Opposed Landing, Amphibious FOF, and Gulf of Sidra Concepts [Archive] - Commanders Academy & Dive Center

Molon Labe

04-30-2007, 03:43 PM

Pursuant to Section 553(c) of the APA, DW Scenario Design Bureau hereby announces notice of future scenario design and invites interested parties to comment on the proposed scenarios.

Please note that these are just rough ideas at this time and that no actual design work or feasibility testing has taken place.

--------
Opposed Landing
Concept: One faction has taken possession of an island; another faction is tasked with retaking it. To take back the island, the attacking side must escort an ARG (including LSTs) to one of several accessible coastlines. The commander has discretion of which particular site to land on. The defenders, of course, will attempt to intercept and destroy the ARG before it can land its troops/tanks successfully. The mission is intended to present operational and tactical level choices to the players. Any resemblance to any historical events is entirely coincidental. Estimated play time is 4-6 hours.

Order of Battle:
Defenders: Akula SSNs, possibly Kilo SSKs for coastal patrol, P-3, FFG. May possibly include Tarantul PTGs.

Attackers: ARG led by FFG, main body of LSTs, possible LSDs, Arleigh Burke DDG escorts. 688I SSNs on advance patrol. P-3 from nearby base. Possible FFG picket escorts.

Possible Features: Defenders are reinforcing the island over the course of the mission. The successful arrival of the supply ships spawns land installations, the presence of which may prevent a successful invasion. If these installations are spawned, the detection of them by the attackers will lead to tasking messages explaining the new victory conditions which have been added.

----------------------------------

Amphibious Force-on-Force
Concept: This is a variation on the Opposed Landing scenario, but with both sides starting at a neutral posture. The objective is for one side to be in possession of the island at the end of the alloted game time. The side that lands first will spawn a number of installations commensurate with the number and type of ships successfully landed; some or all of these installations must be destroyed before the opposing side can retake the island.

Order of Battle:
Both sides will have an FFG-led ARG, P-3, and SSNs. An independent submarine tender and DDG escort may also be present in the "offensive zone".

Possible features: inclusion of strike/fighter aircraft to the side taking the island first, to be based on an airport once control is taken. Tender, if present, could allow refresh of armaments so the SSNs can support a 2nd mission once the first task is completed.

------------------------

Across the Line of Death
Concept: [Borrowed from Fleet Command/688I H-K] US CSG must complete a transit through the Gulf of Sidra to demonstrate Freedom of Navigation. "Libyan" Kilos oppose the transit. US ROE will be peacetime but with certain aggressive acts held to be indications of hostile intent, triggering self defense. The US wins if the CSG arrives at a goal line without substantial damage, of if Libyan capacity to inflict such damage is eliminated. Libya wins if the US fleet is driven out of the Gulf or suffers substantial damage AND at least one attacking Kilo survives. Estimated time: 4 hours.

Order of Battle:
US: FFG-led CSG, at least one 688I on advance screen. Possible P-3 from Italy.
Libya: Two Klub-capable Kilos, possible Tarantul PTG support, possible MPA support.

Possible features: US transit routes may be restricted by presence of Tarantuls

------------------------------
Any thoughts?

Furia

05-01-2007, 06:00 AM

The three are very interesting concepts and knowing how carefully and detailled you plan your scenarios I am sure they will be a success,
I am specially interested on the Opposed Landing one and the Amphibious Force on Force
I think this can lead to a great and intenresting encounter and alot of room for team tactics and strategies.

I have some suggestions for them if I may.

For the Opposed Landing.

Defenders shouldt have SSK instead SSN. They could also have SSM battery on the coast that spawn (They are camouflaged) only when the enemy is near the coast.
If the defender P-3 wants to mine the approach of the enemy force, then it would need an airport to land and rearm.
If the Attaking P-3 needs to rearm he must fly to a far away airport.

The Amphibious Force-on-Force is the most interesting and innovative scenario proposed. Looks like a Naval Commander dream.
How do you propose to lead the ARG? making a group leaded by a human FFG or creating some human controlled triggers that allow players to "tell" the ARG where to go?

I suggest you are careful with the AI airplanes, do not add much numbers of them because they use to create lag if many missiles are fired at same time with them airborne.

How many players are you aiming for having this map fully staffed?
By the way, do not forget to add special forces to the submarines so they can send the to destroy land installations aready set by the opposition.

Please give the Fleet Commander the option to keep the whole Fleet ENCOM or not depending his needs.
Would the Fleets start at random locations? both at same distance of the island or would random give some different starting points with different range to the target?

Finding a nice "location" for this map would surely be difficult but I think if properly done this map could become a Classic.
All of us, Fleet Command nostalgics would surely love it.

Molon Labe

05-01-2007, 08:15 AM

The Amphibious Force-on-Force is the most interesting and innovative scenario proposed. Looks like a Naval Commander dream.
How do you propose to lead the ARG? making a group leaded by a human FFG or creating some human controlled triggers that allow players to "tell" the ARG where to go?
The FFG will be the formation leader.

How many players are you aiming for having this map fully staffed?
Looks like 8 at this point. The number could go up, I'm not sure.

Please give the Fleet Commander the option to keep the whole Fleet ENCOM or not depending his needs.
Would the Fleets start at random locations? both at same distance of the island or would random give some different starting points with different range to the target?
Do you have any suggestions for how to change AI EMCON in the match? Maybe there's a way to force it off... I could also try add/remove based on FFG detection, but that would 'undamage' damaged ships. For location, the distance both sides start away would have to be about the same for it to be fair. There should be a lot of space along which to put the fleets at that distance, though.

Finding a nice "location" for this map would surely be difficult but I think if properly done this map could become a Classic.
All of us, Fleet Command nostalgics would surely love it.
The Falklands came to mind first. The side of the islands near enough to land to put an airport on lacks symetry though, so I might not do it there is there are going to be P-3s. I'm sure there's a suitable island somewhere on this rock, though.

Furia

05-02-2007, 03:14 AM

TLAM Strike

05-04-2007, 12:50 PM

Across the Line of Death

Well if you cahnged it Libya to Iran you could give the Red side playble P-3s since Iran has them... but then Klub capable Kilos should probaly be replaced with prj 877s.

ehhh never mind I think Libya has been really under used recently...

Opposed Landing
What happens to the ARG formation if the leading FFG is killed? will it just keep going till it runs aground or leaves the theater? :confused:

But anyways this one sounds the best! But to echo what Furia said keep the Red force side limited to smoke boats in terms of subs. Also if you remove the Akulas make all Kilos no Klub versions and keep the Tarantuls to a minimum (Maybe use other PTGs with missiles less deadly than the Sunburn) the Blue force can drop the Burk class DDGs and there is less of a stress on the game due to all those missiles that could be flyin'.

Molon Labe

05-04-2007, 01:27 PM

What happens to the ARG formation if the leading FFG is killed? will it just keep going till it runs aground or leaves the theater? :confused:

But anyways this one sounds the best! But to echo what Furia said keep the Red force side limited to smoke boats in terms of subs. Also if you remove the Akulas make all Kilos no Klub versions and keep the Tarantuls to a minimum (Maybe use other PTGs with missiles less deadly than the Sunburn) the Blue force can drop the Burk class DDGs and there is less of a stress on the game due to all those missiles that could be flyin'.

The ARG will proceed to the landing site closest to the ARG's starting point.

The Kilo thing I'll have to give some thought. Cutting down on lag is important, but I'm hesitant to throw Kilos against a fleet that is not only well-defended, but driving along an unpredictable course. Getting the sub in position is one of the challenges of the mission...an akula will have hard enough of a time. Can the Kilo do it? Maybe instead of akulas, I could go with US SSNs on the defending side, if missiles are going to be a problem.

The Moskit's stay (assuming there will be AI ASUW skimmers at all). Subsonic missiles simply pose no threat. I know LW turned down the CIWS a little, but it can still pretty much handle a volley of subsonic SSMs all by itself. Throw in a few SM-2s from the FFG, chaff from all the ships in the formation, and whatever SAMs the escorts and LSDs have (probably Sprucans with ESSMs and HF's with RAMs), and we can safely assume nothing's getting through. The -22 gives the incoming fleet something to worry about, though, and something will have to be tasked to deal with them (which is the whole point).

The real question is whether I put the Tarantuls in company with other surface ships, e.g. a formation leader FFG or perhaps an AAW AI skimmer like a Udaloy.

TLAM Strike

05-05-2007, 01:03 PM

Well my train of thought would be that the Red force's kilos (with support from P-3s) would mine the areas less likely to the site of the blue force's landings and then stake out the areas more likely to be the site of the landings. If there was to be an Akula in the Red force's order of battle its racks might just need to be taken up by a dozen or so Mines to insure that the blue force dosn't manage to sneak around the subs and landing unscaled. If you can't watch an area, mine it.

Do any ASMs have IR seekers now (like the N-2C does IRL)? Have those in company of N-22s and it makes for a more diverse threat to the ARG- the FFGs would need to load not just chaff in their decoy launchers cutting down their effectiveness against Radar homers.

