Total War Scenario Concerns/Designing/Editing

[Molon Labe]

Thye Operations area ranges about 150 NM surrounded by islands.
The only way you get 150nm is if you include the islands. The area inside the boundary islands is about 100x50 nm, and that's not subtracting the islands inside or the peninsulas cutting into the op area from the southern boundary island. That's 5,000 square nm.



This scenario is not of those that after 2 hours fighting you have barely moved 3nm and fired 1 torpedo.


Enviromental conditions would be:

Overcast
Sea State 4
Converge zone
Rock bottom
It doesn't look like Red side will have a choice but to stay under 2 knots the whole time. I ran a few quick tests with these acoustic conditions to figure out the buoy spacing the P-3 would need to assure getting solid hits on the Akula at patrol and transiting speeds. Then I did the math... Using standard square pattern buoy fields, the P-3 can maintain total awareness of 60% of the Op Area at any given time. Using a conservative estimate of the Seawolf's capability (20nm det range, which is definitely lower than what you'd get here), the two together can cover 87.2% of the total op area.

And that's not taking into account that it will be intelligent humans piloting these platforms. They'll know to look harder around shipping routes than in useless patches of water.


I really, really hope you were aware of this in design and have made adjustments to compensate for it, because if you haven't, there's no way the Akula could do so much as make 6 knots in the general area of a merchant without being spotted, much less close to within torpedo range.

[Furia]

Hello Molon.

I did carefully many calculations and for many hours to come up with this scenario including specific individual platform testing.

First if you take a look at the map I posted with the scale rule it includes, you will see that between that the entrance of Nemo's Strait and Liberty Strait on line you got the 150 Nm more or less. The route connecting the 5 harbours is more than 200 NM.

Regarding the Detection by the P-3 let me tell you that we have a single P-3 to cover the WHOLE area and that reception range of the Sonobuoys is limited to line of sight, say 30 to 40NM in operational conditions if the P-3 flies really high like at 25000 feet then you increase the range more (Buoys work on line of sight transmission) although this is not much practical way of patrolling. Considering the detection range of a normal sonobuoy you really need a very high number to cover the whole area and surely the P-3 cannot process them all at the same time including the numerous surface merchant contacts, biologics and so.
Bottom line. The P-3 cannot cover the whole area. Have you calculated how long it takes to fly for instance at 250 knots from Orion Airport to Nemo's Strait, then to Liberty Strait and visiting the other harbours on the P-3? And a more tha double for the helo. On the meantime the bouys father away of 40 NM are "out of range"
Buoys die at 2 hours so if the map last 4 hours or more many, many buoys must be deployed. So the P-3 may leave the area, land, reload and fly nack to the Ops area. A lot of time without air cover :wink:

I have set a nice Convergence Zone and with Sea state at 4 be sure you can hide below the layer and run nicely.
Air droped sonobuoys do not process Converge Zone signals as good as you do on your sub :wink:
On this deep waters on many of the testings I did I got the layer deeper than 1000 feet. Do you know the Depth that most Deep sonobuoys reach? :wink: (LOL I am giving too much tips already :redface: )
Besides the Merchant traffic making A LOT of noise on the upper layer would surely help to make sub detection a bit more difficult.

As you have noticed most of the area are deep waters so you can nicely go deep and make good speed without cavitating at all.

I do not mean the scenario could not have mistakes, but be sure I have placed many hours on this one, more than on any other scenario I had done before and that I have run testing on all platforms and in all conditions and so far the subs have actually a pretty good chance to win.

As you know you could detect a merchant making 25 knots with a convergence zone quite far away. How far do your SSM can reach?
You can kill a target far far away and the ASW may never know where the shoot came or how far you were from the target. And do not worry for the radar. Unless you are close to the FFG or the P-3 they will never get enough information about the missile path or origin.

Have you calculated how much time need the FFG or the Seawolf to go for instance from Isla del Rey to Puerto Alegre area? About 2 hours going at flank.
With Convergence zone you will hear them comming 1 hour before.
And considering how vulnerable are the helicopters and P-3 to the submarine SAM and that there is only 1 P-3 and 2 helos, one could be human for such large area I would say that subs have more chances than the ASW units.

2 submarines covering a large area full of non escorted merchies, deep waters, deep layer, SSM missiles and a minimum opposition.
You only have to sink those merchies that are making a lot of noise
Actually you have to think this way. Most of the contacts you will get on the sub, almost 99% are "targets"
For the ASW forces more than 90% of the contacts would be friendly but all of them must be "processed" analyzed and classified.
On all the testings I did unless you had the bad luck of running into a near sonobuoy at your depth and that the P-3 or the FFG or helo are close enough to process the signal you will feel free to run the Ocean.

Both subs will start on different locations so ASW could hardly focus on a single area.
2 subs that only have to kill 5 merchies, with torps, missiles or whatever they want.
I think this scenario is more a challenge for Blue side than for Red side

The converge zone makes things even more interesting and require skilled players to make good use of the information provided.

I think once we play/test the real scenario we will have more accurate data for correcting anything that is not balanced and I would be more than happy to take into account all your suggestions and comments of the scenario that can surely be improved.

[Molon Labe]

Hello Molon.

I did carefully many calculations and for many hours to come up with this scenario including specific individual platform testing.

First if you take a look at the map I posted with the scale rule it includes, you will see that between that the entrance of Nemo's Strait and Liberty Strait on line you got the 150 Nm more or less. The route connecting the 5 harbours is more than 200 NM.
Sigh. :rolleyes:
http://menorca.infotelecom.es/~raulurbina/FFG/Total%20War.JPG
http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/dump00071791.JPG

I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE ARGUING THIS POINT!!!!



Regarding the Detection by the P-3 let me tell you that we have a single P-3 to cover the WHOLE area and that reception range of the Sonobuoys is limited to line of sight, say 30 to 40NM in operational conditions if the P-3 flies really high like at 25000 feet then you increase the range more (Buoys work on line of sight transmission) although this is not much practical way of patrolling. Considering the detection range of a normal sonobuoy you really need a very high number to cover the whole area and surely the P-3 cannot process them all at the same time including the numerous surface merchant contacts, biologics and so.
Bottom line. The P-3 cannot cover the whole area. Have you calculated how long it takes to fly for instance at 250 knots from Orion Airport to Nemo's Strait, then to Liberty Strait and visiting the other harbours on the P-3? And a more tha double for the helo. On the meantime the bouys father away of 40 NM are "out of range"Keep in mind that the hot buoy cheat works regardless of how far away the aircraft is. Yet, there definitely is a limitation of the platform here. If you've deliberately exploited that limitation, then you can make this work. All I'm asking is whether you have taken such steps, because if you haven't, this is a goatfuck.



Buoys die at 2 hours so if the map last 4 hours or more many, many buoys must be deployed. So the P-3 may leave the area, land, reload and fly nack to the Ops area. A lot of time without air cover :wink: A valid point... but if the starting points of the subs are restricted to the entrances of the sea, it will be over long before the 2 hour mark.



I have set a nice Convergence Zone and with Sea state at 4 be sure you can hide below the layer and run nicely.
Air droped sonobuoys do not process Converge Zone signals as good as you do on your sub :wink:
On this deep waters on many of the testings I did I got the layer deeper than 1000 feet. Do you know the Depth that most Deep sonobuoys reach? :wink: (LOL I am giving too much tips already :redface: )
Besides the Merchant traffic making A LOT of noise on the upper layer would surely help to make sub detection a bit more difficult.You're dissapointing me, Furia. The deep water beneath the layer in a CV is a SOUND CHANNEL. Deep water buoy detections end up occurring at greater ranges (due in part to the VLAD being more sensitive). In any case, the buoy spacing I tested with took detection ranges both over and under into account. And since this was the result of a specific test using buoys, I don't see what the point of saying that buoys are different from sub sensors...:rolleyes:

If you intend to have only direct path detection possible beneath the layer, you should switch to a surface duct SSP.



As you have noticed most of the area are deep waters so you can nicely go deep and make good speed without cavitating at all.Even at 6 knots and deep, it is easy to detect the akula with a VLAD in these conditions... easy enough that as I said, 87% of the map is covered at any given time by the P-3 and SSN21 alone. And that's without counting for the fact the the SSN21 can move and that there's an FFG and a helo too...




As you know you could detect a merchant making 25 knots with a convergence zone quite far away. How far do your SSM can reach?
You can kill a target far far away and the ASW may never know where the shoot came or how far you were from the target. And do not worry for the radar. Unless you are close to the FFG or the P-3 they will never get enough information about the missile path or origin.Without over the horizon targeting data, the missiles reach is wasted. The only way to get that data is to launch a missile strike. Kudos for including that, but the fact remains that the subs are known to start in small areas and that they'll be found before they're able to take advantage of this. By the way, did you position the SCS building so that it was right on the grid, or will we need to visually locate it in order to be accurate enough with a missile strike?



Have you calculated how much time need the FFG or the Seawolf to go for instance from Isla del Rey to Puerto Alegre area? About 2 hours going at flank.
With Convergence zone you will hear them comming 1 hour before.
And considering how vulnerable are the helicopters and P-3 to the submarine SAM and that there is only 1 P-3 and 2 helos, one could be human for such large area I would say that subs have more chances than the ASW units.You realize that the SSN21 is both quieter and has a better sonar than the Akula, right? The SSN21 gets first detection. The SAM is only a threat if you get within 2.5 or so miles. You're not likely to be at risk accidentally, and you can kill without entering that range.



2 submarines covering a large area full of non escorted merchies, deep waters, deep layer, SSM missiles and a minimum opposition.
You only have to sink those merchies that are making a lot of noise
Actually you have to think this way. Most of the contacts you will get on the sub, almost 99% are "targets"
For the ASW forces more than 90% of the contacts would be friendly but all of them must be "processed" analyzed and classified.
On all the testings I did unless you had the bad luck of running into a near sonobuoy at your depth and that the P-3 or the FFG or helo are close enough to process the signal you will feel free to run the Ocean.I'm a little encouraged by the fact that there is lots for the blue side to process... but if these are mostly merchants, it won't help. "Bad luck" has nothing to do with running into a sonobuoy when the SB field can take up 60% of the entire op area, especially when the people placing the field are smart enough to put those buoys along the routes of approach to the merchant lanes.



Both subs will start on different locations so ASW could hardly focus on a single area.
2 subs that only have to kill 5 merchies, with torps, missiles or whatever they want.
I think this scenario is more a challenge for Blue side than for Red side

The converge zone makes things even more interesting and require skilled players to make good use of the information provided.

I think once we play/test the real scenario we will have more accurate data for correcting anything that is not balanced and I would be more than happy to take into account all your suggestions and comments of the scenario that can surely be improved.Without intentionally taking steps to take up the P-3's time, Blue can win this even if the entire area needed to be searched. But they don't even need to do that much. they only need to search...what looks like four places based on the map you posted.

The convergence zone means that the red subs are highly detectable no matter what side of the layer they are on. It removes a tactical choice from the game, since it will always be reasonable to stay shallow so that they have a better chance of detecting the target ships if they stay up top.

