Weapons loadouts in scenarios

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Wiz33

ORIGINAL: bsq

ESSM should sit in 4 cell clusters within a single VLS cell. This is the way they were designed. They are supposed to be a cheaper option to enable more missiles to be carried. Unless the game modelling only allows a one size fits all solution for modular weapon systems?

Good question. I guess we need to go into the scenario editor and see what happens with you add or subtract ESSM on a ship. Ok just checked. 4 ESSM only takes up 1 cell space.

Quad packs only eat up one VLS cell each.

The same goes for MLRS which have two 'clips' which can hold either a six-pack of rockets or a single ATACMS.

Also for WS-1A/B MLRS, TTs that can hold two short torps, mines or decoys, etc.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Wiz33

OK. There seems to be some major problem with all the Burke loadouts in the DB3000 build 396 Database.

#438 DDG51 Aeleigh Burke ft I 2008-0, 2015-0 SM3 AEGIS BMD
#442 DDG72 Mahan ft II 2008-0, 2015-0 SM3 AEGIS BMD

None of them have SM3s in their magazine and only SM2s

All Burke II/IIA in the database are setup for Land Attack as default loadout with no SM2/3/6 at all even though there are 25 empty cell in the 64 cells VLS.

2008 and 2015 Variants still have Mk46 in ship magazine instead of Mk 50/54

There is only a handful SM-3 missiles around, so very few ships carry them.

The VLS's have space for the missiles, so you can load them manually in the scenario where you needed. The only ship in the database that actually have any SM-3s loaded is the 'CG 70 Lake Erie'.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Wiz33

Yep. No way a Burke task with leading a bunch of weaker ships will set sail without it's primary area air defense weapon. If the designer went through the trouble to account for aircraft under maintenance and not available. He should have at least provide the proper loadout for the ships used in the scenario.

Real sorry for the flood of posts, have been deep, deeeeep down into the code the last couple of days looking into stuff and have just re-surfaced.


24x actually seems to be the 'standard destroyer loadout' of anti-air missiles. Whether its SM-2 or ESSM. This is also the same number of SAMs that the Spruance carried, however the Burke can fire them all at once. So it is a pretty potent loadout in most environments.

Carriers used to have 24x ready-fire Sea Sparrows (see a pattern?), however this has now been changed to 16x + 42x RAM.

So the loadouts in the db are 'typical loadouts' and, like it or not, are pretty realistic. The good thing about Command, though, is that you are free to configure the VLS the way you want.

Diving back down [8D]

[jdkbph]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

It has ESSM's and the scenario is winnable. Have you played this scenario? If so what do you think the load out should be?

Fair enough. And that is the scenario designer's prerogative (you, in this case).

It also raises an interesting question.

For the purists out there... are we looking for competitive scenarios where the scenario design goal is balanced play with a more or less even chance of winning for either side?

Or are we looking to model more realistic or likely scenarios where success (from a gaming standpoint) might be measured in degrees of winning or losing?

For example, if we're modeling the recent Libya thing, it's fairly obvious that Gaddafi's guys had little to no chance of winning. So when creating scenarios to model that, do we play balance by removing or degrading coalition assets (or upgrading Gaddafi's assets), or do we set our victory conditions to reflect the best that can be done given a particular starting situation?

I know I can go into the scenario editor and modify any of the existing scenarios to suit my own taste. However in my mind this smacks of power-ups, cheat codes and what not and I'm not sure I'd feel good about knowing where to stop. If nothing else it exposes the whole of the scenario to the player thereby removing any surprises the original author may have built in. Particularly with a new game like this, I'd prefer not to get into that sort of thing.

I guess the lesson here is, whether we like the way the out-of-the box scenarios are built is really not that critical. I expect that in very short order, the number of community built scenarios available will dwarf the bundled stuff. We (the community) just need to be aware that the default loadouts are not necessary optimal or appropriate to all scenarios and in most cases will need to be edited.

JD

[Dimitris]

I'd say the latter. This is one of the reasons the editor allows you to set the bar for success at any arbitrary scoring point.

[Wiz33]

I don't think it's either 24 ESSM or 24 SM2s. ESSM is a self defense weapon while the SM2 is a area defense weapon. And Aegis ship that is part of any group without a better AAW platform would have to assume the Area defense role. Since there are 25 empty cells on all the Burke class in the database. I think it would be logical to at least put in 24 SM2s at a minimum.

[Wiz33]

I agree. You should balance the scenario with victory objective instead of crippling certain platforms even though at times it would means that one side is going to get the crap kick out of him. It may not be a lot of fun but it would be more realistic.