Molon Labe

05-05-2007, 01:20 PM

This is going to be about a 4 hour transit, minimum. Having the defenders do nothing but stake out a landing site is pretty lame. It should also be a tactically poor choice, since it makes them easy to find. I'm also not sure if I want the defenders to have MPA support, since that would make the ARG very easy to find quickly. IF I went with Kilos though, I might have to do that. Preliminary testing suggests Kilos might be able to spot the ARG themselves though, with a little luck.

Molon Labe

05-05-2007, 09:10 PM

OK, so it's about time to get to work on these. In fact, I'm bumping this project ahead of the SLOC campaign, since this should be faster to do from the start than it will be to finish SLOC, and the end product will probably be better.

Of these, I'm going to do Opposed Landing first. But I need some opinions first about what the scenario should feature...

1. SSNs vs. SSKs on defense. The advantage of the SSK is that missiles and lag will be less likely. There's also something more appealing about having a Kilo do this mission, because it's pretty much what it's designed to do. Kilos will have a harder time moving into position than an SSN, which should make things more interesting. The downsides of the Kilos are that they will have a hard time locating the ARG since their sensors are rather poor. The size of the op area will be about 4800 sq nm's. Even keeping them relatively close to shore, I think at least 3 would be needed to assure that at least one of them was in position to intercept... and then the other 2 would not have time to respond. Bringing boats away from shore helps response time but makes it more likely the ARG can slip by undetected. Finally, the Kilos lack the firepower needed to do real damage in a hurry, and any close-in attack is likely to be suicide if airdales and SSNs are playing defense.
To make up for the sensor issue, I can use a single SSN or a P-3. Of course, the SSN pretty much moves us back toward the original idea, and with a P-3 around, finding the ARG will be as easy as flicking the radar on, so I don't favor that solution either.
To address the firepower issue, I can make use of an SSN or Tarantuls. That way, the Kilos can succeed by knocking out the AAW ships. The missile shooters do mop-up. But missile shooting is what the Kilo plan is about avoiding..

2. Defending surface
I guess I'm asking about this out of respect for the KISS principle. Maybe just having an ARG go up against some Kilos is all this scenario needs. Or maybe it needs more to make it interesting. The defending SAG could serve a number of purposes: (1)providing extra firepower, as mentioned above, (2) denying some airspace to the attacking P-3, giving the defending subs some area to operate in unmolested for a time, and (3) forcing the attacking SSN to take some time off from ASW duty. A SAG, if included, might be led by a playable FFG, making it a key player in the match. The major downside of the SAG (other than it maybe simply not being desirable as a matter of taste) is that any SSM equipped ships in the ARG are going to engage it with lots of missiles...lag. So if I had a SAG, I would probably NOT want to use Ticos, Sprucans, Burkes etc. as the ARG escort ships (I'd probably need to find a suitable European ship with good AAW capability), which in turn would mean the defending subs would probably NOT include an Akula. Then again, maybe that's not such a big deal since the players can just choose not to promote them as high confidence hostile. Hmm.

3. Attacking P-3. If I do the "reinforcements" thing, then we need a P-3 on offense, no question. But I think I'm not going to do reinforcements, at least not for the first version. So, without needing it for recon/strike, do we want it at all? The advantage of getting rid of it would be that it will be harder for the attackers to locate the SAG, if present, creating a little cat-and-mouse game. It also means the defending subs will have an easier time getting into position, which is probably a good thing. The downshot of removing the P-3 is that I think this setup might actually be one of the few where the P-3 will not be able to dominate (if I do it right, anyway), so it would be a bit of a shame to leave it out.

EDIT: I'm probably going to make two versions of this. I'll do a basic version first, and the full version will build on it. After thinking some of this through and doing some range testing, I've narrowed the basic setup down to two basic ideas. One idea is to go with Furia and TLAMs advice to do this with smoke boats defending. There would be no P-3s or defending SAGs in this setup. The match would be about whether the Kilos can find the ARG quickly enough to intercept it, without getting picked off by the 688I in transit or getting stomped by the FFG/helo close in. Well call this the "stealth" version.

The other way to do it would be to use one SSK and one Akula-II. With this format, the Akula will pick up the ARG rather easily, go it won't be as challenging to get the defenders into position. What this format loses in setup tactics it gains in combat tactics. With only smoke boats, at one of them (if Klub-armed) or both of them (Russian Kilos) need to get in real close and hit the ARG hard, and only get one shot at it. But an Akula doesn't need to get insanely close to pull off a torpedo attack, which means the attacking fleet has harder choices to make about how it deploys its SSN to defend. Plus, the Akula, unlike the Kilos, are a credible threat to the 688I.

So for the basic version, which way to go is a question of taste. Would it be more fun to play a match where most of the time is spent setting up for a single, simple, sudden attack; or, a match with less setup but more emphasis on combat tactics and a longer, more complex fight?

TLAM Strike

05-08-2007, 01:09 PM

Finally, the Kilos lack the firepower needed to do real damage in a hurry... Huh? Kilo can put a lot of weapons in the water. 6 tubes need only 2 mintues to reload, a Kilo can empty its torpedo magazine in the time it takes for an SSN to fire and reload (assuming it cuts the wires and reloads right off the bat). :wink:

To address the firepower issue, I can make use of an SSN or Tarantuls. That way, the Kilos can succeed by knocking out the AAW ships. The missile shooters do mop-up. Hmmm I brefly covered that tactic in my upcoming Kilo guide... :biggrin:

TLAM Strike

05-10-2007, 03:00 PM

3. Attacking P-3. If I do the "reinforcements" thing, then we need a P-3 on offense, no question. But I think I'm not going to do reinforcements, at least not for the first version. So, without needing it for recon/strike, do we want it at all? The advantage of getting rid of it would be that it will be harder for the attackers to locate the SAG, if present, creating a little cat-and-mouse game. It also means the defending subs will have an easier time getting into position, which is probably a good thing. The downshot of removing the P-3 is that I think this setup might actually be one of the few where the P-3 will not be able to dominate (if I do it right, anyway), so it would be a bit of a shame to leave it out.

Well I had an idea on how to spoof the Red side's P-3 but I think its a little bit beyond the scope of this mission (heck it almost sounds like a mission in of its self). Get a bunch of people in MH-60R and surround someone driving a lone FFG (which will occasonaly emit radar added to the decepton). The seahawks slow to around 20 knots (or whatever the FFG is sailing at) and to the P-3 radar it looks like several ships in convoy, the players can also perodicly launch chaff (which shows up on the P-3 radar) to try and confuse the P-3 radar operator on the number of ships. If they suceed a big ol' missile attack gets launched at one expendable FFG, and that FFG has a bunch of helos around it to pop off chaff as a last ditch defense... Maybe I should just shut up now... :rolleyes:

Molon Labe

05-10-2007, 03:29 PM

Huh? Kilo can put a lot of weapons in the water. 6 tubes need only 2 mintues to reload, a Kilo can empty its torpedo magazine in the time it takes for an SSN to fire and reload (assuming it cuts the wires and reloads right off the bat). :wink:

Hmmm I brefly covered that tactic in my upcoming Kilo guide... :biggrin:

It's true that the Kilo can put a 2nd salvo in the water pretty quickly, but chances are the ARG has already moved far enough away to avoid the 2nd shot. The 20% range reduction at max speed is a pretty big hit. Although, since these are amphibs instead of combattants, no-escape range will be a bit longer than in most ASUW missions.

I am backing off slightly on the firepower issue. A more precise was to frame the problem is the weapons envelope, which pretty much requires a point blank shot, limiting the tactics available to the subs and shrinking the area the ARG needs to defend against. That's how I framed it in the post just before yours. Any comments on that tradeoff?

As for your crazy diversion tactic, I do like it, but I doubt it will have any practical application without a dynamic campaign engine. I don't know exactly what the P-3s radar range is, but you'd need an op area significantly larger than that range to make it work...even these larger 4+ hour scenarios won't have that.

Molon Labe

05-10-2007, 08:18 PM

A follow-up:

I just crunched some numbers to get a better idea on the firepower issue. The No-escape range vs. a Harper's Ferry is 12.1 for the UGST, and 4.8nm for the USET. It'll be slightly shorter for the Newport LST.

TLAM Strike

05-12-2007, 01:28 PM

Well one thing to do could be to spread the ships of the ARG out giving the blue ASW forces a larger area to protect.

The Kilo driver does have a few options open, after the frist salvo going deep and running at flank along the ARG's PIM can keep them in firing range until his tubes are reloaded although at a greater risk of detection (although each ship in the convoy just got a half dozen TIWs so it safe to assume he is detected). Or aiming to disable/damage as many ships as possable since a damaged ship is slower in DW IIRC giving him or his swim buddies a chance to pick off stragalers. Also a ship that falls out of the ARG formation (or wanders out of it durring its torpedo evasion) is very vonerable to missile attacks from PTGs etc unless the blue FFG decides to play shepard for the lost ships or slow the ARG down so it can rejoin. Also if one Kilo latches on and trails them from ahead giving the other Kilos the location of the ARG they can set up a chain of boats to attack. Of course the problem with that is increased odds of detection due to the high speeds involved.