I'm happy that you're willing to work on this a bit after it gets run though. I think this is a great idea for a scenario. The only reason I'm really worried is that you insist that this is an op area that's 150nm across when it's actually only 100nm on that side, and only about 50nm on the other. The fact is that this is a 5000 sq. nm op area, and from what you've posted it seems that you have not analyzed the amount of that area that can be covered given these conditions. If it looked to me that you had, then I'd be confident that you did whatever had to be done to compensate for it. But if you're telling me that its 150nm long, that tells me you haven't even checked.....:confused:

[Molon Labe]

:confused: I'm getting some inconsistent results on cross-layer detections with VLADs. This might mean that the buoy spacing would need to be tighter than what I thought. then again, maybe the next test will show an increase...

It did not prevent me from detecting the Akula in a test where I manually installed the buoy field from the P-3. The 6-knot Akula showed up cross-layer as soon as I got the buoy line in place, about 2/3rds of the way done with the full field and 45 minutes into the mission.

I'm going to get back to studying for now, but I'll run some more tests in a couple days or so to see if I can figure out just how much the ranges change from one run to the next.

[Furia]

Oki this is turning into something interestings.
First I did a full test on the conditions you proposed and this is what I found.

I placed a full P-3 sonobuoys loadout on HALF of the scenario, I think it is important to remark this. Almost HALF of the scenario area.
I placed an Akula II running at 15 knots at 1600 feet depth PLUS I added merchant traffic and biologics.

This is what you got.

http://menorca.infotelecom.es/~raulurbina/FFG/Test1.JPG

As you can see on this pic, almost all buoys are hot so hard to say you can use the hot buoy as cheat

By the way as you can see on this picture, the operations area ranges 150 NM, but do not argue with me, but with the distance rule :rolleyes: (you can find units on the loactions the size mesure was taken) However there are so many possible starting points for the subs that is simply not possible go and drop some buoys there and expect to locate the sub. The map has many Dynamic starting points for the subs :wink:
What I posted very intentionally were the entrances to Blue Side are and I also included Loyalty Bay as possible place for a starting point. I didn't mentioned how far in or out the points would the subs show up and that could mean long distances. Actually in some cases the subs may start not far from the entrance but already inside Blue Sea

Another point I wanted to remark was that if you look at the map, you can see the buoys hot but from the P-3 possition this is what you got on Sound Station

http://menorca.infotelecom.es/~raulurbina/FFG/Test%202.JPG

Now try to process all the information given by the 76 buoys I placed :biggrin: Most of them HOT.

On my test and using the "Show True" cheat I saw the Akula passing about 9 NM from a VLAD Deep buoy and no consistent data was possible to get from it.

Now Imagine the scenario with not only the contacts of half of the area but contacts of the FULL area.


Now I am just puzzle :eek:

You're dissapointing me, Furia. The deep water beneath the layer in a CV is a SOUND CHANNEL. Deep water buoy detections end up occurring at greater ranges (due in part to the VLAD being more sensitive). In any case, the buoy spacing I tested with took detection ranges both over and under into account. And since this was the result of a specific test using buoys, I don't see what the point of saying that buoys are different from sub sensors...

If you intend to have only direct path detection possible beneath the layer, you should switch to a surface duct SSP.

Well either you know something about the sim I don't or something is wrong here.

Althgouth I am playing basically ASW on Dangerous Waters I have many many dives as 688i player with Janes Hunter Killer and Sub Command and surely the sound conditions below the layer on a Convergence zone are not similar to a surface duct my friend.

Let me copy here what it is said about it on the DW manual and this is a very simple explanation

Convergence Zone
In some deep ocean environments, the bending of sound energy results in rings around a sound source where the sound rays are focused, so that the propagation loss is reduced by large amounts. These areas are called convergence zones (CZ), and when present, occur at intervals of 20 to 35 nm depending upon surface temperature. The CZ width is typically 5 to 10 % of the CZ range. Between the convergence zones, bottom paths usually prevail, so that contact is not maintained for any but the loudest contacts. This results in a characteristic condition where a contact will be held at a high SNR while in the CZ and then lost for 30 minutes or more before appearing as a direct path contact – or possibly not being detected until it has passed the closest point of approach and is again in the CZ as an opening contact.

In a convergence zone the dificult part is knowing the contact range and surely make detecting and tracking really complex. Detection, and Tracking (TMA) on Convergence zones and on direct sound channels are completely different, specially if the sub operator is skilled and know how to use the CZ on his favour.

When I was in Seawolves playing the old 688i Hunter Killer, there were some extremely skilled drivers that knew how to use Convergence Zones in such a way they can maneuver around you at good speed and you can never get a good TMA on them. CZ against skilled players is a nightmare.

About the use of the VLAD buoys that as you know they do not tell you the bearing to a tacontact but only its clasification, now imagine on our map above with all buoys in HOT that you have one VLAD Deep telling you have an AKULA somewhere.
Good, now where? with the CZ it can be up to 60 or even 80 NM from the buoy. What Bearing?, this you do not get it with a VLAD
You need it on a DICASS or DIFAR and that means the sub must pass closer to them.
Actually the Convergenze zone rings will make TMA quite interesting and complex because this is not direct sound channel.

I am enclosing the scenario I have used to make the testing as attachement on this very post and I encourage you to try it as P-3 player with full realism settings and tell me how easy is to find the submarine in just HALF of the Combat Area. The submarine is making 15 knots all the time.
Please try it and let me know your oppinion.

Regarding the location of the Air defence Center, I have made it dynamic as well so you have to find it by yourself. This may considered suicide for Red Navy since it would be too easy to place the Seawolf near to ambush you and yes, this is the idea. Give the players room for strategies.
Red Player may decide if trying to destroy the Air defence center is worth the risk and have to deviate a platform there to do so.
Blue side must decide if they use one of the extremely limited resources they have to cover the Air Defence Center.
Now Imagine that me as Blue player dedicate the Seawolf or the FFG to cover a possible approach to the Isla del Rey inmobilizing one important asset with that. Now after 4 hours match you have sunk 5 merchies at your pleasure because there is even less ASW opposition to worry.
Not to forget as well that Blue side should protect the High Value Military Convoy that is placing the Sonobuoy line.
Actually Red Navy may choose to attack the Convoy or the Air defence center or not and simply keep sinking Merchies. Blue Side must protect it all no matter what.
I wanted tyo give the players "options" to define their own strategy instead following a lineal storyline.
Here Red Navy may choose to give it a try to the elimination of the Air defence Center. If they accomplish so, they will soon have accurate information about the surface contacts and since the SN-27 have a nice range, the match could end quite soon.
For some players the risk would be worth for other not. And Will Blue side dedicate or not resources to cover the Air defence center????:wink: Some will some not. hehe Does it get interesting?

On my point of wiew as dedicated ASW player my chances to find the subs while at transit are not much good unless the sub makes something stupid as making much noise above the layer.
As ASW player my big hope is once the sub kills the first merchie would be to narrow the search area knowing where the merchie possition was when it was sunk and what is the range of normal torpedoes.
However what happen if the sub driver is a smart one and kills the merchie with a SSM missile from father away? or waht Happen if the sub player is even smarter and launch a long distance torpedo at slow speed that takes lets say 15 minutes to get to the target? How far he can clear datum from that area if just after firing the torps he makes fast speed out of the area without waiting for the impact? since the P-3 or the helo can be far away and need 15 minites to get into that area plus the 15 minutes of the torpedo run you get 30 minutes to run.
Well this is just one example of tactics.
My sole objective on this scenario is to give players room for tactics and procedures. Some scenarios are too lineal and you only have one way of doing. I want to give players room to decide.

Since I am a dedicated ASW player and I hope to play this scenario on Blue side most of the time, I wanted it to be more challenging and difficult for blue side and considering my experience on ASW platforms and my testing of the scenario I think that Red Side have 75 to 85% chances of winning it if the subs are properly commanded.
For me would be a real challenge as ASW skipper
Anyway your comments are extremely helpful since it have helped me to narrow a couple of possible glitches that I have already fixed and I surely welcomed any imput about the scenario.
The scenario is not fully finished yet and I am sure more improvement or modification could be added although I am really looking forward to play test it with human players.

Anyway I suggest we move this subject to the Mission Designer Forum area since this is the events area and maybe it is not the best place for map design.
Admin note: Done

[Molon Labe]

http://menorca.infotelecom.es/%7Eraulurbina/FFG/Test1.JPG



By the way as you can see on this picture, the operations area ranges 150 NM, but do not argue with me, but with the distance rule :rolleyes:

Now you're just being plain dishonest. You've moved the goalposts. "Nemo strait" is south of that small island, and you're measuring from 50 miles beyond that strait! Can we have a little honesty here!?!?!



(you can find units on the loactions the size mesure was taken) However there are so many possible starting points for the subs that is simply not possible go and drop some buoys there and expect to locate the sub. The map has many Dynamic starting points for the subs :wink:

What I posted very intentionally were the entrances to Blue Side are and I also included Loyalty Bay as possible place for a starting point. I didn't mentioned how far in or out the points would the subs show up and that could mean long distances. Actually in some cases the subs may start not far from the entrance but already inside Blue Seayou said earlier that they would start at the entrances to the sea. I see four entrances. If there are more possibilities, including inside the sea, then that's a good thing.



Another point I wanted to remark was that if you look at the map, you can see the buoys hot but from the P-3 possition this is what you got on Sound Station

Now try to process all the information given by the 76 buoys I placed :biggrin: Most of them HOT.

It doesn't take long for the P-3 to move into range to process them. There's also an FFG and helo to help. the question is, how many of them will be hot in the scenario and how many can quickly be ruled out to that the P-3 can investigate the next batch? If there is plenty to do, then this works. If there isn't, there's a problem. As I've already mentioned, this is something you can do if you deliberately made an effort to.




Althgouth I am playing basically ASW on Dangerous Waters I have many many dives as 688i player with Janes Hunter Killer and Sub Command and surely the sound conditions below the layer on a Convergence zone are not similar to a surface duct my friend.
I didn't say it was similar to a surface duct. I said it was a sound channel.






About the use of the VLAD buoys that as you know they do not tell you the bearing to a tacontact but only its clasification, now imagine on our map above with all buoys in HOT that you have one VLAD Deep telling you have an AKULA somewhere.
VLAD buoys most definitely tell you the bearing of the contact. Have you ever even used one? :rolleyes:



Good, now where? with the CZ it can be up to 60 or even 80 NM from the buoy. What Bearing?, this you do not get it with a VLAD

The VLAD will be too deep to pick up convergence zone contacts on this map.



You need it on a DICASS or DIFAR and that means the sub must pass closer to them.
Actually the Convergenze zone rings will make TMA quite interesting and complex because this is not direct sound channel.

If DW models actual CZs at all, the buoys aren't sensitive to pick them up for targets as quiet as the Akula and Kilo. The CZ SSP in DW will just increase the detection range on both sides of the layer.



I am enclosing the scenario I have used to make the testing as attachement on this very post and I encourage you to try it as P-3 player with full realism settings and tell me how easy is to find the submarine in just HALF of the Combat Area. The submarine is making 15 knots all the time.
I've already done that for a 6 knot Akula and found it in 45 minutes...immediately after the buoy string near his location was dropped. I threw in 5 merchants to gum up the works, too.

