etc... in other words your ‘personal skill set’. Further details of why we did this can be found at Items A and B in the features list, also included in the file under features list.txt. I’m assuming you’ve read that already. Also we decided to include a brief disclaimer for the intended audience of this map. We were hoping the features list took care of this for us, but something says it’s not doing such a great job in doing so.

For the most part the issues you guys pointed out have been addressed and v1.01 is ready, but we want to do some testing 1st before public release. I’ll post the things we addressed and fixed shortly. Sometime later on I’ll be available, hopefully MaHuJa as well and we can get it going. Just look for us on xfire.

“other than that i think its a good mission just the way it is and enjoyed playing it one of the things i enjoy most has got to be that molon had no idea where the 688 was while furia and i are arguing over who is going to go on a suicide mission because "if he(molon) gets any closer he;ll have him(688) for sure and he's driving straight at him

these are just my random thoughts since you addressed this post to me its nice to see people out there making missons and this is one of the better ones ive played so thanks for your hard work”

That’s why we released it as v1.0 because if we figured it was something we overlooked or needed to be fixed, the knowledge and understanding of it all to gain from that is priceless, that will eliminate bugs in other maps to follow and carry on into more robust designs to come. And this is just the beginning fellas :wink: Our mission statement is to make mission that justify having platforms, for that reason expect at least 6 more maps in the future and variants of maps illustrating the capabilities of said platforms.

You are quite welcome, and, thank you all for your feedback. We tried this(getting people involved) at subsim but we weren’t getting the kind of quality responses we needed to get it off the ground, It’s like even after over 1000 views, no one really said anything about it except for luft and molon in response to technical questions and logic reasoning I had going into mission. When I came across MaHuJa, we basically said ‘lock and load, get a fire mission going and get those claymores into position’ and simply closed the door to the lab and took it upon ourselves to get it running, oftentimes questioning the logic reasoning behind what we were doing and the realms of realism we could include into the scenario and to develop a standard of something we would like to see in existence; a blueprint for other designs to follow.

Molon Labe

04-23-2007, 05:27 PM

So, SuBB, after our 1.01 test, do you have any thoughts to share about how it went? I'd really like to know if any of the RU subs ever got close enough that detection could have been possible. I lost my replay due to having it write-protected, so I didn't see what any of you did.

For the benefit of the players who played in the first match and are interested in the subsequent work, here's what's been changed and how it worked out:

-688I tasking now includes an order to get an approximate distance out to sea at a specific time. This translates roughly to requiring an average speed of 10 knots, effectively preventing the camping that occurred in our game.

-I took the 688I. My deployment plan was to get close enough to the FFG that it could take care of any SUBROCs that might be fired, but not so close as to make myself easy to find.

-My FFG player was in over his head (first time FFGer) and never managed to figure out the ASTAC thing. As a result, we had no advance ASW screening, and I had no data on where the RU subs were and could take no action to avoid them short of detecting them myself

-I deployed to the specified area in about 3:30 elapsed time, with plenty to spare. I never had any contact with the Russians, nor they with me.

My thoughts are first, that the 688I tasking is a great improvement, as it makes it more likely that the Russians can find the 688I, and also creates a slim possibility that the Russians might be able to get first detection on the 688I if they either position themselves very well based on a good guess, or, if the 688I is too timid early on and needs to put the speed on at the end.

Second, I'm still concerned about the low probability of the 688I being found. This is two back-to-back matches the US has won without having to work for it--and I used a rather aggressive search in the first game.

Third, I'm still concerned about the tactical balance of the situation where, even if the Russians do find the 688I, it almost certainly means the Akula/Kilo was detected first, resulting in an armed-standoff situation instead of a posture that favors the Russians. (they should be able to earn such a posture by playing right)

Fourth, I'd like to try this again as the Akula to see if I can come up with a search plan that increases the probability of detection against the 688I, and to see if I can kill it and live to tell the tale.

Fifth, even without another match, I recommend that the acoustic conditions be improved. This will not alter the tactical balance situation, but will increase the probability that the 688I will be detected, which I think we can agree would be an improvement at this point. The least radical change would be in bottom type--assuming it's not already rock, change it to rock. (For what it's worth, I'm guessing the bottom type is mud. Do I win anything?). Another possibility is switching the SSP to surface duct. To keep the det ranges from changing too radically, I would also recommend using a sand bottom type and increasing the sea state. If it's possible to keep detection ranges low enough to prevent fundamentally altering the mission, it will give the mission the added benefit of helping the Russians hide in the deeper water, and giving the 688I a reason to hurry to get away from shore (to get out of the duct).

Finally, the Kilo still seems rather useless here in an ASW scenario, and with a superior ASUW platform to take are of the slight ASUW issue present. However, if the scenario can be made so it is reasonably possible for the Kilo to position itself in front of the 688I so that it can take a shot before the 688I turns to avoid it, then it may indeed have a role to play. This could happen either by improving acoustics enough for the Kilo to hear the 688I itself, or for the Akula to be able to vector the Kilo in. There are definitely some tactical options that can be worked out, but the key hangup is the size of the patrol area vs. the Akula's ability to search it (both in terms of sensor range and the fact that it much search slowly to prevent rapid counterdetection). Address that, and the rest might fall into place.

subb

04-23-2007, 08:40 PM

molon,

I’m analyzing it now, in fact.

I never was happy with the kilo re: asw but she can pull her own weight in a different light. More on her later.

I’m compiling evidence on v1.0 testing, trying to understand the mechanism behind it all.
Lemme get my thoughts together and I’ll post them…

I’m torn between either it’s a non-issue and its part of the package or we stumbled across something we are already aware of, OR skeletons from the closet are coming for me regarding the kilo. This environment we created does have it’s high and low points, some of which I’ve seen before identical to what we saw, as well as from other angles in v1.0 test.

Also I want to emphasize that in this scenario there are no promises or guarantees of anything of any kind in this map, per design. Unlike most scenarios where you are spawned just about every time, contact is always made on every playable, by every playable. In this case contact isn’t always made by every playable, on every playable, plus welfare of ownship comes into play. Reason being is sometimes you will spawn and transit out of possible detection ranges, but if you change your course, you also affect the chances of being detected or not.

Also you are not always spawned somewhere only to assume a projected course into detection range of the opposing platform. All of this is was done using dynamic location and RSB combo, but RSB wasn’t set as such to pretty much spawn in the same spot, or we really couldn’t call it RSB. Pretty much everything is subject to change at any time based on choices made at that moment until you complete your objective and reach safety, in the same sitting.

I want to say what we experienced is in fact normal and one of many possible situations to be in on the same map, in the same sitting, molon. Going into the situation we all took a moment to come up with a plan and execute it. Now the ball is in motion and there is really no telling how things will pan out after that, at any given time.

This time around we missed you entirely, but I was closer to you than frag was. I had my suspicions based on some data I collected on the helo, thinking he was dropping buoys in front of you from the NE instead you were SE. And what this does is it places the player into critical thinking mode where they are relying on anything available to assess the situation.

My point is, your skillset made you follow the ffg to the west. I spawned NW of ffg(assuming he spawned and made west from spawn) with intentions of heading NE. I was tracking an unknown visual that appeared to be neutral but I couldn’t tell if it was neutral because of it’s aspect. Then he decides to emit. If he never emitted then I wouldn’t have transited to his area in the 1st place, instead I would be following my assumptions due NE. I had a projected course after the 2nd emission. After closing the what was assumed to be neutral was in fact the ffg confirmed on visual. I go all stop and determine his course but ended up watching him go by since lion was leaving. Now press rewind… Why did lion assume course west? Why did he emit? If you went NW based on the same choice made, the two of you would have maneuvered into us. Understand that anytime between 11:00 and 15:45 if you would have maneuvered NW we were there.

No disrespect, mr. Akula driver (for the session) but he was basically ‘daydreaming at the helm’ I think he got his priorities mixed up, and sometimes its pointless talking to him about any sort of change of plan, or any creative idea on gaining intelligence. Then when it finally clicks in his mind that we aren’t really getting anywhere at the going rate, he snaps out of it, some 3 hours later, and all of a sudden decides he wants to get serious :/

Molon, my 1st take is what we are seeing 1st hand is more if what we saw in 1v.0 test, and that is non-linear in-game dynamics. I dunno if you read the test case AARs of 1v.0 posted at CADC, but they pretty much tell the same story of uncertainty, effort, creativity, strategy, planning, teamwork, execution, patience, discipline, requirement of skill set and determination put forth in attempting to accomplish the mission and get home safely.

And for being the 1st happy customer in v1.01…

(drumroll)

you win a cookie of your choice, a hero sandwich with your choice of 3 additional side items, medium drink good for 3 refills and… a peppermint patty to tone down the onions.

LOL

However, I’m charging for extra cheese!!!

I’m compiling v1.0 notes now. I think I’ll grab a few hotdogs and get back to you.