Molon Labe

05-12-2007, 02:11 PM

Well one thing to do could be to spread the ships of the ARG out giving the blue ASW forces a larger area to protect.
In the interest of realism, I'm always hesitant to deploy forces in a way they hurts their own chances. I try to give them the strongest formations under the circumstances.

As for the rest of it, the acoustic balance might be what settles it. Right now I'm mostly working with the 1 SSK, 1 SSN combo, mostly because it's closest to what the full version will be. That, and I have a preference for combat tactics, and because Across the Line of Death will have two smoke boats anyways. I'm trying to set it up so that the Kilo will have a chance to get within 5nm, or the Akula within 12nm without. Considering that "blue" might be able to avoid water deep enough for a layer to form, that might not happen with a SD SSP. Then again, switching to BL+Mud might make the ranges too short and mean its too easy for "red" to attack. In that case, 2 Kilos might be better.

TLAM Strike

05-14-2007, 12:17 PM

In the interest of realism, I'm always hesitant to deploy forces in a way they hurts their own chances. I try to give them the strongest formations under the circumstances. You could also say in the mission breafing that there is a enemy SSBN deployed a thousand miles away and the ARG is more dispersed to avoid the Red side just hitting it with an ICBM. I think thats realistic since that was a threat against US CVBGs considered back in the Evil Empire days.

Molon Labe

10-11-2007, 12:31 PM

So I've picked this up over the last few days and have more or less completed the Opposed Landing (basic) scenario. The design concept has changed a bit from its inception, thanks in part to feedback from TLAM and Furia and also to experience in testing in SP and with SuBB.

Here's what we're working with now.

--The location has been moved from the Falklands to the east coast of Sri Lanka. The Falklands proved impractical because the islands themselves had to be driven around by the defenders to move into position; a straight coast was needed instead of something roughly circular. Also, the water depth prevented a layer from forming in crucial areas, which would make detection of the defenders far too easy. Sri Lanka provides excellent deep water all the way up to the coastline, with a small shelf present for those of you who like mines. It's as close to perfect a place for this scenario as can be.

--The coastline to be defended is 50nm long. This has recently been shorted from 70nm. The change was done in order to increase the size of the area the defending subs could start in. And yes, that is a bit ironic, but that's how the geometry works.

--The OOB for the attacking (US) side is currently an FFG-led ESG composed of the FFG, Helo, 2 DD, 1 DDG, 2 LST, and 1 LHD, with an 688I SSN and P-3 supporting. There is also a Sri Lankan Mirage fighter which plays a minor part in creating the opening setup.

--The OOB for the defending (Indian) side is currently 2 Klub-capable Kilo improved and one non-Klub Kilo improved. India also has a rather weak 2-ship SAG along the coast and an IL-38, both of which help set up the match but do not play a significant part.

--The US objective is to successfully land 2 of the 3 amphibious ships. An LST is considered landed when it literally beaches itself on the shore. The LHD is considered landed when it is present when one of the LSTs lands. Landing the LSTs is accomplished by driving them within 5-10nm of the coast, at which point a script fires that drives them into the shore. Testing has shown that this feature works as intended without any significant problems.

--The Indian objective is simply the negative of the US objective. The most obvious way to negate the US objective is to sink two of the amphibs. I am also considering adding a time limit for the US, which would likely be 6 hours; in that case the Indian side could win by running the clock.

--The Setup: Dynamic groups are used to spawn the US ESG in one of four locations about 65nm from the landing area. The Indian IL-38 is present in the beginning and will inform the Kilos of the starting location of the ESG. This IL-38 will be shot down by the Sri Lankan Mirage or will get stupid and get picked off by a US SAM. Either way, the Kilos will know the starting position of the ESG, but will be "in the dark" from that point forward.
Dynamic locations are used to spawn the Kilos in an area from which they can reasonably be expected to respond to an attack at any point along the coastline from any of the US spawns. A script matrix is used to assign initial battery levels the 3 Kilos of 100, 85, and 70 percent. A significant portion of the possible starting area of the Kilos is protected by the Indian SAG. This SAG can survive at least one US ASM salvo, and will provide the Kilos 30-45 minutes to relocate, thus foiling (hopefully) any US P-3 player's attempt to buoy-saturate the spawn area.

--Feasible approaches
The US ESG was intentionally set up to defend effectively against SS-N-27 attacks. Even a full 12-missile salvo from both capable Kilos is unlikely to produce significant results; the best that can be reasonably hoped for is that a single escort will be sunk. The FFG player can ensure his own survival against this opening simply by turning the formation so that the DDG is closer to the threat and the DDs can play missile sponge. The Indian side will have to close to conduct a torpedo attack to be successful; the question is the timing. The formation is well-protected against a torpedo attack as well; the most effective attack will be one performed by two or more submarines at the same time. This will take time to set up which might not be available; moreover, it might be the case that the formation needs to be attacked to ensure the more distant Kilos have a better chance at repositioning in time to be able to attack at all. But, a successful torpedo attack that eliminates the DDG, or adequately disrupts the formation, could leave the formation vulnerable to a follow-up missile attack.
On the US side, a decision needs to be made regarding where to look for the Kilos and what if any avoidance measures should be taken. A straight, fast approach to the coastline might prevent some Kilos from moving into position in time, but it would also be very predictable and could lead to the formation running over one of the Kilos and allowing it to get a shot at the DDG or the amphibs. Slower speeds or zigzagging allows for a better search, but gives the Kilos more time to position themselves for a successful intercept, or worse, a coordinated strike. ASW assets must also choose between a forward screen, attempting to locate and destroy the kilos in transit, or a collapsing defense that focuses on the small area near the formation from which at least one attack must come. The smaller the area searched, the more likely detection is, but if the area is too small reaction time may be a problem, especially if a coordinated attack has been set up.

--Potential problems
The Kilos have a very hard time just getting into position, and being hunted by a P-3 and SSN while they do this might be asking too much of them. Since the geometry for a successful intercept is limited, it may be possible to put up an impenetrable barrier; especially if DiCASS bouys are used extensively. Full scale testing will be needed to find out if the Kilos have a reasonable chance of getting in position to strike under the current setup; if not, the P-3 (and the SAG) will be removed.
Testing with 3 players has shown that the AI missile slinging at the SAG is not causing any lag problems; however, I still have some concern about the situation with 5-7 players.

----------------
Expanded version:
The larger-scale version of this scenario would be closer than the original to a force-on-force battle, with both sides having roughly symmetrical OOBs, although the India v. US alignment will be preserved to the extent possible. For the US, the OOB probably be expanded from the basic version by adding one SSN, possibly a Seawolf, and the ESG will probably trade at least one DD for a DDG or CG. India would likely have an FFG-led SAG composed of SSM equipped warships (and, until such time as we have the Brahmos in the database, such ships will probably include Tarantuls and Sovremennyys "playing the part" of Indian ships), a P-3, and 2-3 submarines, of which at least one will be an AkulaII SSN. There may or may not be a supply or 'reinforcements' feature as noted in the original design concept.

Molon Labe

10-11-2007, 03:02 PM

copied from Subsim.com

"Cowboy 3 - FOX THREE"

haha

This is based on my 1st impression when we tested your map recently. Plus I toyed around with it after I finished my playable beta.

At 1st I thought the combination of a playable helo & p3 was overwhelming for red, but after additional thought, I do think the p3 is too much for red for this scenario and can leave the rest of blue with little or nothing to do but be forced to wait while in route, as well as possibly a short lived scenario. I have an estimated run-time of 7 hours, based on the ffg at 15kts over 100nm.

P3, helo, 688:

Considering the op area, (IIRC from when I tried to intercept as kilo) where the fleet is inbound from < 100 nm, speed of the p3 @ 400 kts, then the p3 will be on top of red force in .25 hours; what can red force do in 15 minutes in what might be a 1st and last attempt in assessing the situation that could last 7 hours? Then 1 hour later(or less than depending on where the helo is spawned) the helo is in the area. THEN once the p3 is in the area at 400 kts, it will take about .19 hours to cover the landing area w buoys, bringing the total time to less than ½ hour covered by the p3 alone and nothing to counter it; SAM hunting is plain ridiculous for submarines. With these two in the area it’s fish in a barrel. Even w the p3 by itself its fish in a barrel.

Red forces only card to play then is the IL 38, which I guess is supposed to be OTHT, but can the IL-38 live long enough to do it’s job for red force. AFIAK there is nothing to counter the mirage or blue anti air capabilities at that range in that window of time in the 1st ½ hour. With him gone, red subs best attempts are ESM or radar emissions, so I guess red still has a chance but depending on deployment of red subs. If the ffg maintains speed of 15 kts over the same distance, and red force subs survive, w/o the IL-38, 1st contact with the convoy is less than the 7 hour mark?