Once I figure out the variance in ranges from game to game, I might give your version a shot just to see...




Regarding the location of the Air defence Center.... You didn't answer my question. I'm asking about how it was placed, not where. If you have not placed to line up with the coordinate system, then an intelligence message specifying its coordinates might not be accurate enough to allow a strike to hit. I'm hoping you were planning on using intel, considering visual detection of a land target by a submarine is pretty rare.



On my point of wiew as dedicated ASW player my chances to find the subs while at transit are not much good unless the sub makes something stupid as making much noise above the layer.
As ASW player my big hope is once the sub kills the first merchie would be to narrow the search area knowing where the merchie possition was when it was sunk and what is the range of normal torpedoes.
However what happen if the sub driver is a smart one and kills the merchie with a SSM missile from father away? or waht Happen if the sub player is even smarter and launch a long distance torpedo at slow speed that takes lets say 15 minutes to get to the target?

Well, I disagree with that last tactic being beneficial, but I hope it plays out this way. I'll get back to you after I've got better range variance data.



How far he can clear datum from that area if just after firing the torps he makes fast speed out of the area without waiting for the impact? since the P-3 or the helo can be far away and need 15 minites to get into that area plus the 15 minutes of the torpedo run you get 30 minutes to run.
Well this is just one example of tactics. You only get 15 minutes if the target is all the way on one side the map and the P-3 is on the other. Why not be more realistic and say the P-3 will be somewhere in the middle and the time will be 0-8 minutes?


My sole objective on this scenario is to give players room for tactics and procedures. Some scenarios are too lineal and you only have one way of doing. I want to give players room to decide.



For me would be a real challenge as ASW skipper
Anyway your comments are extremely helpful since it have helped me to narrow a couple of possible glitches that I have already fixed and I surely welcomed any imput about the scenario.
The scenario is not fully finished yet and I am sure more improvement or modification could be added although I am really looking forward to play test it with human players.

Anyway I suggest we move this subject to the mission editor Forum area since this is the events area and maybe it is not the best place for map design.

Cool. Like I said, I'll follow up once I get a feel for how much things change mission to mission. Things might be better or worse than I originally thought. Hopefully better (most of the time).

[Furia]

Now you're just being plain dishonest. You've moved the goalposts. "Nemo strait" is south of that small island, and you're measuring from 50 miles beyond that strait! Can we have a little honesty here!?!?!

I have not changed anything that I can remeber on this subject.
I placed the names of the entrances as reference name not that the entrance can be considered where the first letter of the Name was or where the last letter was. It was a general description of a Geographical area.
The Strait or the entrances are just plain clear on the map.
Why I should be "dishonest on this? with what pourpose? :confused:

About the location of start although I have decided even to add one more, they are really random and dymanic and really hard to anticipate since there are many of them. For instance when I say Nemo's Strait, does not mean just on the strait but can be a bit outside, on the middle, a bit inside or after the Strait. It is just a rough General area information I am giving to the players.

About the hot buoys, expect a level of traffic similar to the Test scenario I have posted here for you to try, so most of the bouys would be hot.

I apologize for my mistake about the non directional VLAD buoys. I have no clue what I was thinking about when I posted that. I guess I have to take a break LOL. Too much time inside this scenario is softening my brain LOL
I guess I have sunk some subbies using Bouys I I guess I know more or less how they work but for some reason I wrote that nonsense post about the VLAD.:frown:

Regarding the Air Defence center you must locate it visually. This is why I made it a Sonalyst Building so it is easy to ID.
Actually the building will change location everytime the scenario is played.
My objective is not to provide an easy long distance shoot with a TLAM but to force the player to take some "risk". However it could be worth because they could get precious information about all shipping on the sea.
So no intelligence other than it is located along the West Coast of Isla del Rey. It is on the Beach so you can find it easily if you get near.

[Molon Labe]

Regarding the Op Area size, when I moved this thread over here I added your original op area pic right alongside mine. It's easy to see that your measurement in the later pic isn't consistent with the op area as shown in that pic. In any case, it's a moot point. In the area beyond what is labeled as Nemo Strait that you are now including, the width is quite small. It's addition to the op area only increases the size by about 550 square miles...about a 10% increase.

Well, shooting a LAM (not TLAM, hehe) itself is a risk because of the huge sonar signature, TIW alert, and the sight of the missile on radar. With only visual detection of the target, I think its safe to say that it's a non factor...which in turn meant that the SS-N-27 ASM won't be terribly useful. That's not necessarily a bad thing, considering the -27 is damn near impossible to defend against and that an IL-28 may well locate 5 target ships in range of the Red subs. On the other hand, the IL-28 will be an easy target for the FFG, which means it's senseless to take out the command center before killing the FFG. Moving to kill the FFG is a predictable move (assuming the command center is located), so the Red subs can be detected in transit, or can be engaged after they reveal themselves in attacking the FFG...if they survive that, maybe they deserve OTH targeting. Then again, depending on the circumstances, killing the FFG and getting away with it might not be that big a feat, especially since it only takes one of the Red subs so even if it dies, the other gets to shoot the missiles all over the place once OTH data is obtained.

:2ct:Most of my concerns will be addressed if there is a decent amount of 50hz traffic. If you've got that, I think this setup works. Keep up the good work.

[Molon Labe]

Testing has now shown positively that the DW's CV SSP does not produce CV contacts.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/SNR_PROP/IMG00019.GIF

[Method: Test 1. Above layer, CVN-68 at 30 knots in a DIFAR field. The only hot buoys were alongside the carrier. If a CV was modeled, some buoys would be hot at a distance away, with cold buoys in between.

Test 2: Below layer (just for the heck of it) Victor III at 30 knots at 1000 ft in a VLAD deep field. Same result as with the CVN shallow.

Test 3: (verifying test 1) 30 knot CVN driving along a path of DIFARs. Produced a series of uninterupted hot buoys. Processing the buoys showed a gradual decline in signal strength as range increased. there was never an increase in signal strength as range increased. Nothing changed while the CVN was allowed to transit]
http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/cvtest.jpg

DW clearly does NOT model convergence zones...

[OneShot]

The buoys in DW might not be capable of detecting CZ contacts, however I believe that you can get CZ contacts with the TAs of the subs and the FFG - maybe even with the dipping sonar of the Helo. Would be interesting to test for that.

Cheers
OS

[Molon Labe]

The buoys in DW might not be capable of detecting CZ contacts, however I believe that you can get CZ contacts with the TAs of the subs and the FFG - maybe even with the dipping sonar of the Helo. Would be interesting to test for that.

That shouldn't be hard to test. I'll give it a shot.

[Molon Labe]

You win this round, Oneshot. Don't tell Luftwolf. ;)

Using an Akula, I observed a two convergence zones for the CVN 68, going from 3 to 4 lines at 30.1nm and back to 3 again at 29.4nm in one test, and going from 1 line to 2 lines at 60.0nm then back to 1 line at 58.7nm in another.

More remarkably, a 688 flight I produced a CV contact at a range of 60 miles, when no contact was present before or after that. The contact was only present for less than 10 seconds (that's a guess, I was on TC of course).

I'm guessing that CV contacts are possible on buoys, but that they are so narrow that they don't show up. The buoy spacing I used in my test was clearly not enough to be conclusive. My bad. :censored:

[Furia]

I have added some modifications to the scenario.
The High value Military Convoy laying the Sonobuoys is already underway instead departing from harbour. The reason is that I realized it needed about 10 hours to complete the route and thus have the sonobuoy line operative.
Since I do not think most games are going to last so much :tongue: I have reduced it by placing it already underway and having visited already 2 harbours. Still needs almost 5 hours to complete the route but this is more acceptable now.

I have added another starting point on one on the little bays on the south but already inside Blue's bay.
I will upgrade intel and the maps soon.

regarding the CZ detection. I have to say that I did some testing with a helo dipping sonnar and I had the same resoults than you. It works but will require a skilled operator.
On the other hand I am now a bit concerned since with the normal buoys I have seen that the detection range of a sub going at flak while she is deep, is no more than 10 NM, so the CZ is not really working for the Buoys as I expected so this can be a serious handicap for ASW.
I will run more tests today.

Molon I see you are already developing tactics and balancing if it is worth to attack the Air defence Command center or not. :smile: This was exactly my final goal on this scenario. Make the player think and define strategies, balance options. With the limitations of dangerous Waters I wanted to give him several possible way to face this scenario. I hope we finally accomplish this. :cool:

[Molon Labe]

How can getting detections out to 10nm with a buoy be a problem for ASW? That's frakin' HUGE! If that's the standard you're using for buoy spacing, you can cover the whole Op Area with just 50 buoys (a few more if you need to go past Nemo).

Regarding CV detections, I think it's unlikely you'll see a CV on a buoy because you'd have to be looking at the buoy at just the right time, and the amount of time that contact might be held is mere seconds. If you see a CV on a buoy at all, it will probably be an increase in strength of an already existing contact rather than a new contact.

[Furia]

How can getting detections out to 10nm with a buoy be a problem for ASW? That's frakin' HUGE! If that's the standard you're using for buoy spacing, you can cover the whole Op Area with just 50 buoys (a few more if you need to go past Nemo).
I said at a maximum of 10 NM and,well considering we are talking of an old Akula I making FLANK speed I do not think that is such a remarkable event and as it was not a very solid or clear contact on the buoy.
The test was done with no other traffic on the area. With lots of noise from surface contacts it would be much easier to remain undetected.
And frankly I do think you expect that an old Akula I can go at flank speed and remain undetected even if lightly by a buoy at a maximum 10 miles.
With the modern subs such the latest Akula or the latest Kilo detection would be a bit more difficult and surely I do not expect them to wander around the Ops area at FLANK speed all the time.
Anyway from what I know about normal submarine operations, they usually do not travell around the world at 3 knots but they use standard speed unless they are stalking a target or doing silent running for some reason.
I have the feeling that on our online combats are used to basically start already on the firing possition and doing more than 6 knots is considered suicide.
Part of my idea for this scenario is to force the subs to move at some speed and accept a reasonable risk of detection. So it does the ASW team that will Force the Seawolf and the FFG to make a lot of noise to go anywere and yes, the Seawolf have better sensors than de Akula but does not have Subrocs and if the Akula can hear the Seawolf coming at long range a nice Subroc could make life for the Seawolf "complicated".

All our test are done with AI subs at Flank speed travelling at the same depth. I expect things with Human players would be more complicated because they will change depth through the layer, slow down, sprint, stop......
Making TMA with 76 hot buyos and traking dozens of contacts at the same time would not be easy for the ASW team specially with a human player on the subs, that knows his stuff.
Actually if I am the leader of the ASW team be sure I will not have 76 buoys droped all around because this will simply block our analisys capacity, at least mine, LOL. I will use a more "specific" sectors (choke points) search with limited number of buoys that I can carefully process.
However this is about tactics and capabilities, for me the 76 buoys scenario is just a nightmare hehe.

