|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 25, 2022 9:53:27 GMT -6
I will answer these questions, though there is always the chance some modification may be made until it gets the Job Done stamp so do not consider this irrevocable gospel. That being said, we would have reached this period in my AAR if I had not delayed it, so under that license;
In testing I have found the usual dispersion of results, a bell curve of "that seems reasonable" surrounded by the unlikely but vaguely plausible. A ~2000lb warhead whether delivered FritzX style or behind 1000lbs of pressurized and highly volatile propellant makes a mess of a ship, whether armored or not. I have never seen a Roma result, but 2-3 heavy missiles can definitely put a BB out of action, though this is uncommon. I think everyone will be confronted by the real world issue of Big Expensive Ship is suddenly vulnerable to cheaply delivered ordinance from much less expensive ship and will find that keeping BBs around seems less and less viable. It is possible to keep them safe if you are really dedicated to it, but then you'll just have a very expensive (if handsome) escort that has nothing to shoot its guns at. A very realistic, but bittersweet moment for battleship fans to realize.
If you had an ideal situation, CIWS and RD MAA against a foe that was backwards technologically, you might find that you successfully engage up-to (not a guarantee but an approximation) 50% of incoming missiles. If there is 1 incoming and you hit it you feel great, but if there are 6 incoming and you hit 2 you tend to think unfavorably of your point defense abilities. Everything is heavily influenced by the to-and-fro of the electronic warfare state over your opponent as both sides try to find ways to interfere with and then protect against interference with their foe.
Early on especially, when large tight air-formations were still used, Heavy SAM has a chance of knocking down multiple aircraft with one missile, so I think you'd have to say they were effective enough to drive the AAA crews out of business.
We are fast approaching a feature reveal I would guess (note "guess"), so many questions will be able to be answered. I know its like a constantly moving Christmas Morning, but believe me it is always closer than yesterday!*
* "I'll take Meaningless Phrases for $400, Alex"
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Apr 25, 2022 15:07:43 GMT -6
Will LSAMs and DP guns contribute to point defence? If not, what will their purpose be?
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 25, 2022 17:14:03 GMT -6
I will answer these questions, though there is always the chance some modification may be made until it gets the Job Done stamp so do not consider this irrevocable gospel. That being said, we would have reached this period in my AAR if I had not delayed it, so under that license; In testing I have found the usual dispersion of results, a bell curve of "that seems reasonable" surrounded by the unlikely but vaguely plausible. A ~2000lb warhead whether delivered FritzX style or behind 1000lbs of pressurized and highly volatile propellant makes a mess of a ship, whether armored or not. I have never seen a Roma result, but 2-3 heavy missiles can definitely put a BB out of action, though this is uncommon. I think everyone will be confronted by the real world issue of Big Expensive Ship is suddenly vulnerable to cheaply delivered ordinance from much less expensive ship and will find that keeping BBs around seems less and less viable. It is possible to keep them safe if you are really dedicated to it, but then you'll just have a very expensive (if handsome) escort that has nothing to shoot its guns at. A very realistic, but bittersweet moment for battleship fans to realize. If you had an ideal situation, CIWS and RD MAA against a foe that was backwards technologically, you might find that you successfully engage up-to (not a guarantee but an approximation) 50% of incoming missiles. If there is 1 incoming and you hit it you feel great, but if there are 6 incoming and you hit 2 you tend to think unfavorably of your point defense abilities. Everything is heavily influenced by the to-and-fro of the electronic warfare state over your opponent as both sides try to find ways to interfere with and then protect against interference with their foe. Early on especially, when large tight air-formations were still used, Heavy SAM has a chance of knocking down multiple aircraft with one missile, so I think you'd have to say they were effective enough to drive the AAA crews out of business. We are fast approaching a feature reveal I would guess (note "guess"), so many questions will be able to be answered. I know its like a constantly moving Christmas Morning, but believe me it is always closer than yesterday!* * "I'll take Meaningless Phrases for $400, Alex" Are the point missile defenses on top of SAM defense against missiles?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 27, 2022 5:39:46 GMT -6