Molon Labe

04-23-2007, 09:26 PM

Also I want to emphasize that in this scenario there are no promises or guarantees of anything of any kind in this map, per design. Unlike most scenarios where you are spawned just about every time, contact is always made on every playable, by every playable. In this case contact isn’t always made by every playable, on every playable, plus welfare of ownship comes into play. Reason being is sometimes you will spawn and transit out of possible detection ranges, but if you change your course, you also affect the chances of being detected or not.

Also you are not always spawned somewhere only to assume a projected course into detection range of the opposing platform. All of this is was done using dynamic location and RSB combo, but RSB wasn’t set as such to pretty much spawn in the same spot, or we really couldn’t call it RSB. Pretty much everything is subject to change at any time based on choices made at that moment until you complete your objective and reach safety, in the same sitting.
This point is well taken. I'm guilty of this myself, actually. While I wouldn't say that all playables come into contact in my scenarios, I definitely do set them up for confrontations to occur. Usually P-3 v. multiple subs, FFG v Kilo, 688 v Akula I-imp or SW vs. Akula II (See Rough Riders, Black Market Boomer, Hold the Line, and Marines Winchester). This is partly because I see combat as the purpose for the match. It's also partly because DW's det ranges have made me pretty much give up on trying to create scenarios where the attacker can sneak past the defenders and stab someone in the back. In most 2-hour type scenarios, the only way to get det ranges short enough for that to be possible is to sacrifice the layer, which I really, really like having around. What I like about these longer scenarios that you--and hopefully Furia and I too--are working on is that it opens up the possibility of having sneakiness come back to the sim, which really increases the amount of outcome possibilities.

I want to say what we experienced is in fact normal and one of many possible situations to be in on the same map, in the same sitting, molon....

My point is, your skillset made you follow the ffg to the west. I spawned NW of ffg(assuming he spawned and made west from spawn) with intentions of heading NE. I was tracking an unknown visual that appeared to be neutral but I couldn’t tell if it was neutral because of it’s aspect. Then he decides to emit. If he never emitted then I wouldn’t have transited to his area in the 1st place, instead I would be following my assumptions due NE....Now press rewind… Why did lion assume course west? Why did he emit? If you went NW based on the same choice made, the two of you would have maneuvered into us. Understand that anytime between 11:00 and 15:45 if you would have maneuvered NW we were there.... Molon, my 1st take is what we are seeing 1st hand is more if what we saw in 1v.0 test, and that is non-linear in-game dynamics. I think you're overplaying your hand a little here. There definitely are multiple ways this "story" might go. But the amount is finite. The most obvious, and limiting, "plot element" is whether the 688I is found or not. As it stands now, if both sides are manned by competent players, the 688I will usually NOT be found, and the story ends there. If the 688I is found, then the plot thickens...but it's still limited. The most likely "arc" is that of a standoff, where the US is tracking the RU subs and will fire the moment the Russians do. (A few different outcomes possible here, based on player skill. The standoff itself might take different forms too, as in a well-developed standoff where the Russians were found early, or a developing standoff where the US is still localizing the Akula at the time the Akula is able to fire). There's a slim possibility of an ambush being set up (I'd like to see if I can pull it off, actually) which leads to a different arc... But, the key question is the first one--since it might be the only one--whether the 688I is found. If the way this question is answered breaks down 60-40% for non-detection, then while not to my exact tastes, it's still a pretty good setup. If it's more like 95-5%, you didn't accomplish what you set out to. Hence, why I'd like to test a little more but still feel comfortable enough at this point to reccomend better acoustics.

And on this point, I'd like to add that the part of the story involving the FFG is only important to the extent that it contributes to the success or failure of the 688I reaching it's patrol area. It is not independently significant.

subb

04-24-2007, 08:20 PM

“This point is well taken. I'm guilty of this myself, actually. While I wouldn't say that all playables come into contact in my scenarios, I definitely do set them up for confrontations to occur. Usually P-3 v. multiple subs, FFG v Kilo, 688 v Akula I-imp or SW vs. Akula II (See Rough Riders, Black Market Boomer, Hold the Line, and Marines Winchester). This is partly because I see combat as the purpose for the match. It's also partly because DW's det ranges have made me pretty much give up on trying to create scenarios where the attacker can sneak past the defenders and stab someone in the back. In most 2-hour type scenarios, the only way to get det ranges short enough for that to be possible is to sacrifice the layer, which I really, really like having around. What I like about these longer scenarios that you--and hopefully Furia and I too--are working on is that it opens up the possibility of having sneakiness come back to the sim, which really increases the amount of outcome possibilities.”

I think the bottom line is it really depends on the designer, the scenario and the audience. And who is your number one favorite audience – I think it should start with yourself first. Personally I would like to see zero DM, because there aren't really any requirements to that style of playing, and more of mission objectives that reflect possible real world conditions that require some level of skill to at least be effective. For me that includes MP missions that include levels of uncertainty, use of stealth to complete goals(688 transit for example), asset management, possibilities of accidents, welfare of ownship, situation assessment, strategy, critical decisions and returning to safe distance unharmed, to say the least.

Increased number of outcome possibilities is a very positive step in the direction of realism, because there is truly more than one possible outcome that can occur, even sometimes more than one at the same time. I feel that DM holds the sim hostage of its own potential of being one of the greatest MP experiences on the planet; the experience is limited IMHO. And as long as the MP experience is as such, so will be the skill requirement, which isn’t much because it doesn’t require much, next thing you know, DW has turned into a coaster for your favorite coffee mug. You think I’m kidding about this? Let’s count the number of rings on my subcommand CD cover :) I think with the right idea, tools and enough discipline to keep things practical yet balanced, something great can be accomplished and never before experienced in the realms of MP.

“I think you're overplaying your hand a little here. There definitely are multiple ways this "story" might go. But the amount is finite. The most obvious, and limiting, "plot element" is whether the 688I is found or not. As it stands now, if both sides are manned by competent players, the 688I will usually NOT be found, and the story ends there. If the 688I is found, then the plot thickens...but it's still limited. The most likely "arc" is that of a standoff, where the US is tracking the RU subs and will fire the moment the Russians do. (A few different outcomes possible here, based on player skill. The standoff itself might take different forms too, as in a well-developed standoff where the Russians were found early, or a developing standoff where the US is still localizing the Akula at the time the Akula is able to fire). There's a slim possibility of an ambush being set up (I'd like to see if I can pull it off, actually) which leads to a different arc... But, the key question is the first one--since it might be the only one--whether the 688I is found. If the way this question is answered breaks down 60-40% for non-detection, then while not to my exact tastes, it's still a pretty good setup. If it's more like 95-5%, you didn't accomplish what you set out to. Hence, why I'd like to test a little more but still feel comfortable enough at this point to reccomend better acoustics.

And on this point, I'd like to add that the part of the story involving the FFG is only important to the extent that it contributes to the success or failure of the 688I reaching it's patrol area. It is not independently significant.”

At the going rate non-linear in-game dynamics is the best possible way for me in describing what has been created here. But it would be nice to see some numbers of some kind to reflect that. I need to derive a formula that could possibly represent that, and I think that will definitely shed some light on the subject. And that is a very good question – the percent chance the 688 can be found. I chalked it up as randomness relying on the ‘people factor’ to basically steer the map into whatever possible direction it could lead to, but as a designer I really need to think about how to calculate the percent chance of her being found. If it’s unreasonable, then changes need to be made.

Molon Labe

04-24-2007, 09:09 PM

Well, seeing as it is that my suggestion of changing the acoustics is probably too impractical since all the changes are too dramatic, we should probably hold off on judgment until the next match is over.

It definitely favors the blue side, but maybe the tasking change was enough to give red a fighting chance, and that might be good enough.

subb

04-25-2007, 06:50 AM

I hate to say it, but that’s the way things are looking right now.

It seems the kilo can’t afford to pull her own weight in the ASW department, to the point where the RU mission is basically in the hands of the akula. And for the most part causing a imbalance in the map.

The more I keep thinking about this @#$%, the more I’m thinking that kilo needs to come out of there and replaced with another akula. So what does that mean in design?

A major overhaul of dynamic group triggers intended for the kilo, now made for the new akula. The significance of these triggers is for SP and COOP modes only.

However, if specified for MP only, which I don’t think it would be a problem finding the required amount of players on a consistent basis, the overhaul can be ignored, another akula added, but the only changes to be made are negligible compared to the above mentioned.

Just a quick note:

I want to say by default the detection capabilities of the 688 is 33% because the akula is really the only one able to do so, RSB, dyn group, and playing field. You can pretty much forget about the kilo, she isn’t a contributing factor. The presence of the akula will basically increase the asw capability to 66%. But other than this, I need another reason to justify having the akula. IIRC you mentioned in a thread at subsim that due to sonar performances of the RU submarines, the RU forces rely on numbers to be effective more so than technology(or something to that effect).

MaHuJa

04-26-2007, 09:13 AM

Molon Labe

04-26-2007, 10:13 AM

The more I keep thinking about this @#$%, the more I’m thinking that kilo needs to come out of there and replaced with another akula. So what does that mean in design?

