RE: Problem (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare



Message

FransKoenz -> RE: Problem (12/4/2009 7:48:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcolI've attached a screenshot from the latest test. A sub can clearly be seen penetrating a screen. In fact, the AI has already detailed a Viking to prosecute it. It has perfect location data due to the escort's active sonar, yet it fails to fire a single shot even though it is clearly within ASW range. This happens time, and time, again.

[image]local://upfiles/18146/8ABCD5DB07064B6193A9C6DCA6A6A017.gif[/image]


I can't see the little line [course] of the submarine. This means that the submarine has been detected, but, exact position is still unknown.
So, the Viking would not launch a weapon. In such cases I just push F1 and force the aircraft to launch the torpedo. Once the torpedo is in the water, the submarine reacts and the path of the sub becomes visible on the screen and the units in that particular mission will launch their weapon [if they are in firing range]. Sometimes you see that the submarine suddenly is somewhere else, on the exact location.
That's my experience with this situation.

Cheers,
Taitennek



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Problem (12/4/2009 7:50:53 PM)

So first, let me compliment everyone for the discussion. Interesting and on topic are two traits we need more of in the Harpoon forum.

I played through a few setups and found that formation patrols belonging to a surface group on plotted missions would not fire on subsurface contacts by default. <Selling>Using the new mission profile feature you can change this default.</Selling> I agree that firing on unidentified subs is technically an issue of doctrine. However, I also think it is an easy consensus that craft should do so. I'm changing the default setting for plotted missions. Other missions (in 3.10) should already fire on unidentified subs. You can still configure it so that your craft do not take the shot.

If there are other situations in 3.10 where a sub of unknown posture or class is not being fired on, let me know. Keep in mind that the mission of the surface group is what determines who and what to attack. This includes the Plotted and NoMission missions.

Thanks,



hermanhum -> Problem (12/4/2009 7:56:37 PM)

Image

[image]local://upfiles/18146/586B80B1F0AF4C9FA550E3FD6A8F4786.gif[/image]



hermanhum -> Question (12/4/2009 8:01:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

If there are other situations in 3.10 where a sub of unknown posture or class is not being fired on, let me know. Keep in mind that the mission of the surface group is what determines who and what to attack. This includes the Plotted and NoMission missions.

I am interpreting NoMission to mean units that are Unassigned. Is this correct?

You specifically mentioned that units on Plotted mission will fire on unknown subsurface contacts. Does this include Unassigned/NoMission, too? I believe it should.



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Question (12/4/2009 8:06:55 PM)

Unassigned units are handled under the NoMission mission. Plotted units are on the Plotted mission.

Unassigned craft, or those on assigned to the NoMission to give you the perspective from the internals, should already fire on subs not fully IDed.

Was that screenshot you just posted from 3.10? Would you please provide the save of that situation? It would help me figure out what is happening.

Thanks,



hermanhum -> Question (12/4/2009 8:14:35 PM)

The 2nd screenshot in question was from 3.9.4 and was added in further clarification to the question regarding plotted course of the unknown subsurface contact.



navwarcol -> RE: Question (12/4/2009 8:41:07 PM)

Very interesting looking scenario Herman.
And yes, this topic is being interesting also.
For your sub, a question however. Are you saying you achieved firing position on a moving CVBG by entirely creeping the sub and never having to move above the stealth speeds? I think, I must have misunderstood that, but I am just clarifying. If it is so, the carrier group was going far too slow, and it is amazing that the sub found them in the first place to launch its own attack, as they would have been barely making steerage, and nearly 'stealthy' in their own right.
Also, an off topic note to you Herman..tried your db for the first time, very well done.[:)]



navwarcol -> RE: Question (12/4/2009 9:14:17 PM)

One other quick note...active sonar does not give an instant detection unless you are inside of its (usually very limited) range. And, I notice the sub contact is yellow, which means it is being IDed as a neutral, so, you do have something there. Still, though, I think, if the sub manages to get that close, it deserves its shot[;)] It should have been prosecuted on the way in..if that surface group was moving at, say 10kts, unless the sub was already in position essentially, there would have had to be a point along the way where the sub was above creep speeds...even the difference of 5-10 nm off the course, a very small distance, would require the sub to accelerate to the intercept point, before their targets vacated the area. Also, the a/c would not be able to prosecute a torpedo launch from full speed, (or, should not be able to, I will have to see if it can in H3)and most ship based ASW weapons have a shorter range than many opfor torpedos ...so once the sub is past whatever air assets you have, it is quite likely to fire off it's torpedoes whether or not the ships fire off their ASW weaps.