I will answer these questions, though there is always the chance some modification may be made until it gets the Job Done stamp so do not consider this irrevocable gospel. That being said, we would have reached this period in my AAR if I had not delayed it, so under that license; In testing I have found the usual dispersion of results, a bell curve of "that seems reasonable" surrounded by the unlikely but vaguely plausible. A ~2000lb warhead whether delivered FritzX style or behind 1000lbs of pressurized and highly volatile propellant makes a mess of a ship, whether armored or not. I have never seen a Roma result, but 2-3 heavy missiles can definitely put a BB out of action, though this is uncommon. I think everyone will be confronted by the real world issue of Big Expensive Ship is suddenly vulnerable to cheaply delivered ordinance from much less expensive ship and will find that keeping BBs around seems less and less viable. It is possible to keep them safe if you are really dedicated to it, but then you'll just have a very expensive (if handsome) escort that has nothing to shoot its guns at. A very realistic, but bittersweet moment for battleship fans to realize. If you had an ideal situation, CIWS and RD MAA against a foe that was backwards technologically, you might find that you successfully engage up-to (not a guarantee but an approximation) 50% of incoming missiles. If there is 1 incoming and you hit it you feel great, but if there are 6 incoming and you hit 2 you tend to think unfavorably of your point defense abilities. Everything is heavily influenced by the to-and-fro of the electronic warfare state over your opponent as both sides try to find ways to interfere with and then protect against interference with their foe. Early on especially, when large tight air-formations were still used, Heavy SAM has a chance of knocking down multiple aircraft with one missile, so I think you'd have to say they were effective enough to drive the AAA crews out of business. We are fast approaching a feature reveal I would guess (note "guess"), so many questions will be able to be answered. I know its like a constantly moving Christmas Morning, but believe me it is always closer than yesterday!* * "I'll take Meaningless Phrases for $400, Alex" Sounds really promising, Thanks for taking the time to answer them
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 27, 2022 8:55:50 GMT -6
Will LSAMs and DP guns contribute to point defence? If not, what will their purpose be? Reliable Air Defense Missiles lie outside the scope of this game, which remember stops in 1970 (even though you could push on for 10 extra years to tie-up loose ends). Also if you investigate attacks on the USN in the Vietnam War due to the range of ASMs then, AAA destroyed more aircraft than SAMs, so I think we'll find the 1960s are the last decade where you still find your DP 5" guns seem meaningful.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Apr 27, 2022 11:40:08 GMT -6
I will answer these questions, though there is always the chance some modification may be made until it gets the Job Done stamp so do not consider this irrevocable gospel. That being said, we would have reached this period in my AAR if I had not delayed it, so under that license; In testing I have found the usual dispersion of results, a bell curve of "that seems reasonable" surrounded by the unlikely but vaguely plausible. A ~2000lb warhead whether delivered FritzX style or behind 1000lbs of pressurized and highly volatile propellant makes a mess of a ship, whether armored or not. I have never seen a Roma result, but 2-3 heavy missiles can definitely put a BB out of action, though this is uncommon. I think everyone will be confronted by the real world issue of Big Expensive Ship is suddenly vulnerable to cheaply delivered ordinance from much less expensive ship and will find that keeping BBs around seems less and less viable. It is possible to keep them safe if you are really dedicated to it, but then you'll just have a very expensive (if handsome) escort that has nothing to shoot its guns at. A very realistic, but bittersweet moment for battleship fans to realize. If you had an ideal situation, CIWS and RD MAA against a foe that was backwards technologically, you might find that you successfully engage up-to (not a guarantee but an approximation) 50% of incoming missiles. If there is 1 incoming and you hit it you feel great, but if there are 6 incoming and you hit 2 you tend to think unfavorably of your point defense abilities. Everything is heavily influenced by the to-and-fro of the electronic warfare state over your opponent as both sides try to find ways to interfere with and then protect against interference with their foe. Early on especially, when large tight air-formations were still used, Heavy SAM has a chance of knocking down multiple aircraft with one missile, so I think you'd have to say they were effective enough to drive the AAA crews out of business. We are fast approaching a feature reveal I would guess (note "guess"), so many questions will be able to be answered. I know its like a constantly moving Christmas Morning, but believe me it is always closer than yesterday!* * "I'll take Meaningless Phrases for $400, Alex" I keep at least a few of those handsome escorts around till the end of the game, as long as they don't get sunk! BB's forever!!