I want to find a balance between taking risks but have realistic difficulties.
We cannot model a sound enviroment where subs can run at flank and being detected only at 3 NM, but of course I do not want a sound enviroment where subs can be detected easily if they make Standar speed.
As ASW player the CZ poses more troubles for me than for instace surface duct.

I think we have to try the scenario with all the merchies and naval units to see if it is really too much tilted to one side or the other.
My objective is to make it difficult for both and be sure I will change whatever is need to archieve this goal and if I have to change the sound conditions or other stuff I will do it but I think we have to try it the way it is now first.
Looking forward for this test. :wink:

[Molon Labe]

I can agree that a sub at flank should be detected in a buoy field, but I can't accept that if it's a problem if it is not detected by a buoy more than 10nm away.

In any case, flank isn't a reasonable test speed. In determining if the ASW task will be too easy or not, you have to use patrol and transit speeds as benchmarks. Those speeds determine the detection ranges, the det. ranges determine the buoy spacing, and the buoy spacing determines the portion of the Op Area that can be covered at once.

If you can cover the majority of the op area even for patrol speeds, you have a problem. If you can shrink the portion of the op area so that you don't need to cover the whole thing, you have a bigger problem.

On the other hand, if you've put enough crap out there so that it takes substantial time to process the info, then you may have addressed the problem.

[Furia]

The test scenario I attached here for test tries to reproduce the traffic and enviromental conditions of the mission.
Basically it is inly one area,a bit more tha half of the final scenario map.
You can expect to find a similar surface and biologic traffic than on the final scenario so I hope you can test it as P-3 and tell me your oppinion about it.
on this scenario you have an Akula running at 15 knots wich I think is an average safe speed.
The AKula starting possition is randon on that scenario as well so bear with me if you just happen to start the map with the Akula directly on a VLAD buoy.
Since I did a random distribution of buoys, it would not have been fair that I placed the Akula clearly away from the Deep Vlad, so I made the Akula Start random.

The final scenario also have a lot of random options so it could be that one sub just happened to be much near of the merchant traffic and can sink 2 merchies in 10 minutes or it takes hours until he can find and destroy one.
On this scenario merchants on most cases are making good speed, that is above 20 knots. No merchats travel around the world at 6 knots so subs will not only have to detect but get in weapon range before the target moves away.
What worries me is that the random could place an easy victory on any team side because the way the scenario launch everytime although I am trying hard to make it balanced.
Also one of the interesting parts of it would be that like in real life, things never go all the time on your favour, sometimes you have to carry a mission and the circumstances are not the best ones but a good skipper does his best to try to get the mission with what he has.


Please if you have a chace to try the scenario I attached here let me know whet you think about it and how difficult it could be. If you happen to have early detection after 10 minutes game, please kindly try again so the random places the sub not on top of a VLAD deep.

[Molon Labe]

I see you've run into the randomness problem... Yes, it's a bitch. But, by having multiple targets, you can reduce the danger of the mission being decided by where the starting positions occur.

I'll be happy to give your test scenario a shot, but I'll need some time to get around to it. As I see it, I have until the 5th. :biggrin:

[Molon Labe]

Ok, so I did your test scenario before I did the range variance tests.

Or rather, I put a 15 knot akula at the same depth along with the merchies and 50 hz contacts you had into my test scenario. Why? Because I'll place my own buoys, thank you very much. Just like the players in the scenario will be doing. It also cuts down on the frustration of having the buoys randomly ordered. Mine were all in a nice line, and numbered sequentially, with makes processing them much easier.

I first detected the Akula at 1:26 or so into it. The buoy that had detected him had just been placed minutes earlier. I was processing the buoy as I was laying the string immediately south of it. In other words, the only reason it took 1:26 was because the Akula was at the southern end of the buoy field that I started laying in the north. Had I started in the south, or had he been in the north, it might have taken all of 10 minutes.

The contact was obvious because it did not correspond with the bearing of any know surface contacts. It was immediately classified PROSUB.

At 1:29, the contact faded from 2 lines to one. I now know he's headed away from the buoy.

At 1:30, a second buoy registered a hit on the same contact. I was unlucky because the contact was on the same bearing as the 2nd buoy, so I did not have a discrete intersection point. But, I did have him localized to between the two buoys, and I know he's closer to the first.

At 1:32 the first buoy lost contact. Now I know he's closer to the 2nd buoy. I decend and attempt a MAD run to pin him down. No contact. The 2nd buoy is up to 3 lines now.

At 1:37, I fire my first torpedo into his aft baffles. I know he cannot detect anything from behind as long as he is above 10 knots. When the torpedo enables, he begins evasion, setting off other buoys. I see him evading west.

At 1:42, I fire my second torpedo in front of his new evasion course.

At 1:43, the first torpedo hits. The 2nd torp is within acquisition range, but the sub sinks before the torp finds him (Had this been MP and the player had evaded the first torp, the 2nd torp would have killed him).

All told, it took 0 time for a buoy to pick him up, less than 5 minutes for me to notice that the buoy had him, and less than 20 minutes to kill him after that.

[Furia]

Interesting test.
So now how do you think this would translate in our final scenario with an almost double operations area double of contacts and with humman players on the subs that will surely not stay at 15 knots for 2 hours and without changing layers or course?

How many merchies you think the Akula could have killed until you got him?

How much time it took you to lay down the bouy field?
If instead only that half area, we do the test on the full ops area? how many buoys would you use? You think it will be more difficult to find targets if the buoys have to be more spread?
Did your scenario had the same level of traffic than mine including the biologics?

What are your suggestions to "fix" this sittuation?

By the way I want to express my recognicement for your skill on the P-3. Surely it is not the average one.
In all my testings It took me much longer to find the Akula while analyzing the tons of data from 70 buoys!!! Lol I still have headache. :cool:

[Molon Labe]

OK, so I've got a better feel for the range variance now.

We're looking at cross-layer detections occuring between 2.1 and 2.8 nm for 6-knot akulas and between 2.3 and 3.0 for 12-knot Akulas.

What that means is there's some guesswork to be had, since we don't know what range the misson will have when the SSP is generated at mission start. At 2.8+nm, all the gloom and doom I said before holds true. At 2.2, if the buoy spacing is the same as in my prior tests, detection at any given moment goes down from nearly 100% to about 70% for a 6-knot Akula. Which of course is still crazy high. The airdales can bring this back up to near 100% by closing up the buoys a little, reducing the area of the total size under observation (probably not worth it).

I wish I could say this changes anything, but sadly, it doesn't. The situation is essentially this:

Below the layer, the Akula will be subject to 100% instantaneous detectability down to as little as 6 knots, for 60% of the Op Area for the P-3 alone.

Above the layer, the Akula will be subject to 100% detectability down to as little as 12 knots, and 70% down to as little as 6 knots.

As the sub moves through the buoy field, even that 70% moves toward 100%. They will run into a buoy eventually.

At this point in the design, detectability should result in a quick kill. With only 3 other platforms in the Op Area generating 50hz signals, any detection can be quickly processed and classified.

Moreover, the issue with the P-3 sometimes being out of range to process a buoy won't help much because the instantaneous chance of detectability is so high. The P-3 will be able to detect the Akula the first time it processes the buoy, in all cases except 30% of the time the Akula is above the layer at 6 knots.

Okay, so instead of just griping, here's some ideas. First, what won't work: amazingly, changing the acoustics. Switching the bottom type and the SSP isn't doing it (I'm sure BL and mud/sand would, but then it goes to the other extreme). The CV is actually leading to the shortest cross-layer detections, and bottom type isn't making any difference. The overcast clouds are helping already. So, I think we're stuck with major cross-layer ranges. The task, then, is dealing with them.

We'll need two things to accomplish that. First, bios at various depths to trigger hot buoys. Well, at least deep, since the skimmers will be triggering any shallow buoys. Second, we'll need more than 3 50hz skimmers. A lot more than 3. The idea here is to create some possibility that a 50hz signal from the sub might be mistaken for one of those skimmers. If that happens on the first processing, then there is some chance the sub might be able to slip around while other buoys are being processed.

Beyond that, I think there is a little bit of room for the Red side to make some decisions to make the task a little bit harder, all things considered. Of course, if I say what I had in mind I'd be too predictable, so I won't share.:tongue:

[Molon Labe]

Interesting test.
So now how do you think this would translate in our final scenario with an almost double operations area double of contacts and with humman players on the subs that will surely not stay at 15 knots for 2 hours and without changing layers or course?

How many merchies you think the Akula could have killed until you got him?

How much time it took you to lay down the bouy field?
If instead only that half area, we do the test on the full ops area? how many buoys would you use? You think it will be more difficult to find targets if the buoys have to be more spread?
Did your scenario had the same level of traffic than mine including the biologics?

What are your suggestions to "fix" this sittuation?

By the way I want to express my recognicement for your skill on the P-3. Surely it is not the average one.
In all my testings It took me much longer to find the Akula while analyzing the tons of data from 70 buoys!!! Lol I still have headache. :cool:

I don't think the time to set up the buoy field is something that should favor the attacking side. If the attacking side gets to win before the defenders have a chance to set up that's just BS. The problem that the testing is showing is that the moment the buoy field is put in place, the Akula gets detected. That might happen as little as 10 minutes into the game. Thus, if you count on this to be your "balancing," who wins is simply a matter of luck... if the subs started in the same place the P-3 starts to set up a buoy field, they die. If the subs started on the other side, then they get to kill everyone before the defenders can do anything. There's no skill involved. This is worse because the luck is one-sided. The attackers can lose the toss of the dice and die right away, but if they win the toss they don't win the game, instead theres an actual fight. The ideal would be to make sure there's a good fight no matter where the players start out.

As for the size of the op area... as already mentioned, the P-3 and SW by themselves can cover 80% of it at once. That's without the SW moving. That's without the FFG and helo. Does the Blue side really need to protect more than 80% of the op area to keep the merchants safe?

And by the way, the buoy field I used to tag the 15 knot akula was still good enough to catch him at 6 knots on the other side of the layer! So translating that to the real scenario, and I've still got him. Prosecuting might take longer if he's going slow b/c I'll have him on less buoys. That's about it.

The thing is, the P-3 doesn't need to check 70 buoys at once to get a hit. It only needs to check them row by row as they come online. Since the Akula gets picked up the moment the buoy field is placed in its area, the task is quite easy. To be honest, when I found that Akula I was only reading 2 or 3 buoys. The rest were ruled out already or weren't placed yet.

Suggestions are in the previous post...

[Furia]

Hi.
Nice testing. Thanks.
On the final scenario there are about 30 entities on the water besides the red subs.
We have whales and srimps above and below the layer.
Most ships are at fast speed and make a lot of noise.
My point about the time to deploy the field is important since the P-3 starts on the ground in Orion Airfield. Need to take off and move to the ops area and deploy the field.
Considering that the P-3 is supposed to cover with buoys an area that is about, 100 to 150, hhm lets say for this just 100 nm, then every line of bouys would take him about 25 minutes. Now say you need 10 lines to cover it all properly. we are talking about 250 minutes of laying the super bouy field. Maybe a bit less maybe a Bit more but a relevant time that I took into account when designing the scenario. If you use full speed you will have to refuel soon.
Landing the P-3 is not easy and where I palced the airport autolanding does not work ;) at least did not worked for me.
All in all a risky maneuver.
Anyway based in your observations I am going to reduce the Sonobuoy field laid by the naval convoy so it is more thin than the actual I had planned. Although I calculated this line of bouys would be deployed after 5 hours game if the Naval Tender survives the transit, I will make it weaker.