A major overhaul of dynamic group triggers intended for the kilo, now made for the new akula. The significance of these triggers is for SP and COOP modes only.

That might be a good idea for the reasons you stated. It also creates a problem for the FFG. The FFG is badly outclassed by the Akula. I haven't thought this through all the way yet, but I'd be concerned about it becoming rational to trade an Akula for the FFG right from the beginning. I would assume that this is something you don't want happening. From an MP perspective, it would really suck to be the FFG driver is this is what's going to happen.

So I guess the question is, would it be rational? I'm leaning toward NO because you're still down to a very low chance to find the 688I, and you still have a helo to deal with, which means aggressive patrol tactics will be counterproductive. ROE will have switched to wartime, so you can't get away with it. There might be other arguments though, so I'll keep an open mind. For the time being I think it's a good idea.

Molon Labe

04-26-2007, 10:50 AM

I'll be replying to a number of points here.

Skillset
A Deathmatch game requires "technical" skills. (That is not 0 skill...)
For this map, technical skills become a subset of the skills that affect... "How much luck you will need" as I call it.
Luck does not = skill.

Bottom type, acoustic conditions.
We tried the rock bottom early on. That became a case of "everyone detects everyone at the beginning" and killing the 688 was a matter of weaponry. Sneaking past was impossible. The sand and the mud are two names for the same (equivalent) shitty conditions as far as we've been able to tell.
Sand is marginally worse than mud. Changing to rock, unfortunately, was almost as dramatic as changing to SD SSP. I really wish there was some middle ground to fine-tune this with, but there isn't.

Detection.
Here's something to chew on.

1) Presuming the akula and kilo are sitting still
2) Presuming they are on a NS line
3) Presuming their detection zones do not overlap
4) Presuming the 688 is on course 270

Then of the 40nm "playfield height" RU will be able to detect the 688i at around 28nm along that line. No, that number is not pulled from thin air.
What does playfield height mean? I can't make sense of what you're trying to say without understanding that term.

Against the FFG, the kilo can use the periscope for even greater ranges than its sonar..
Detecting the FFG does not contribute to the successful completion of the mission objective.

Then.... add the fact that things happen. Accidents, "mistakes of judgment", side effects of other things done.
The proper measure of balance is whether either side has a chance to win if both sides make rational choices. If you have to count on someone messing up in order for one side to have a chance, you do not have a good mission.

Another akula
I don't like the idea.
Firepower for one. How big an area can this pair litter with ASROCs if they so please?
The chance of detection as specified above would change from 28/40 to 40/40. Read that again: Detection is near guaranteed.
I'd like to know where you're pulling these detection probabilities from. As it stands now, SuBB is probably right that the base probability of detection is around 33%, judging from the detection range and the area that must be covered. When you take into account that Blue will hear Red coming, that possibility is probably around 0%. If the red sub applies some lessons from Subguru-type sneak-and-peak scenarios, then that chance increases again... I'm not sure what to, but it's definitely under 50%.

The idea that two akulas guarantees detection seems absolutely bizarre in these acoustic conditions.

As for SUBROCs, the large op area and the poor acoustic conditions mean that a saturation attack with these weapons is impractical. Doing so is unlikely to result in a hit, even if the FFG is sunk first and a lot of SUBROCs are fired. Using this "tactic" will just get the Akulas doing it killed by the helo while the subs are reloading.

OR We can change it to a kilo(i) which has marginally better sensors. And fullworthy implementation will be very simple to achieve. (Change one parameter. Ok, two: class and name.)
That's a good idea. As it stands now, the 688I, even under AI control, detects the Kilo at rest before the Kilo hears it. This means even in the unlikely case that Red is able to set up an ambush, the Kilo is still worthless. A quieter sub and better sonar might change that.

OR We could use an akula and two kilo(i)s, expanding the playfield a little bit. Though at this point we may also consider another helo.
If "playfield" means the area that the Red subs can search, adding Kilos won't help much. Even with a Kilo Improved, the area that the subs can search will be virtually nil. The Kilo would only be effective if the location of the 688I was known or supposed and the Kilo was able to reach an intercept point in advance and lie in wait. If it attempts to search, it will be detected first, and avoided.

The "another akula/better acoustic conditions" issue has been up before
Usually, this has been said by those who have played the russian side, frustrated by not finding anything no matter how well they monitored their sonar. Yet, they did not always lose when we were playtesting prior to release.
It's also being said by a player who played the 688I, was willing to bet money that he wouldn't be detected, and then went out and did it. This isn't about bias.

Oh and... There's been one case where I played the kilo, and the 688 was going to ram me, except I launched a torpedo.
Human or AI? If it was human, was he turning periodically? Remember, you can't count on mistakes if you want a good mission...

Two sessions is not enough to tell that the chances of detection are way too low. (Basic statistics, that.)
You may have been unlucky twice.
The compelling evidence isn't the game sessions, but rather the tactical situation that's been set up. There is an area to search that is much, much larger than the sensor range of the only capable platform. The platform much search that area, searching for a moving target. This alone makes detection unlikely. But it doesn't end there. The 688I is both quieter and has a better sonar than the Akula, so the 688I will get first detection and avoid the Akula. And it doesn't end there either, since there is a helo dropping buoys all over the place, which will probably detect at least one of the subs and vector the 688I around it.

Luck has nothing to do with it. This is set up so that the 688I can slip away unnoticed.

The question is whether, and how often, the Akula can figure out a way to beat the odds. Now that the 688I isn't allowed to camp, I think that it can be done. I'd like to play as the Akula again to find out for sure, and to get a feel for how difficult it is. (My guess right now is the outcomes would break down like this... 60% 688I escapes undetected, 40% Akula detects [75% Akula kills 688I, 75% Akula killed], with the Kilo escaping 50% of the time both are killed. US wins: 70, Both lose: 15%, RU wins: 15%. I hope I can demonstrate better odds...)

subb

04-26-2007, 02:30 PM

So far this is what I came up in an effort of trying to understand det capabilities of both sides base on design layout.

I figure:

% Detection capabilities = # of capable platforms and the number of dynamic location points, where dynamic location are placed as such to cover RU side of the playing field. Combined with RSB for each RU platform.

So, considering the circumstances, there are two modes of operation for RU could face based on choices made by RU - ASW and/or ASUW.

For ASUW ops, of which RU platforms are both capable of doing so, right off the bat: base % detection capabilities for RU ASUW ops is 66%, and can be adjusted accordingly.

However for ASW ops, which is basically the tasking of RU, it’s an easy 33% since there is one platform capable of doing so, the akula. Also the kilo isn’t made for asw anyways, more so for ASUW. If uuvs were still capable of long range detection like they use to be, that would make up for ASW % base, but that isn’t so in lwami 3.08.

So I figure as it stands with the current design, RU detection capabilities are as follows:

RU ASW base – 33%

RU ASUW base – 66%

Adding another akula will raise RU ASW base to 66%, but keep in mind, this number can be adjusted, to what I would like to see at around 50%.

Now, lets talk about US:

Considering the 688 and the helo being the most effective means of detection capabilities for the FFG, the mission statement is pretty much ASW, so there you have it:

US ASW base – 66%

For this reason I say there is an imbalance, considering the tasking for both sides. I don’t like the fact of two akulas being there, but I really don’t see having two akulas being a problem when:

1 – detection base is now balanced and can be adjusted for both sides, to an ideal 50% AND if there is a strategic reason why RU requires on strength in numbers to make up for the less capable sonar gear compared to the western sonar gear.

2.. the audience – I can’t stress this enough and I don’t think the audience for this map will resort to cheap tactics, lets just say those at the freelancers' guild at xfire and here at CADC. Considering the subroc saturation is half the battle, the other half is getting to safe distance after they have been compromised. This was the purpose of the disclaimer, which is now stated in the map description on v1.01

3.. at any rate, considering the audience and there is a very good chance people will play and for that reason I can’t see why coding AI would be necessary now, when really the only reason why AI was coded was to test our own abilities and limitations of editing.

4.. Change the target situation, which would be easiest to do, instead of the 688 being the target, change it to the ffg and change the tasking to reflect the change. But in doing so the kilo stays because RU ASUW % is balanced in same order of magnitude as US ASW.

Bottom line – I’m open to any solution that is sensible, as EDIT: painless as possible, least difficult to implement while in the same time will instill and maintain balance between both sides.

Furia

04-26-2007, 02:33 PM

Gentlemen.
I have to say this is a very interesting thread and that I follow it with interest.
However the reason I am not posting here so far is that I do not agree as you know with the ROE things and the "victim" role of the FFG.
I would like to suggest you to remove the FFG and maybe change her for a P-3.
The Helo can refuel or reload on a helipad on an airport on the coast.

As FFG player this is scenario I see as "no win" no matter what it has been said here. maybe other FFG drivers disgree with me and would like to try their chances on the FFG. Not me.
However since I think the scenario design is good, I just wanted to suggest you the possibility of adding a P-3 and removing the FFG.

