Weapon range rings--what do they mean?

[ExMachina]

I thought the answer to this question was obvious, but then I read the following over on the warsim forums about the Mk48 ADCAP. The question was, why do ADCAP's have a max range of only 6nm when in reality they have a range closer to 20nm?

The answer was:

We set that so the AI doesn't fire them at a range the target can generally escape if it detects the torpedo. You can BOL fire them out to their full fuel range.

So the "range" of some weapons in Command is dictated not my the weapon itself, but by the limitations of the AI in handling it. I found this revelation surprising.

The good news is that, according to the DB developer, the database actually has the "correct" range for this in it. Unfortunately, the only way for a payer to make use of it is to a)know what the "real" range is and b) use a bearing only attack. That kind of an attack is fine for an ADCAP, but not applicable for weapons that cannot be fired in that manner.

I'm curious to know how many weapons are shown with "under-inflated" range rings, and if we can hope to see their true ranges in the game as the AI gets better.

[jpkoester1]

IIRC the "actual range" of weapons is not directly entered as a value in the database. Instead it is dictated by their engine, the relevant throttle settings, the fuel consumption at those throttle settings as well as the amount of fuel supplied (Yes every torpedo has its own engine, fuel supply, throttle settings and fuel consumption). The range value that dictates the displayed range cycle is the "combat range" at which the weapon would typically be fired in a combat situation.

[thewood1]

This is one of those things that needs to be made clear from the get-go. I am also surprised by it. I never like using the database to manipulate the AI's actions.

[mikmykWS]

The reason why this is done is you don't want the AI (or the player) to shoot at a target at the very edge of their weapon's range but instead shoot at a range that does not let the target quickly get out of range. If you look at early naval simulations you'll see this issue consistently (so SA-5 is shot at me at max range, I quickly reverse my course moving out of range, wasted SAM shot, rinse repeat).

If you look in our manual go to 8.6 and read our DLZ Why it Matters essay. Sums up many of the issues surrounding this kind of thing.

[thewood1]

So the question is...is this universal for all missiles and torpedoes.

[ExMachina]

The range value that dictates the displayed range cycle is the "combat range" at which the weapon would typically be fired in a combat situation

I don't know if this is true, but even if it is true, in a TACTICAL sim of this type the player should have the option to experiment with a weapon's full capability.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

So the question is...is this universal for all missiles and torpedoes.

Missiles move considerably faster so less pronounced.

Why exactly do you guys have an issue on this one? This is how it done in real life. AKA Shooters calculations are not based on the exact range but the range they should be fired vs. a target.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

The range value that dictates the displayed range cycle is the "combat range" at which the weapon would typically be fired in a combat situation

I don't know if this is true, but even if it is true, in a TACTICAL sim of this type the player should have the option to experiment with a weapon's full capability.

They can. This is why we gave them the ability to BOL fire the weapon.

[Primarchx]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: thewood1

So the question is...is this universal for all missiles and torpedoes.

Missiles move considerably faster so less pronounced.

Why exactly do you guys have an issue on this one? This is how it done in real life. AKA Shooters calculations are not based on the exact range but the range they should be fired vs. a target.

Spot on, Mike. It's called shooting within parameters. Every weapon system has an envelope from which it is best utilized. Max range is only one factor in a weapon's envelope.

[thewood1]

I am more than likely forming my opinion from ignorance...it just seemed like an AI cheat on the surface.

[mikmykWS]

Read the article when you get a chance. Might give some insight into how we think about things.

Mike

[ExMachina]

They can. This is why we gave them the ability to BOL fire the weapon.

But not all weapons have this capability, right?

What I was getting at is if the AI needs to have a conservative range so it doesn't wander off reservation, then why not have THAT range hidden, and display the "real" range in the game? (and give players to manually target with the real weapon's parameters...and then fail if they choose badly).

[jpkoester1]

ExMachina: there is no "real" range of the weapon. Range changes with different throttle settings, so you will always have to make a choice as to which one to display. Range at cruise speed? Range at most fuel efficient speed? Range at max speed? Practical combat range? Developers have chosen the last option. Maybe a workaround would be a setting for the player to "ignore range limitations" during weapon allocation allowing players to make that mistake? I am sure there would be people complaining that the torpedo never hits anything then.

[thewood1]

I think maybe two ranges are needed...max range for a non-zero pk and an effective no-escape range.

[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.

[wizard1073]

In practice, Pk drops off after a certain range. There are many variables that make up Pk, including (in my own terms--different shops use different combinations) Probability of Successful Launch, Probability of Successful Fly-out to seeker acquisition point, Probability of Successful Seeker Acquisition, Probability of Hit, and Probability of Lethal Damage Inflicted. Just because a weapon has kinematic range (i.e., enough fuel) does not mean that it is effective anywhere near that range.

Always pissed me off in H3 when the submarine AI would launch a torpedo against an enemy submarine at max range instead of closing and delivering a knife in the back. The DB2000 folks appeared to adjust the DB ranges to mitigate the problem, but in the end they gave up and came to CMANO. This game does it better, directly reducing cumulative Phit with flyout range. How that influences the AI is not 100% clear to me, but I am a lot happier with the results.

[ExMachina]

Maybe if we get a Weapons Database, that could eventually be specified in it.

Agree 100%. A comprehensive weapons DB would go a long way here.

[mikmykWS]

A weapons form is on our list.

[Dimitris]

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.

[Echo]

Limiting the range to 6nm for a Mk48 ADCAP is...silly, and pretty much defangs the whole U.S. sub fleet. Mk48 ADCAP can be fired at slow run speed, below the layer, and the target will not detect it until it too late. The target may NEVER detect it if its set to run passively. Do target automaticly detect torpedos irregardless of their sensor package. Is there no option to set torpedo run parameters?