oke now with JoeK aside we can continue with this topic

 

let me see if i can explain the following..

 

i have a scenario where i have tree ships in this setting(all radars on):

 

- a mechant ship

 

-a karel doorman frigate (The Karel Doorman is carrying VLS RIM-7M)

 

and a zeven provincien frigate (LCF).(the LCF carries a Smart-L radar and SM2 blockIIIA missiles)

 

(both frigates from the Netherlands)

 

the formation of this group is:

 

mechant in the middle,the LCF 8 nm from the merchant to the west and the karel doorman 1nm east of the merchant

 

enemy surface group 50 nm to the east.

 

the scenario evolves like this:

 

the enemy surface group launches it's SSM's (targeted at the merchant) to witch the LCF answers with it's salvo SM2's,not all the SSM get shot down,the surviving missiles overfly the karel doorman and hit the merchant,sadly the merchant sinks.

 

when i checked the karel doorman's ammo and i saw that it only fired it's 76 mm gun,wich means that the karel doorman's SAM's never fired on the incomming missiles while the SSM's almost overflew my frigate.

 

 

now game balance or not,this doesnt feel right and i hope that someone will agree with me.

Hey Joe, WHAT kind of SSM is fired, and what altitude do they fly at?

I wrote up a quick scenario on what I knew about the situation in question and had a play.

Used current standard data base and 2009.42 game engine. I didn't know the enemy ships or the SSMs in question and I'd think that is where the answers lie. In my original scenario (now lost) both blue ships fired SAMs including sea sparrows at the incoming SSMs (styxs I think). In the attached sscenario (with DDGs added to the enemy) I don't think the sea sparrows get used, for what ever reason.

Thinking about some of the comments here I'd guess it depends on the type of SSM and how many SAMs are estimated by AI to be needed and if the sea sparrows aren't required in any salvo to make up those numbers then they aren't fired.

I've attached my last version of the scenario and an early saved game (in which I think the sea sparrows ae fired) if any one interested.

Don

wich battleset did u use with the .sce?

oke now with JoeK aside we can continue with this topic

 

let me see .......

 

now game balance or not,this doesnt feel right and i hope that someone will agree with me.

Hey Joe, WHAT kind of SSM is fired, and what altitude do they fly at?

I wrote ...

e needed and if the sea sparrows aren't required in any salvo to make up those numbers then they aren't fired.

I've attached my last version of the scenario and an early saved game (in which I think the sea sparrows ae fired) if any one interested.

Don

wich battleset did u use with the .sce?

Sorry, I should have specified:

test.scn (scenario) and tst.hpn (saved game) are in 'EC2003 battle for atlantic ocean' battleset.

(the "n" tells you the battleset, I forget where you can look it up in harpgamer but you can use the game start boxes to work it out - I have my common ones written down next to the computer because my memory is a sieve)

Don

(the "n" tells you the battleset, I forget where you can look it up in harpgamer

Don

 

Listing of extensions at http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2380

Try the same scen but change the "Auto"value for the Mk48 16 cell VLS RIM-7M from "0" to "1" in the Platform editor and try the same scen again.... Regards René

 

Better nip this one in the bud. Changing the 'Auto' field from '0' to '1' will have no effect.

 

Apparently the info is passed to the Game Engine (GE), but the GE doesn't utilize this data.

I just created a scenario in Westpac with an Anzac ASMD protecting an Kanimbla from 2 Pegasus missile boats and it all seemed to work fine for me. The Anzac launched 18 ESSM's at the 16 Harpoons (in 2 separate engagements), and all 4 of their Mistral TETRAL Sam's. 1 got past the Anzac, and it was promptly blown out of the sky by the Kanimbla's CIWS which shot all 16 rounds.

 

The only thing that didn't seem to work was the Anzac's 127mm Gun not firing at the Harpoons, but that's probably got a DB reason.

Thinking about some of the comments here I'd guess it depends on the type of SSM and how many SAMs are estimated by AI to be needed and if the sea sparrows aren't required in any salvo to make up those numbers then they aren't fired.

I've attached my last version of the scenario and an early saved game (in which I think the sea sparrows ae fired) if any one interested.

Don

 

This is a true and important part. At some number of SAMs the game considers the SSMs well enough covered and no more SAMs will fire for the next while. It is a big reason you'll see the LR SAM shooters go wild and then nothing from the shorter-ranged. Note I'm not trying to defend it (somewhere buried deep in HG forums is my explanation of my approach to improving the situation).

I just created a scenario in Westpac with an Anzac ASMD protecting an Kanimbla from 2 Pegasus missile boats and it all seemed to work fine for me. The Anzac launched 18 ESSM's at the 16 Harpoons (in 2 separate engagements), and all 4 of their Mistral TETRAL Sam's. 1 got past the Anzac, and it was promptly blown out of the sky by the Kanimbla's CIWS which shot all 16 rounds. The only thing that didn't seem to work was the Anzac's 127mm Gun not firing at the Harpoons, but that's probably got a DB reason.

