Weapons loadouts in scenarios

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Weapons loadouts in scenarios

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Weapons loadouts in scenarios

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/20/2013 7:45:58 PM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

Question regarding the weapons loadouts on some of these ships in the out-of-the box scenarios. And this may just be a lack of knowledge on my part.

I'm looking specifically at the USS Halsey in the South China Clash scenario. This scenario presupposes a prepared force going into a potential hot zone against a significant threat.

She's carrying 56 Tomahawks, 24 ESSMs, and 8 ASROCs.

96 VLS cells, 88 weapons loaded.

First, why the empty cells?

Second, why the heavy emphasis on land attack? No ASuW capability at all.

Third, no Standard AAW missiles. Why the limited air defense capability?

This seems ridiculous to me. Is there some RL logic behind this that I'm missing? A play balancing thing? A mistake?

Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks.

JD

< Message edited by jdkbph -- 10/20/2013 7:49:59 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/20/2013 8:37:53 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Hi JD, some real quick answers

1. There are not enough weapons around to fill all VLS cells, so ships deploy with empty cells. Typical loadout for a Tico, for instance, is 96 SM-2s, 48 per VLS. The 'heavy' AAW loadout for Burkes is 72 SM-2.

2. The USN is not fitting Harpoon missiles to new ships. They carry helicopters instead. If you look in the db there are no Sub-Harpoon on modern units either. These were withdrawn in the late 1990s.

3. ESSM replaces both the SM-2 and CWIS on newer Burkes.

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to jdkbph)

Post #: 2

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/20/2013 9:14:41 PM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

Thanks Ragnar. That's stunning... in a bad, real-world way. No wonder the PTB think the LCS is a great idea... these must be the same idiots who think it's a good idea to pull the fangs on the USN surface forces.

Helicopters?

Sheesh.

JD

< Message edited by jdkbph -- 10/20/2013 9:15:44 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 3

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/20/2013 10:23:49 PM

smudge56

Posts: 667
Joined: 1/17/2009
From: UK
Status: offline

You think thats mad our governments in the uk think its a great idea having carriers before we get any carrier aircraft. Penny pinching they scrap the sea harriers which could at least have been an interim.

Then complain when we struggle to cover operations.

< Message edited by Blighty56 -- 10/20/2013 10:25:09 PM >

(in reply to jdkbph)

Post #: 4

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/21/2013 12:57:31 AM

kieferpl

Posts: 14
Joined: 10/6/2013
Status: offline

quote:

Hi JD, some real quick answers

1. There are not enough weapons around to fill all VLS cells, so ships deploy with empty cells. Typical loadout for a Tico, for instance, is 96 SM-2s, 48 per VLS. The 'heavy' AAW loadout for Burkes is 72 SM-2.

...

3. ESSM replaces both the SM-2 and CWIS on newer Burkes.

Neither of these answers are correct. Especially number 3.

< Message edited by kieferpl -- 10/21/2013 12:58:35 AM >

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 5

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/21/2013 2:57:03 AM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

Do tell....

What then is the right answer?

BTW, I'm also curious as to whether these restrictions and limitations we're talking about here are the result of peace-time and/or low threat conditions. Would these be "war" loadouts as well, or would we see the (eg) Burkes loaded up with SMs and Harpoons should we get into a spat with another major sea power?

It's all just hard to believe... particularly that helicopter thing. Even if they could get close enough to launch at a legit warship (and that's a big - perhaps impossible - if)... I mean, a couple of Hellfires hanging off a Seahawk?

Seriously?

JD

< Message edited by jdkbph -- 10/21/2013 3:00:13 AM >

(in reply to kieferpl)

Post #: 6

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/21/2013 5:00:26 AM

Wiz33

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Hi JD, some real quick answers

3. ESSM replaces both the SM-2 and CWIS on newer Burkes.

Source? This may be true fro a unit operating within a Task Force with other Aegis ship setup for AAW while the Burke carries the Tomakawk for land attack and ESSM for self defense. But there is no way that a Burke will have this loadout if it's the lead in a Taskforce and there are no other ship with better AAW capability around. I hope this is just specific to this scenario but on the general config of a Burke II in the database.

< Message edited by Wiz33 -- 10/21/2013 7:13:22 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 7

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/21/2013 6:45:31 PM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

ESSM should sit in 4 cell clusters within a single VLS cell. This is the way they were designed. They are supposed to be a cheaper option to enable more missiles to be carried. Unless the game modelling only allows a one size fits all solution for modular weapon systems?

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 8

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/21/2013 7:12:52 PM

Wiz33

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

ESSM should sit in 4 cell clusters within a single VLS cell. This is the way they were designed. They are supposed to be a cheaper option to enable more missiles to be carried. Unless the game modelling only allows a one size fits all solution for modular weapon systems?