Regarding the Helo, in the hypothetic case that it is not killed by the Sub Sam's, it only has 3 torpedos. With the poor accoustic conditions, unless a very clear target is defined and the Sub driver is not very skilled on evasion, I do not expect much hits and you know what, after he spends his 3 light torpeoes, either he land on the FFG (not an easy or fast maneuver) or he is out of weapons and of course all this considering the FFG has not been sunk already.

By the way if somebody need an Akula driver to test the FFG and 688i nil survival chances, just ring me. :biggrin:

Molon Labe

04-26-2007, 03:28 PM

The FFG doesn't play a victim role here, it plays support.

If the FFG player thinks he's going to take the Akula in a straight up fight, then yeah, it will end up a victim.

To survive the mission, what the FFG needs to do is find the Akula and close with it before the Akula gets a shooting solution on the 688I. If the Akula gets such a solution, then the game is up...it will ASM the FFG while SUBROCing the sub. But, the 688I will hear the Akula first, even if the Akula gets past the FFG/Helo buoy field. So the FFG should be able to pull this part of the mission off. This is actually one of the cooler design points of the mission, because the FFG player needs to make a decision with how close he should be to the 688I. Too close and he makes the 688I too easy to find, too far and he won't get there in time if the Akula does find him.:cool:

Once the FFG is in holddown mode, the Russians have pretty much lost. The 688I will be avoiding the Akula and will probably slip away. If the Russians get lucky and find the 688I, the FFG has the Akula pinned down. The FFG can monitor the Akulas speed while the 688I evades. If the Akula tries to get away from the FFG, he won't be able to hear the 688I. The moment the Akula shoots, the FFG, helo, and 688I all make life miserable for him. The Akula can't use missiles. He's too busy running from torps to wireguide his torps to the FFG and 688I. If he surfaces to shoot the helo, he gets gunned down by the FFG and can't run from the torps that are coming at him...

Substituting a P-3 for the FFG will mean that the chance of detection of the Akula and kilo before they get close to the 688I will be very high. That in turn means the chance of the 688I slipping away gets even higher than it already is.

It also means that if a standoff develops, the Russians have a better chance. The P-3 is good for a lot of things, but since it can't hover, it isn't all that useful in the standoff situation. It has no DEMON capability to help the 688I evade. It can't prevent a SUBROC attack. It can't react as quickly as the FFG if the sub surfaces to use SAM's.

Maybe giving the Russians more of a chance in the standoff is a good thing, but I don't think the designers wanted to encourage standoff situations where a sudden knife fight occurs and pretty much kills anyone who isn't quick enough.

subb

04-26-2007, 11:35 PM

Alright.

Here is what I’m going to do about this.

It’s a quick and easy fix, no need for addition / replacement of platforms, accomplishes the same goal, while maintaining balance between both sides, map changes are as simple as changing text :smile:

AND

We can keep AI triggers meant for AI control, although I could get rid of them.

Per mahujas’ suggestion, molons' insight and my attempt of understanding detection capabilities of both sides, I will change the target of interest from the 688 to the ffg as well as tone down the % capabilities. What I figure to be RU 66% can be toned down to around 50%, which can be accomplished by adjusting the map layout. This will change the primary mission of RU from ASW to ASUW, of which both RU platforms are capable. US is still ASW, even more so that the ffg is in the hot seat now.

I’m open for reasons why not / concerns / suggestions.

But at the going rate, it makes perfect sense and solves the problem.

Of course this would warrant a few test sessions.

Molon Labe

04-27-2007, 12:12 AM

No offense, but are you out of your mind?

The Kilo Improved is a no brainer (in favor).

But making the target the FFG....He's gonna get blown away. Those guys are only quiet at very, very low speeds. And once he's found it only takes 3 missiles to ruin his day.

subb

04-27-2007, 12:18 AM

molon can you come shallow for a second (xfire) ?

Furia

04-27-2007, 02:00 AM

:biggrin: Heheh It is nice to see Molon for one time defending us poor FFG skippers :tongue:
I have to say he is totally right but....
Things can change if you add several merchants making noise and being surface contacts where the FFG can "hide".

If no other surface contacts the subs only have to make one radar paint and fire 6 SSM in 20 seconds.
With one or two radar scans the helo and the FFG only get a bearing of the sub, same info they will get when the sub fires the 6 SSM.
The FFG will be dead unless the skipper is extremely skilled with the SM-2, CIWS and Chaff. Well he will be ENCOM so if the firing is very close he will not have time to activate the Fire control radar so no SM-2.
If there are enough surfac contacts, radar would be usseles for the subs since they will not be able to single out the FFG with it.

Well as I said thic could work if you add some merchies ( 8-10) on the area and not far from where the FFG will start.
At least six or seven should leave the area on the possible evading routes for the FFG at an average speed of 5 to 15 knots.

This would force the subs to make a visual ID of the FFG and to wire guide the torps if they want to ensure a hit on the FFG.

Since the 688i will be "mission free" it then could become a real menace for the russian subs because instead being abushed by them, the 688i will ambush the Russians.
This could work on my oppinion as long as you add plenty of merchies to play with.

This way Russians will have to make sure 100% they have a perfect firing solution because they may happen to fire to the FFG but kill a merchie instead, the Roe would change and they can be hunted then.

Molon you are right the FFG would be placed on a tight spot this way but I have to tell you I would preferr this option much much better than the initial scenario where we basicall were tied hads just waiting so the subs decided to execute us.
I say lets give it a try this way.
What about this weekend? :wink:

Now looks interesting :biggrin:

Furia

04-27-2007, 02:34 PM

Also another possibility to make it more interesting and not easy for the subs to kill the FFG is to make it a night scenario, with rain and lower the cloud height to 0 meters that would give us fog.
On this conditions the FFG have good chances to escape and the helos are not so vulnerable for the Subs.
Also it will surely give the scenario kind of "mistery and tension" atmosphere :cool:
What do my bubblehead friends have to say to this?:rolleyes:

Molon Labe

04-27-2007, 04:20 PM

subb

04-27-2007, 07:15 PM

I have to agree molon,

I want to say between all of us we’ve covered a lot of possible angles(some I’ve yet to mention) to possibly an issue that doesn’t exist. Without question, additional testing is needed.

But common sense tells me that RU is not balanced and that kilo needs to be replaced with the akula, if RU is going to maintain ASW operations in the map. However I see your point regarding the ffg, and.. no offense was taken.. but yes.. I was out of my mind then :tongue: I would rather change the target to the ffg because it’s the easiest and fastest solution to implement.

@ furia

Now that is a very good point in changing the env. settings on the map for the ffg. In fact I do have future plans for the ffg. The next project is something else not including the FFG, pending how v1.01 is handled. And no, ROE will not change because you still haven’t given me a valid reason why it would need to be taken out, when it does reflect a possible real world condition, per design. For what reasons you have mentioned before to remove it, sounds more like personal distaste and that isn’t really a reason to take something out simply because you don’t like something.

Furia

04-28-2007, 02:37 AM

@ furia

Now that is a very good point in changing the env. settings on the map for the ffg. In fact I do have future plans for the ffg. The next project is something else not including the FFG, pending how v1.01 is handled. And no, ROE will not change because you still haven’t given me a valid reason why it would need to be taken out, when it does reflect a possible real world condition, per design. For what reasons you have mentioned before to remove it, sounds more like personal distaste and that isn’t really a reason to take something out simply because you don’t like something.

My trouble about the ROE is not about "personal dislike"
I am among the ones that do not like knife fight where everybody places 10 torpedos in the water the first 10 minutes of game, however on my oppinion the actual one is not realistic.
First if we assume that the Russian are to fire on the Los Angeles is because some kind of "pre war" condition exists between those countries for that.
If no "no pre war" condition exists, you are likely not going to be authorized to pursue the other sub until the sittuation is cleared and the intnetions of the hostile goverment are determined.
Ok let me place an example. remember the movie the Hunt for Red October? on that case no pre war condition existed (well it was the cold war..) so when the Alpha fired on the Typhoon, by then manned by US perssonel, the Texas 688i could not fire at the Alpha simply because the Alpha has not specifically fired on the 688i, so in "no pre war" condition, and this is no a movie stuff but a well known issue, you are only cleared to use weapons on SELF DEFENCE, that is if the 688i is fired upon, only the the 688i can fire back, ONLY to the offending sub, but not on any Russian sub on the western hemisphere.
And of course neither the FFG or the MH-60 can do nothing about it.

If a "pre war" condition exists, not a War, but pre war, you do not allow an armed foreing nation sub to wander arround, armed and clearly seeking for locating one of yours.
Of course you do not fire on him at sight, but neither you let him confortably move around, be detected, get in possition and fire at pleasure to your asset.
Does not look realistic to me.
As I already explained I played the scenario, we located BOTH enemy subs lets say after 40 minutes game we have them both located more or less and then we had nothing to do until the subs decided to destroy us.
As FFG player I cannot play such games against an Akula, that has more firepower than the Bismark.
My point is that you cannot let the Red Subs wander around at pleasure, being detected and nothing happnes to them. Like if the have Diplomatic Inmunity hehe:biggrin:

Ok I have another proposal. You can make a trigger that change the Roe to war after some of this conditions happen.

