ColonelMolerat
Posts: 479
Joined: 9/23/2015
Status: offline
|
In this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4172385
we've been talking about how mount arc limits are ignored at ranges over 5nm.
I've been experimenting with an Arleigh Burke being shot with Brahmos missiles, and how it uses its illuminators against them (from my understanding, the Arleigh Burke has one forward-facing AN/SPG-62 and two rear-facing ones).
I've attached a scenario (slightly updated from the one in that thread) that can be used for testing. There are four Arliegh Burkes, each facing six Rajputs with Brahmos missiles. I've been firing two Brahmos missiles from each Rajput, so each Arleigh Burke is defending against 12 Brahmos missiles, from about 150nm - though detection of the missiles only occurs at about 17nm.
The four situations are these:
1) Arleigh Burke vs attack from the front.
2) Arleigh Burke vs attack from the rear
3) Arleigh Burke vs attack from the front, but with its front SPG-62 removed.
4) Arleigh Burke vs attack from the rear, but with its rear SPG-62s removed.
I've also experimented with repeating this scenario and giving these Arleigh Burkes orders to turn 90 or 180 degrees when the missiles are detected.
I have noticed some weirdness as a result of mount arc limits being ignored at over 5nm:
- All three illuminators are used simultaneously against missiles coming from the same direction.
- It assumes the ship turning turn to bring illuminators to face the threat, but at 5nm very fast anti-ship missiles outpace the agility of the Arleigh Burke to turn in time.
- You get some weirdness when missiles are within 5nm and can't be targeted, but other missiles in the same direction and over 5nm away are targeted.
I think the biggest issue with the way it works is that, for attacks from the front especially, the Arleigh Burke can use all three illuminators simultaneously for most of the attack, when really it would only have one available for a long while until it had turned.
Filitch suggested that arc limit could be extended based on the velocity of the target, though others have suggested this may be too performance-taxing. Or perhaps an arc limit based on the agility/speed of the vessel firing (lower agility = increase to the 5nm)? Or even a simple increase to the 5nm in all cases, since it gives ships quite a boost against very fast missiles?
All that said, however, when I pitted the Arleigh Burke against a frontal attack and removed all but its single front illuminator (as though it couldn't turn to expose the rear ones), it still put up almost as good a fight as when it had all three illuminators.
I don't really feel qualified to suggest alterations to this 5nm rule if others with more expertise feel it's right as it is. After all, it serves its purpose, and any such calculation has to strike a balance between accuracy of modelling vs accuracy of outcome. I thought, though, since I had made this test scenario and there was some discussion about it, it could be handy for others to look at if they wanted to discuss it.
 Attachment (1)
< Message edited by ColonelMolerat -- 11/5/2016 5:12:54 PM >
|
Printable Version
Experimenting with the 5nm mount-arc-limit limit - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread