Jump to content

Logo

Photo

CV32's Wish List


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#16 CV32

CV32

    Administrator

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,022 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 11:14 AM

Added No.23.

#17 TEPonta

TEPonta

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 07:20 PM

In line with #21, My list includes the ability to place reference points for patrol stations rendesvous,' etc. Although I was thinking SE at the time, maybe something along those lines could be included in the GE as well, and answer us both.

Buddha

#18 CV32

CV32

    Administrator

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,022 posts

Posted 02 August 2008 - 08:47 AM

Added No.24.

#19 TonyE

TonyE

    Advanced Member

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 02 August 2008 - 02:55 PM

Wishes 1-24 noted for the big redesign.

#20 CV32

CV32

    Administrator

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,022 posts

Posted 31 October 2008 - 08:47 AM

Bumping wish No.24 - Armor penetration for bombs (as exists for missiles) - as I was reminded of it by the (excellent) upward change to non-nuclear DP values.

One of the more challenging tasks for a HCE DB is to model penetrating bombs (i.e. bunker busters) because:

1. There is no field for 'Armor Penetration' in the PE
2. Harpoon 4.1/High Tide annex values for bunker busters tend to have lower DP values than their general purpose bomb equivalents, due to the thicker bomb case and smaller explosive charge.

Would this really be a difficult thing to implement? (Forgive me if we've discussed this before, Tony, but I cannot recall it).

#21 TonyE

TonyE

    Advanced Member

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 01 November 2008 - 12:46 PM

One of the more challenging tasks for a HCE DB is to model penetrating bombs (i.e. bunker busters) because:

1. There is no field for 'Armor Penetration' in the PE
2. Harpoon 4.1/High Tide annex values for bunker busters tend to have lower DP values than their general purpose bomb equivalents, due to the thicker bomb case and smaller explosive charge.

Would this really be a difficult thing to implement? (Forgive me if we've discussed this before, Tony, but I cannot recall it).


In terms of space in the current structure. There are two missile flag spots available. I think they would go to terminal maneuvers rather than armor penetration. There are no flags for dumb bombs. So you'd probably need a DB structure change, plus rules saying how to use that new armor penetration field (as the flags aren't going to cut it). Not a trivial adjustment at all.

#22 CV32

CV32

    Administrator

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,022 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 12:26 PM

Added No.25.

#23 CV32

CV32

    Administrator

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,022 posts

Posted 18 December 2008 - 12:24 PM

Added Nos. 26, 27, and 28.

#24 CV32

CV32

    Administrator

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,022 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 10:04 PM

Added No.29.

#25 CV32

CV32

    Administrator

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,022 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 03:54 PM

Added No.30.

#26 CV32

CV32

    Administrator

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,022 posts

Posted 12 May 2009 - 08:58 PM

Added Nos. 31 and 32.

#27 TonyE

TonyE

    Advanced Member

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 09 September 2009 - 07:48 PM

Wishes 25 thru 32 added to master wish list

#28 CV32

CV32

    Administrator

  • Staff Pukes
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,022 posts

Posted 08 September 2011 - 02:16 PM

Added #34

34. Better, smarter AI control of weapons allocation and release.

To elaborate ...

You will often notice that if the AI spots a single ship or one ship in a formation at a time, rather than a bunch or a group simultaneously, it will attempt to pummel that single target into oblivion. Usually by launching multiple salvoes of its most longest ranged weapons, one after another.

A smarter AI, as far as weapons allocation and release goes, would perhaps ...

1. Wait a period of time to see if that single target turns into a group of targets

2. Fire only as many missiles are required to penetrate a target's defenses and destroy it. Perhaps weapons equal to 2-3 times the target's DP value, or some other similar approach.

3. Wait a further interval of time to see if its initial attack had any success, and if not, launch repeat attacks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users