Then the 688 steps in; well it’s not getting any better for red force, now is it? He could ‘ping & link’ or attempt to drive red away w active sonar, which could be countered w/ asw, but because of the deep water and considering the 688 is sniffing for shallow targets, all he has to do is ping and launch active CM shallow, run deep and clear datum, if not close in, and do it over again. 688 can easily intercept the kilos from under the layer, and AFIAK kilos don’t have torpedoes able to run deep enough for the 688; if this is true – easy win.

In short: considering the coverage area and abundance of torpedoes and buoys, the p3 can do it all by himself, leaving little or nothing for the rest of blue force to do and short life-expectancy for red force. I need to verify if what I said is true about kilo torpedoes.

helo:

I think better balances the scenario for red force and blue force, for opposite reasons of p3 w helo, gives red force ample time to assess the situation, and possibly position themselves for effectiveness. The helo faces lack of abundance of torpedoes & buoys and down-time (re-arming), however the 688 could(should say will) intervene at some point and time. Eventually the ffg will cover 100nm at 15 kts and arrive close to shore in 7 hours, not even posing a threat to red subs until closer to the session run-time in excess of 1 hour. (6 hour mark).

Same as above for 688.

I guess the IL 38 shares the same fate as mentioned above. As well as red sub eta on detection of the convoy. In less than 7 hours the helo can rearm, refuel and re-deploy several times over.

Conclusion:

Red will have to coordinate for effectiveness, that’s less likely based on set batt scripting and with nothing to counter the mirage or blue air power coupled with blue anti air capabilities, and possibly the 688.

All blue has to do is either hunt red down, which would be the typical outcome, or drive red away / delay red long enough for the convoy to reach it’s destination. Ambush of the convoy is possible on reds’ part towards the session run-time mark or slightly sooner depending on the ffg speed.

Molon Labe

10-11-2007, 08:15 PM

We just had a four player test of the scenario; thanks to Oneshot, Cyklop, and Bobbyzero for their help.

I've found that I can get to shore a lot faster than the design intended, so the starting position of the US fleet was moved back.

I've also given up on trying to get the May and Mirage to work appropriately. They have been removed. Instead, the Kilos receive a radio message informing them of the position of the fleet at mission start.

I'm still on the fence about the P-3. I'd like to run another test with me on the Indian side. I do think this scenario would work fine without it if it came to that. It'll still be in the expanded version, of course.

subb

10-11-2007, 10:40 PM

test data - CN kilo torpedoes vs 688

Quote:
Originally Posted by suBB

I need to verify if what I said is true about kilo torpedoes.

Well, here is what I came up with.

It is half true that EDIT: in deep waters the 688 can dive under kilo weapons, therefore literally walking right up to the kilo and nothing can be done about it. It only applies to CN kilos and not RU kilos.

The CN kilos(at least one hull I checked) are capable of the ss-n-27 asw torpedo, that any deep running submarine has a greater chance of evading, and only good for a minimum range of 6nm. If the ss-n-27 is decoyed by an inbound 688 less than 6nm away, the 688 can literally walk or run up to a CN kilo from under the layer, achieve HF contact, own him, and nothing can be done about it. Other than that, the CN kilos' 2nd line of defense is the wire-guided TEST71 torpedoes, which confirmed on LWAMI that are capable of 400m operational depth, which the 688 can easily dive under and attack the CN kilo and nothing can be done about that either.

The only kilo capable of combating the 688 from less than 6nm in deep water is the RU kilos, where the USET-80 free-running torpedoes are capable of 500m(1645 ft)

In a mission such as this one, which includes deep water, and if nothing has changed since O.L. 1, then 2/3 of the kilos, those being CN kilos, in this mission are helpless against an attack by the 688 if the 688 closes less than 6nm.

Removing the CN kilos will strip Red of ASM capability, replacing with RU will mean that kilos will have to resort to coordinated efforts and torpedo attacks only.

I think coordinated efforts would be the common factor regardless the platform or situation.

Molon Labe

10-12-2007, 12:49 AM

I hope you're not suggesting that a Kilo v. 688I duel should be a fair fight, because it's not going to be. If the 688I and the Kilo become engaged, the outcome would be the same as if the engagement was between the Kilo and the P-3 or MH-60. This outcome does not change if the Kilo is armed with a deep-diving torpedo. Fortunately, this scenario isn't a dueling match, and the Kilos' objective does not require them to eliminate the 688I. They just need to avoid it.

None of our tests have involved an aggressive move by the Kilos to close with the ESG, so it isn't clear what the Kilos odds of penetrating the screen are. In SP, the 688I has spotted me only once out of about 10 attempts. A human player should do better, but the fact remains that passive detection of the Kilos is very difficult and the area is very large. And if the 688I tries to reduce the size of the area that needs to be covered by collapsing around the ESG, it loses the opportunity to catch the Kilos while they are running at transit speeds and instead must attempt to find them at patrol speeds. I hope this explains why my balance concerns are more directed at the P-3 than they are at the 688I.

subb

10-12-2007, 03:09 AM

Molon Labe

10-12-2007, 01:39 PM

I’m not suggesting anything molon, I’m just stating a fact.

This isn’t about a dueling match, this is about a possible situation that is bound to happen on your map between a transiting kilo trying to intercept the ESG and a 688 running screen AHEAD of the ESG as I tried to do when we were testing, air assets could be indisposed at the time when the standoff takes place, the 688 & kilo are in close proximity & won’t have time to promote a link and must react, and the 2/3 of red force can’t do a damn thing to defend themselves in efforts attempting to complete their mission.

As the 688 I would think the objective is to protect the ESG, and that would involve engaging the kilo or any possible hostile contact since no form of ROE is in play. And the fact that I must engage to protect(myself and ESG), it’s that much easier to do knowing that 2/3 of red force are subs that pack weapons I more than likely can out-dive. If this standoff takes place in very close proximity, for example if I stumbled across a transiting kilo, or vice versa, 66% says it will be a CN kilo, I literally have nothing to worry about knowing there is nothing he can do about this situation; no contest.
Well, you have to be doing more than stating a fact. If that was all there was to it, I would simply agree with you about the point that if the 688I and Kilo went head to head the Kilo would lose. I even go further than you do in this regard, because I apply this to all types of Kilos, not just the Chinese ones.

So what I'm left with is that not only are you stating this fact, but you're implying that it's a problem. I've already stated my reasons for disagreement, so rather than restate them I'll just agree to disagree. But I will say this much: there was a time when I designed missions with fair matchups in mind. You can see this in many of my old titles, where I often placed opposing platforms in such a way that they were expected to come into contact and fight it out. The pairings were usually FFG v. Kilo, 688I v. Akula I(imp), and SW vs. Akula II. This was the result of me being involved in virtual fleets since I began playing multiplayer. As someone who was dueling all the time but wanted more, my objective as a designer then was to create duels that took place within the context of a military scenario. I no longer feel drawn towards this type of setup, as I rather see the scenario as a unity rather than a collection of smaller battles. My goal as a designer now is to create a situation where both sides have problems they need to solve in the face of opposition. If I've done that, I'm not concerned if somewhere along the lines, a fight breaks out that is lopsided. I'm not interested in creating fair fights, as doing so creates an artificiality that I don't want in a scenario meant to simulate modern naval conflict. This is probably just a fundamental difference in values.

So far, my favorite thing about this scenario is the role that the 688I and Kilos play in the mission and against each other. Both platforms are being used to perform the missions they were designed to do in real life: advance fleet protection for the 688I and coastal defense for the Kilo. The relationship between the two is not that of gladiators facing off, but of hunter and prey. The 688I is very good at hunting and the Kilo is very good at hiding. To the extent that the 688I is successful as a hunter, it will kill the Kilos. To the extent that the Kilos are successful at hiding, the ESG is going to get blown away (One Kilo penetrating will probably result in 1-2 ships being sunk. If a Klub-shooter is still alive at that point, double that. Two Kilos attacking together will probably result in the fleet being wiped.).

Off topic but low batteries compromise the kilos since your scripting is forcing 2/3 of the red side to run on diesel,
If I didn't have a matrix for setting battery levels, I would simply be scripting 100% full battery levels for all three Kilos. It seems more realistic for me to simulate the match setup such that some Kilos are partially depleted at the beginning, as if they had been taking turns charging so that there had never been a time where more than one was running on diesels at the same time. It's also a lot more dynamic, as the player isn't going to know in advance if combat is going to break out when he is waiting for his turn to charge or right after he got done charging. Also, it is not necessarily the case that 2/3 will need the diesel. The lowest charge in the matrix is 70%. Those Kilos spawning in the path of the ESG might need as little as 10% to get in position. It's possible that all 3 Kilos could spawn in the path. It's also possible that all 3 will have to transit significantly. Anywhere from none to all may need to run the diesel for a successful intercept.

no wonder why they are detected by both air and submerged so easily.
There is absolutely no evidence in either SP or MP testing that suggests that the Kilos are easily detectable, especially by passive means. Quite to the contrary, the only Kilo that has been detected by passive means in MP testing was an AI Kilo that was cavitating. The only other MP detections have been two detections of Kilos with the Mk 1 eyeball and one by MAD. In SP testing, the 688I has made one detection of the Kilos in about 10 attempts, which has been the only passive detection in SP. The dominant means of detection in SP has been the active sonar of the Sprucans, followed by the MH-60's MAD. There has never been a detection of a Kilo running its diesels in SP or MP testing. Never.

