|
Infidelicious posted:The USN isn't and hasn't worried about boats shooting boats because submarines are so much better at boat murder. I agree, part of the problem for the USN though is they currently lack a stand-off submarine launched anti-ship missile system, which many potential American opponents do have. This means, to actually work for a sea denial mission, American SSNs have to get close enough to use a Mark 48; and even though the American SSNs are some of the best, and quietest in the world... that’s awfully drat close they have to work themselves. It’s not like the USN isn’t aware of these deficiencies and trying to rectify them, it’s just they are currently playing catch up. The real problem for the USN is that, for many years after the Cold War, there was no credible non-Allies blue water navy threat; and, force projection through air power was far more important to how the United States deployed its military power than sea denial was. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Dec 17, 2019 |
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
My extensive research playing Sub Command and Cold Wafer is that the Russians will shoot your missiles down anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
Excuse my ignorance, but. New Fortress Italy module 1) I need to pay to upgrade to version 4.0 2) I can't download the module? I need to ship it to me?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 11:10
|
|
|
Shooting from the hip here, but... 1. Yes, they charge for all upgrades. 2. That's unusual. They typically have both digital delivery and snail mail options. Been a long time since I have looked at anything Battlefront, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 11:58
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:I will play you! Except I am terrible at it, so I surrender. Shot you a PM but not sure if you saw it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
Please don't give Battlefront money 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
it sucks that it seems like you can't buy the old version of cm shock force anymore, it was relatively cheap and a friend and me bought it at like $20 bucks and had a great time just doing head to head real time trying to play it like an rts
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 08:59
|
|
|
You can still find the dvd box paradox version around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
Sure, if you feel like tracking down the Chinatown shop that sold that guy a Mogwai.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
Graviteam Tactics is better anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Graviteam Tactics is better anyway Better than CM? A better company, yes, but I completely disagree—they are very, very different games at the end of the day. So your mileage may vary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
I'm going back through some of the old CMANO Silent Service scenarios and just did the 'Carrier Killer' one where you launch missiles based on a satellite pass and try to get the valuable SSBN sub out with a helper normal sub nearby. I did everything by the book, launched missiles and got two Shipwrecks to a CV while trying to use the helper sub as a decoy to get the big guy out. The former ate a torpedo but the latter managed to get away scot-free against an angry carrier group worth of ASW so I was feeling pretty good about myself. The scenario ends and I managed to sink the America and was awarded a grand total of 0 points because I guess losing a Tango is worth the same amount of points as a CV? Come on CMANO  Also holy poo poo these scenarios are hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
I duped at least two useful idiots into buying CMO so Dimitris you’re welcome. Had a lot of fun with the Baltic war scenario. Probably the pinnacle of scenario making. It’s just a shame that after a certain point it becomes overwhelming trying to manage eighty different squadrons, the navies of every NATO country, and land forces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:I'm going back through some of the old CMANO Silent Service scenarios and just did the 'Carrier Killer' one where you launch missiles based on a satellite pass and try to get the valuable SSBN sub out with a helper normal sub nearby. I did everything by the book, launched missiles and got two Shipwrecks to a CV while trying to use the helper sub as a decoy to get the big guy out. The former ate a torpedo but the latter managed to get away scot-free against an angry carrier group worth of ASW so I was feeling pretty good about myself. I could be wrong, but I think you are describing two different scenarios. "Carrier Killer" is where you handle an Oscar and attack a carrier group. "Delta Force" is the one where you have to escort an SSBN and then attack a target airfield with your SLBMs. JC on RSW had a writeup on the latter one, here: https://kriegsimulation.blogspot.com/2018/04/command-silent-service-delta-force-2017.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 09:00
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I duped at least two useful idiots into buying CMO so Dimitris you’re welcome. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 09:22
|
|
|