Red Subs are Positively detected and identified by US Forces and are being tracked for more than 30 minutes and Red Subs are located by Active Sonnar and despite this, they do not surface or move away from the area and close on the 688i.

On this conditions I think the ROE should change because the Red subs are clearly demosntrating HOSTILE intentions

subb

04-28-2007, 12:01 PM

Lets start with the definition of the ‘people factor’.

People factor = this will be choices made by players of both RU and US side, be it tactical, strategic, political or collectively to benefit the team and complete the objective. Based on the people factor that could steer the map into one of possible outcomes in favor of either RU or US or no one ‘winning’ at all AND welfare of ownship and safe distance is key.

Also, I think we need to keep in mind what ‘scenario’ really means. The audience for scenarios is self-explanatory. To me it means one of possible situations to be in. In my scenario we include ROE for reasons all of us should understand by now, which makes logical sense considering the scenario and the intent of it. Furthermore, imagine the current state of ALL opposing military forces if they were not under some form of ROE; need I say more on that? I think the result of your issue was based on your one-time experience as the FFG and planning going into the scenario that put you in that situation in the 1st place, causing this asset to the 668 to be placed in jeopardy. If you compromised yourself in any way, shape or form, then you’ve increased the chances of being found when up against a competent driver, and basically the opposing driver (molon) used that intelligence to his benefit / your demise. For these reasons I feel its personal distaste, of which I or anyone else can control, and still not a valid reason to get rid of it.

And your situation is one of possible situations to be in based on the people factor. Sometimes the FFG was detected well outside FFG sonar detection range and NOT ENGAGED, allowing the ffg to pass RU by to the point where he is outside effective range to do anything about anything when it came down to it. If you were that driver in that scenario, you would still be alive. And if you are under the impression that this can happen all the time, you are dead wrong, the intent of this design is a non-linear performance curve. Meaning there is a chance you won’t experience what you experienced all the time and the people factor will vary the chances of anything happening or not. And you can’t really say reds are clearly displaying hostile intentions until a weapon of some kind has been deployed. That is a play on using ROE for RU side to justify altering or doing away with ROE on US.

edited: because furia was right :wink:

Furia

04-28-2007, 01:22 PM

Hello Subbs.

We have anice thread were we are talking about the Total War scenario that by the way has not even been tested yet :wink:
You are welcome to add your contribution to it on that thread so all the oppinions and suggestion about that scenario accumulate there.
I do not want to turn this thread of you into a discussion about my scenario as well since I think it better stays focused on yours so if you want to talk about it, post about it on the Total War thread and I gladly answer there.

Actually i am not much sure what the Total War scenario has to do on this very thread other than questioning the validity of my oppinion about your sceanrio based on one of mine still in developement.
You make it look like a personal issue.
If you want to gauge my scenarios there are several made for me long ago on Subguru page, and they are already finished. :wink:

Regarding your scenario, I was asked my oppinion about it, just take a look at the tittle of this post.
I have done my best to contribute to it with my honnest oppinion about it.
You may like it or not, you may agree or not but it is my oppinion about it as playing it one time as FFG.
As I said I offered myself to demostrate how the Red side can win this scenario most of the times, at least the same one version I played.
Most of the time I just play FFG so I am quite confortable with that platform and I am well aware of her possibilities.
I like challenges more than easy missions but sorry to say this but I cannot see how on your scenario the Blue can win unless you have extremely skilled players on Blue side, specially on the 688i and not very skilled players on Red.
Maybe I am wrong, but I say what I think when asked.
Seems I am not the "audience" that this scenario is oriented to so maybe it would be better you just listen to the loads of prospective FFG players that may be interested on such "exciting" role.

subb

04-28-2007, 03:32 PM

Furia,

I really appreciate everyone’s feedback and the main point of this thread is to locate and address ‘issues’ of the map and finally bring the map to a playable level. Most importantly to learn for this experience so it won’t be repeated.

But to do this effectively, I need to know what is really an issue and what is not, proof of the issue and the mechanism behind it. Because of everyone’s feedback there is at least one open issue with concrete proof to support it.

I want to say I didn’t turn this into a personal issue regarding ROE, furia. But ROE is a legitimate feature included into the map. I can’t seem to understand exactly why you have a problem with it other than personal preference, and why others do not. You made it very clear it’s something you don’t like. So as a designer I say “ok, it’s something he obviously doesn’t like, he made it very clear but I need more evidence that it’s a really a problem with the map.” So far everything mentioned and / or gathered about it really has nothing to do with the map, so that takes the map out of the equation of locating and resolving issues.

And I stand corrected and you are absolutely right, I really had no place mentioning your project in this thread, so the questions I do have about it, I’ll bring it up there. :wink:

subb

04-28-2007, 08:23 PM

Ok guys, I need some direction here:

I think there is enough evidence on the table that the map is not balanced and we can go about this a few different ways, I don’t think additional testing will tell us otherwise either, so let’s just get this underway so we can move on, shall we:

I can do one of the following:

1.. RU mission statement stays the same as ASW, but I remove the kilo and put another akula in its place. 688 will remain the target platform. This change will be labor intensive, and considering live players will dive this map, I will not code the other akula but leave it as playable.

or…..

2.. RU mission statement changes to ASUW with present platforms in place (kilo and akula). FFG will be the target platform to reach a destination point within a certain amount of time. The time may need to change to make up for the FFG. Settings change to dusk going into night time, or just make it a night op, will add rain and there are already a ton of merchies and bios but with varying POIs, but will add as needed. This will be the least labor intensive and fastest to complete.

or….

3.. I think I have a nice angle on this one, I just need a drink and a scratch pad :tongue: But I can get creative and make a random switch between both options listed above where the tasking for both sides can be randomly selected each time the map is loaded. This would be the most labor intensive, as I will need to ponder the design and implementation of the switching. However I don’t think I can include the environmental settings for option 2, if you want to let that slide and figure out a workaround to make up for it.

or….

4.. Release two sets of v1.101. One for option 1, the other for option 2.

what shall it be?

I'm for option 2 because it serves the same purposes that need to be met, its balanced, and its fastest to complete. But i do also like option 3 (if possible) and option 4 because i like both modes of operation. Something tells me that option 2 may be a more fulfilling role for the US side, unlike option 1 where 2/3 of the US platforms are expendable.

Molon Labe

04-28-2007, 09:20 PM

You know, I just noticed something... you're only using an Akula-1(I).

Switching to an Akula-II knocks the base PSL down two points, which could have a significant impact on first detection.

We've already discussed how changing to a Kilo-Imp could change things.

I don't favor any changes that would make this an entirely different mission, like changing the target. I'd prefer to change things to make the mission you have more balanced.

My opinion is that at least one platform should be capable of getting first detection on the 688I under ideal circumstances. Without this capability, the tactical options become more limited. The base Kilo certainly does not have this capability. The Akula I probably doesn't. The Akula II might. And the Kilo-I does.

Sigh, more testing....
EDIT: but quick testing...
OK, here's the deal. An Akula-I moving at a crawl gives itself away to the 688I at nearly the same range as the Akula-I hears the 688I transiting. This means you can have two Akulas without cutting down Red's options.

So, my suggestion would be to have an Akula II and a Kilo Improved. The Akula II is still at a disadvantage against the 688I in detection, but it's a small gap. You figure in that the 688I has to move, and the Akula II might have a chance at getting straight up detection without having to pull any crazy stunts. And here's the best part: this gives Red a tactical choice to make. At moderate patrol speeds, you can cover more area, reducing the chance the 688I gets a free pass, but picking a spot and staying there will mean that if you do end up near him, he probably won't be able to go around you. I prefer the Kilo Improved over a second Akula simply because it has lower PSLs and ASLs than any of the other boats, which means its less likely to end up with a helo following it around all over the place.

The other good alternative would be two Akula IIs. This maximizes the area the Russians can search. The best part about this is that it gives the 2nd sub driver something to do; the Kilo driver is pretty much useless until the Akula finds the target. I'd prefer two II's instead of a I and a II for the same reason I prefer the Kilo Improved, plus the fact that I think the Akula I is just too loud to do the job expected of it here. There is a problem with this configuration though: in the event that the 688I is found, the FFG can only play holddown on one. The Akula not pinned down can fire an SSM salvo at the FFG with SUBROCs right behind it. I think with two Akulas, Furia would be right about the FFG's role being "victim." It gets to die without so much as preventing a SUBROC attack.