hermanhum -> Harpoon 3 [ANW] scenarios for the PlayersDB (12/4/2009 9:26:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

For your sub, a question however. Are you saying you achieved firing position on a moving CVBG by entirely creeping the sub and never having to move above the stealth speeds? I think, I must have misunderstood that, but I am just clarifying. If it is so, the carrier group was going far too slow, and it is amazing that the sub found them in the first place to launch its own attack, as they would have been barely making steerage, and nearly 'stealthy' in their own right.
Also, an off topic note to you Herman..tried your db for the first time, very well done.[:)]

The scenario you are looking at is "Mugging the Forrestal" from the Blue Water Navy battleset. You are in quite a fortuitous situation because you own both versions of H3 are able to play this scenario in both the original H3.6.2 version and in ANW 3.9.4 so that you can do an objective comparison. My experience with this scenario is that I usually lose when I play the USSR sub side in H3.6.2 because the AI is all over me like bees on honey. However, in ANW 3.9.4, I can't lose as long as I never accelerate past creep speed before firing. By all means, try it for yourself. It only takes a few minutes to verify this to your own satisfaction.

[Spoiler Alert]

The CVBG in the scenario is moving on a Transit mission and has units sprinting and drifting within the formation. The speed of the CVBG should be cruise speed (8kts) because of the presence of a slower UnRep vessel. However, the group speed is irrelevant. The same situation will occur with groups moving at much greater speeds, too. The USSR player has two subs and thus can easily ensure that one vessel is able to creep into the formation. The CVBG is set to stay within a certain area to ensure ease of contact and conflict.

Regarding the PlayersDB, I am pleased that you have enjoyed yourself with our works. It is the culmination of effort from many individuals of which I am simply the most outspoken.



hermanhum -> Question (12/4/2009 9:39:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

One other quick note...active sonar does not give an instant detection unless you are inside of its (usually very limited) range. And, I notice the sub contact is yellow, which means it is being IDed as a neutral, so, you do have something there.

I believe that this is inaccurate. Yellow is the colour for a contact with the side Unknown. Green is the colour of a contact that is known to be neutral.

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

Still, though, I think, if the sub manages to get that close, it deserves its shot[;)] It should have been prosecuted on the way in..if that surface group was moving at, say 10kts, unless the sub was already in position essentially, there would have had to be a point along the way where the sub was above creep speeds...even the difference of 5-10 nm off the course, a very small distance, would require the sub to accelerate to the intercept point, before their targets vacated the area. Also, the a/c would not be able to prosecute a torpedo launch from full speed, (or, should not be able to, I will have to see if it can in H3)and most ship based ASW weapons have a shorter range than many opfor torpedos ...so once the sub is past whatever air assets you have, it is quite likely to fire off it's torpedoes whether or not the ships fire off their ASW weaps.

All very interesting points, but I think you are losing sight of the fact that the human is in control of the submarine. He does not have to increase speed unless he chooses to do so. Of course, if he wishes to risk counter-detection and attack by the AI forces, then he can accelerate and launch his attack. However, if he wishes to remain stealthy and then look for another opportunity to attack in the future (a wiser choice, IMO), he just needs to creep away and then make another approach at a time of his choosing.

Many of the points you touch upon are quite logical for a human player, yet the AI is limited in what it can do. The AI sub would most likely accelerate and reveal itself in order to conduct the attack.

However, that isn't the problem being presented in this discussion. The issue at hand is that in ANW 3.9.4, AI controlled units are unable to defend themselves at all from quiet player controlled quiet subs. AGSI claims that this problem is fixed in the upcoming 3.10 release. I look forward to testing this claim for authenticity once the 3.10 patch is released publicly for all to try.

[image]local://upfiles/18146/74B90AA7DA6D472E85F6A0C953F82BE5.gif[/image]



navwarcol -> RE: Harpoon 3 [ANW] scenarios for the PlayersDB (12/4/2009 9:45:46 PM)

Ah, yes, have played that, though it has been awhile. It is another one where the table is already set to favor the submarine side though, the cvbg is forced to essentially pass over the position of the SSNs...were that situation to happen, in real life, the submarines would probably sink the carrier, also. I am not disagreeing with you at all. My point, is that, the designers WANTED the carrier to be sunk, so they designed it with every advantage to the subs. Now, if you design your own ( and, I believe I have played some of yours, and would love to play if you design one of these) and in your own, you make it , say..20 hours earlier..the sub is not in position, they have to come from, well, wherever...but that changes the whole scenario. Now, instead of being able to creep for the attack point, the sub has to plan, has to diagram out an intercept point, on a battlegroup, even going 8 kts...If the sub is outside of the "inner circle", they are probably 100nm away from the HVUs..now, they have to do more than 'creep speed' to attain position..and a proper ASW screen will have more than 1 ASW ship 'sprint-drifting' so that the sprinter can get ahead, then drift, on passive, while the drifter sprints. Now, the sub is in a position where they have to not only time the intercept point of the hvu's, whose position they cannot know for certain, but also, time the sprint-drift pattern of the escorts. They may still pentetrate (after all, they are well trained, also) but it is nothing like a guarantee.
The problem with these scens, is that to save the hours long fight for the sub to gain its position, the designers simply set it up to where the surface units would have to cross right over the subs positions. And a sitting-silent modern SS/SSN will sink a target or three in that position.
On your example above, I would probably think it was more fair to play the surface side for a human against an AI sub side..the AI never should have that ASW plane at full throttle, it'll keep bypassing the target and never be able to fire. And there also should have been ASW helos around, they are better at knife fighting than the fast movers.



navwarcol -> RE: Question (12/4/2009 10:02:06 PM)


I stand corrected on the color, you are correct.
As for the other, I think you misunderstand me...my argument was not that AI can move to prosecute the attack..instead, my argument was that, in order to prosecute the attack, UNLESS the designer basically gave the submarine player position, already, any side, AI, or human, would have to accelerate..so, the sub may stay at creep speed, and trade that, for not attacking, or, the sub may speed up..in real life, unless the sub just gets very lucky, there is no way that the surface group will just 'happen' to transit right over its position. And, as I said, if the surface group is even 5-10 nm away, (in the big ocean, even that is astronomical odds) the sub is going to BE FORCED to accelerate in order to obtain an attack position..you cannot creep a sub at 3-6kts, and intercept a group that is moving 8-10 kts, unless you have a very, very lucky starting position. The thing with the Soviet subs, is that they were designed to go after carriers, so, their torpedoes had a range that meant they MAY be able to get off a shot from behind, but even that was risky and a low % chance. My point was, we were(myself included) looking at the wrong end of the equation..because once a sub was near enough to attack, it should be able to penetrate the screen and attack..the whole ASW challenge, the entire ASW mission, is designed to keep them farther out, and for the sub, its entire challenge, is getting in close, which, unless the geometry of the situation is incredibly lucky, cannot be done at creep speeds.

As for the players DB...you arent outspoken, and you are a good debater [:)]



hermanhum -> Harpoon 3 [ANW] scenarios for the PlayersDB (12/4/2009 10:35:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

My point, is that, the designers WANTED the carrier to be sunk, so they designed it with every advantage to the subs. Now, if you design your own ( and, I believe I have played some of yours, and would love to play if you design one of these) and in your own, you make it , say..20 hours earlier..the sub is not in position, they have to come from, well, wherever...but that changes the whole scenario. Now, instead of being able to creep for the attack point, the sub has to plan, has to diagram out an intercept point, on a battlegroup, even going 8 kts...If the sub is outside of the "inner circle", they are probably 100nm away from the HVUs..now, they have to do more than 'creep speed' to attain position..and a proper ASW screen will have more than 1 ASW ship 'sprint-drifting' so that the sprinter can get ahead, then drift, on passive, while the drifter sprints. Now, the sub is in a position where they have to not only time the intercept point of the hvu's, whose position they cannot know for certain, but also, time the sprint-drift pattern of the escorts. They may still pentetrate (after all, they are well trained, also) but it is nothing like a guarantee.

The problem with these scens, is that to save the hours long fight for the sub to gain its position, the designers simply set it up to where the surface units would have to cross right over the subs positions. And a sitting-silent modern SS/SSN will sink a target or three in that position.

I think that you want to try out the running interception of a CVBG in Transit. If that is the case, you might want to try the PlayersDB Ambush scenario from the NACV Classic battleset. It pits a score of submarines against a moving CVBG. I recommend that you try it with H3.6.2 first (and have the AI kick your butt three ways to Sunday [;)]) before trying it in ANW 3.9.4 (and probably sinking the CV).

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

the AI never should have that ASW plane at full throttle, it'll keep bypassing the target and never be able to fire. And there also should have been ASW helos around, they are better at knife fighting than the fast movers.

AI/ASW planes at full throttle is one of the game limitations I mentioned previously. The AI is unable to understand/do a lot of things that a human player takes for granted. Some DB editors insist on entering (real?) operational parameters for planes, ships, subs, or weapons that the AI simply cannot understand so they usually don't work. I think that many other DB editors have simply adjusted things according to the limitations so that the AI can at least fire the weapons that are available to it. However, that is OT for this thread.



hermanhum -> Harpoon 3 [ANW] scenarios for the PlayersDB (12/4/2009 10:57:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

Herman, are you using the default colors or have you set up your own? It would probably clear up any confusion because, as you know, the player can alter the default colors to his own choosing. Myself I use yellow for unknown and white for neutral....