[Furia]

Oki, since you took the effort to make a long test I did a full test of the P-3 detection possibilities. Took me quite a bit.

Here is the screen at an early stage of the mission.

http://menorca.infotelecom.es/~raulurbina/FFG/Total%20war%20P-3.JPG

Taking off from Orion Field and making the pattern you see on the map at 400 knots took me about 3 hours.

Of course since bouys die at 2 hours when I finished the pattern, more than 30% of the bouys were inoperative and the rest had limited life.

The P-3 Route was about 1050 NM long.
The average spacing between tracks was about 6 to 10 NM and if you make a mathematic spacing of your more or less 80 buoys on the P-3 in 1050 NM you have a spacing of 13 NM between each bouy of the line and lets say 8 NM between tracks
While I was laying the pattern in one side of the scenario about 30 to 40% of the bouys on the other side were "out of range"

After laying this pattern the P-3 was out of buoys and have to go and manually land (for some reason automatic landing does not work :confused: )
by the time I was back, less than 40 % of the buoys was operative and only covering the North Sector.
Of course in all this time I did not deviated a single milimeter from the route to investigate any possible contact, drop additional bouys or conduct a MAD search so the P-3 was basically a Sonobuoy layer.

When I started on the south, and as I mentioned it took me 3 hours to complete the full track, during almost 3 hours the north have no buoys to decet any submarine, so lest say 2 hours and half to move freely for the subs on the north. Same happens of course if I start on the North, then any sub on south have this room to maneuver.
And if you see the map that already includes a new starting dynamic area in Moonlight Bay (South East), neither Nemos' Strait, Loyalty Bay, Moonlight Bay or Liberty Strait have not a single buoy on them so not even with this huge track pattern we cover 100% of the area specially where the subs may start.

Now I tested this with with the 30 more or less entities on the water (including biologics, neutrals, merchant and naval units) and I have to say that while using autocrew I did not even heard any sub or got a solid bearing.
We got some "los Angeles" or "fishing vessels" that usually could end up being Russian Subs but during all my testing the autocrew did not came up with any russian sub clear posstion.
I am maybe not as skilled as you on the P-3 sonobuoy detection and maybe you may have sorted out easily, cannot say, but for me was almost impossible, most of the buoys were hot all the time and when I finished laying tmen down I could not "process the lines one by one" as you said you did because many buoys were already dead.
This would be a nice scenario for having multistation on the P-3 because the workload is really high. Maybe a didicated player on sound station could help a bit toimprove perfomance.
The ammount of information on the buoys is so high that I am a bit concerned about lag now.

So after this test I have to say I disagree with you and that on my view that tactic of covering the whole ocean with buoys with the P-3 is not a good idea but does not guarantee at all submarine detection.

The time to laydonw the bouys is also a factor. You will not start with the buoys layed on top of the sub and if you travel the whole area for long times you will have 30 or 40% buoys out of range.
Also landing will be risky and not everybody can land the P-3 manually and if the loose the P-3 on an accident well... subs will be very happy. I have to confess I crashed already one time while trying to manually land the P-3.

With Human susb that will surely try to determine where the P-3 is or has been that will sprint and run or change layer, with players that can use a merchant to follow him at short distance to cross a sonobuy field undetected :tongue: (I know you have this in mind hehe)
Well all in all in my oppinion your testing does not reflect the conditions the players will face on the final scenario and the long distances they have to travel.
The dispersion pattern you can get with the 80 buoys on that 1050 NM track gives much more spacing between buoys than the field you used for testing.

If the whole scenario is travelled a large number of buoys are out of range while you will never have 100% coverage of the Ops area because a percentage of your buoys will be dead before you can complete the track.

[OneShot]

@Furia : Just from looking at the Ops area I would handle deploying my buoys quite different. The tracks you have flown are way to long, if you intend to do a MAD search this would be quite dandy, but just for laying buoys ...

Without going to deep into it now (after all, Red side might be reading this too), there are some discrete entrances to the Ops Area ... one or two buoys each might be sufficient. The rest of the area can be split into 2 or 3 separate areas, where each area would have its own buoy setup. Depending on traffic and acoustic conditions I would vary the buoy layout and spacing but for now lets give it at least 14nm between 2 buoys. Yep, you won't cover everything perfectly with that but you conserve a lot of buoys you might need when actually prosecuting and after all the red side is assumed to be moving a lot which means they will end up near one of the buoys eventually.

I think most people know my opinion about saturation tactics, be it with DICASS alone or any other buoys ... do it in Real Life and once getting back to home base be ready for the big chew out by your squadron boss followed by lot of time not in the air. Aside from that its quite unfair towards our sub guys ... aside from surfacing and slugging it out with SAMs there is simply no way around a mass of buoys - this has been proven over and over again.

Just my :2ct:

[Furia]

Hi OS.
I could not agree more with you. I would never employ such tactic as the one I used on the test.
I just did that test to show Molon that what he considered an easy thing to saturate the area with buoys and get the first detection in 10 minutes would not be that easy. Since he employed a similar massive buoy deployement but on a bit more than hafl of the final ops area I wanted to place things on perspective with the real distances and times for the full scenario.

I do also agree that abusing of the buoys is usually not a good thing unless there are no other contacts than the hostiles ones so I will use a saturation of DICASS, but as you said this would not be wise on RL.
I already mentioned on a post above I would use a similar tactic than the you mention here, but never droping all my buoys in mass and have to process 80 buoys most of them hot.

In all, imagine about 30 entities on the ops area, including Blue side units (surface and subsurface) and the merchies, other naval units, neutrals,Biologics .......All making good speed and noise.
From the point of view of a dedicated P-3 driver, would you consider that locating a humman manned sub on that large scenario is "easy" and "100% guarantee" for ASW forces?

[Molon Labe]

My testing isn't so much geared at demonstrating tactics that can be used, but at determining how much of the ocean blue side can see at one side. I never expected the buoy deployment I've been using to be what OS used.

What OS uses will be much, much worse. He won't search the whole ocean because he knows he doesn't have to. The problem that the testing shows is that 80% of the whole ocean CAN be covered. With that capability, not only is it easy to lock down all the entrances to the op area if Red starts outside, but it might be enough to guard the routes of all the merchants if Red starts inside.

Regarding that P-3 route above specifically, keep in mind that the area to the East of that little island can be covered by the Seawolf almost by herself. She's getting ~15nm for 6kt Akula below and 24.5nm above, plus a CV contact (possibly a 2nd CV, I didn't check that far out, but the 1st CV is really strong). I think whatever little area in that corner left out the FFG and helo can plug up without much problem. So with that covered by those guys and the P-3 covering the square area we've been testing, the 80% figure I came up with using math looks pretty accurate to what you get in game...

[OneShot]

@Furia : Locating a sub with that many other contacts in the area is certainly not easy, additionally you have to give your own position away by turning on the Radar (you need to correlate your surface contacts to your buoy stuff fast, and Linking might not always work out best). You can't rely on the "Hot" buoy function unless you have a buoy where no other contacts are (which I suppose won't be happening and if so then there prolly wont be a sub either).

So by no means its easy, still as ML pointed out it is doable and the chances are pretty high that you find the bad guys sooner or later in those confined waters. They might get off one shot but as soon as the first torp is in the water their chances drop damn low.

[Furia]

I think we are closing possitions here.
Let me recap my initial idea.
I wanted an scenario where players have no time constrains and that have ample room to fight their war using many different tactics.
I never intended to give subs the possibility of running around at flank undetected neither allow the Blue side to have them located easily.

Merchant routes would not be so predictable other than on the harbour entrances, they do not go on straight line from harbour to harbour.
Subs start will be on 2 out of six possible areas, some of them already inside Blue Sea (although not on top of the merchant vessels)
I want to make enphasis that the possible submarine start possitions would be really hard to predict on intercept with a couple of bouys.
On every starting area, one of the actual 6 there are about 4 possibilities each so on each starting area we are talking about rough areas of 50 NM diameter. Considering that on best case scenario for Blue they can deliver the first bouy lets say 30 minutes, a sub on that area could be even at 60 NM from the buoy whe this one is droped.

I honnestly do not expect the subs to be located before they start firing as OS wisely said, then it will the real combat begun.
Subs can coordinate their attacks and engage severla merchies at same time with torps and SSM and they can be hundreds of mile away from each other.
ASW forces will have to split since there are 2 subs separated by considerable distance, the only ASW platform that can engage them both could be the P-3 but now we face the Human factor.

I have seen ML evading torpedos real nice on much hostile enviromental conditions. On tropedo evasion the straong CZ works on favour of the evading subs.
With the P-3, the subs face light torpedoes not wired and that have limited range. Subs have a VERY EFFECTIVE layer to play with and I am sure that you both know what I mean. Facing un-wired torpedoes the Subs have "chances" of evading the torps.
I just run a test with me on the Akula on the same scenario and one MH-60.
I evaded all his 3 torpedos and I am not really a super Akula skkiper I have to say...

Well my point here is that I would like to have a difficult scenario for both sides. Subs will be detected one time or another and I think this is realistic, specially when theys start to fire torpedoes or missiles.
The question is can audacious and skilled skkipers develope tactics and drive their boats in a way they can achieve victory, a well earned victory?
Lets not forget that Victory conditions mean the sinking of 5 Merchants, not remaining undetected for the whole match.
The subs are really well armed and on my oppinion they pose a threat for even the ASW Hunters.
If you tell me there is no way the Sub skkipers can do it then I will have to change the whole scenario.
I really do not want a suicde scenario for subs or for the ASW team. I want it hard for both and most important I want it in such a way that audacious and smart skippers of any side can make the difference adapting to the conditions of the sittuation.

So far I have added this latest changes;

Added one extra spawn point for the Red Subs, inside the Blue Sea but not on top of merchant Traffic.
I have eliminated one EC-2 Hawkeye Aircraft that was patrolling the area so ASW forces are forced to use radar themselves.
I have lightened the "sosus" sonobuoy line that would be deployed by the High Value Military Convoy if they can complete their transit.
I have added more biologics and some extra fishing vessels so now the number of "floating" entities besides the Red Navy subs are around +30 (I do not dare to add more for fear to have lag)

Gentlemen your imput about all this is very welcomed and needed.

[Molon Labe]

I think we are closing possitions here.
Let me recap my initial idea.
I wanted an scenario where players have no time constrains and that have ample room to fight their war using many different tactics.
I never intended to give subs the possibility of running around at flank undetected neither allow the Blue side to have them located easily.
Furia, you're the only one talking about 'running around at flank.' I've been using 12 kts and 6 kts as my test base. All the figures I've given you are for 6 kts unless otherwise specified.

