[OKO]

[Palindromeria]

hmmm
is there something generally just wrong with ai helo's ?
why do i have to goad them into firing at me ?

ran this tester a couple more times. stayed down . noticed one pass over me and must have got mad contact. the other 5 helos all reacted and they all changed altitude to about 40 ft and spd 130. i went to flank.
they follow and follow and follow circle circle circle repeatedly passing directly overhead....... rarely if ever fire ....

in general im not finding the ffg or helos to be very aggressive at all. (cmon shoot at me ya humps)
when i set helo for sonobouy search instead of dropping in the area designated they just kinda fly off ( ???? !! )
ffg will fire some torps but dont ever really break form to SEARCH and HUNT me down - they just lob a torp my way from 6 miles and keep on truckin'...

i think there is maybe a helo engagement thingy i need to download ?
(among other things)

i am aware the lwami addresses this as well.
it think also addresses lotsa things i havent even encountered yet
not sure how much i will have to learn unlearn relearn on this ...

i tried to go to the script thingy in mission editor to cause damage to the sam launcher but its not an option. :shifty: spose that woulda been too easy eh ? On the bright side, i noticed that i can destroy torp tubes

maybe a script ?
If ( sub destroys helo and sub depth does NOT = "surface" )
then (all sub torp tubes destroyed)

[Palindromeria]

[Molon Labe]

I think that even with composite materials, masts would be detectable if the receiving radar was close enough and if the mast was painted for long enough to stand out of the clutter. OS's 30 seconds sounds fair, perhaps generous at close range situations.

[OKO]

[OKO]

[OKO]

To be complete : I would have appreciated detectable masts
But DW, as it is actually, will not allow it.
That's not a reason to say it's a big problem when it's a small one.

What would you have said if the conning tower couldn't be detected by radar and visual ! :8

If you compare a conning tower to masts, you could see there is a real huge difference of volume
Not even comparing masts to a ship hull ....

[Molon Labe]

[OneShot]

A good reading on the whole issue of ASW : The Third Battle by Owen R. Cote, Jr.. Naval War College Newport Papers.

A closer look at this reveals the impact Radar on Air/Surface Platform has/had on submarine detection. While composite material is certainly a lot harder to detect, remember Radars have become quite powerful nowadays. And as I said before, there is a reason why exposing of any of those masts (incl. the periscope) is something the subs are not really fond of.

Either way, the ability to completely avoid detection currently (on behalf of the subs as far as masts go) gives them a clear edge against Air platforms if they have to venture within the range of the SAM.

Its OK to be beaten by good tactics but it sucks to get beaten by an exploit.

[LuftWolf]

Considering most missions designer still like to put a sub in the middle of a 10nm circle and put a big arrow that tells the airdales "SUBMARINE HERE!!!", I'm not losing sleep over the whole mast issue.

If the ASW searches were performed over reasonable areas and the submarine had something to do other than scan the sky for helos and p-3's, I think we'd see a lot fewer cases of bubbleheads starting missions with their balls up against it already and needing to come shallow because they know an airdale is going to be on them within 30 minutes at the most.

I'll start taking the whole issue of masts more seriously when ASW search areas get bigger in missions and bubbleheads are still hanging around the surface even when they ought to be doing something else.

[OKO]

the problem is, on what you say, you need laaarge scenarios during many hours /

One other solution I start to use is to put Orions quite far away from the search area.
this way, subs have time to position themselves during half an hour without beeing threathened from the first 5 minutes of game.

But this mean orion will have nothing to do for 30 mn except cruising.

[goldorak]

Well since the bubbleheads seem so keen on breaching the surface the airdales have a new tactic.
Its not optimal because mad/sad can't be used and the camera is near to useless but at 100% the p-3 will be out of reach of the subs.
Take as a loadout only dicass and cruise at 6000 ft out of sam range, drop buoys all over the area and start pinging.
Sooner or later the sub will show out and a torpedo will be launched at him

[LuftWolf]

Yes, the AI uses buoys very well.

If you are in a P-3 in a mission, and you have a lot of AI platforms in the search area, you can drop a good buoy pattern and the AI will do most of the actual work.

That's why I think that moving to larger search areas isn't such a bad thing.

In any case, if the sub driver is essentially tasked with AA duty in a mission, then of course he will find it necessary to use his SAM launcher.

I guess it would be good for mission designers to strive for around 50% or less detections by airplatforms in missions (that percentage can be a lot less if there are other friendly platforms around), since detection more or less means a sure kill.

[Palindromeria]

[LuftWolf]

Ah, that's the rub...

The AI does not DROP sonobuoys on their own very effectively, however, once the pattern is in the water, the AI will read them well.

Some mission designers have found it useful to place sonobuoy fields on their own using place object triggers, sometimes in combination with an planned aircraft fly-by.

You can post over in the mission design forum to see what the mission designers say about this. Personally, I have recommended placing the buoy fields yourself in the mission design phase and then just making sure there are platforms around to read them.