Good question. I guess we need to go into the scenario editor and see what happens with you add or subtract ESSM on a ship. Ok just checked. 4 ESSM only takes up 1 cell space.

< Message edited by Wiz33 -- 10/21/2013 10:20:59 PM >

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 9

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/21/2013 10:32:16 PM

Wiz33

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

OK. There seems to be some major problem with all the Burke loadouts in the DB3000 build 396 Database.

#438 DDG51 Aeleigh Burke ft I 2008-0, 2015-0 SM3 AEGIS BMD
#442 DDG72 Mahan ft II 2008-0, 2015-0 SM3 AEGIS BMD

None of them have SM3s in their magazine and only SM2s

All Burke II/IIA in the database are setup for Land Attack as default loadout with no SM2/3/6 at all even though there are 25 empty cell in the 64 cells VLS.

2008 and 2015 Variants still have Mk46 in ship magazine instead of Mk 50/54

< Message edited by Wiz33 -- 10/21/2013 11:29:20 PM >

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 10

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/21/2013 11:42:00 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I assume as you build a scenario, you adjust the magazines as you build it. I never used the default magazine, especially in US VLS systems. The weapons are all there and available in mount, things like the SM3 are zeroed out. You can adjust it as you see fit.

I just did some testing also...the ESSM is four per cell it appears.

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 10/21/2013 11:56:25 PM >

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 11

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 12:13:03 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

We'll take a look.

You guys know you can add weapons and records right?

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 12

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 12:17:09 AM

Wiz33

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

Yea. But I was surprised that a ship set to the SM3 BMD role does not start with SM3 in the VLS and a Burke set as taskforce lead in a scenario does not have any SM2.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 13

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 12:21:12 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Pretty sure our rationale at the time is we really didn't know how many the US actually allocated to each ship. Still don't have solid data but we can act on the request.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 14

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 1:59:50 AM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

I'm not so sure that this is a DB issue, but rather a scenario design issue. I'm comfortable with the idea that a typical load out during peace time or in a low risk environment might not be what you would get in a pedal to the metal situation. And I suppose it's quite possible to be caught that way and have to make do with what you have, if that's the scenario designer's intent.

However, if the scenario in question (at least the one in my original question) was supposed to represent a war time or "hostilities anticipated" situation... or if in a given scenario the unit is employed in a different role than the default load out was intended for, the scenario designer should be aware and would probably want to alter the load out accordingly and not consider the DB default load out to necessarily be representative or optimized for full effect or capability in that situation.

JD

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 15

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 3:08:48 AM

Wiz33

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

Yep. No way a Burke task with leading a bunch of weaker ships will set sail without it's primary area air defense weapon. If the designer went through the trouble to account for aircraft under maintenance and not available. He should have at least provide the proper loadout for the ships used in the scenario.

(in reply to jdkbph)

Post #: 16

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 3:28:44 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

I'm the designer

_____________________________

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 17

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 4:04:23 AM

Wiz33

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

Hey there. Seems like I'm a equal opportunity offender ;-P So can you tell me if it's a simple oversight or if you have a reason behind not giving the Burke it's AAW weapons?

< Message edited by Wiz33 -- 10/22/2013 4:12:51 AM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 18

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 5:00:36 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

It has ESSM's and the scenario is winnable. Have you played this scenario? If so what do you think the load out should be?

_____________________________

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 19

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 5:04:41 AM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wiz33

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Hi JD, some real quick answers

3. ESSM replaces both the SM-2 and CWIS on newer Burkes.

Source? This may be true fro a unit operating within a Task Force with other Aegis ship setup for AAW while the Burke carries the Tomakawk for land attack and ESSM for self defense. But there is no way that a Burke will have this loadout if it's the lead in a Taskforce and there are no other ship with better AAW capability around. I hope this is just specific to this scenario but on the general config of a Burke II in the database.

100% true, which is why I also mentioned in my first post that the standard/typical AAW loadout for a Burke is 72 SM-2s.

In the DB2000 database for Harpoon3 we actually had database entries for both configurations, AAW and Land attack.

In Command, switching loadout is pretty easy so the sim is shipping with the standard Land Attack configuration, which is Tomahawks + 24 SAMs (SM-2 for early Burkes, ESSM for later). Feel free to change to the SM-2 configuration if you want.

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 20

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 5:07:20 AM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wiz33

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

ESSM should sit in 4 cell clusters within a single VLS cell. This is the way they were designed. They are supposed to be a cheaper option to enable more missiles to be carried. Unless the game modelling only allows a one size fits all solution for modular weapon systems?