 

We need to keep in mind that the manner in which weapons are ordered in a ship's Mounts (within the DB) will also affect which weapons fire firstly. Because of the way this works, it is my habit to put the longest ranged, most capable air defense weapons into the ship's Mounts first.

 

In your example, the Anzac ASMD's Mounts have the 8 cell Mk 41 VLS placed firstly, so correctly the longest ranged, most capable RIM-162 ESSMs fire first.

 

I am not sure why the 5 inch Mk 45 Mod 2 gun (which appears next in the Mounts and has better range than Mistral), did not engage next but I'm guessing it lacked sufficient range at the time the ship's Mounts were queried by the GE.

 

There is no DB reason why the 5 inch should not have engaged. I am guessing that you ran out of time during the engagement?

I am not sure why the 5 inch Mk 45 Mod 2 gun (which appears next in the Mounts and has better range than Mistral), did not engage next but I'm guessing it lacked sufficient range at the time the ship's Mounts were queried by the GE.

 

There is no DB reason why the 5 inch should not have engaged. I am guessing that you ran out of time during the engagement?

 

May be a reason the Harpoon is flying at Very Low and the low height engagement limit of Mk 45 is Low ?

May be a reason the Harpoon is flying at Very Low and the low height engagement limit of Mk 45 is Low ?

 

Heh, that would be the explanation if the Mk 45 shell was set that way (which it should be) in the DB. Thanks.

Thinking about some of the comments here I'd guess it depends on the type of SSM and how many SAMs are estimated by AI to be needed and if the sea sparrows aren't required in any salvo to make up those numbers then they aren't fired.

I've attached my last version of the scenario and an early saved game (in which I think the sea sparrows ae fired) if any one interested.

Don

 

This is a true and important part. At some number of SAMs the game considers the SSMs well enough covered and no more SAMs will fire for the next while. It is a big reason you'll see the LR SAM shooters go wild and then nothing from the shorter-ranged. Note I'm not trying to defend it (somewhere buried deep in HG forums is my explanation of my approach to improving the situation).

It is a fascinating question, how is it decided how many SAMs to fire, at which targets and when???

I fiddled my scenario to go down to one defending ship and three attackers (to get enough SSMs to be a challenge).

A number of SAM salvos were fired but I couldn't make any sense out of what was targeted and how many SAMs per target are allocated as it didn't seem consistant. Some times there is a 30 second delay between firing, sometimes 10 sec. The initial SSM firing consists of 6 pairs of missiles but only three pairs are initially targeted (with either 6 or 12 SAMs depending on whether 'light' or 'heavy' setting made) while the ships info box indicates (if I read it correctly) that 15 SAMs can be fired per salvo.

Any way it is a very interesting query, thanks Koevoet for highlighting it>

PS I tried doing a logging of a short game but couldn't find a logging catagory that told me much about SAM firings and I dread the 'log all' setting - any hints?

Don Thomas

 

(second swing)

I can't leave this alone. The more I play with it the more I think Koevoet has highlighted a valid problem.

The way I see it only point defences are considered on a unit basis. SAMs (even relatively short range ones) are considered on a group basis and if the ship with good SAM capability is a long way on the wrong side of a fairly incapable unit the incapable unit has to rely on its guns without touching its missiles (assuming the SAMs don't get there in time).

In one case the Karel Doorman emptied every point defence gun but fired no SAMs (because the AAW frigate had fired of 20 SAMs that were never going to get to the SSMs before they hit the Doorman)

Perhaps it is also to do with calculations based on the group centre, not individual units?? The AAW frigate thinks the SSMs are headed for the group centre (I'm guessing) and that therefore it has fired a worthwhile salvo of SAMs when in fact the SSMs' headings show up their target unit and the fact that the SAMs won't get to the SSMs before they get to their unit target.

(am I raving nonesense, I hope not?!)

I suppose good placement of units in the formation according to their capability is the short term answer (is it?), but that depends on correctly guessing the threat direction. Also (I do this sometimes) taking the target unit out of the formation and letting it fend for itself seems to help sometimes (but I'm not sure).

happy sleepless nights, ..........

Thinking about some of the comments here I'd guess it depends on the type of SSM and how many SAMs are estimated by AI to be needed and if the sea sparrows aren't required in any salvo to make up those numbers then they aren't fired.

I've attached my last version of the scenario and an early saved game (in which I think the sea sparrows ae fired) if any one interested.