... I use a customized personal palette based primarily on the default palette issued by the game and have dampened the hues a bit. I do not know if white was the original colour for neutral sides or not. My palette can be found here for anyone interested in trying it out:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1800495&mpage=1&#



FreekS -> RE: Question (12/4/2009 11:15:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chelco

I'm from Argentina and I was planning to play some of the Falklands scenarios out there.



I made the Falkland set and they were tested in 3.6.3 and in 3.9.4. They work in both though there are differences and not everything works as I intended it in 3.9.4. However it is doubtfull if a player would notice that a lot.

Freek



hermanhum -> Question (12/4/2009 11:20:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

the whole ASW challenge, the entire ASW mission, is designed to keep them farther out, and for the sub, its entire challenge, is getting in close, which, unless the geometry of the situation is incredibly lucky, cannot be done at creep speeds.

I think a premise and limitation behind this rationale is the belief that a sub is operating on its own. This is the way the AI operates. However, if data can be coordinated from various different sources (the way a human player can), it is not unreasonable to have a sub creep into an area and present an ambush of a surface group. Also, subs do not need to creep all over the ocean. I agree that mid-ocean interception at creep speed is unlikely/difficult, but that really isn't necessary. If one can position within a constricted choke-point or make an educated guess as to where the CVBG is heading, it is not impossible to get close enough for a stealthy penetration.

Game Note: As of this time (ANW 3.9.4), subs will NEVER move faster than creep speed in any mode (except plotted/manually controlled missions). i.e. Transit, patrol, pursuit, or interception. Supposedly, these speeds will be open to customization when the 3.10 Patch is released. Until that function can be publicly verified, all subs will only move at creep throttle.



navwarcol -> RE: Question (12/5/2009 3:26:22 AM)

The choke points you are referring to, are the very areas I referred to earlier that IRL would be very heavily sanitized by ASW forces, long before the HVU's arrival. This does not guarantee that a sub will be found and sunk, but, it IS a parameter in the calculation of risk, on the part of the sub commander..do they sit silent hoping they survive the ASW screen? If they choose to try, and then, if the ASW screen passes them and misses(probably along the lines of 70%, really, if they are just sitting..seems like good odds until you realize a great hitter in baseball hits .300..so you have the same odds of dying, as he has of getting a hit) but yes, if they have attained that position, and then survived the ASW screen, it IS very much realistic, that they will be succesful...trying that too much, will give the crew grey hairs far too young, and is a darwinian process where the less skillful will be weeded out, but yes, at that point, it is not poor AI, to not sink the sub until the sub fires..it is what would happen in real life probably also..the very reason naval officers train so much to keep the submarines further out, is because of how deadly the subs are once they are in range.
edit: Are you certain about the subs only moving creep speed? I have to look, but I could swear that I tracked one at around 15kts before on a transit mission, during a scenario i made specifically to examine the passive sonar model.



hermanhum -> Question (12/5/2009 4:07:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

edit: Are you certain about the subs only moving creep speed? I have to look, but I could swear that I tracked one at around 15kts before on a transit mission, during a scenario i made specifically to examine the passive sonar model.

I was speaking with a 'true professional' P-3 operator who told me that they need a lot of cues even to sanitize a relatively small choke point. I think that your 70% estimate for evasion might be fair (if not low) under the circumstances.

I don't know what test scen you are using, but I set up a quick one for 3.9.4 and the PlayersDB and it shows subs on Support, ASuW, ASW, Support, Recon, and Transit missions all moving at creep speed. If you have an example showing something different, I would be interested in seeing it. You can check out my test file at:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1904270&mpage=1&key=&#



navwarcol -> RE: Question (12/5/2009 5:19:04 AM)

I will see if I still have it on one of my cpus..but it was just a small scen that I made and ran with the subs as neutrals, testing the ranges and some data on the passive arrays of some surface ships...and I am not **certain of the speed, but am 90% positive that one of the subs, which was transiting to its mission in an ASuW zone, gets picked up in an area where the only 2 choices were a speed of approx 15 kts...or a star-trek like "beam" that transits it 30 miles from its start point in just a hair over 2 hrs



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Question (12/7/2009 9:25:35 PM)

Thanks Ralf. I'll take a look at your work.



FreekS -> RE: Question (12/11/2009 8:03:21 PM)

yes great, this behaviour has made one of my favourite scens (Sollum) unplayable for over two years.

Freek



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.032227