Good question. I guess we need to go into the scenario editor and see what happens with you add or subtract ESSM on a ship. Ok just checked. 4 ESSM only takes up 1 cell space.

Quad packs only eat up one VLS cell each.

The same goes for MLRS which have two 'clips' which can hold either a six-pack of rockets or a single ATACMS.

Also for WS-1A/B MLRS, TTs that can hold two short torps, mines or decoys, etc.

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 21

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 5:11:40 AM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wiz33

OK. There seems to be some major problem with all the Burke loadouts in the DB3000 build 396 Database.

#438 DDG51 Aeleigh Burke ft I 2008-0, 2015-0 SM3 AEGIS BMD
#442 DDG72 Mahan ft II 2008-0, 2015-0 SM3 AEGIS BMD

None of them have SM3s in their magazine and only SM2s

All Burke II/IIA in the database are setup for Land Attack as default loadout with no SM2/3/6 at all even though there are 25 empty cell in the 64 cells VLS.

2008 and 2015 Variants still have Mk46 in ship magazine instead of Mk 50/54

There is only a handful SM-3 missiles around, so very few ships carry them.

The VLS's have space for the missiles, so you can load them manually in the scenario where you needed. The only ship in the database that actually have any SM-3s loaded is the 'CG 70 Lake Erie'.

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 22

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 5:20:03 AM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wiz33

Yep. No way a Burke task with leading a bunch of weaker ships will set sail without it's primary area air defense weapon. If the designer went through the trouble to account for aircraft under maintenance and not available. He should have at least provide the proper loadout for the ships used in the scenario.

Real sorry for the flood of posts, have been deep, deeeeep down into the code the last couple of days looking into stuff and have just re-surfaced.

24x actually seems to be the 'standard destroyer loadout' of anti-air missiles. Whether its SM-2 or ESSM. This is also the same number of SAMs that the Spruance carried, however the Burke can fire them all at once. So it is a pretty potent loadout in most environments.

Carriers used to have 24x ready-fire Sea Sparrows (see a pattern?), however this has now been changed to 16x + 42x RAM.

So the loadouts in the db are 'typical loadouts' and, like it or not, are pretty realistic. The good thing about Command, though, is that you are free to configure the VLS the way you want.

Diving back down

< Message edited by emsoy -- 10/22/2013 5:26:06 AM >

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Wiz33)

Post #: 23

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 3:55:31 PM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

It has ESSM's and the scenario is winnable. Have you played this scenario? If so what do you think the load out should be?

Fair enough. And that is the scenario designer's prerogative (you, in this case).

It also raises an interesting question.

For the purists out there... are we looking for competitive scenarios where the scenario design goal is balanced play with a more or less even chance of winning for either side?

Or are we looking to model more realistic or likely scenarios where success (from a gaming standpoint) might be measured in degrees of winning or losing?

For example, if we're modeling the recent Libya thing, it's fairly obvious that Gaddafi's guys had little to no chance of winning. So when creating scenarios to model that, do we play balance by removing or degrading coalition assets (or upgrading Gaddafi's assets), or do we set our victory conditions to reflect the best that can be done given a particular starting situation?

I know I can go into the scenario editor and modify any of the existing scenarios to suit my own taste. However in my mind this smacks of power-ups, cheat codes and what not and I'm not sure I'd feel good about knowing where to stop. If nothing else it exposes the whole of the scenario to the player thereby removing any surprises the original author may have built in. Particularly with a new game like this, I'd prefer not to get into that sort of thing.

I guess the lesson here is, whether we like the way the out-of-the box scenarios are built is really not that critical. I expect that in very short order, the number of community built scenarios available will dwarf the bundled stuff. We (the community) just need to be aware that the default loadouts are not necessary optimal or appropriate to all scenarios and in most cases will need to be edited.

JD

< Message edited by jdkbph -- 10/22/2013 4:09:21 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 24

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 3:59:35 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

I'd say the latter. This is one of the reasons the editor allows you to set the bar for success at any arbitrary scoring point.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to jdkbph)

Post #: 25

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 6:14:17 PM

Wiz33

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

I don't think it's either 24 ESSM or 24 SM2s. ESSM is a self defense weapon while the SM2 is a area defense weapon. And Aegis ship that is part of any group without a better AAW platform would have to assume the Area defense role. Since there are 25 empty cells on all the Burke class in the database. I think it would be logical to at least put in 24 SM2s at a minimum.

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 26

RE: Weapons loadouts in scenarios - 10/22/2013 6:20:51 PM

Wiz33

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

I agree. You should balance the scenario with victory objective instead of crippling certain platforms even though at times it would means that one side is going to get the crap kick out of him. It may not be a lot of fun but it would be more realistic.

(in reply to jdkbph)

Post #: 27