Okay, I'm using the HCDB-080712. I've got a group of a dozen SV-22s squatting on top of an Akula which is running at 35 knots at Deep. I've got a rock-solid lock on Mr. Akula, both from sonobuoys and dipping sonar. Range is about a mile. I've fired off at least half a dozen Mk 50s, moving to bracket the sub as necessary. So WTF are the torps just sailing right past the sub as if they can't see it?!?!?!?!?!? Has the acquisition radius on the torps gotten screwed up again?

Acquisition range for the Mk 50 Barracuda is 3,000 yds.

Warhorse, I just created a test scenario using HCDB-080712. I dropped a Mk 50 Barracuda right on top of a racing Akula and scored a hit (and a kill) with that first shot.

 

I expect your own bad luck was simply that, or else you dropped outside of acquisition range and the torpedoes failed to acquire.

Out of curiosity, what countermeasures/evasion tactics does the AI use for its subs? Does it detect a launch by the player and respond?

 

Buddha

Out of curiosity, what countermeasures/evasion tactics does the AI use for its subs? Does it detect a launch by the player and respond?

Buddha

 

There are (as yet) no provision for acoustic countermeasures or decoys, so its a simple case of detecting the torpedo (note that torpedo noise signature varies) and then running like h*ll in the opposite direction.

Warhorse, I just created a test scenario using HCDB-080712. I dropped a Mk 50 Barracuda right on top of a racing Akula and scored a hit (and a kill) with that first shot.

 

I expect your own bad luck was simply that, or else you dropped outside of acquisition range and the torpedoes failed to acquire.

 

 

I eventually did manage to kill the Akula, so perhaps it was just bad luck, but in at least one of those half-dozen or so misses, the icons of sub and torp actually made contact (as seen on the unit map, at 4x magnification), and the torp still sailed on past the sub. That is, it didn't just disappear after a failed engagement, it just kept going right past without engaging at all, which is why I wondered about the acquisition radius. Oh, well. If it happens again I'll see if I can get a save. Thanks for checking it out ...

I eventually did manage to kill the Akula, so perhaps it was just bad luck, but in at least one of those half-dozen or so misses, the icons of sub and torp actually made contact (as seen on the unit map, at 4x magnification), and the torp still sailed on past the sub. That is, it didn't just disappear after a failed engagement, it just kept going right past without engaging at all, which is why I wondered about the acquisition radius.

 

I wouldn't put too much stock in the merging of the icons and such. Sometimes you will notice a torpedo 'merge' with the submarine icon and then switch direction back and forth in the pursuit endgame. A torpedo that sails past may also re-acquire.

I'd venture to guess that the animation of the torpedo sailing past the target is simply a graphic method of indicating the weapon failed to hit the target, for whatever reason. The weapon may have failed to acquire, been decoyed, or whatever. I find the various animations fun to watch, but not essential to playing the game.

 

Buddha

The animation is a good indicator that the torpedo did acquire the target and guide. If the animation shows you guided okay and just lost out on the die roll and whatever other factors came into play for the hit resolution.

 

The two icons coming close together on the unit map without an animation does not indicate much of anything except that things came awfully close...

...and just lost out on the die roll...

Ah yes... like the saying goes... "the Mk-50's you use in Vegas stay in Vegas..."

...and just lost out on the die roll...

Ah yes... like the saying goes... "the Mk-50's you use in Vegas stay in Vegas..."

 

Leave it to a recon pilot to think of Vegas. If there's a bigger gamble than flying thru the hot zone armed with only a camera, I don't know what it is.

 

Buddha

Leave it to a recon pilot to think of Vegas. If there's a bigger gamble than flying thru the hot zone armed with only a camera, I don't know what it is.

 

Buddha

 

 

Without in ANY way wishing to impugn the courage of the recon folks, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Weasel drivers had the worst odds in 'Nam. Please correct me if I'm wrong ...

Leave it to a recon pilot to think of Vegas. If there's a bigger gamble than flying thru the hot zone armed with only a camera, I don't know what it is.

 

Buddha

 

 

Without in ANY way wishing to impugn the courage of the recon folks, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Weasel drivers had the worst odds in 'Nam. Please correct me if I'm wrong ...

 

From what the aviators on the Midway told me you're correct. Those Wild Weasel guys had to be locked onto to do what they did. That allowed targetting of the site.

 

Buddha

Leave it to a recon pilot to think of Vegas. If there's a bigger gamble than flying thru the hot zone armed with only a camera, I don't know what it is.

 

Buddha

 

 

Without in ANY way wishing to impugn the courage of the recon folks, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Weasel drivers had the worst odds in 'Nam. Please correct me if I'm wrong ...

18 RA-5Cs were lost in combat during the war, giving it the highest loss rate of any Navy aircraft in the conflict. 13 Vigilantes were shot down by flak, two were shot down by SAMs, one was shot down by a MiG-21, and the other two were lost to unknown causes over enemy territory.

 

The loss rate was high because the missions were unusually hazardous. Vigilantes were used for both pre-strike and post-strike reconnaissance. Pre-strike missions were relatively safe, but the North Vietnamese quickly realized after a target was bombed a reconnaissance aircraft would soon arrive to evaluate the damage, and so post-strike missions were generally conducted in the face of an enemy that was thoroughly alert and waiting. Vigilantes flying post-strike reconnaissance missions tried to follow the strike elements in just after the last bombs fell to reduce the risk.

Leave it to a recon pilot to think of Vegas. If there's a bigger gamble than flying thru the hot zone armed with only a camera, I don't know what it is.

 

Buddha

 

 

Without in ANY way wishing to impugn the courage of the recon folks, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Weasel drivers had the worst odds in 'Nam. Please correct me if I'm wrong ...

18 RA-5Cs were lost in combat during the war, giving it the highest loss rate of any Navy aircraft in the conflict. 13 Vigilantes were shot down by flak, two were shot down by SAMs, one was shot down by a MiG-21, and the other two were lost to unknown causes over enemy territory.

 

The loss rate was high because the missions were unusually hazardous. Vigilantes were used for both pre-strike and post-strike reconnaissance. Pre-strike missions were relatively safe, but the North Vietnamese quickly realized after a target was bombed a reconnaissance aircraft would soon arrive to evaluate the damage, and so post-strike missions were generally conducted in the face of an enemy that was thoroughly alert and waiting. Vigilantes flying post-strike reconnaissance missions tried to follow the strike elements in just after the last bombs fell to reduce the risk.

 

Returning to the "Scene of the Crime" as it were, eh? Those missions are no doubt necessary, but I certainly wouldn't wish them on anyone. We had RF-4's from VMFP-3 on the Midway, but I didn't get to know them as well as the regular fighter jocks I controlled. How much have UAV's ewased the situation?

 

Buddha