Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Suggestion: Ordnance Usage

 
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 >> Suggestion: Ordnance Usage Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Suggestion: Ordnance Usage - 12/24/2017 12:56:48 AM   
DavidRob0


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/5/2008
Status: offline 		I'm running B972.12 of Command (V1.13.6 has been installed, but does not show as such for Command - being a Shifting Sands mod).

Developing a small scenario based on one of David Poyer's books which involves a Chinese submarine force attempting to break out into the western Pacific, and a screen of US and Japanese surface vessels and a submarine is in place to oppose them. The Chinese also have Badger aircraft in place to "knock holes" in the ASW screen using C803 and YJ12 ASMs.

There are 2 points that have come up which the Dev Team might like to consider for future updates:-

(1) Ships are launching SAMs at Vampires which are inbound to another ship in an adjacent station. No problem with the concept, and when launched in time have brought down some Vampires. However, the same ships are launching SAMs at Vampires which are going to arrive at their target before being intercepted by those SAM(s). The SAMs inevitably lose contact and run rogue when the target ship successfully intercepts the incoming Vampire, or is hit by it.

(2) The game AI seems to have woken up to the high loss rate among the launching aircraft and is resorting to BOL attacks. The result is that there are Vampires inbound which are not on track to attack any ship, but ships are still launching SAMs against them, sometimes scoring a hit, and sometimes not. In no case did the incoming Vampire alter course toward a surface ship, but was still pursued by one or more SAMs (launched by a consort) until it ditched or self-destructed.

Both of these instances seem to be a bit of a waste of valuable SAMs, which are difficult if not impossible to replace on station - especially in a high-threat and somewhat intense situation. They may be needed in a future attack.

I have not been able to find a way to manipulate the ROEs to prevent this happening without having an impact on other situations. Anybody seen anything similar?

In both cases above, the Vampire has been held by sensors on both the target ship and its consort,or is handed off to the target ship. Perhaps in such a situation there may be room to calculate a "time to intercept" in comparison to "Vampire time to target", and use the result to make a decision for the consort to launch or not. Clearly, the obvious target has to defend itself!


_____________________________

Only the Dead have seen an end to war-
David Rob
Post #: 1
RE: Suggestion: Ordnance Usage - 12/24/2017 3:37:11 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline 		You can adjust the WRA in mission/main doctrines to tell how you want your units expense ordinances.

It’s usually launch a pair of SAM at one vampire because of the higher PoH, but you can adjust to only fire one for each target. My idea for PLAN is, let 052C/D fires first, and any misses will have 054A to stop them. If both failures, the 052D/056 have RAM for WVR defenses. And the rest of the unit in battlegroup with fewer SAMs remain idle.

However I wouldn’t suggest to conserve SAM expenditure even they have higher PoH and not being jammed. This is exactly why 055 was made, to allow Chinese Navy have sufficient missiles to launch offensives maneuvers.

As for the missed SAM cannot search for next target before self-destructed, I think it’s a fair and reasonable, SAM has much higher velocity than ASM and to make redirecting targets more difficult. It’s also a safeguard to prevent from auto-lock on friendly/neutral units.

_____________________________


(in reply to DavidRob0)
Post #: 2
RE: Suggestion: Ordnance Usage - 12/24/2017 4:57:12 AM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks for your feedback.

Please post savegames

_____________________________



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

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3
RE: Suggestion: Ordnance Usage - 12/24/2017 6:12:37 AM   
DavidRob0


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/5/2008
Status: offline
quote:

You can adjust the WRA in mission/main doctrines to tell how you want your units expense ordinances.

Thanks Dysta,- but RoE and WRA are not really the problem. As I said in my original post, salvo size versus target is not an issue - from past experience I agree with it.

My suggestion relates to timing of weapon release and target engagement. After all, we wouldn't want to be hitting friendly ships would we?



_____________________________

Only the Dead have seen an end to war-
David Rob

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 4
RE: Suggestion: Ordnance Usage - 12/24/2017 6:22:15 AM   
DavidRob0


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/5/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Please post savegames


Thanks for the reply Emsoy. As I said, the scen is still being constructed, and there is much work still to be done. But, here it is so far.......


Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Only the Dead have seen an end to war-
David Rob

(in reply to DavidRob0)
Post #: 5
RE: Suggestion: Ordnance Usage - 12/24/2017 7:04:04 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline 		Oh, well now I understand you mean, I thought your scenario is PLAN vs vampires, but's US side.

Well, I had made and uploaded a fast scenario and have the same result. In mission scenario I've disabled HQ-9 & HQ-16's self-defense range, but I am certain it did not make any difference. In the end, when volley of Tomahawks approach to PLAN fleet, it's as predicted the HQ-9 fires first, but still engaging some leaked vampires when get into HQ-16's range. Causing the intercept task being duplicated by both 052C/D and 054A.

I think the ideal way is when leakers is getting into 054A's HQ-16 range, 052C/D will disengage them and 054A will take down leakers. But so far I don't see any way to remedy that doctrine. I think we need something like "Disengage Range" in WRA or something.

Oh, and I realized some SAMs with active seekers can redirect targets, that's interesting.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Dysta -- 12/24/2017 7:09:20 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to DavidRob0)
Post #: 6
RE: Suggestion: Ordnance Usage - 12/25/2017 1:28:21 AM   
DavidRob0


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/5/2008
Status: offline 		G'day Emsoy and Dysta,

Season's Greetings to you both, as appropriate

I've made a couple of changes to the scenario to give the Chinese a better chance of causing havoc, and run it for a while. A save game is included to demonstrate what I meant in my initial post.

You'll see a number of SAMs launched by the CG at missiles targeted on Russell, but which have already been intercepted by Russell. There are more incoming vampires aimed at Russell, and the CG has engaged them.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Only the Dead have seen an end to war-
David Rob

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 7
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Suggestion: Ordnance Usage 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

0.688