Database field explanations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

RoccoNZ -> Database field explanations (2/18/2015 2:16:46 AM)

1. The database field "Missile Defence" - what does it mean exactly?

Is it

a) The theoretical number of missiles needed to overwhelm the targets defence and score enough damage points to kill, or

b) The approximate number of weapons to score enough damage points to kill?

2. Max Sea State - is this an 'operate' or 'survive' rating? (i.e. if sea state exceeds 'operate level' damage starts to occur'



ClaudeJ -> RE: Database field explanations (2/18/2015 6:20:23 AM)

Hello RoccoNZ,

regarding 1, straight from the horse's mouth:

quote:

The ‘Missile Defence’ value can be found in the Database Viewer (DB Viewer) for ships and facilities, and gives an indication on the number of Harpoon / SLAM / Maverick missiles needed to destroy the unit.


New in v1.07: Weapon Release Authorization (WRA) - Warfare Sims

Have a nice day.



RoccoNZ -> RE: Database field explanations (2/18/2015 7:26:01 AM)

Thanks.

Looking at one of the records threw me a bit:

--------
#87 - RKR Slava
Damage points: 1390
Missile Defence: 40 Harpoon / SLAM / Maverick equivalents
--------

[1390/40 = 34.75]

--------
#1181 - UGM-84B Harpoon IA
Warhead: 221kg/488lb Penetrating Blast/Frag [98kg/215lb Destex] (166.6 DP)
--------

So [1390/166.6 = 8.374] either I've got the wrong end of the stick, or the DB has an error, or explanation a is correct?



Dimitris -> RE: Database field explanations (2/18/2015 7:58:35 AM)

It's not an indication of how many warhead impacts the ship can take before succumbing (BTW, your calculation is somewhat simplistic because it does not take into account things like armor penetration modifiers or internal detonation modifiers). It is an estimate of how many weapons it would take to overwhelm the unit's AAW defences.



Elouda -> RE: Database field explanations (2/18/2015 8:02:04 AM)

What is the reasoning behind the Arleigh Burke (and its half-sisters, like the Kongo and Sejong the Great) only rating a 20 while the CMP Ticonderoga is a 96?



RoccoNZ -> RE: Database field explanations (2/18/2015 8:31:53 AM)

Thanks Sunburn



Primarchx -> RE: Database field explanations (2/18/2015 1:22:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda

What is the reasoning behind the Arleigh Burke (and its half-sisters, like the Kongo and Sejong the Great) only rating a 20 while the CMP Ticonderoga is a 96?


Number of missiles and directors?



RoccoNZ -> RE: Database field explanations (2/20/2015 7:18:57 PM)

What was the answer on the Max Sea State field?



mikmykWS -> RE: Database field explanations (2/21/2015 1:26:17 AM)

Rocco not using that one yet because we have static settings for this (entire globe). Once we get variable than it makes sense to turn on.

The restrictions would keep speed boats from sailing into Hurricanes and things like that.

Thanks!

Mike



Midcon113 -> RE: Database field explanations (2/21/2015 2:29:09 AM)

quote:

Rocco not using that one yet because we have static settings for this (entire globe).


Mike,

Do you have a write-up on what the plans are for weather eventually? Love to know what the eventual plans are, specifically about how they'll affect air operations.

Mark



mikmykWS -> RE: Database field explanations (2/21/2015 2:42:24 AM)

Hi Mark

Yeah somewhere. If you can let us clear this release and then buzz. I'll dig out that stuff and post.

In general we want it to be editable, dynamic and make sense (physics/meteorological constraints) which I know is very broad but pretty sure we had some more detailed ideas written down.

Mike



RoccoNZ -> RE: Database field explanations (2/21/2015 4:41:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Rocco not using that one yet because we have static settings for this (entire globe). Once we get variable than it makes sense to turn on.

The restrictions would keep speed boats from sailing into Hurricanes and things like that.

Thanks!

Mike


Thanks. No biggie. Was just curious because I saw a DB entry for an OPV with a value of Sea State 3, and I've seen reports of the same vessel sailing around in 14m waves...I'll log it as a DB issue.



mikmykWS -> RE: Database field explanations (2/21/2015 1:00:48 PM)

Yeah once we actually turn it on in the code it will work great[:'(]



Midcon113 -> RE: Database field explanations (2/21/2015 8:22:05 PM)

quote:

In general we want it to be editable, dynamic and make sense (physics/meteorological constraints) which I know is very broad but pretty sure we had some more detailed ideas written down.


Mike,

Sounds great! Variable, dynamic weather during a scenario would add a whole new dimension to this simulation. Having to make a stop at the Met office before firing off air missions, having a purpose for weather satellites, switching to alternate targets due to transient weather conditions...the mind boggles with the possibilities!

Short version - can't wait!

Mark



RoccoNZ -> RE: Database field explanations (2/22/2015 3:36:59 AM)

Mike is sea ice conditions likely to be part of this?



mikmykWS -> RE: Database field explanations (2/22/2015 4:51:46 AM)

Well the ice pack is there and does impact surface navigation and detections.

Is this what you mean?

Mike




RoccoNZ -> RE: Database field explanations (2/22/2015 6:53:08 PM)

Yeah, I was thinking broken versus hard pack sea ice. Something that ice-class ships can exploit. Of course that would need a new database field for ice class rating of the ships. I've got a scenario in mind where using the ice field is a tactical consideration.



mikmykWS -> RE: Database field explanations (2/22/2015 7:13:43 PM)

No broken ice or different levels yet. Just ice or no ice.

Mike



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5898438