Dimitris
Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel It's the 'point of no escape'. This is how they were modelled in the Harpoon games, too. I figure that if we're having to fire at long distance, while the target can still turn and run out of range, then we're probably just launching a BOL attack to put them on the defensive & keep them busy for a time. The big argument is usually how much is appropriate. Obviously that's a big target for debate, especially when it comes to using less than 1/3rd of the max range of a weapon as a blanket value. These values have been used for years, in the aforementioned older games, so perhaps they've tested a variety of percentages and these worked best for the AI. The torpedoes always did seem a tad on the low side to me, but I was told that it was the best balance. I had always taken that to mean that it was a limitation of the old Harpoon game engines. *shrug* I would also like to see what the absolute max range is on the weapons, if only to make more informed BOL launches. Maybe if we get a Weapons Database, that could eventually be specified in it. Harpoon always uses the no-escape zone. This works OK, but sometimes causes big problems (e.g. a MiG-25 comes screaming at you and instead of using the high approach speed to fire at him at longer-than-nominal range, you are shooting at very short range because the NEZ logic dictates he could suddenly turn on a dime and run away at Mach 2.8 - yeah right. So you end up having an F-14 and a MiG-25 shooting at each other at almost the same range). Command uses DLZ most of time, with a bit of a buffer to discourage "turn tail and run" evasions. This does mean that sometimes missiles run out of minimum energy and literally fall from the sky - as often happens in RL.
< Message edited by Sunburn -- 9/29/2013 7:52:35 AM >
_____________________________
|