Remember, you said this mission isn't for people that crawl around at 1.5 knots... but with an op area as confined as this, they're going to need to go that slow to remain undetected...assuming they remain undetected at 0 knots...



Merchant routes would not be so predictable other than on the harbour entrances, they do not go on straight line from harbour to harbour.
Subs start will be on 2 out of six possible areas, some of them already inside Blue Sea (although not on top of the merchant vessels)
I want to make enphasis that the possible submarine start possitions would be really hard to predict on intercept with a couple of bouys.
On every starting area, one of the actual 6 there are about 4 possibilities each so on each starting area we are talking about rough areas of 50 NM diameter. Considering that on best case scenario for Blue they can deliver the first bouy lets say 30 minutes, a sub on that area could be even at 60 NM from the buoy whe this one is droped.
It isn't reasonable to use flank speed as a basis, especially with a SW, FFG and Helo on the prowl even if the P-3 doesn't have a field set up yet. And as for merchant routes, blue side only has to cover the approximate route. They can cover 80%+, so that won't be a problem.



I honnestly do not expect the subs to be located before they start firing as OS wisely said, then it will the real combat begun.
If that happens, it's because the subs started close to the targets and blue didn't have a chance to set up yet. If that determines the outcome, that's not fair to blue. More likely, since there are multiple targets that need to be killed, it will give blue more information to narrow down the search area to less than the 80% they can cover at any given moment. As OS said, once blue gets a datum, the red sub providing it won't last long.



Subs can coordinate their attacks and engage severla merchies at same time with torps and SSM and they can be hundreds of mile away from each other.
I think it's say to say that detection ranges vs the merchies will be less than hundreds of miles. The range of the -27ASM is also less than hundreds of miles. A more realistic appraisal of red side's offensive capabilities are that they can reliably detect merchants out to the ~25nm range (not tested, an estimate), with occasional CZ contacts out to 60nm. With CZs, keep in mind they are less than 1nm wide, so you don't detect everything out to that range. You can get ONE CZ contact, and it takes some skill to hold onto it since it will probably move out of the CZ before you figure out which way it is going. So, you can figure the Akula can detect and track merchants in a 50nm path, which moves at something less than 6 knots (since we know at 6 knots the Akula will be detected easily), plus one CZ contact. If fair to assume he can hit 80% of what he can see (depending on neutral traffic and the position of the FFG). How many ships that means he can hit at once I don't know, b/c I don't know the total number present. But the instantaneous probability of detection is about 39%. (Again, assuming the 25nm range is right, which hasn't been tested). So a multiple target missile strike should be able to hit .314% of the total targets present. Oh, and by the way, that assumes that the targets can be classified at 25nm. That's being pretty generous, especially if there are large civilian vessels in the area that are neutrals (Cruise ships come to mind). In any case, the fact that the Akula can probably see 39% (+ 1 in a CV maybe) of the surface traffic tends to support the conclusion that this is a very small op area.




I have seen ML evading torpedos real nice on much hostile enviromental conditions. On tropedo evasion the straong CZ works on favour of the evading subs.




With the P-3, the subs face light torpedoes not wired and that have limited range. Subs have a VERY EFFECTIVE layer to play with and I am sure that you both know what I mean. Facing un-wired torpedoes the Subs have "chances" of evading the torps.
First of all, I can evade an airdropped torp only if the airdales are forced to fire from a distance b/c they're afraid of the SAM. On this scenario, the P-3 won't need to use a DICASS buoy, but can do entirely passive prosecutions. The sub won't be alerted to the danger, so the P-3 can drop on his head without having to worry too much.

Second, even if the P-3 drops from a distance, that gives the sub a chance to dodge the first torp. Chances of surviving the second are slim, especially since torp evasion will pretty much rule out a SAM shot so the 2nd torp can be dropped on his head, or at the very least from another direction where the decoys won't be effective.

Finally, the acoustics here mean the acquisition range of the torpedo is maximized, which means that the torps will be able to reattack even if they are decoyed and the sub runs the other way.

The general rule is that the P-3 is going to kill any sub it detects as long as the pilot doesn't get too aggressive. And the aggressive pilot usually gets away with it anyways. A sub's defense is STEALTH. It can't stand toe to toe with an Orion.



I just run a test with me on the Akula on the same scenario and one MH-60.
I evaded all his 3 torpedos and I am not really a super Akula skkiper I have to say...
Congrats, you dodged an AI torp. Way to go.:rolleyes: Try it again with a human in the helo and we'll talk. Better yet, try it with a P-3, which can repostion for the 2nd shot twice as fast and can shoot 5-6 more times.



Well my point here is that I would like to have a difficult scenario for both sides. Subs will be detected one time or another and I think this is realistic, specially when theys start to fire torpedoes or missiles.
The question is can audacious and skilled skkipers develope tactics and drive their boats in a way they can achieve victory, a well earned victory?
Wouldn't we all? You made that task very hard by choosing such a confined space. Look, even Oneshot acknowledges that in this small area, blue going to find the subs rather easily. I think you need to acknowledge the problem that the size of the Op Area causes and make sure you've taken steps to try to mitigate the problem.



Lets not forget that Victory conditions mean the sinking of 5 Merchants, not remaining undetected for the whole match.
Remaining undetected is the only way subs accomplish anything. Don't forget that the other victory condition is sinking the subs. As it stands now, the subs will probably be killed fairly early, depending on where Blue starts looking for them. If they start looking in the wrong place (pure chance), then red can kill a few merchants. But once that happens, blue knows where to look, which means they pretty much get their victory.



The subs are really well armed and on my oppinion they pose a threat for even the ASW Hunters.
This is just FALSE. Blue has aircraft. Red has no anti-aircraft units. The only blue platform that is seriously threatened is the FFG. The Seawolf is at some risk if it is caught during transit, but for the most part she can hear the enemy subs before they hear her, and from there, the P-3 gets called in.



If you tell me there is no way the Sub skkipers can do it then I will have to change the whole scenario.
I really do not want a suicde scenario for subs or for the ASW team. I want it hard for both and most important I want it in such a way that audacious and smart skippers of any side can make the difference adapting to the conditions of the sittuation.
Okay. Here's where we are now. The "standard" outcome is going to be either (1) red gets found right away and dies before doing much damage or (2) red isn't found immediately, fires a few missiles, and sinks up to 40% of the available targets, the proportion determined by the range the targets can be classified at. Blue then responds to the shots fired and sinks the remaining sub.

What can red do to change this?
1. Hail Mary: Red subs assume very low speed in an area the P-3 is dropping buoys, and shoot it down. If there are limited start points, the P-3 can prevent this by only laying buoys in the approaches to key areas (as OS has suggested). If it's possible for the red side to do, it's a cheap way to play anyways and should be discouraged... But this is the best bet.

2. Hope blue fucks up: Again, shooting down the P-3 would pretty much tip the balance. If blue attacks a sub aggressively, red might make them pay for it. Of course, all blue has to do to prevent this is engaging from a safe distance. It won't be as fast of an outcome, but the story ends the same.

3. Advanced tactics: This category I'm putting here as an X-factor. Mostly because it involves things I haven't thought of yet, or haven't developed sufficiently. I won't rule out the possibilities that innovative solutions might be used to throw Blue off. I do have one idea I could put here, but I'd prefer for you to find out what it is in combat.



So far I have added this latest changes;

Added one extra spawn point for the Red Subs, inside the Blue Sea but not on top of merchant Traffic.
I have eliminated one EC-2 Hawkeye Aircraft that was patrolling the area so ASW forces are forced to use radar themselves.
Eh. Radar use means its easier for the red side to know where the P-3 is, making it easier for them to get lucky and pick it off when its laying buoys. Even in a red sub, I would find that outcome unsatisfying.

On the plus side, knowing where the P-3 is spending its time might help red get a feel for where the buoy fields are, which might improve the situation. So this might be a good idea.



I have lightened the "sosus" sonobuoy line that would be deployed by the High Value Military Convoy if they can complete their transit.
Good idea.



I have added more biologics and some extra fishing vessels so now the number of "floating" entities besides the Red Navy subs are around +30 (I do not dare to add more for fear to have lag)
30! Wow, that was better than I hoped. I only put as many 50hzers as you had on your test map when I did my 'scrimmages.' I think if you have at least 10 other 50hz contacts, you can slow down buoy processing and create some breathing space for Red. This is untested, of course..just a guess. Bios are a big help too because they set off the deep buoys.

Summing it up...
I think no matter what, this is going to favor blue. But I think that if you recognize that this area is pretty small and make adjustments based on that, you might be able to give red enough of a chance to make it interesting.

[subb]

Someone please help me understand….

How will this scenario differ from any other DM map that is currently out, including fleet war maps?

[Molon Labe]

Someone please help me understand….

How will this scenario differ from any other DM map that is currently out, including fleet war maps?

I actually think this is quite similar to what you're doing, Subb. Assuming for a moment that this works completely as intended, the attacking side has been given a mission (other than "kill opposing platform--the DM "objective") and has to decide how to best carry that mission out in the face of opposition. Multiple starting points lead to the mission not playing out the same way every time, but rather the "story" of the mission depends on the choices the players make...

[TLAM Strike]

1st great idea, shame I can't play. :(

Couple things, I would consider giving the red side another Kilo (just a standard Prj 877) its evens up the teams. Second for both players mining critical areas might give advantages to both sides, could this be the mission that makes stratigic mining a possablity in DW? :)

[subb]

I actually think this is quite similar to what you're doing, Subb. Assuming for a moment that this works completely as intended, the attacking side has been given a mission (other than "kill opposing platform--the DM "objective") and has to decide how to best carry that mission out in the face of opposition. Multiple starting points lead to the mission not playing out the same way every time, but rather the "story" of the mission depends on the choices the players make...

Gooooooooood…

Because I was totally under the wrong impression thinking otherwise. I guess I shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover.

[Molon Labe]

1st great idea, shame I can't play. :(

Couple things, I would consider giving the red side another Kilo (just a standard Prj 877) its evens up the teams. Second for both players mining critical areas might give advantages to both sides, could this be the mission that makes stratigic mining a possablity in DW? :)

Oh shit, I didn't even think of that...
Fucking CAPTORs....They could put these in the 20% or so that isn't being actively searched..lol... sigh.

As for red side mining, it's something I dismissed at first but maybe its worth a 2nd look. It depends on how predictable the shipping lanes are, or how the arrival triggers work. I get the feeling they're really not that predictable. Mining the port itself might work so long as the trigger doesn't fire too far out. Of course, the mines might be detected when launched, and being near the ports is an easy area to know to patrol. Still, this might be something that could be used. The main advantage is time... if you get a hit, the datum isn't all that useful for the airdales... =) Good idea.

Good to see you at comms depth again, TLAM.

[Furia]

Nice laid out Molon, thank you.