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 28, 2022 3:24:40 GMT -6
Will LSAMs and DP guns contribute to point defence? If not, what will their purpose be? Reliable Air Defense Missiles lie outside the scope of this game, which remember stops in 1970 (even though you could push on for 10 extra years to tie-up loose ends). Also if you investigate attacks on the USN in the Vietnam War due to the range of ASMs then, AAA destroyed more aircraft than SAMs, so I think we'll find the 1960s are the last decade where you still find your DP 5" guns seem meaningful. I think thats the best way to handle this. Worth noting the first succesfull intercept of a missile happened in 1991 When a P-15 missile was intercepted by a sea dart fired from HMS london, the missile targeting USS Missouri.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Apr 28, 2022 10:01:20 GMT -6
Reliable Air Defense Missiles lie outside the scope of this game, which remember stops in 1970 (even though you could push on for 10 extra years to tie-up loose ends). Also if you investigate attacks on the USN in the Vietnam War due to the range of ASMs then, AAA destroyed more aircraft than SAMs, so I think we'll find the 1960s are the last decade where you still find your DP 5" guns seem meaningful. I think thats the best way to handle this. Worth noting the first succesfull intercept of a missile happened in 1991 When a P-15 missile was intercepted by a sea dart fired from HMS london, the missile targeting USS Missouri. Not counting the claim by HMS Avenger in the Falklands campaign? Though that was still 1982 and was the 4.5" gun.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 28, 2022 10:42:22 GMT -6
Will LSAMs and DP guns contribute to point defence? If not, what will their purpose be? Reliable Air Defense Missiles lie outside the scope of this game, which remember stops in 1970 (even though you could push on for 10 extra years to tie-up loose ends). Also if you investigate attacks on the USN in the Vietnam War due to the range of ASMs then, AAA destroyed more aircraft than SAMs, so I think we'll find the 1960s are the last decade where you still find your DP 5" guns seem meaningful. The lack of reliable air defense missiles means we don't get any? Given ASMS(Aegis) development started in 1963 I'd hope that we'd at least get the chance for some, if early and unreliable, hard counters to anti ship missiles.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Apr 28, 2022 10:45:57 GMT -6
Reliable Air Defense Missiles lie outside the scope of this game, which remember stops in 1970 (even though you could push on for 10 extra years to tie-up loose ends). Also if you investigate attacks on the USN in the Vietnam War due to the range of ASMs then, AAA destroyed more aircraft than SAMs, so I think we'll find the 1960s are the last decade where you still find your DP 5" guns seem meaningful. The lack of reliable air defense missiles means we don't get any? Given ASMS(Aegis) development started in 1963 I'd hope that we'd at least get the chance for some, if early and unreliable, hard counters to anti ship missiles. Well, it seems we do get gun CIWS, they're mentioned in the expansion.
|
|
|
Post by howdyrocket on Apr 28, 2022 18:00:08 GMT -6
Even if it doesn't get the same level of depth, it would be nice if some more modern anti missile systems/technologies (and techs in general) were added so the game could practically be played out till the 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 29, 2022 2:59:57 GMT -6
Reliable Air Defense Missiles lie outside the scope of this game, which remember stops in 1970 (even though you could push on for 10 extra years to tie-up loose ends). Also if you investigate attacks on the USN in the Vietnam War due to the range of ASMs then, AAA destroyed more aircraft than SAMs, so I think we'll find the 1960s are the last decade where you still find your DP 5" guns seem meaningful. The lack of reliable air defense missiles means we don't get any? Given ASMS(Aegis) development started in 1963 I'd hope that we'd at least get the chance for some, if early and unreliable, hard counters to anti ship missiles. CIWS, SAM, MAA/LAA will probably be your best use (mentioned in order of most effective to least.) Its not that missiles cant shoot down missiles its that its not very easy to do so. It is worth noting that most missiles used have been against ships without hard countermeasures, or were sea skimming missiles which are hard for older ships to pick up (AESA radar is required basically) In 1970 there werent sea skimming missiles so SAMs would have had some degree of succes, but limited tracking radars (or reload time) usually means not more than 1-2 missiles can be intercepted at once. CIWS is much more reliable in this time period. Soft measures were best. Aegis was in testing in 1970 but its worth noting that the system was very much in its infancy. Stuff like passively phased radar (late 1960s tech for ships and VERY VERY early in its use and bulky/large.) + missiles like SM-2 (late 60s) would give rather decent probability of interception against targets like a P-15 and non sea skimming slow targets. So i think 1965-1970 SAMs should be pretty strong at interception and become better than CIWS. But it would also be a "state of the art" ship and would require alot of tonnage to make work.