My concern about the easy detectability of the Kilos is limited to detection by DiCASS barriers, and thus far is purely conjectural. Nevertheless, this conjectural concern has led to the enlargement of the Kilo starting area and the placement of a SAG to deny access during the opening 30-45 minutes. If these measures prove insufficient, it is the P-3 that is on the chopping block, not he 688I.

subb

10-12-2007, 02:05 PM

Molon Labe

10-12-2007, 04:07 PM

real quick,

I only have time for a quick blurt, but I will respond momentarily.

I forgot to ask what were the problems you were having w the mirage / other things to the point where you removed it / them from the scenario?

I think you mentioned what, but I didn’t inquire further as to why.

I could be generating a test case at this moment in efforts of finding a solution.
In the full scale MP test, it looked like the May crashed right in the beginning on the replay. Had the ESG started in a different location, it might never have been spotted, which is completely unacceptable. The Mirage also routinely engages ASMs (usually fired by AI) or the SAG (even though it is set to AAW loadout). I just want it to shoot down the May and go home.

I'd be interested in any solutions you have to correcting weird behavior, but I'm actually quite pleased with the radio message system that I've replaced the May/Mirage with. It just "feels" right. :biggrin:

subb

10-12-2007, 04:51 PM

Well, you have to be doing more than stating a fact. If that was all there was to it, I would simply agree with you about the point that if the 688I and Kilo went head to head the Kilo would lose. I even go further than you do in this regard, because I apply this to all types of Kilos, not just the Chinese ones.

Based on the USNI reference this is simply not true. RU submarines equipped with USET-80 torpedoes w running depths of 500m can take down the 688; he can’t dive below 1645 ft. All others I looked into sport the TEST71M series up to the SET series, which are capable of shallower depths than the USET-80. I don’t think we can go any further than that, the buck stops there. And that is how I came up with 66% , because there is only one kilo in your map that carries the USET 80. In fact I got depth parameters by actually loading each available platform in DW, with it’s best torpedo only to find the USET-80 is the only one capable.

As someone who was dueling all the time but wanted more, my objective as a designer then was to create duels that took place within the context of a military scenario. I no longer feel drawn towards this type of setup, as I rather see the scenario as a unity rather than a collection of smaller battles. My goal as a designer now is to create a situation where both sides have problems they need to solve in the face of opposition.

I couldn’t agree with you more, and the more I continue working on scenarios in efforts of captivating a sense of realism and practicality, the more I’m becoming aware of my own desires I need out of DW, which I know can be done with the right ideas and planning. As a freelancer, if it wasn’t turning down offers of VN recruiters, it was the typical mode of game play leading to the source of disappointment frustrations with DW, and yes I was so tired of dueling, to the point where I stopped playing shortly before DW came out and never really pondered Mission objective MP. But soon after DW was released it offered nothing different than before. But after learning more about mission objective MP, it sparked newfound interest never before seen. Commenting on the last sentence; I think this was the magic behind BMB that got me hooked and wanted to see more also. As you know I’ve only played that scenario from you and nothing else. But to know you are taking this approach in editing means a great deal in scenario quality. I’ve never pondered if I’m ‘playing fair’ with the placement of platforms, but considering the playable beta we recently fixed, I hope I’m accomplishing the same thing, if not I’d rather be.

So far, my favorite thing about this scenario is the role that the 688I and Kilos play in the mission and against each other. Both platforms are being used to perform the missions they were designed to do in real life: advance fleet protection for the 688I and coastal defense for the Kilo.

My 1st desire is in fact to drive the 688. And the more I’m including the requirement of staying alive and reaching destinations unharmed in my scenarios, the more fond im growing of various modes of operation of ownship. Based on the situation I often balance optimized stealth with situation awareness(routine TA baffle checks). In our testing I saw something in the role of the 688 that I would like to look into further, so I’ll go with that one 1st. However I am intrigued by the kilo, and to be honest I suck as the kilo because I mishandle the kilo in many ways. My problem is I’m expecting too much out of her because I’m used to nukes and I can’t use the same aggressive tactics in a kilo as with a nuke. Something tells me that your scenario may have something to be learned about the kilo, and for anyone new or unfamiliar with that platform, that allows them to walk away with something, which can be applied to a later date and time and additional desire to play the same scenario (replay value) so off the bat I definitely want to drive those two platforms before any other.

If I didn't have a matrix for setting battery levels, I would simply be scripting 100% full battery levels for all three Kilos. It seems more realistic for me to simulate the match setup such that some Kilos are partially depleted at the beginning, as if they had been taking turns charging so that there had never been a time where more than one was running on diesels at the same time. It's also a lot more dynamic, as the player isn't going to know in advance if combat is going to break out when he is waiting for his turn to charge or right after he got done charging.

Anything that contributes to dynamics is something I definitely want to experience.

There is absolutely no evidence in either SP or MP testing that suggests that the Kilos are easily detectable, especially by passive means. Quite to the contrary, the only Kilo that has been detected by passive means in MP testing was an AI Kilo that was cavitating. The only other MP detections have been two detections of Kilos with the Mk 1 eyeball and one by MAD. In SP testing, the 688I has made one detection of the Kilos in about 10 attempts, which has been the only passive detection in SP. The dominant means of detection in SP has been the active sonar of the Sprucans, followed by the MH-60's MAD. There has never been a detection of a Kilo running its diesels in SP or MP testing. Never.

Well use of active sonar(ping & link), would be my 1st line of defense as the 688, in efforts of driving kilos away would more than likely uncover something out there; all the way up to 40nm. And I don’t even need a fixed bearing, just echo ranging and a TIW. The dynamic battery level can lead to snorkeling, which at minimum snorkal speeds is detectable, I tested this in CI v1.00 so with that and a p3 flying around, more than likely a snorkel will be detected on radar. To avoid that would require constant monitoring of ESM while snorkeling, and as soon as a nearby emission is detected, secure and dive deep. So you see, my initial choices won’t include passive search as the 688, but actual tactics to be used depends on the driver of the platform.

subb

10-12-2007, 05:33 PM

In the full scale MP test, it looked like the May crashed right in the beginning on the replay. Had the ESG started in a different location, it might never have been spotted, which is completely unacceptable. The Mirage also routinely engages ASMs (usually fired by AI) or the SAG (even though it is set to AAW loadout). I just want it to shoot down the May and go home.

I'd be interested in any solutions you have to correcting weird behavior, but I'm actually quite pleased with the radio message system that I've replaced the May/Mirage with. It just "feels" right. :biggrin:

Hahaha

It’s that gritty eh? I’ll have to check it out.

Well, my 1st attempt is the following:

a.. Script – pwn IL-38:

a-2.. Engage pwnee by pwner for –1 seconds (he will pwn until pwnage occurs)

b.. Trigger – remove pwner after pwning

b-2.. Doctrine – if pwnage damage = 100%, then remove platform(pwner)

b-3.. Script – remove platform(pwner)

Results:

When IL 38 finally blows up, then take the mirage off the map

May ‘may’ need a hard-deck trigger to keep airborne. But I’ll check into it.

Molon Labe

10-14-2007, 12:51 PM

I'd been using an engage script to try to get the pwnage, and set fuel to 25% to get it to RTB. The RTB worked, but the engage script wasn't too reliable. The Mirage always got distracted by ASMs or the SAG. Apparently those targets are a higher priority, even when following an engage script.

TLAM Strike

10-15-2007, 04:40 PM

Well use of active sonar(ping & link), would be my 1st line of defense as the 688, in efforts of driving kilos away would more than likely uncover something out there; all the way up to 40nm. And I don’t even need a fixed bearing, just echo ranging and a TIW. Sounds like a good way to eat an SUBROC for breakfast. If there are two Kilo's operating together they can get an instant soultion on your by triangulation and give you the bad news with their standoff weapons. Leave the active sonar flushing to the tin cans I say or clear a corrador for the convoy with DICASS from a P-3- you can be real nasty and use them to drive the Kilos to a waiting 688 too. :2ct:

Damn I got to finish my Kilo Guide so us smoke boat drivers can really give you a run for you money. :rolleyes:

subb

10-15-2007, 06:02 PM

Sounds like a good way to eat an SUBROC for breakfast. If there are two Kilo's operating together they can get an instant soultion on your by triangulation and give you the bad news with their standoff weapons. Leave the active sonar flushing to the tin cans I say or clear a corrador for the convoy with DICASS from a P-3- you can be real nasty and use them to drive the Kilos to a waiting 688 too. :2ct:

Damn I got to finish my Kilo Guide so us smoke boat drivers can really give you a run for you money. :rolleyes:

I think you forgot the side order of eggs and bacon(CM active shallow, TX shallow, dive deep) with your menu options there. :tongue:

In deep water, the 688 can be well below the layer shortly after TIW, leaving your wolfpack nothing to snack on but a wall of seltzer bubbles and two free tickets to ‘The Locker’ (hahaha)

IIRC the starfish isn’t all that great acquiring deep targets, esp with shallow active decoys staring them in the face. Maybe that has changed in LWAMI.