Furia

04-29-2007, 03:20 AM

I agree with Molon about the Detection curves and that a change from the Akula I and the the base Kilo for having one Akula II and one Kilo Improved would balance things better.
However I think your option 2 gives room for all platforms to play a role and to survive if properly managed.
Just changing the subs do not change the sittuation we had reached on the first testing.
Here the Red side cannot play "Crazy Ivan" that easily since the FFG will carry along two powerful shooters, the 688i and the helo.
The FFG have means to make detection complicated while the subs have to be really carefull not to be counterdetected.
If the Akula Fire on the 688i, she will try to evade at flank and the Akula can wire the torps. On the scenario 2, if the Akula fires on the FFG, the FFG will surely have not much time for a snapshoot but the Akula may face a countershoot from the 688i forcing him to cut the wires giving the FFG some chances (not many but some).
There are other reasons that make this scenerio more sound, but one iportant one is that all platforms and players will have a reasonable job to do, having their hands full and all with chances of victory if they do properly. And honnestly I think it will be more fun for all.
I feel it is more balanced now and really any side can win depending in how they perform.
I'll go as Subb for scenario 2 and if possibly later number 3 as well.
If it is easy to implement I suggest we give it a try at least.
My two cents :2ct:

subb

04-29-2007, 12:44 PM

Good job guys, I think we stumbled across something very important here.

I think we’ve uncovered yet another issue with the map and that is fulfillment of platforms being used. To me this is the most important issue to consider, because it’s really a waste of time playing a map in a platform where your role as part of a team isn’t a fulfilling one; all the more reason to disconnect and play something else. Currently in v1.0 the kilo is probably the lowest point of the map because she really isn’t effective in the ASW mission statement to begin with and her role in this mission statement is tedious and really a non-eventful one. I think O.S. would agree to that. And don’t see how changing her to kilo (I) will change the very same level of fulfillment for the better.

At most you can do, as stated in tasking, is support the akula as best as possible whether its gathering intelligence of current surroundings to where the akula can use that to her benefit, attacking or spotting the FFG, ‘hot swap’ targeting, 'the runner' while akula takes the heat, ASW support for the akula, or just stumble across the 688, because that’s pretty much the most you can expect from the kilo in regards to ASW ops. If you are an intelligence nerd like me, because I do find it fulfilling yet disappointing in the kilo, then she is right up your alley. But I have to admit it sucks when I’m unable to even have a chance at detecting the 688 unless she is right on top of me. If the akula gets pwned as well as the current state of UUVs in lwami 3.08 means you can pretty much hang it up for RU.

Akula II is a definite change for the better and I don’t know why we didn’t consider that in the 1st place, but she’s going in. And I agree the kilo is pretty much useless until the 688 is found, if found at all. I agree totally that adding two II’s for the sake of fulfillment and effectiveness on the RU side considering the mission statement. And please don’t take what I’m about to say as a cop-out, but it’s been witnessed that really solid planning on the US side reduces the chances of the FFG being in that situation, in particular when the helo is really on his job and the FFG driver doesn’t do anything to reveal himself unless necessary and using navigation as effective countermeasures.

Also I have a question for you molon, just exactly how did you find furia to begin with?

Fulfillment is paramount regardless what mission or map anyone designs or plays, and not only that you have a job to do, but do you honestly have a chance at doing your job effectively. At either rate, with these changes I think fulfillment has been addressed in both cases. Option 3 is definitely possible but what you give up is environment settings. Another limiting factor is the playable itself, meaning the playable of choice has to be acceptable for both ASW and ASUW ops, or go with option 4 releasing two different versions. Also I like option 3 because you get the best of both worlds in one map, randomly selected.

I think the two II’s is too much for option 2, and two (I’s) isn’t enough for option 1. Molons 1st suggestion makes option 3 feasible, but his 2nd suggestion could be overbearing for the FFG, but still what was witnessed applies there. So we need to decide on the common platform for random switched tasking. Akula II will replace akula I, giving RU at least one capable ASW platform. What shall the other be: kilo I or another akula II? If I’m about to start coding I may as well channel the effort towards option 3, that way both are covered at the same time.

In the end, we still walk away with more fun to have and learning experiences to make future designs more robust / balanced / less error free.

Molon Labe

04-29-2007, 01:33 PM

Well, I already explained the downside to two akulas in my older post. To that, I'll add that the situation I described will probably only lead to one outcome if the 688I is found... the 688I dieing. And the Russians should be able to get away because the helo isn't quick enough to get both of them. So the game is won or lost at detection...less dynamic. The X-Factor here is the performance of the SUBROC vs. the 688I's ability to evade. It might turn out that SUBROCs aren't effective in these conditions, which means you'll actually have a good fight on your hands... but only for the subs. The FFG still gets to play "victim."

I don't recall exactly how I found Furia in the match where I played as the Akula. I think he was radiating. Sonar contact might have been after visual contact...but it's been too long to remember for sure.

subb

04-29-2007, 01:57 PM

Let’s see what furia says about you finding him.

At this point, it makes sense to change to the akula II and kilo (I), both being for the better for RU.

After that let's do some testing and see how that fares. I’d say over 6 sessions, at least, then go from there.

Furia

04-29-2007, 03:06 PM

Molon is right. I was on Active Sonnar trying to force him to fire on me or move away. Lol I was desperate :tongue: he was slowly converging on the 688i (I didn't knew he has not detected her yet) so we assumed he was ambushing the 688i. Since I could not fire I started to play "crazy" to see if my noise could help to mask the 688i.

About detecting the FFG, I can tell you the FFG if properly managed could be hard to find as long as there are other surface contacts in the area.
We also need "fog" to make visual detection more dificult.
So as I said a night scenario, rain and cloud ceiling at 30 meters. Several merchant ships on the area moving around 5 to 10 knots. Some of them close to the FFG general starting point and that move along possible exit routes.... I can tell you the subs would have hard time finding the FFG. They surely can but will not be easy.
They cannot use active unless they want to be discovered by the 688i that will be lurking nearby.
If they do not know where the 688i is when they fire on the FFG they can be on trouble.
If you add merchies on the area, they must be careful with their ASM missiles, so a clear solution on the FFG is needed.
All in all I think this one version could be exciting for all players.

Regarding the Kilo issue. I think that 2 Akulas II are too much unless you escort the FFG with an AEGIS ship LOL.
Maybe a good combination would be an Akula II with a Kilo Improved or an Akula II with an Akula I.

Molon Labe

04-29-2007, 03:24 PM

Regarding the Kilo issue. I think that 2 Akulas II are too much unless you escort the FFG with an AEGIS ship LOL.
Maybe a good combination would be an Akula II with a Kilo Improved or an Akula II with an Akula I.
Substituting the Akula I for the II doesn't change the firepower situation.

Furia

04-29-2007, 04:50 PM

I know but the Akula I is more noisy and I think have not so good sonar as the Akula II.
However for me the Akula II and Kilo Improved would be the best.

Molon Labe

04-29-2007, 05:28 PM

The sonar's the same in terms of effectiveness. The Pelamida II only has a higher washout speed.

And I don't think finding the 2nd sub will change much. You pretty much need both the helo and the FFG to do an effective holddown of one...

subb

04-29-2007, 08:07 PM

After all, the 688 is departing from a naval base or shipyard, not a bad idea adding another AI US surface ship in the area. And running on lwami, AI can be your best firend sometimes. I’m not adding more merchies because there is a turd load there already including bios just with varying POIs. And RU having two II’s I’m sure will be more fulfilling / balanced than before considering ASW operations, also adding a cruiser patrolling the area wouldn’t hurt either and give RU something else to think about as well.

Alright… so:

a. Keep RU asw mission

b. Include two Akula II’s

c. 688 tasking the same / reach destination

d. Add US Cruiser, playable helo is pretty much air support for the entire taskforce.

Furia

04-30-2007, 02:31 AM

So finally you will keep the 688i role as to reach destination or you will give that role to the FFG and make the 688i protect her?

subb

04-30-2007, 03:35 AM

heh.. I’m still trying to make up my mind

ASW operations:

Right now I made a test bed with two II’s and a Tico on patrol in the general area, which made sense to do so since it’s a naval base / shipyard. As RU I’m faced with some interesting choices to make while looking for the 688 in the same time avoiding the tico and helo(playable). In fact I think it leaves interesting choices to make for both sides, even though the tico is patrolling, he won’t escort to destination point. There will be one helo(playable) for the entire taskforce. The Tico helos have been POI'ed to 0%. I want to randomize the patrolling platform so RU intelligence won’t be the same regarding this, or, select one and randomize the speed each time the map is loaded. Doing both will take a crap load of dynamic group triggers for each platform with random speed. Patrolling platform is currently on random search tactic.

ASUW operations:

Definitely replace RU with kilo (i) and akula II and both are capable of suchb ut I left it at that so far.

Conclusion:

I think I bit off more than I can chew because I attempted option 3 having random switched tasking, basically both operations linked on the same map, but this can’t be done because there isn’t a common platform for both situations to exist on the same map while achieving balance and fulfillment of platforms. However that gave me new ideas on the next project. But at the going rate I think it will be best to make two separate maps for RU ASW and ASUW operations.

:smile:

subb

04-30-2007, 09:57 AM

I meant to say I haven't made up my mind yet as to which option I want to start working on. :wink:

subb

05-01-2007, 12:13 AM

Well I think there is truly one way to go with this mission. It’s option 2 with ASUW.