At this point I cannot change the Ops area basically because it would mean redoing a whole new scenario but I have to make some testing with one idea I got when reading your posts about the subs detection chances.
As I say this is just one idea I need to test first on the scenario but I want your oppinion, all of you oppinion on this.
Say that we remove the P-3 that seems to be the main concern of the subs and we add one FFG with two more helos when at least one of them would e humman.
So Blue side would end up having 2 FFG, 4 helos (2 Human, 2 Ai) and the Seawolf.
As you know helos do not have the number of buoys of the P-3, neither the number of weapons and their speed is limited.
Anyway Molon you can be sure that ASW forces will narrow the search area as soon you sink a merchie, this is no novety and is expected.
However the low speed of the helo and its los processing capacity could give the sub more "room"
First I need to make some testing first about fuel endurance and time for the helo to cover some distances and also I have to figure out some stuff with the AI helo at long distances before we can consider doing that step.
Howeverat your imput about this possibility would be appreciated. OS specially your imput as skilled MH-60 driver would be appreciated.

Regarding the minning of the harbours, it was already mentioned on the briefings so Red Skippers could consider that possibility. Sooner or later some merchie will visit the harbour area and could be a target. However harbours are "patrolled" by some nava units, light frigates, so subs cannot wander around at pleasure, they have to work their way on the harbours but can pay off.
By the way talking about CAPTORS :biggrin: Did I mentioned that some of the Blue Harbours could be defended by some light minefields? :cool:

Regarding the neutrals, you have several Cruise Ships that should not be destroyed by any side. Actually I am considering to impose some kind of penalty to ANY platform (Blue or Red) that killed one Passenger ship .
You also have fishing vessels and plenty of biologics, srimp or whales at different depths. Some whales are as deep as 1800 feet.

@TLAM This is an scenario that I hope we can play many times and everutime would be different so if you cannot join uf the first time I hope you can the second.

@Subbs. The main idea on this scenario is that it creates a general operations area with merchant traffic and other entities and with Blue Fleet prepositiones. Red Side will have a really dymamic start. The main goal for Red side is to sink a number of merchies but this should not be a lineal storyline. Red can choose many possible approahces to this while at the same time Blue side can do the same that is making tactical decidions about how to fight this combat. There are some paralel operations that can influence the whole scenario and that each side can decide to pursue or not. For instance, if Red side is able to locate Blue Air defence Command post and eliminate it, a IL-38 will enter the Blue Sea and will transmit all the surface ships and identifications he gets, to the Red Subs. Having that data and with tubes full of SN-27-ASM, things can turn nicely for red side.
on the other hand Blue side knows this so they have to decide and think if it is worth to defend the objective with one of the few assets they have and evaluate if Red will ever try to go for that secondary objective or just focus on destroying merchants, minning harbours or so.
Another secondary objective is that a Blue Ship is laying a sonobuoy field that will connect all harbours. That ship and her escorts are still at sea deploying the field. Would red try to sink that ship to prevent that sonobuoy field gets operative (I think we will need around 4 to 5 hours of game to have the field ready and operative). Would Blue dedicate assets to protect that convoy?
This are just some tips about how this could be faced. While the main objective is a traditional one, that is sinking some ships, the tactics, maneuvering, secondary objectives and strategy will change everytime the scenario is played.

[Molon Labe]

Removing the P-3 is a bold step. I'm not sure how to feel about it. On one hand, it is the source of the biggest balance issues in DW since it has no counterunit. On the other hand, an area ASW mission just screams to have a P-3 in it. That's it's bag, baby! It'd be a shame to make the P-3 wait for a 'bigger' op area.

I do think that your idea is more balanced, mostly due to the reduced response time. I think it favors the red side, but by a rather small margin, say 60-40. Of course, that's without having done any real testing on the questions that come up. Range of classification of the merchies is going to be a big issue.

My recommendation at this time is to try to make this one work as best as we can and see what happens. I think the P-3-less scenario is a great idea and easier to pull off, but I see it as a completely different mission that can be attempted at a later time.

[Furia]

Yeah. We will try the mission the way it is by Saturday 5th May.
Changing the P-3 is just option B in case we determine the scenario with it is a "NO GO"

Anyway I will do a bit more testing with the possibility of the replacement the P-3 but I still hope the map is balanced as it is now and that both sides have plenty of room for tactics and maneuvering and not being handicaped from the start.
Anyway we will always have option B :wink:
I'll post my test resoults here.

[subb]

Asset management – that’s awesome using the IL-38 (IIRC Mainstay) in such a way.

But wouldn't destruction of defense command at leaset scramble the nearest friendly air wing to the area, to assess the situation, and in this case possibly come across the il-38 and engage it?

But about these merchies, are they just sitting somewhere in the water waiting to be found or are they in transit putting RU under a time pressure. I’ll read into greater detail. If they are in transit are using waypoints, using waypoints could contribute to predictability (same course and speed) each time map is loaded, then the only difference is finding them somewhere in the op area. What could mix things up is create random speed and course settings what I like to call random NAV to reach the arrival point within the time specified. Random NAV also includes course resume feature that after a certain amount of time after merchies have entered into evasion, merchies come out of evasion and resume a projected course towards the arrival point. Not to bring up another project in your thread but the 688i was coded to do the same thing in my map.

Just a thought

[Molon Labe]

Asset management – that’s awesome using the IL-38 (IIRC Mainstay) in such a way.

But wouldn't destruction of defense command at leaset scramble the nearest friendly air wing to the area, to assess the situation, and in this case possibly come across the il-38 and engage it?

But about these merchies, are they just sitting somewhere in the water waiting to be found or are they in transit putting RU under a time pressure. I’ll read into greater detail. If they are in transit are using waypoints, using waypoints could contribute to predictability (same course and speed) each time map is loaded, then the only difference is finding them somewhere in the op area. What could mix things up is create random speed and course settings what I like to call random NAV to reach the arrival point within the time specified. Random NAV also includes course resume feature that after a certain amount of time after merchies have entered into evasion, merchies come out of evasion and resume a projected course towards the arrival point. Not to bring up another project in your thread but the 688i was coded to do the same thing in my map.

Just a thought
I noticed that about your mission, that was pretty cool.

This mission, though, was meant to be ready to roll in about two weeks. I'll forgive Furia if the routes of specific boats are somewhat predictable (they pretty much have to be, since they are traveling from port to port), as long as he used dynamic groups to make sure that different ships spawn or the same ship spawns in a different place with different waypoints. Either technique makes it different enough to prevent Red from knowing where to shoot right in the beginning, which is really all you need.

[Furia]

there are a lot of merchies on this map hehe.
What I did is create irregular routes for each most of them connecting the 5 harbours each ship, that is if you run the map for many hours (between 8 to 12) each ship would have visited almost 4 harbours and would be "docked" on the last one.

Routes and starting points are not aleatory, however I have made different speed changes for the same ship on each leg.
Also some of them start on a random box so their starting point is not always the same.
Since the subs always start at a minimum 20 to 30 NM from the possible nearest merchant ship on the best case scenario and the ships are constantly moving, predicting their routing would be specially difficult, mainly because subs will always start on different places at random.
Also I was mor free to give random start boxes to the NEUTRALS so I would not advise any sub to fire blind into an area because he can destroy a NEUTRAL that was not there last match.
It will not be a trouble that subs may figure out where merchies start. most merchies are making 20 to 25 knots and start minimum 30 NM from the sub and in most cases moving away.

Finally we have a total of 16 possible starting points for the subs.
I have moved them all "inside" Blue Sea. Not all of them fully inside but I wanted to prevent the subs to have to transit the Choke points of some narrow straits.
Lets imagine, they have just crossed.
I wanted to avoid the sittuation that with some well placed buoys, subs that could be forced to transit a strait would be easily detected.
Anyway I placed special care to make sure no sub would start closer than 20 to 30 NM to any merchie.

@Subbs. I didn't added fighters because I wanted the IL-38 to have a chance to scout the area for the Subs otherwise it would not be worth for the subbies to attack the Command Center. Anyway the IL-38 survival chances will depend directly on the presence of the FFG or not. I have made on its doctrine to "AVOID" the FFG, but well you never know. Some other harbour Naval patrol vessels also have SAM although most of them are short range so there are also chances of the platform being destroyed by such ships, however on my testings with this platform in all tests it survived more than one hour (LOL I did not test the IL-38 longer)
The good thing for the subs is that the IL-38 classify all contacts so the subbies just have to fire the ASM to the enemy merchies.

One of my major concerns for this scenario is the LAG so I am very carefull adding more units, specially the ones that can carry some sort of missile.
If in a so "rich" enviroment we just happen to have 80 buous processing data and the subs just happen to coordinate an SSM attack firing 12 ASM at the same time and the FFG starts firing SM2 to intercept those... I do not want to have fighters or airplanes or more vessels with missiles.
We will see on the test. Anyway I am sure this scenario needs a good host.

[subb]

“@Subbs. I didn't added fighters because I wanted the IL-38 to have a chance to scout the area for the Subs otherwise it would not be worth for the subbies to attack the Command Center. Anyway the IL-38 survival chances will depend directly on the presence of the FFG or not. I have made on its doctrine to "AVOID" the FFG, but well you never know. Some other harbour Naval patrol vessels also have SAM although most of them are short range so there are also chances of the platform being destroyed by such ships, however on my testings with this platform in all tests it survived more than one hour (LOL I did not test the IL-38 longer)
The good thing for the subs is that the IL-38 classify all contacts so the subbies just have to fire the ASM to the enemy merchies.”

Taking the position of possible real world conditions... because I’ve grown to take scenarios seriously these days :tongue:

That’s nice having the Mainstay doing recon for RU subs, but this is a time of war and it shouldn’t be w/o fighter escort to counter possible attack against air and surface platforms, in efforts to ensure the mainstay completes its mission of recon. Plus wherever you have SAMs you also have air radar, under those conditions that would rally the nearest air asset to the area to counter the threat. I would think at this point the IL-38 has been picked up on radar going into the attack of the defense center and friendly pilots are airborne as soon as they can get off the john and into their cockpits to investigate the threat. Based on your ROE permission to engage has been granted for both sides, so the mainstay will draw a lot of attention.
Mainstay survival should also depend on it's fighter escort ability to counter anything thrown at them, not just the presence of a friendly asset (FFG).

Then pwnage takes place… KAAA-BOOOOOOM (haha)

The reaction of a defense center going up in smoke is not something someone just turns the other cheek on, especially in a time of war. I would think every possible asset would be in the area trying to determine the root cause (locate subs) and to attempt to neutralize any other possible threat (IL-38), including air assets because they could possibly get there faster than anyone, or come in 2nd place if assets are in the area already. It doesn't really add up not to have the nearest friendly air assets dispatched to the area and / or engage the IL-38 or the IL-38 flying solo in a time of war. Also how exactly are you going to handle the IL-38; just spawned out of nowhere or vectoring in from a direction?

[Molon Labe]

I think we have no choice but to hold off on simulating detailed air warfare until, at a minimum, the AI is fixed by SCS. And even then, the physics environment of DW just plain sucks for air combat...plus there's no playables, and having even good AI determine mission outcomes is sort of pointless.

In any case, the point of the IL-38 is to provide OTH targeting data, and it will do that. If Furia wants the environment to be such that the US does not have air supremacy, that's fine by me. And since this is a fictitious region anyways, I don't see the point of arguing that the US would have air supremacy over the region.

[Furia]

@Subb.