Btw I would appreciate your smoke boat drivers’ guide. I find the kilo frustrating to use, only because of mis-handling. :mad:

Molon Labe

10-15-2007, 07:48 PM

I've never done any active sonar detection range testing at all for subs since 1.03, much less done testing on this scenario. It's an open question whether a 688I could get away with that; it all depends on whether it can search enough area to prevent an attack while it is safely underneath the SAM umbrella. If it can't do that from inside, then yeah, it's eating SUBROCs, and the layer isn't going to save it from a precise bracket attack.

Molon Labe

10-15-2007, 10:39 PM

I figured out a fair way to test the capabilities of the P-3 against subs moving to intercept the ESG in SP. The results were mixed, but leaned towards not being encouraging.

I set this up so that the ESG would only start from the most northern spawn point. I removed the dynamic locations for the Kilos and set them up so that one would spawn in the path of the ESG, one would arrive in the middle of the run, and one would arrive towards the end.

Taking the yoke of the P-3, I set up two lines of defenses. The first was two VLAD-DiFAR tripwires arranged E-W situated about 5nm south of the landing point. The second was a field of DiCASS in and around the path of the advancing ESG.

The results were a bit surprising at first. The nearest Kilo managed to evade the initial tripwire and the first line of DiCASS, due mostly to the delay in getting those lines up. It was a lot of space to cover, and the 2nd VLAD-DiFAR line had to wait on the destruction of the SAG. So score a point for the Kilos for preventing spawn raping.

Early on, I noticed a buoy going in and out of signalling hot and marked it of interest. About an hour in, another flicker merited further investigation, resulting in me going in to drop a DiCASS pair. I got a MAD hit during that run, leading quickly to the death of the middle Kilo.

The near Kilo was the next to go. Once again, he evaded DiCASS detection, at first anyway. But after two or three buoys near him were activated, he turned and changed his aspect. I ended up catching him on the "2nd pass." Another dead Kilo.

The final Kilo was picked up by the 2nd VLAD-DiFAR tripwire, cross-layer at that. This detection actually resulted in a line, making it the first true passive detection of a Kilo in any test so far, cavitating detections excepted. I didn't bother killing the last one.... total time on this run was about 2:45.

The good news here is that detection is very difficult. Very tight passive buoy lines are needed to get detections, and even then going by hot buoys may be all you can do. DiCASS detection range proved to be smaller than expected as long as aspect was high. The P-3 is hard pressed to be able to cover the entire area that the ESG can be vulnerable from, and it's very possible that something can slip through even if the P-3 is doing a good job.

On the downside, the fact remains that I tagged all 3 Kilos in under 3 hours, without any help. If I had missed one in match, there is a 688I and FFG controlled helos that are quite capable of picking up the slack.

I'm very close to being convinced that this scenario would be better without the P-3. Having the 688I on advanced patrol, trying to detect transiting Kilos while the choppers do point defense seems like it would give both sides a fair shot. The P-3 doesn't qualitatively change the tactical situation, it just adds a layer of defense and significantly changes the odds.

Does anyone want to convince me to keep it? TLAM, maybe you think the Kilos deserve more credit for being elusive than I'm giving them?

TLAM Strike

10-16-2007, 04:16 PM

I think you forgot the side order of eggs and bacon(CM active shallow, TX shallow, dive deep) with your menu options there. :tongue:

In deep water, the 688 can be well below the layer shortly after TIW, leaving your wolfpack nothing to snack on but a wall of seltzer bubbles and two free tickets to ‘The Locker’ (hahaha)

IIRC the starfish isn’t all that great acquiring deep targets, esp with shallow active decoys staring them in the face. Maybe that has changed in LWAMI.

Btw I would appreciate your smoke boat drivers’ guide. I find the kilo frustrating to use, only because of mis-handling. :mad:

...mmmm...bacon... *drool*

Maybe one free ticket if they were using a desnated (I cannot spell that word! :mad: ) shooter. The other 1-2 Kilos would just listen and give LOBs. :wink:

Maybe the next LWAMI should have a little doctrine change for the SUBROC torpedoes that have them search from Min to Max depth every so often based on water depth. :2ct:

I've never done any active sonar detection range testing at all for subs since 1.03, much less done testing on this scenario. It's an open question whether a 688I could get away with that; it all depends on whether it can search enough area to prevent an attack while it is safely underneath the SAM umbrella. If it can't do that from inside, then yeah, it's eating SUBROCs, and the layer isn't going to save it from a precise bracket attack. I thought about that after I posted. Toss a few N-27 ASMs at the SAG to keep the escorts buisy while another kilo goes for the SUBROC kill would be one way of defeating that. But I think if the SSN is under the SAM umbrella its not doing it job and has become a point defense unit like the Seahawks.

The near Kilo was the next to go. Once again, he evaded DiCASS detection, at first anyway. But after two or three buoys near him were activated, he turned and changed his aspect. I ended up catching him on the "2nd pass." Another dead Kilo. by second pass do you mean a 2nd attack or a 2nd search. Going for "sweaped water" is one of the things I mention in my guide, which I think I'm going to release in part soon just to get it out there I'll make additions to the parts I'm having trouble with (battery charge tactics) later.

Does anyone want to convince me to keep it? TLAM, maybe you think the Kilos deserve more credit for being elusive than I'm giving them? The P-3 is I think the most powerful anti-Kilo weapon short of the Seawolf. In DW players really don't get the option of letting the badguys go by when they are well defended and living to fight another day. You've talked a lot about each sub being placed in its proper job, the Kilo in littoral defense, the 688 as advance scout/defender well the P-3 is really the super advance scout. It can be an "on call" defender for a TF but its ment to go out long before the fleet arives and santize the area now unless the mission is going to go over 6 hours the P-3 is going to be a powerhouse platform because compared to its capablities its still got a small area to search and it dosn't need to search areas beyond the TF's PIM which it might have to do in real life (in game we know there are no badguys out there waiting for the TF to pass by then attack).

Now back on the subject of SUBROCS the P-3 is the real anti-SUBROC weapon assuming its go its radar on which some P-3 players think gives away their position too much. They got to stay high (8,000 feet or so) while emitting then shut down and go in low for sub hunting.

I think if you find the SSN being killed alot by SUBROCS becomes a problem (poor nukies :tongue: ) then the P-3 would be need otherwise leave it home.

OneShot

10-16-2007, 06:28 PM

I think it hugely depends on who sits on the controls of the P-3 and how he plays it. Concentrating on passive only with few or no active searches and the P-3 has to work a lot. But if you go for majority or full out active search then the Kilos will have a bad day ... Between my internal and external stores I can load over 80 buoys ... make that all active and I can create a really safe corridor for the SAG, however this is a pure "gamey" tactic.

I'd say keep the P-3 in for now and see how it develops.

subb

10-16-2007, 07:56 PM

...mmmm...bacon... *drool*

Maybe one free ticket if they were using a desnated (I cannot spell that word! :mad: ) shooter. The other 1-2 Kilos would just listen and give LOBs. :wink:

Maybe the next LWAMI should have a little doctrine change for the SUBROC torpedoes that have them search from Min to Max depth every so often based on water depth. :2ct:

I tested ping / link from comms depth on molons’ map and combined with the kilo TIW I was able to locate a kilo about 25nm immediately after I spawned. In fact I had two sources of echo ranging but the kilo TIW confirmed the bearing. In that regard, with a P3 at 400 kts, it’s only a matter of minutes when things would only get worse for that kilo.

The AI kilo responded with starfish counter attack, and IIRC the –15 is good for 19nm RTE setting but the torpedo splashdown at 17nm, so as long as the 688 is outside starfish range, this tactic is good to go, and can prove to be a short lived experience for any kilo > than 20nm from a TX’ing 688.

However, the LWAMI mod showed us in another test just how lethal –15s can be in a bracket shot - I got a free back-stage pass to The Locker’.

I agree with Oneshot. I’d say I can fare well with air platforms(helo mainly), being mindful of buoy deployment and corridors and whatnot, where I too employ passive search before anything else and it is a job in itself, but that doesn’t mean the next person will do the same thing, so there is a possibility that other people will ‘get gamey’ with the Orion, even the helo for that matter.

