Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Database question

 
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 >> Database question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Database question - 3/18/2017 5:22:56 AM   
Brisbin

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/9/2008
Status: offline 		I just got the game and I am having fun with it. My question is shouldn't the Russian Titanium subs have higher hull strength? I mean if they can dive deeper wouldn't it mean that they could take more damage. The Harpoon games had the same problem. Also, how come the F22 and the Pak FA have the same agility as the Pak FA can move its exhaust in more directions than the up down movement of the F22?
Post #: 1
RE: Database question - 3/18/2017 3:18:27 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline 		As to the first question, the shaped charges on modern torpedoes don't really care about what metal is, they're going to puncture it regardless. Once watertight integrity is compromised, the boat is done. Here's a video of a shaped charge cutting through a 6+ inch wall like butter - and remember that even lightweight ASW weapons have 20x the explosive power. The boats just don't have enough (read - any) armor so the stronger metal doesn't have a direct effect on survivability. USSR boats with titanium hulls should have deeper operating depths than the US boats, allowing them to take advantage of deeper thermoclines or underwater terrain.

For the vectored thrust question...here's a briefing by a USAF Col. about operations against IAF Su-30MKI, and he compares the Sukhoi's 3D vectored thrust to the Raptor's 2D. His takeaway is that they're both equally useless. It's also important to note that the command agility number surmises both sustained and instantaneous turn rates, so an airplane with great instantaneous (vectored thrust fighters) may have the same value as an airplane with great sustained rate (F-22, Eurofighter).

(in reply to Brisbin)
Post #: 2
RE: Database question - 3/18/2017 3:28:17 PM   
mikmykWS

 

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

Could you demonstrate in a file a double hulled sub taking the same damage?

As far as Agility scores it can be a subjective thing with the community but for the most part we make objective calls based on what we know.

Perhaps in the future there will be a lua way to impact agility scores so we can get out of that business all together

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 3
RE: Database question - 3/19/2017 2:13:34 AM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline 		Damage modeling is always a sketchy business. There are people at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) who spend their careers obsessing over it. I'm sure some people there could show you things that would amaze you.

For submarines, at the right depth, if the right pipe breaks in a submarine it might very easily sink to to the bottom and the hull might never be breached. The deep diving Alfa, theoretically, was more resistant to pressure, and might, particularly at shallower depths, be more resistant to certain types of damage (e.g. overpressure). There are other mechanisms by which a warhead might damage a submarine, though. Just the shock of an explosion transmitted through the hull can break pipes, causing it to sink without the hull being damaged at all. Command doesn't take all that into account. The damage model is an abstraction. It's the "good enough" solution, not necessarily the perfect solution. After ADCAP, the program to update the Mk48, I suspect that any theoretical advantages that the Alfa had on older Mk 48s were nullified. Hooray for spiral development!

As far as the agility modifiers, once again, they're intended to be approximate. An extra degree of freedom on the engine nozzles probably doesn't provide a decisive advantage for the PAK-FA vs. an F-22, particularly in the domain of combat that Command really captures best.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brisbin

I just got the game and I am having fun with it. My question is shouldn't the Russian Titanium subs have higher hull strength? I mean if they can dive deeper wouldn't it mean that they could take more damage. The Harpoon games had the same problem. Also, how come the F22 and the Pak FA have the same agility as the Pak FA can move its exhaust in more directions than the up down movement of the F22?



< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 3/30/2017 5:09:41 PM >

(in reply to Brisbin)
Post #: 4
RE: Database question - 3/19/2017 6:10:34 PM   
ultradave


Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline 		Put simply (from someone in the submarine business) the thickness of steel to allow the deepest depth of modern submarines is nowhere near what would be required to stop the explosive power of a torpedo. And as SeaQueen above stated, the shock of nearby explosions can do considerable damage. Breach a seawater system and bad things begin to happen quickly. Possibly more quickly than can be mitigated, depending on what else is damaged (the ability to close hull valves being the biggest issue in that case).

_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 5
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Database question Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.297