Don

 

This is a true and important part. At some number of SAMs the game considers the SSMs well enough covered and no more SAMs will fire for the next while. It is a big reason you'll see the LR SAM shooters go wild and then nothing from the shorter-ranged. Note I'm not trying to defend it (somewhere buried deep in HG forums is my explanation of my approach to improving the situation).

It is a fascinating question, how is it decided how many SAMs to fire, at which targets and when???

I fiddled my scenario to go down to one defending ship and three attackers (to get enough SSMs to be a challenge).

A number of SAM salvos were fired but I couldn't make any sense out of what was targeted and how many SAMs per target are allocated as it didn't seem consistant. Some times there is a 30 second delay between firing, sometimes 10 sec. The initial SSM firing consists of 6 pairs of missiles but only three pairs are initially targeted (with either 6 or 12 SAMs depending on whether 'light' or 'heavy' setting made) while the ships info box indicates (if I read it correctly) that 15 SAMs can be fired per salvo.

Any way it is a very interesting query, thanks Koevoet for highlighting it>

PS I tried doing a logging of a short game but couldn't find a logging catagory that told me much about SAM firings and I dread the 'log all' setting - any hints?

Don Thomas

 

(second swing)

I can't leave this alone. The more I play with it the more I think Koevoet has highlighted a valid problem.

The way I see it only point defences are considered on a unit basis. SAMs (even relatively short range ones) are considered on a group basis and if the ship with good SAM capability is a long way on the wrong side of a fairly incapable unit the incapable unit has to rely on its guns without touching its missiles (assuming the SAMs don't get there in time).

In one case the Karel Doorman emptied every point defence gun but fired no SAMs (because the AAW frigate had fired of 20 SAMs that were never going to get to the SSMs before they hit the Doorman)

Perhaps it is also to do with calculations based on the group centre, not individual units?? The AAW frigate thinks the SSMs are headed for the group centre (I'm guessing) and that therefore it has fired a worthwhile salvo of SAMs when in fact the SSMs' headings show up their target unit and the fact that the SAMs won't get to the SSMs before they get to their unit target.

(am I raving nonesense, I hope not?!)

I suppose good placement of units in the formation according to their capability is the short term answer (is it?), but that depends on correctly guessing the threat direction. Also (I do this sometimes) taking the target unit out of the formation and letting it fend for itself seems to help sometimes (but I'm not sure).

happy sleepless nights, ..........

 

Perhaps ships need to be given more autonomy/leeway when shooting their own shorter range SAM's.

 

I don't think it's realistic that a ship wouldn't put up SAM's against incoming missiles even with a 'covering' ship firing long range missiles to protect them. I think perhaps any slow missile (eg Harpoons) that gets within 10 miles of a ship gets targeted if Sam's can intercept, and the same for 'fast' missiles (eg Kingfish) at 15.

 

Especially ships with short range Sam systems like the ESSM, SA-N-9, Gadfly and ships with CIWS systems like the CADNS1 or RAM.

Perhaps ships need to be given more autonomy/leeway when shooting their own shorter range SAM's.

 

An old proposal from me: point defense automatic, Area defense manually controled by the player

Perhaps ships need to be given more autonomy/leeway when shooting their own shorter range SAM's.

 

An old proposal from me: point defense automatic, Area defense manually controled by the player

 

Wouldn't that give the computer too big a disadvantage? It needs to be 'both sides' and as such needs to be controlled by the AI.

Perhaps ships need to be given more autonomy/leeway when shooting their own shorter range SAM's.

 

An old proposal from me: point defense automatic, Area defense manually controled by the player

 

Wouldn't that give the computer too big a disadvantage? It needs to be 'both sides' and as such needs to be controlled by the AI.

 

Why should it be a disatvandage when the code for Area and Point(self)defense got splittet?

 

the AI controles the selfdefense for each unit. It checks if the incomming threat is aimed at a particular ship and when the missile gets within range of the point/self defense system (missile, gun, etc tagged/flagged as self/point defense) it will engage the incomming threat.

 

if the incomming misile is not pointed at the ship, it wil be handelt as an Area defense case => (longer) ranged SAMs will engage, when the missile enters an intercept vector even when the ship carrying the SAMs is not the target...

 

Both cases should be calculated independently... with the selfdefense calculation first, followed by the area calculation

 

And for the second case the player gets the choice to engage or to hold fire and wait for the point/self defense, if he doesn´t want the AI to control the sams....

 

I don´t see there any (dis)advantage for any side...

Wouldn't that give the computer too big a disadvantage? It needs to be 'both sides' and as such needs to be controlled by the AI.

 

This is exactly the point Tony was making earlier. Whatever changes are made to SAM air defense not only need to account for what degree of control can be exercised by the player, but it absolutely must take into account how the AI will handle its own end of the air defense equation. Any advances or improvements to the player side must not result in a disadvantage for the AI.