|
|
|
Post by Emma on Aug 28, 2022 17:13:26 GMT -6
I've yet to mod them in since I've yet to find out how. (Tips?) Are they able to be added to destroyers? Has anyone else tried them? go to researchareas2 and replace the missile tech lines with this [Missile technology 19] PicName=Missile.jpg Guided bomb;1943;N;70;12;1900;Increases air attack effectiveness Early ASM;1943;N;60;10;1907;Enables air attacks with ASM Early SAM;1945;N;70;12;1905;Enables early SAM mounts Early SSM;1949;N;70;12;1901;Enables early SSM mounts Double SAM launchers;1953;Y;70;6;1909;Allows double SAM launchers Improved SAM;1954;N;70;12;1906;Increases SAM hit rate Reliable ASM;1955;N;70;12;1902;Increases ASM hit rate Light SAM;1955;N;70;12;1910;Enables light SAM mounts Heavy SAM;1955;N;70;12;1908;Enables heavy SAM mounts Improved guidance systems;1957;N;70;12;1904;Increases missile hit rate the new lines are Light SAM;1955;N;70;12;1910;Enables light SAM mounts Heavy SAM;1955;N;70;12;1908;Enables heavy SAM mounts Early SSM;1949;N;70;12;1901;Enables early SSM mounts they do work on destroyers so far i actually havent gotten a single error or anything like it from them and they seem to work perfectly except for the way they do damage so i have to say the devs did an amazing job even though its not supposed to be out yet First, I wanna say thank you for your comment, this opens up new doors for me. Second, I put these lines in ResearchArea2 accordingly and have started a game, it is now 1970 and I have yet researched any one of the techs I had added. The game runs smoothly and there are no errors either, would you happen to have any idea on why or how this could be happening? Thanks again
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Aug 28, 2022 23:29:56 GMT -6
go to researchareas2 and replace the missile tech lines with this [Missile technology 19] PicName=Missile.jpg Guided bomb;1943;N;70;12;1900;Increases air attack effectiveness Early ASM;1943;N;60;10;1907;Enables air attacks with ASM Early SAM;1945;N;70;12;1905;Enables early SAM mounts Early SSM;1949;N;70;12;1901;Enables early SSM mounts Double SAM launchers;1953;Y;70;6;1909;Allows double SAM launchers Improved SAM;1954;N;70;12;1906;Increases SAM hit rate Reliable ASM;1955;N;70;12;1902;Increases ASM hit rate Light SAM;1955;N;70;12;1910;Enables light SAM mounts Heavy SAM;1955;N;70;12;1908;Enables heavy SAM mounts Improved guidance systems;1957;N;70;12;1904;Increases missile hit rate the new lines are Light SAM;1955;N;70;12;1910;Enables light SAM mounts Heavy SAM;1955;N;70;12;1908;Enables heavy SAM mounts Early SSM;1949;N;70;12;1901;Enables early SSM mounts they do work on destroyers so far i actually havent gotten a single error or anything like it from them and they seem to work perfectly except for the way they do damage so i have to say the devs did an amazing job even though its not supposed to be out yet First, I wanna say thank you for your comment, this opens up new doors for me. Second, I put these lines in ResearchArea2 accordingly and have started a game, it is now 1970 and I have yet researched any one of the techs I had added. The game runs smoothly and there are no errors either, would you happen to have any idea on why or how this could be happening? Thanks again That is kinda common. For some reason, the game acts like SSMs are an extremely expensive tech - I haven't ever gotten them before 1960, and I also halved the costs for all missile techs in my game files...
|
|
|
Post by christian on Sept 20, 2022 9:32:38 GMT -6
go to researchareas2 and replace the missile tech lines with this [Missile technology 19] PicName=Missile.jpg Guided bomb;1943;N;70;12;1900;Increases air attack effectiveness Early ASM;1943;N;60;10;1907;Enables air attacks with ASM Early SAM;1945;N;70;12;1905;Enables early SAM mounts Early SSM;1949;N;70;12;1901;Enables early SSM mounts Double SAM launchers;1953;Y;70;6;1909;Allows double SAM launchers Improved SAM;1954;N;70;12;1906;Increases SAM hit rate Reliable ASM;1955;N;70;12;1902;Increases ASM hit rate Light SAM;1955;N;70;12;1910;Enables light SAM mounts Heavy SAM;1955;N;70;12;1908;Enables heavy SAM mounts Improved guidance systems;1957;N;70;12;1904;Increases missile hit rate the new lines are Light SAM;1955;N;70;12;1910;Enables light SAM mounts Heavy SAM;1955;N;70;12;1908;Enables heavy SAM mounts Early SSM;1949;N;70;12;1901;Enables early SSM mounts they do work on destroyers so far i actually havent gotten a single error or anything like it from them and they seem to work perfectly except for the way they do damage so i have to say the devs did an amazing job even though its not supposed to be out yet First, I wanna say thank you for your comment, this opens up new doors for me. Second, I put these lines in ResearchArea2 accordingly and have started a game, it is now 1970 and I have yet researched any one of the techs I had added. The game runs smoothly and there are no errors either, would you happen to have any idea on why or how this could be happening? Thanks again the research is very expensive and sometimes the game (like with other techs) "skips" a tech, but it seems that when it does this with the missile techs the whole research just stops and never completes i would recommend manually researching them if you cant get it to work (go into savegame file and manually change the things you have researched)
|
|