You are totally right about the lack of air cover however this was a strategic decidision I had to made for the map.
As I told you I am really careful to try to avoid lag. Many nice and "complete" scenarios have gone to the trash because they are unplayable due lag, because when the sh... hits the fan so many airborne stuf and missiles could be a real factor and this scenario is already "heavy".

However on the strategic side of things as I state on the Intel briefings, although this is one of the Blue Navy home areas, blue Navy assets are limited due massive deployement to other areas and this is the reason you only have a single FFG and just one P-3 and one SSN to protect the whole area.
Anyway the IL-38 work does not require it to wander around for long. From what I see on the testing it takes not much time to locate most of the surface targtes (identification takes a bit more) No matter how long it remains there, it will be agreat help to the subs that can see where is the surface traffic and in many cases even classify neutral from foe.
If the FFG is human manned and alive by the time the IL-38 shows up I do not think that airplane can survive much if it gets closer to the FFG.
In all, the tactical decision of Red to go for the Air defence center , wich is a difficult one since they have to visually locate it on the coast, must be beneficial for Red otherwise nobody would ever attempt to do so
So I took that "author" license and added no fighters.

Regarding the atarting point f the IL-38 I have designed 6 possible dymanic points for start over the horizont, a about 50 to 80 NM outisde of any entrance to Blue Sea. So the approach of the IL-38 would be unpredictable because everytime it will spawn on a different place. The airplane have just one transit vector to the center of Blue Sea with the tasking of avoid the FFG.
From what I have seen on the testing, the IL-38 behavious is to proceed to investigate and get a visual on ALL surface contacts it finds so it does not proceed directly to the centre of the Ops area but starts to investigate each and every ship.
Actually I have given it a ASUW load but as far as I have seen it does not attack any ship dunno why.

[Molon Labe]

..because the May doesn't carry ASUW weapons. It's got APR-3 torpedoes and depth charges.

[Furia]

On the airplane loadout it gives the option between ASW or ASUW.
Well I do not think that the IL-38 is a threat for the Seawolf no matter what :tongue:

Anyway its main mission would be locate and clasiffy the surface contacts and pass this info to the Red Subs via link.

[Furia]

Oki, I need some imput here.

As you know on this scenario besides the combatants and the targets, we do have a nice number of neutrals. On the briefing is clearly stated no damage to neutrals would be tolerated to any side.

Due to the limitations of the Sim editor, I cannot do the kind of "punishement" for the "offending platform" that I wanted.
My idea is that any side the accumulate more than 2 Neutrals killed themselves, loose the match no matter their already accomplished goals.

So I am left with some options to "enforce" that and I want your oppinion about them.

1º Any side that kills 2 or more NEUTRALS loose the match no matter their other accomplished goals. The game ends automatically by a script.

2nd Any side that kills 2 or more NEUTRALS loose the match no matter their other accomplished goals. The game DOES NOT end automatically and it is left to the players to recognize this sittuation and declare defeated the side that killed the Neutrals.

3rd Who cares about the Neutrals??? Lets fire at all that floats.

[Molon Labe]

Consider your audience.

You know I won't shoot neutrals indiscriminately. Most other people around here won't either.

I just wouldn't worry about it.

I do think ending scripts are bogus though. If its a loss, there's nothing wrong with letting the match play through anyways... maybe both sides will lose. =)

[Furia]

Yeah I know most people would not do this intentionally and in most maps I do not bother with this, however on this very scenario I feel we do have to do something about for the following reason.
It could happen that some Red players want to exploit the possibility of launching a wide spread blind salvo of ASM trying to cover the whole Blue Sea with the hope that the missile radar lock and engage any surface target.
Lets say that Red have already sunk 3 merchies and they know ASW forces will close on them soon so before initiatting evasion, they can place 10 ASM in the water covering the whole Blue Sea with a wide search cone with the hope it locks into some merchie.

I also want people to be really carefull with weapons release and "pay" for mistakes.
Blue also have to be careful with weapons release although I expect most trouble about this issue comes from Red side.

However I may end up just writing this into the Victory/Defeat Conditions of the scenario and maybe not force the mission end by a sript but let the players play but knowing that the mission is lost for the side that first scores "two neutral" kills.

[Molon Labe]

You know, in my entire DW "career" I've probably sunk two neutral skimmers. Plus a neutral kilo on a "map" where my enemy was a kilo. Frackin' Seawolves.

[TLAM Strike]

@TLAM This is an scenario that I hope we can play many times and everutime would be different so if you cannot join uf the first time I hope you can the second. I probaly won't have in internet connection at home for a while but I'm rooting for you all (well a little more for the Red force boys :tongue: ). This is a fantastic idea. :wink:

Another idea I had is to creade some neutral Kilos and Akulas (or other subs) and remove them after a few mintues (or after someone shoots at them- say a goal to remove when a weapon is within 3nm) to simulate false contacts.

[soundken]

Oki, I need some imput here.

As you know on this scenario besides the combatants and the targets, we do have a nice number of neutrals. On the briefing is clearly stated no damage to neutrals would be tolerated to any side.......

3:biggrin: no jk.

4 :attach a trigger to each one with a large negative point value in the case of its distruction, or if you wanna get crazy with it create a dynamic group of rubber rafts that gets created upon the destruction of the neutral ship, then if you wanna take it up ANOTHER NOTCH create a proximity trigger where the rafts are taken off and a point value assigned to the "rescueing team" and BAM suddenly everything takes a dramatic shift

this whole idea just came to me off your post so im trying to put it in a new mission im working on but in therory it should work (fingers crossed)

i am strongly against ending what could be a 3-4 hour mission because some neutral got caught in the crossfire, its war and well somtimes its hard on the wildlife there should be a game punishment but it aint over till the subs get there target and slip away, or die in the attempt :2ct:

sounds like a great mission furia unfortunatly saturdays are bad for me but look forward to hearing how it turns out

[Molon Labe]

3:biggrin: no jk.

4 :attach a trigger to each one with a large negative point value in the case of its distruction, or if you wanna get crazy with it create a dynamic group of rubber rafts that gets created upon the destruction of the neutral ship, then if you wanna take it up ANOTHER NOTCH create a proximity trigger where the rafts are taken off and a point value assigned to the "rescueing team" and BAM suddenly everything takes a dramatic shift
The rafts would have to be spawned at a fixed position; there is no way to have them spawn at the location the ship was sunk. Won't work.

Negative points for the neut's are fine though. That's how it worked in FC.

[Furia]

What I have done is to add a note on the briefing telling players that the kill of 2 Neutrals by one side would mean this side has lost the match. No end mission script.
It would be up to the players to honnor this Victory conditions or not but the can continue with the match if this is their choice.

I really think that players that caressly fire weapons knowing there are Neutrals on the Ops area and end up sinking them in numbers do not deserve to win the match, but following the recomendations here I opted not to add any end mission script on this condition.
The issue about the points on this scenario is irrelevant since the victory condition is defined by the sinking of the 5 Merchies or the destruction of the subs. Having minus points does not change this and unfortunately the game editor triggers do not allow us to take into account minus points or possitive points as victory condition.
I could make that if the two merchies are killed the offending side could NOT COMPLETE their own Victory Trigger but that would be as much similar as ending the mission so I finally opted to add this information on the game and let players decide.

[Molon Labe]

You wouldn't have to make a victory trigger dependent on any point scoring. The point system would define the victory in its own right. The way it would work is you'd arbitrarily chose one side to be "positive" and the other "negative." Let's say Blue was positive; they'd get points for every surviving merchie. Red would reduce that score with every merchant they took out. Any side picking off a neutral would score points for the other side. You can decide what score ranges fall into the win/draw/loss categories. It's a marginally better system, and it's nice because it gives you an idea not only of who won, but by how much.

It's probably not worth the work to set up all the goal triggers necessary for that, though. But that's the way it would work, anyway.

[Molon Labe]

Furia, did you change anything?

I'm getting much shorter cross-layer detections with the beta map than in testing. Maybe its because the Akula is at 5 knots instead of 6, but I didn't think 1 knot would be so huge. I'd change it to test, but you've PW'ed the file.

[Furia]

Hello Molon.
No changes on the sound conditions. I just changed the subs as you know but rest remains the same.
Sorry for the PW but I use to PW all my Multiplayer scenarios. The SP scenarios are PW free but for MP I rather have them protected so no players can take advantage "reading inside" the scenario.
Of course this does not mean you so if you want I can send it to you the Beta version un passworded for testing.

[soundken]

The rafts would have to be spawned at a fixed position; there is no way to have them spawn at the location the ship was sunk. Won't work.


:soapbox: :mob:

figures, intereseted in an after action report how did this turn out ?

[Molon Labe]

3 CTDs, including the host.

[Furia]

Actually I didn't had a CTD but a frozen game with a memory error message.
As far as I know Lou and Matta just had disconection from host. Lou earlier and Matta when I had the host game frozen.
I guess it was something related to my computer :frown:

[LoupJr]

I lost my connection about 2.5 hrs into the scenario. Not quite sure why that happened.
I appreciate the realism, but driving around for more than two hours with no contacts is quite boring.

Lou

[Molon Labe]

I lost my connection about 2.5 hrs into the scenario. Not quite sure why that happened.
I appreciate the realism, but driving around for more than two hours with no contacts is quite boring.

Lou

IIRC, the replay showed you headed north, instead of southwest towards the ships Oneshot sunk. If you chose to head away from the 'gunfire,' you shouldn't be surprised that you don't end up in the fight.

[Furia]

He didn't "choosed" to run away from the gunfire :tongue:
We already had the P-3 and one of my helos working the west side so we decided the SW went NE to protect the rest of the ops area.

We didn't expected both Red subs spwan on same location (I will take a look at that) so we assumed that if one sub is there the other sub could be other place.
Since distances are long, specially for the FFG and the SW, we have to take a decision and this is why Loup went North.
He would have been very well placed in case any Red sub should have approached from North or East.
Actually Loup for some time had clear contact with one of your subs at about 60 NM dsitance.
Some maps are not just for shooting but for teamwork.
If we all have concentrated on the Sub in Nemos and for instance the other have spawned on Liberty strait or in Wolf, then the other asset that could have visit that area in time would have been the P-3 and he was quite bussy analyzing 60 buoys at that moment so the logical choice was either the FFG or the Seawolf, so this is why he went "away" from the gunfire :cool:
I will fix the spawn points so they are not predictable but at the same time do not make the two subs spawn so near thus giving more chances to be spread on the full Ops area.
Anyway on this scenario there is always the possibility that some platform never encounters the opfor. This can happen due the large ops area.
I think the important thing is that Blue side work like a team and give security to the full Ops area.
Anyway it is up to Team tactics. Maybe another team leader would have opted to move all assets towards Nemo and hope that the other sub would be near or in case she would be North, that she would give them time enough to finish off the Nemo's Sub and move to the North afterwards.

[Molon Labe]

Well, yeah, that's the way it goes. But that's hardly unique to this scenario. Most Red v. Blue ASW scenarios have Blue platforms that never get into the fight. Thats the natural result of having to defend from an attack from an unknown direction; you've got to spread out to cover everywhere, but not everywhere gets hit.