Molon Labe

10-16-2007, 08:56 PM

The test I set up used far more passive buoys than any other, and it was those buoys that got 1.5 of the Kilos. (I'm only giving it half a point for one because it wasn't a solid contact, but led to a MAD hit). The DiCASS were only used to sanitize the path the ESG was moving along, which I don't think it a gamey use of them and in any case is probably less than most players would use.

TLAM Strike

10-17-2007, 02:28 PM

:biggrin:
I tested ping / link from comms depth on molons’ map and combined with the kilo TIW I was able to locate a kilo about 25nm immediately after I spawned. In fact I had two sources of echo ranging but the kilo TIW confirmed the bearing. In that regard, with a P3 at 400 kts, it’s only a matter of minutes when things would only get worse for that kilo.

The AI kilo responded with starfish counter attack, and IIRC the –15 is good for 19nm RTE setting but the torpedo splashdown at 17nm, so as long as the 688 is outside starfish range, this tactic is good to go, and can prove to be a short lived experience for any kilo > than 20nm from a TX’ing 688.

However, the LWAMI mod showed us in another test just how lethal –15s can be in a bracket shot - I got a free back-stage pass to The Locker’. I was in a situation like that once against a Seawolf and what I did was go to flank in the direction of the pinger and fire off a SUBROC (in that case it was a N-27 which has more range than the N-15) to force them to evade while I move in close for a second shot. I didn't kill that SW but he spend all day running away from my torpedoes.

The DiCASS were only used to sanitize the path the ESG was moving along, which I don't think it a gamey use of them and in any case is probably less than most players would use.

I agree with ML here. Given that the subs will probaly know where the ESG is at and heading using DiCASS to clear its PIM isn't unrealistic. Its basicly like surface ships pinging away- your just driving the subs away from the convoy.

Molon Labe

10-17-2007, 06:18 PM

TLAM Strike

10-18-2007, 05:36 PM

Oh, sorry I didn't answer your question TLAM. 2nd pass meant the second review of the buoys. I went over all the buoys once, then repeated the process, catching the Kilo on the 2nd sweep through. He wasn't any closer, but had turned broadside to the buoys in response to being pinged on the first sweep.

Ah thats one thing that I think needs a procedure in MP (Alough you were playing SP so it dosn't really matter). Eather divide up the diffrent bouy strings to the processing units, for example the P-3 gets the most distant bouys, the FFGs get the ones along the ESG's course and the Seahawks get the ones inbetween. They they stick to those bouys and if attacking get guidance from the other operators.

Or you stagger the bouy channels like this:
GRAM #1: CH #2
GRAM #2: CH #4
GRAM #3: CH #6
GRAM #4: CH #8

Then after a few mintues you decrease the freq for each GRAM's chanel by 1 then a go back, then increase by one etc. That way you are scanning 24 channels on your first "Page" of GRAMs in LOFAR mode. leaving your other page for Directional and active mode annalsys.

Molon Labe

10-25-2007, 09:46 PM

About the EMCON I have tried some scripting but no joy.
I have to say that our Map editor is kind of limited in possibilities.
I am currently recording a list about needed stuff on the Scenario editior for the Beta tester Forum and I will include this among other needed stuff such as the possibility for the player to have some "radio Commands" to activate scripts or trigger, say that I want a script to run I can order it sending Radio Command "ALPHA". NOw we are limited to "take picture" "launch blabla.." not very good.
For the EMCOM it would be something as easy as a Change Unit EMCON status using the menu tool tips on CIC by the Human players.
So I am afraid we are stuck with the EMCON issue on the meantime. :soapbox:

SuBB found a workaround for the EMCON issue. EMCON can be toggled from On to Off by running an engage script; apparently when a ship goes offensive it turns its active sensors on. The same result might also occur if the EMCONed ships detect a contact and begin to engage according to standard doctrine. The question for us now is what event to trigger this on that would allow the FFG control over this, if any, and what event could be used in conjunction or as an alternative to indirect FFG control.

As for FFG control, my first guess might be flares, and my second might be the 3" gun. But I vaguely remember trying to use those to fire triggers for another purpose and not having any success.

TLAM Strike

10-26-2007, 02:06 PM

SuBB found a workaround for the EMCON issue. EMCON can be toggled from On to Off by running an engage script; apparently when a ship goes offensive it turns its active sensors on. The same result might also occur if the EMCONed ships detect a contact and begin to engage according to standard doctrine. The question for us now is what event to trigger this on that would allow the FFG control over this, if any, and what event could be used in conjunction or as an alternative to indirect FFG control.

As for FFG control, my first guess might be flares, and my second might be the 3" gun. But I vaguely remember trying to use those to fire triggers for another purpose and not having any success.
Maybe if the EMCON ships detect the FFG on their EW IE the FFG has its RADAR on. Then go back to EMCON if they lose contact.

subb

10-26-2007, 05:04 PM

TLAM Strike

10-27-2007, 04:53 PM

EMCON control in this fashion is pretty much a one-shot deal. You start the platform with EMCON on, and using ‘engage self 1 seconds’ turns it off – there is no going back to EMCON on.

There are a number of reasons why to toggle EMCON off, but since we only get one shot at it, we must consider our designs carefully and wisely. Generaly you would cease EMCON when coming under attack IE the FFG or Aircraft have detected Vampires inbound at that point going back from EMCON isn't of much value since the badguys know where you are and have told the entire world about it.

Molon Labe

11-05-2007, 07:00 AM

subb

11-05-2007, 03:53 PM

[farnsworth voice enabled]Great news, everyone![/disabled]

Opposed Landing Basic now features audio damage control reports for US forces above the waves. A big thank you to Subb for telling me how to make sound files audible only to certain platforms and for converting the Fleet Command files.

You are welcome, molon, but you are not of the woods just yet.

If you haven’t done so already you still need to make sure it works over MP, or release as is and if MP audio problems surface, then fix it and release a new version.

Either rate, it’s your call, and even though the technology is identical to how it’s designed on my map, I’d test it over MP just to play it safe.

:2ct:

Molon Labe

11-05-2007, 07:29 PM

Yeah, it could definitely use a run-through to ID any issues. It's still a beta.

Molon Labe

11-12-2007, 02:19 PM

The Fleet Command sound effects seem to be working 99% of the time. Not sure what's causing that 1% to go loopy, but I'm satisfied to go forward for the time being.

I've had some time to think more about the balance issues and I think I know what I'm going to do, although I haven't decided on the exact details yet.

Problems in the basic version
The Kilos are fighting an uphill battle as it is. The P-3 can cherry pick them transitting and can sanitize the transit corridor. The 688I can catch them transiting and/or act as point defense (in the point defense role, the 688I could probably prevent a successful attack by one Kilo but would not defend successfully against two). The Kilos also have to contend with 3 ASROC shooters and helos close in, and will probably have very little battery power remaining to conduct evasion or reposition for a 2nd attack.

Problems in the full version
The full version was meant to include a Red surface force as a major component. But, if the Red and Blue fleets face each other off, those ships that exhaust their ASM supply break out of formation and run until they lose contact with the enemy ships. This would destroy the integrity of the defensive formation, and could even result in the objective amphibs being prevented from approaching the coastline. I'm hesitant to invest time on this project until I can find a way to make it interesting without needing a setup for a serious surface confrontation.

The Plan
I think for the time being, the "full version" should be tabled, but that a version including SSNs is still needed. So, Opposed Landing 2.0 will involve the Kaban and two "Russian" Kilos (The Chinese Kilos go bye-bye because the Akula brings the missiles to the table). There will be a Blue P-3 in this version; note that with an Akula around the size of the area that needs to be sanitized around the ESG doubles. But, the threat of passive detection of the Akula is must larger than it was with the Kilos, so some counter must be present. I'm going to need to look into what sort of ships can do this without scattering Blue, but this will not be as big a time commitment as the full version so I'm more willing to proceed in spite of that. If I can make it work, I would like an OHP to lead that group so we can get a player in it. The SAG's focus would be on protecting Red subs from air and sub threats, but not on ASuW. On the blue side, in addition to the P-3 being added, the ESG will be adjusted to ensure an early missile strike doesn't cause outcome-determining damage, and a "tight end" will be included to prevent an easy stern shot at the amphibs.

In OL 1.0, it's time to bite the bullet and cut out the P-3. I really wanted to make it work, but it's not going to and there aren't any adjustments that can be made to change that. I think I also need to replace the Spruances with non-ASROC shooters; the Burke has 6 them and that's enough. I'm leaning towards either Duke FFGs or Australian Perrys. (Criteria: good SVTT weapon system, no ASROC, weak air defense) With those changes, the battery matrix can probably stay.

I'd like to take this opportunity to get any of your thoughts on the development plan over the next few days. I'm hoping to have a working modified version ready before the weekend for a full-scale test. With any luck, that will be the last test necessary and I can send this one off to Bill. :cool:

subb

11-12-2007, 04:49 PM

I have an idea that can solve your problem of units breaking formation, it’s the same ‘circuits’ I designed for random AI navigation, AI disengage /re-engage and AI patrolling in CI v1.0.