Why?

Because I just tested option 1 with tico and just realized that the tico causes a bug with the random helo accident, and it’s really not worth the trouble coding in a fix when I can make a few changes to accomplish the same thing(working map).

Option 2 still offers the best of both worlds w/o the tico and everything working as it should.

Option 2 is definitely the way to go.

Furia

05-01-2007, 04:41 AM

Can't wait to test it. :biggrin:
You have an eaguer FFG driver awaiting :cool:

subb

05-01-2007, 10:30 AM

So what this really means now, is the common platform is the kilo (i), which also means I can do my neat trick of random switched tasking on one map. Each time the map is loaded, RU tasking and US mission objectives will be randomly selected respectively. And for clarity I may need to specify in kilo tasking for ASW ops her limitations and how she can still be effective so there won’t be any surprises. In that regard RU will now have akula II and kilo (i).

subb

05-03-2007, 03:35 PM

Here we go, what to expect from v1.01:

**********************

1.. RU Platform replaced - Akula Improved has changed to akula II. RU kilo has always been the kilo (i).

2..AI coding – Coding for all AI controlled platforms still remains in circuit for all controllable platforms. AI capabilities are listed in features list of map. At first I thought making at least a single platform change would mean removing all the triggers coded for AI, but that wasn’t so. V1.01 is still playable in SP / COOP / MP modes as before. Since I think there is a dedicated audience for these kinds of maps, I don’t really see a point in coding for AI platforms, I should say nothing extensive.

3.. RU tasking for ASW operations - RU tasking is more specific now in explaining how the kilo (i) can be used more effectively in an effort of attempting to complete RU mission tasking. Other means of effectiveness will be left to the drivers’ discretion and teamwork.

4.. Random Switched Tasking – This feature is pending outcome of v1.01 testing, starting immediately. But this feature will be added to randomly switch between ASW and ASUW operations for the RU side. US side will experience mission tasking changes between the FFG and 688, respectively.

5.. 688 time to reach destination point – This has been scaled back from 4:45 to the original setting of 4 hours. The playing field is large but not large enough to justify having :45 minutes extra on the clock.

6.. More randomness – More randomness has been added to give both sides more tactical options to choose from if / when the opportunity presents itself. Since v1.00 the intent was to have RU rely on stealth tactics to accomplish their mission; I’m hoping this workaround accomplishes this. RU ambushes are very possible now, unlike in v1.00.

7.. More neat **** I learned from this experience to hopefully make the next project more robust than this one. Going into the next project I’m still pushing angles of ROE(pre-war conditions that could lead to war as furia would put it :wink: ), welfare of ownship and reaching safe distance, use of stealth to complete mission objectives and all that good jazz.

XX… nothing else I can come up with right now / anything else you guys can come up with.

**********************

So, this is what I need to see happen.

A.. I need 3-4 dedicated testers that can use every platform available. Maybe less, I’ll have to rally the troops and see who is available.

B.. We will play 5 sessions over the course of time but each session we all rotate platforms.

C.. After that, make a call on v1.01 testing results.

D.. Add random switched tasking for RU ASUW operations.

E.. At least 3 sessions with new RU ASUW tasking in circuit

F.. v1.01 release.

**********************

I just want to give you guys a big thanks for your feedback and ideas, hopefully I’ve been of at least the same benefit.

Molon Labe

05-08-2007, 12:10 PM

subb

05-08-2007, 02:24 PM

Ok, here's something unexpected.

Just ran a quick follow up test.

AK gets the 688I at around 4nm at 10 kts.
That only increases to around 5.5 for 33 knots!
That pretty much means he's got a 5/6 shot at success by doing the crazy sprint we saw yesterday (not accounting for cavitation).

Now, that is ****ing odd!!

In v1.00 testing and myself as AK, frag was kilo being attacked by 688, we’ve experienced an AI flank speed 688 as broadband TA contact around 7-8nm. NB is obviously farther out, and could have found his location on NB if more time was available, but how much farther out is unknown.

The range was determined using active sonar echo ranging from my ship in trying to determine when to enable torps meant for 688. Although exact position wasn’t revealed on active sonar, echo ranging combined with TA sonar contact and TIW pretty much gave me the data I needed, which lead to sinking of the 688. Conditions were favorable, acoustic-wise.

I'm still looking at the layout and possibly making changes from that angle, but I’ve nothing to report on it at the moment.

Molon Labe

05-08-2007, 03:49 PM

All the testing I've done has been NB. It is possible that a loud contact close aboard might create a BB trace first, I just hadn't thought of it.

subb

05-09-2007, 01:44 PM

All the testing I've done has been NB. It is possible that a loud contact close aboard might create a BB trace first, I just hadn't thought of it.

Acoustic test results - initial run 050907

1.. Comments:

The intent of the design was for RU to rely on stealth tactics as best as possible, possibly intercept and sink the 688 and return home unharmed. But because of the SSP type and layout of the map, RU doesn’t even have a ‘chance’ at having the chance to find the 688 and get home safely. RU can’t possibly rely on stealth tactics, because there isn’t an opportunity to do so.

For reasons you already know(molon) I want to use Black Market Boomer as an example / comparison because my 1st experience was as the 688 to rely on stealth tactics to find the Delta IV, basically the same thing I’m trying to accomplish in C.I. After I learned of the mission statement in BMB, I basically told myself “Considering the odds, stealth is the only chance - you MUST make this count.” The mission was successful but it wasn’t easy or very forgiving either, especially vs a human akula driver and human influence over AI platforms (asset management.) Using surface duct at least gave the driver a chance at completing the mission, unlike not having a chance at all. Experiencing BMB as akula had the same effect. Lastly, I think you get the most out of the lwami mod using surface duct over any other SSP type.

So, the following is what I came up with. And before I begin, all contacts made are NB only.

2.. Test Results:

A. V1.00 / bottom limited / mud / SS 2 / weather clear / coastal / ASW operations:

Now what I mean by coastal is shallow waters. I want to say when you consider bottom limited SSP, the bottom type will have a tremendous impact on detection ranges. In earlier testing, using rock would allow detection from great distances, somewhere in the 20nm neighborhood. And since there is no place for anyone to hide, well you see where that can go. Sand was impossible, so we broke even with mud. Since the design calls for use of stealth to complete mission tasking, really for both sides, basically you can’t, because it’s not available – it doesn’t exist. From what we gathered collectively, detection ranges come in from 5.5nm to 8nm up to speeds at 33kts!!. Under these conditions your only chance is blind luck if you come across anyone. Considering the area, this is unacceptable and needs to change. Under these acoustic conditions, RU clearly has that opportunity for ASUW, but not ASW. I wonder how bottom limited SSP affects active sonar – I.E. buoys and Dipping sonar? I’m thinking it wouldn’t but bottom type could answer that for us.

B. V1.00 / surface duct / mud / SS 2 / weather clear / coastal / ASW operations:

Both AK and LA were same depth and shared the same det ranges of 20 to 22.6 nm at speeds of from 5 to 10 kts for both platforms. Mainly 5 to 7 kts for the akula, 5 to 10kts for the 688. By default the acoustic conditions for RU were above the layer while for LA was bottom limited until farther out from coast(technically above the layer), entering surface duct. I don’t think changing the bottom type will affect SD, but under these conditions will affect active sonar returns. I’m under the impression that LA and AK detection ranges will decrease while in transit under the layer, and you pretty much have your fly open while above it, but to what degree det ranges decrease while under the layer I’m unsure of at this point. Another question is, is det ranges proportional to depth under the layer, meaning the deeper you go, the less det ranges become? I would assume no since SSP isn’t really modeled in DW, in terms of velocity of sound, not SSP type.

C. V1.00 / surface duct / sand / SS 5 / rain / cloud height 100 m / deeper water / ASW operations:

Very interesting results, I must say. There was so much chop that detection of slow moving surface platforms was made by the noises made from the water slamming into the hull of surface ships, including the FFG at 5 kts, which was detected at 26nm. In NB this appears to be ‘flashing’, loud, intermittent contacts of platforms. AK and LA matched each other in det ranges of a big whopping 13nm at same cruising speeds and platform depths in test case B. The only difference I see between B and C is weather, deeper water and SS. 1st SS needs to be optimized as such so surface platforms can’t be detected because of surface chop. Then I’d like to re-test (B) with the new SS value, but the same weather in (C). Considering the same playing area, 13nm det ranges makes a lot more sense than 5-8nm. And there is still a chance that contact will not be made, but running loud and being heard from reasonable distances make much more sense than what we saw – shame on you Frag. :tongue: I’m glad you did that, I think it uncovered something I was unable to put my finger on until now. Considering the intention of the design where use of stealth is key to success or failure, SD must be implemented in order to make that so. I honestly don’t think cloud height had anything to do with anything.

Here is my to-do list:

1.. Optimize ss

2.. Retest (B) with new SS, rain

3.. Test detection ranges in (C) but worst case conditions (crush depth) of AK and LA

4.. Area may need to expand because of SD, meaning 688 ETA will be less than 5 hours, up 1 hour from 4 hours currently.

