Bug Report

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: VCDH


In this sense, the question perhaps should be rephrased to ask: "Should torpedo ranges be fixed to force the player close on the target?"

This is the way I read your question anyway. I think that a better answer is to work on the AI. Especially without knowing the AI's inner workings, I'm uncertain what approach would be either best or most practical, but I'm sure there are various possibilities.

Before really going too far down that road, maybe you already know whether working on the AI for this kind of issue is just impractical?

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Flankerk

As far as I can gather without downloading the PDB they simply follow the same values as DB2000.

My personal preference is clearly for the reduced ranges, they make submarine encounters much more claustrophobic and the AI is far more lethal.
Having a submarine open fire on a task force at 20 or so nautical miles also stretches realism for me.

PlayersDB follows a model similar to many of the other third-party DBs. We took:

1) the speed of the torpedo,
2) maximum speed of a probable contact, and
3) assumed that the torpedo was fired at a target from maximum range
4) torpedo was detected IMMEDIATELY upon launch by the target (which begins immediate evasion),

What would the maximum firing range be that would allow for the torpedo to catch the target before it ran out of fuel? We think that our calculations have been pretty good. When those monsters are fired, they usually catch their target. Whether they hit or miss is another question. [8D]

[Flankerk]

Sorry I should have differentiated between the ANW DB and the ADB, the latter using the reduced ranges effectively.

Strictly speaking the PDB doesn't follow a model similar to DB2000 , it uses the same values. I.E the range, PK and so forth are exactly the same. I believe this is true for the vast majority of its torpedoes.

If you hadn't gathered torpedo effectiveness has been a bugbear of mine for some time [:)].
I had planned on posting an AAR for Mikes scenario Waking the Bear to DB2000, however it would have been a short one ! My subs had to move further offshore than I normally do having won the scenario a few times previously. The soon to be sorted nav bug caused me to deviate more than normal and frankly I took a complete pounding.
I lost two submarines pretty much before the game had really started.
I think the reduced ranges certainly make the AI more effective, but most scenarios can always be designed to prove a challenge.
Anyone who fancies a difficult scenario would do well to win on Mike's Kuril Salient or Quinton's Race for Iceland. Both winnable but both in my opinion a genuine challenge.

Either is worth a try if you are concerned about the effectiveness of the AI.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Flankerk

Strictly speaking the PDB doesn't follow a model similar to DB2000 , it uses the same values. I.E the range, PK and so forth are exactly the same. I believe this is true for the vast majority of its torpedoes.

Strictly speaking, this is incorrect.

Not even close. The facts simply do not support the allegation. Here is the example we are talking about: Type 65-76 Torpedo from the PlayersDB and the DB2k.

[Flankerk]

So apart from that one example what values are used by PDB compared to DB2000 ?

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

Having tried both single player with third-party DBs and MP with the original one, now, I can say that both kind of games have their merits (not that this is a big discovery [;)] ) My suggestion would simply be to create a MP Database and a SP one geared for realistic behaviour by the AI. But I honestly do not know the amout of work involved by the DB maintainers. However, looking at the offer by the community as of Jun, 2006, I'll keep third party DBs for single player and the original one for MP - at least for some time. The offer of the original scenarios for MP is GARGANTUAN, so I do not see reasons to switch to others DBs in my MP games just now (I'm alread open for the extemporary experiment in MP with a third party DB, however).

Regarding being visited by the federals, according to some sources Tom Clancy himself was visited by the FBI when he published "The Hunt for the Red October", and to explain how he had got all that "sensitive infos" found in the book he showed his copy of Harpoon among the other references [8D]

[hermanhum]

Since some folks are blessed with so much time on your hands, why don't you go ahead and do a platform-by-platform analysis / comparison. 

Just be sure to do a thorough job.  There are several thousand platforms in either database. 

I am sure that the community would be thankful for your efforts.  [;)]

[Flankerk]

As requested I have looked into the issue further regarding the treatment of torpedoes in the databases.

Of the initial batch looked into there seem to be striking similarities.

Mark 46
Mark 48
53-65M
53-68N

The values used for DB2000 in respect of the above look to have been copied into PDB
[ both range and PK] . I find no such similarities in other Databases.

I'm not clear how many other platforms you'd wish to be listed ?

[hermanhum]

Go ahead and present all the data.  Cross sections, engines, warhead, sensors,

By all means.  Everyone wants to see this stuff.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Flankerk

As requested I have looked into the issue further regarding the treatment of torpedoes in the databases.

<< snip >>

I'm not clear how many other platforms you'd wish to be listed ?

The original request was:

Since some folks are blessed with so much time on your hands, why don't you go ahead and do a platform-by-platform analysis / comparison.

Just be sure to do a thorough job. There are several thousand platforms in either database.

The request is quite clear. ALL of the platforms. Planes, Subs, Ships, Weapons, engines, Sensors... Bring it all on. To compare 4 entries out of 10,000 is simply inaccurate and statistically whimsical.

Just be certain to also document each and every entry that bears no similarity between the two databases, too. That way, everyone can see for themselves that there may be 4 similar entries and 9,996 dis-similar entries.

Game on! [&o]

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[jpkoester1]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

When ships are engaged at a range of 40nm, they quite often detect the torpedo and can quickly run outside the 50nm range.

Then the calculation is wrong. Or is the term 'No-Escape Envelope' a misnomer? Or, do I understnad the term wrong and 'no-escape' only gets calculated at the current speed and current heading?

At any rate, it sounds like the interface should allow a human player to launch at up to Fuel Range, but with a warning message if Max launch Range and/or No-Escape Envelope are exceeded. I assume that IRL a ship's captain can do that?

I believe the No-Escape envelope is calculated by the unit's current speed (because the max speed might be unknown by the firing unit). However, when a torpedo is detected the unit goes to flank speed and may thus evade successfully.

Cheers,
JP

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jpkoester1

I believe the No-Escape envelope is calculated by the unit's current speed (because the max speed might be unknown by the firing unit). However, when a torpedo is detected the unit goes to flank speed and may thus evade successfully.

Cheers,
JP

Thanks Jan-Paul. I finally understood that. I've played a lot of Harpoon in the past, but cleaning out the mental cobwebs is hell!

It seems like the best way to address an AI opponent short-coming is to work on the AI (instead of changing the database), but that depends on what's practical - how long, how much money, what else might it break, etc.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: VCDH


We'd like to fix it all but the guys concensus is that it's better to have a new UI from scratch. This way we can do it our way, the right way, so we can have the game we all want.

I like the sound of that!