Referring back to conflicting interests v1.0, Red subs were scripted to locate and intercept the 688 and we all know that, but if by chance the 688 slipped by w/o being spotted, when red subs came within so many miles away from the coast, I made a circuit that would turn them around and head in the opposite direction and continue the search.

Well the same thing applies here I think, why not make set of zone triggers(4 total = 4 spawns) and when the conditions are met if one the triggers are fired, just send the convoy back into a general direction towards the goal using a script. In fact you can make a group of general direction triggers that are randomly selected each time the map is loaded and will send the convoy towards the landing area. Lets call these zones north, central 1, central 2 and south.

For example, lets use zone north. It will involve assigning event auto triggers each to a group w POI = 0, then assign them (children) to a parent group that will be randomly selected w/ POI = 25% since you have 4 (example)triggers per zone. Each direction trigger is a general course that will send the convoy back to the area(lets say courses 280, 260, 240, 220). When zone north is fired create the group to bring the triggers(children) into the map, but the parent has already picked one to exist w 25% POI at random which means only one general course has been chosen at random each time the map is loaded.

But before we try to implement this workaround, we need to confirm that it does in fact work in your design, and that can be done with a simple test case. I mean I know this works but I’m concerned that the convoy may ignore the scripts for course headings due to the breaking of formation but you won’t know for sure until its tested.

:2ct:

Molon Labe

11-12-2007, 05:15 PM

That might work for getting ships to move toward a fixed site, but getting them into relative position with moving objects is another thing. The only way I can think of to pull that off would be to make a magic whale grid that more or less returns the current coordinates of the formation leader and all other ships, and then have a trigger/script matrix that gives the correct course adjustment to the stray ship. That will literally take thousands of whales and triggers, probably 10s of thousands. And that still isn't accounting for the direction the formation leader is facing, so the system has to assume a certain course.

subb

11-12-2007, 06:01 PM

I figure with the random general direction course triggering, it will be the ffg driver adapting to the convoys’ course change than the other way around. But it would be best for the convoy to return to formation somehow.

But… what you could do is use the suicide attack script to force them to follow the ffg if formation is broken, and assuming the ffg is heading in a general direction anyways, collision w ffg is very unlikely, but keep in mind they will follow the ffg until collision is made. And when blue convoy reaches the goal, who cares what happens after that. However, they could collide w each other but collision avoidance between AI needs to be on.

Using dyn group for the convoy I think would make it easier to check to see when formation is broken by setting a max range(large enough to monitor convoy) trigger(doctrine) between the ffg and at least 1 ship from the convoy.

Molon Labe

11-12-2007, 06:49 PM

I figure with the random general direction course triggering, it will be the ffg driver adapting to the convoys’ course change than the other way around. But it would be best for the convoy to return to formation somehow.

But… what you could do is use the suicide attack script to force them to follow the ffg if formation is broken, and assuming the ffg is heading in a general direction anyways, collision w ffg is very unlikely, but keep in mind they will follow the ffg until collision is made.
Now that is a good idea.... I'll have to try that out. A relative position trigger can be used to detect if it's out of position, then the suicide attack script fires. Might need a 2nd trigger to force the suicide attack script off though, but that shouldn't be too hard.

subb

11-12-2007, 07:04 PM

The bum deal about suicide scripts is you can't shut them off. Well, I should say I couldn’t get it to turn off using script off. On my map I tried to get the bear to investigate buoy contacts when the 688 is detected, and since the track script didn't work I then considered suicide attack, then realized I couldn’t shut it off.

Also make sure the when using the suicide script that AI doesn't turn dumb on you and not attempt to take defensive measures when they come under attack. I'm thinking that even though they are trying to collide with a constantly moving target(FFG) that script may override anything else until its finished. You may also need to consider what cruise speed to set to attempt the suicide attack, because if its anything less than the ffg nominal cruise speed, they will never collide with it + that will more than likely solve your problem = win-win situation for you.

Molon Labe

11-12-2007, 07:53 PM

The script off not working pretty much kills that. Oh well.

Molon Labe

03-06-2008, 07:26 PM

OK, SuBB's pestering me about finishing this before moving onto the Persian Gulf thing. The 'basic' version with the Kilos is ready for full-scale beta testing right now. This version includes a shit ton of battle damage report .wavs imported from Fleet Command, so this will be my most emmersive release yet. If you're interested in helping with a full scale test (it should be 99% working, this is just to confirm), then post here.

On the other hand, if Kilos aren't your thing but this is something you'd like to try with Akulas, post here too. I can sub in Akulas pretty quickly and make the appropriate changes to the ESG. The battle damage reports might give the wrong ship names (changing it will be a very labor intensive process) but aside from that the scenario will be fully functional on short notice.

Molon Labe

03-08-2008, 04:10 PM

Update: fixed a few course mistakes and had a little epiphany.... The ESG doesn't necessarily have to go 15 knots. It may be possible to complete this in as little as 2.5 hrs. Time estimate now set at 2.5-5 hrs instead of 4-6.

Molon Labe

03-19-2008, 04:20 PM

I managed a partial vetting a few days ago thanks to Wolve and ToBe. To Be CTDed so it was incomplete, but I did manage to notice that the range at which the helo can search ahead of the formation is limited by the link range. What this means is that with the P-3 removed, the concern about possible spawn-rapage is reduced to practically zero. Because of this I was able to reduce the size of the possible starting points of the Kilos, which makes it easier for them to move into an intercept position regardless of which of the formation spawns is instantiated. Because a significant amount of time will pass before Blue is able to find the Kilos, this does not have a significant impact on game dynamics---and I'm a bit ashamed I didn't notice this sooner.

I'm hoping this will be completely DONE within a week.

Molon Labe

06-03-2008, 06:07 PM

Back to work!

I've just completed a long-overdue revamping of the beta. In response to a test run that ran too long, I've altered the starting positions of all platforms. Now, instead of the ESG spawning from an arc which could be across from any portion of the coast, they now only spawn in the northern quadrant. In the old setup, the defending Kilos had to be in position to defend either end of the coast on short notice, which forced their starting locations back significantly. With the new shape, the ESG has to choose between going the "short way" and or the "long way" (or any point in between). The Kilos have more time to react to an end-around run for the far point of the beach and therefore can start closer to the ESG. So, the ESG was moved about 15nm closer.

The overall effect of these changes is to increase the area of danger for the ESG. The older version more or less required the Kilos to intercept at the last possible moment, very close to the shore, which made ASW rather easy and meant that a lot of time could go by before combat broke out. The new shape allows the Kilos to be in better position to intercept from the start, which means the ESG will be driving through Kilo-infested waters sooner than it did before.

Estimated completion time is now 2-4 hours, with likely first contact occurring in the 1-2 hour range.

I'd like to give this a run sometime this week. Hmmm, maybe I should give the calendar thing another try. :biggrin: But first, time to make a version with an Akula or two.

Molon Labe

06-05-2008, 08:54 AM

OL II is now 95% complete and should be in a testable beta either today or tomorrow.

Details:

US OOB:
1 FFG
1 Tico CG
1 Burke DDG
2 Spruance DD
2 Newport LST
1 Wasp LHD
1 688I SSN
1 MH 60 (airborne)
1 P-3 Orion

India OOB:
2 Akula-II SSN
1 Kilo Improved SS
1 Perry FFG (sorry, no OPFOR pack yet)
1 Delhi DDG
1 Kashin DDG
2 Mastar LST
1 MH 60 (sorry...OPFOR)
1 Helix
4 SAM sites

The main differences between this version and the basic version are that India now defends with 2 Akulas and a Kilo instead of 3 Kilos, has surface support, and has reinforcements.

To discourage an attempt to win by missile saturation attacks, the US formation has been made very defensible, with 2 AEGIS ships defending and two DDs ready to be missile sponges is need be. While a large missile salvo can still sink an escort, multiple salvoes will be required to hit the amphibs. The P-3 is back, which means the Akulas will have company between those salvoes.

Instead of an absolute requirement to land 2 ships, the US must now land at least one more ship than India does to win. So, if India can land both its LST's, the US can not afford to lose any amphibs.

The Indian reinforcements formation is led by AI, giving their FFG player the discretion to detach from escort duty. The FFG could sprint into the combat area, effectively denying valuable airspace to the US P-3. This would put the FFG in greater danger of missile/torpedo attack and could expose the reinforcement formation to greater risk of missile attack.

The reinforcements formation is generally only susceptible to missile attack due to its location. Thus its destruction will likely be tasked to the P-3 and SSN. It is expected that the P-3 will not be able to sink both LSTs with a single sortie, so unless it gets help from the SSN, it will have to break off to reload. The multiple mission demands of the P-3 should keep it from getting both Akulas easily and early. The size and composition of the reinforcements formation, or the victory conditions may be tweaked to get the balance right.