5.. Test active sonar transmissions with surface duct and various bottom types.

6.. Summary of results

Thanks again guys

subb

05-09-2007, 01:54 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask did you even detect Frags' passive decoys shortly after he went active? I think he launched both active and passives, but I’m not sure.

Molon Labe

05-09-2007, 01:56 PM

Are you sure the "flashing" is being caused by an increase in PSL due to chop, instead of the PSL going intermittently to 0 because the source is out of the water?

That's not to say a PSL increase doesn't occur in up in the chop, though. I've definitely observed PSL increases for subs at PD (hopefully not just Kilos snorting) and yesterday, Furia tagged me while I was at PD at 8 knots after missing me at 80m and 12 knots at a shorter range (although hopefully not just because he wasn't looking at the TA before I noticed he was below 15kts again and slowed down). My jury's still out, though.

Molon Labe

05-09-2007, 01:57 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask did you even detect Frags' passive decoys shortly after he went active? I think he launched both active and passives, but I’m not sure.

No, but I wasn't paying any attention to the BB.

subb

05-09-2007, 02:07 PM

Are you sure the "flashing" is being caused by an increase in PSL due to chop, instead of the PSL going intermittently to 0 because the source is out of the water?

I think that was the ticket, to be exact. To justify the loud noise made by quiet contacts from great distances was probably the contact splashing around as it re-entered the water, then a microsecond later, the contact disappears. This was observed on surface platforms only, not submerged.

FragMASTER

05-09-2007, 06:20 PM

I only used active CMs in that mission.

subb

05-09-2007, 09:11 PM

I only used active CMs in that mission.

I figured as much for reason of being shot at, but sometimes people drop both.

subb

05-10-2007, 11:13 AM

SD test results on 051007:

1.. Optimize ss

2.. Retest (B) with new SS, rain

3.. Test detection ranges in (C) but worst-case conditions (crush depth) of AK and LA

4.. Area may need to expand because of SD, meaning 688 ETA will be less than 5 hours, up 1 hour from 4 hours currently.

5.. Test active sonar transmissions with surface duct and various bottom types.

6.. Summary of results

***************************

currently on LWAMI 3.08 / v1.04:

1.. SS can’t be optimized because it has no effect on SSP whatsoever, other than causing surface contacts to splash around on the surface making noise as well as making visual detections more challenging.

2.. Makes no difference either, since weather has no affect on SSP. Only visibility and radar.

3.. The question was if det ranges were proportional to depth? The answer is yes AND no. No it is not in SD, detection occurs roughly in the same time (time delta small) reporting the same ranges, regardless of weather and SS. Testing data showed that in 100% deep water, det ranges of AK 2 detecting a 688i at 10 kts were about 17nm above the layer, regardless of depth of the 688i. Cavitations were detected at 33nm above the layer. Now when the 688i is below the layer det ranges come in at less than 10nm. Same reason why no is the answer(varying depth within a layer) but when you consider overall depth from surface to crush, then the answer is yes it is.

4.. if SD is to be used, per intention of the design, the op area needs to be moved to 100% deep water - more on why later.

5.. Active sonar transmissions are not affected by SSP, but are affected by bottom type and geographical location of op area.

6.. Conclusion:

I just concluded some testing on surface duct and various elements that could possibly affect it and found out that neither weather, sea state or bottom type has no effect on it whatsoever. Also SD randomly generates the layer, and in some cases forces a mixed acoustic environment, for example, our map, on the US side there isn’t room for a layer, so by default in a surface duct its technically a bottom limited SSP until a layer is found farther out in deeper waters. On the RU side it could be the same, or if a layer is created that RU subs can reach, its generated as SD. In an environment such as ours, regardless of cavitations or high speeds, det ranges are up to 7nm TA NB contact, which makes no sense whatsoever and needs to be fixed. I also tried to re-locate the op area to another identical to where SD should have been more effective, but still the mixed acoustic conditions exist and det ranges are not reporting accurately, currently on LWAMI mod.

However if you go farther out to where you are 100% in deep water, det ranges are more accurate in reporting cavitations(up to 33nm last test on 688i), layers do exist, the option for stealth is available and at the same 10 kts det ranges are 17nm above layer / 10 nm below. I’ve tried other ‘deep water’ areas and based on where I tested, det ranges were down to 12nm, but still accurate in reporting. Det ranges under these conditions come in at 12-17nm above the layer and less than 10 below the layer, currently on LWAMI mod.

This is concrete evidence that based on the acoustic conditions det ranges are not reporting accurately on our map, currently set for SD and shallow waters (mixed acoustics) in testing. Since the intention of both sides is to basically rely on stealth to attempt to complete mission objectives, use of SD makes that possible, but not when det ranges aren’t reporting accurately. Therefore, the op area needs to be moved to deeper water for ASW operations. And still the option remains to change the mission statement to ASUW and leave the map as it is, but still the issue remains of det ranges not reporting accurately.

One thing I have not tried is time of day and month yet.

Bottom Line:

I can clearly see the issue here now and I’m thankful for the experience. But basically we are back to square one again, but this time with facts and evidence of the mechanism driving the issue. I can either keep the ASW mission or change it to ASUW. Right now I’m going to start working on fixing ASW then go from there.

subb

05-10-2007, 02:47 PM

Just tested seasonal months from one extreme in January (v1.00 map setting) to the other in June. In a mixed acoustic environment (shallow leading to deeper) it makes no difference in seasons as det ranges have returned to 17 nm above / 11nm below layer contacts, but re-initializing the seasons somehow returned det ranges to ‘normal’ from less than 7nm as before.

subb

05-20-2007, 04:54 PM

V1.01 Conclusion:

The major problem in v1.00 was the acoustics setting of bottom limited, now changed to surface duct. In testing neither weather conditions, seasonal months, bottom types or sea state have an effect on SSP = SD whatsoever. Since the change in acoustics, the map is performing as expected per design. My questions and concerns have been answered and at this point I don’t think additional testing is going to tell us anything different. Plus I’m ready to work on something else.

The following is a finalized list of changes included in v1.01

**********************

1.. RU Platform replaced – For obvious reasons the Akula Improved has changed to akula II. RU kilo (i) has always been the kilo (i).

2.. SSP changed – acoustics have changed from bottom limited to surface duct. I also learned that surface duct forces a mixed acoustics environment depending on geographical conditions. Surface duct also allows the option of stealth to be available for both sides as well as optimum sonar coverage area for RU, per intent of the map design on v1.00. The intention was that even though the kilo improved, although effective in other areas isn’t very effective but still can contribute to asw operations, the akula 2 could make up for that, and by making this change that is now possible, per intent of the design. Basically surface duct has been one minor solution for one major problem in v1.00, and thanks to those who pointed that out.

3.. RU tasking for ASW operations – RU mission statement still remains as ASW operations within the area. Although not very effective but can still contribute to ASW operations, RU tasking for the kilo improved platform is more specific now in explaining how the kilo (i) can be used more effectively in an effort of attempting to complete RU mission tasking. Other means of effectiveness will be left to the drivers’ discretion and / or teamwork

4.. 688 time to reach destination point – This has been scaled back from 4:45 to the original setting of 4 hours. The playing field is large but not large enough to justify having :45 minutes extra on the clock.

5.. More dyn locations – More dyn locations for RU have been added to give both sides more tactical options to choose from if / when the opportunity presents itself as well as reduce chances of item 6 happening. Currently dyn locations are used in combination with random spawn box.

6.. Helo RU spawn buoy camping - Helo spawn has been randomized to further reduce the chances of the helo dropping buoys on RU spawn from the very beginning of the mission, as witnessed in testing, now hopefully less effective in more attempts.

7.. Learning Experience - More neat stuff I learned from this experience to hopefully make the next project more robust than this one. Going into the next project I’m still pushing angles of ROE(pre-war conditions that could lead to war as furia would put it :wink: ), welfare of ownship and reaching safe distance, use of stealth to complete mission objectives, asset management and all that good jazz.

8.. MP maps only for LWAMI / exclusion of AI coding - Due to the audience and knowing this map(more like it by request) has been / can be played on a regular basis, AI coding is not 100% working in v1.01. I figure it’s a waste of time. Moving forward I will make maps strictly for MP, excluding AI coding, requiring less number of people to address low head count while the same time offer more variety.

9.. FFG chance of survival - Since the changes in acoustics, the FFG plays a very vital role for the US mission statement. So in an effort to better balance the chances for survival of the FFG against ASM attacks I’ve included some nasty weather into the mix. One could argue that using surface duct, the FFG is now more vulnerable and able of being detected 1st and that is very well true. Still operation of ownship(FFG) and teamwork can optimize the chances of the FFG staying alive in efforts of assisting the 688 completing the objective, all in the same time.

I think that is going to do it for now, thanks again everyone for feedback and suggestions!!!

As soon as it’s available, I’ll post link here.