Dimitris posted:I could be wrong, but I think you are describing two different scenarios. Yeah I played Carrier Killer one with this description (linked because big) https://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/Art/CMANO/CTSS_Mission_Briefings/carrierkiller.png I think I misread the 'lesser' sub portion because it mentions not to risk the Oscar by actually approaching with it to the CV group and I did just play Delta Force before (and died). But it still reserve the right to bitch about the completely meaningless points in the debrief screen. Also in retrospect I wonder if it better to alternate missiles at two targets instead of 12 launched at one then 12 launched at the other. I always kind of thought that bunching missiles at one target at once is easier since I assume they would do a better job of overwhelming CIWS stuff, but if SAMs across the whole task force take out the first two thirds of missiles then I wind up getting 4 hitting one carrier instead of 2 hitting each. GOOD TIMES ON METH fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Dec 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
My extremely naive thinking would be that it's easier to defend another ship from missiles when you're not in danger, so throwing a salvo at each ship in turn means they can deal with them more easily than if every ship's facing its own incoming missiles every salvo. Right? I have not read a manual and do not even understand the meaning of the word.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:I have not read a manual and do not even understand the meaning of the word. you're in the right place, brother
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
AARP LARPer posted:you're in the right place, brother
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
I always assumed that in a modern carrier group there was some sort of centralized structure in place so that all the ships don't shoot 6 missiles at the first target and zero at the second but I don't know if that is actually true or not. Maybe they just shoot at everything until each ship runs dry
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:I always assumed that in a modern carrier group there was some sort of centralized structure in place so that all the ships don't shoot 6 missiles at the first target and zero at the second but I don't know if that is actually true or not. Maybe they just shoot at everything until each ship runs dry I can’t know for sure, but I have a feeling the AEGIS system is quite sophisticated, and when it comes to aircraft carriers the USN invests quite a bit of money on efficiently eliminating every incoming threat while maintaining the ability to counter new threats as long as possible. Of course, I could be completely wrong and the doctrine could be “just throw every countermeasures possible into the air until we run out.“
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:I always assumed that in a modern carrier group there was some sort of centralized structure in place so that all the ships don't shoot 6 missiles at the first target and zero at the second but I don't know if that is actually true or not. Maybe they just shoot at everything until each ship runs dry There are battlespace management systems for a carrier group so the destroyer squadron can link up and plan out a response in real time. No idea about anything else though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Holy poo poo this came out of nowhere: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1100410/Commandos_2__HD_Remaster/
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Which Clad in Iron game should I buy? There's three of them and I'm totally unfamiliar with the settings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:Also in retrospect I wonder if it better to alternate missiles at two targets instead of 12 launched at one then 12 launched at the other. I always kind of thought that bunching missiles at one target at once is easier since I assume they would do a better job of overwhelming CIWS stuff, but if SAMs across the whole task force take out the first two thirds of missiles then I wind up getting 4 hitting one carrier instead of 2 hitting each. There are various tactics that you can try (that's part of the fun). You could try to launch an all-weapons salvo at the carrier and hope you overwhelm the Aegis escorts. You can try to target the Aegis ships themselves and save a handful missiles for later, when hopefully they will no longer stand in your way. You can try to gun for the ASW escorts instead, so that then you can make a more traditional torpedo run with a far better chance of success. (Unfortunately the Aegis ships are also strong ASW units). If you control more than one sub, you could deliberately have the non-SSGN be a noise mobile decoy, grabbing everyone's attention (and torps) and clearing the path for the real shooter. Choices...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 06:50
|
|
|
It's my understanding that Soviet doctrine against American carrier task forces was to use a combination of ship-launched cruise missiles (as in from something like a Kirov), air-launched cruise missiles (as in from something like a Backfire), and sub-launched cruise missiles (as in something from an Oscar) to overwhelm their defenses by having multiple threats converge from multiple directions, as well as increasing the number of missiles that have to be dealt with simultaneously. Of course, this also means having to juggle the launch times times so that the Time-on-Target from three (or more) different sources all converge, and that's the tricky part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
I've always wondered about this. On the one hand,a massively expensive asset, seemingly so vulnerable. On the other, it's moving at 36 knots,a multi vector, dissimilar asset time on target attack would be pretty hard to coordinate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:I've always wondered about this. On the one hand,a massively expensive asset, seemingly so vulnerable. On the other, it's moving at 36 knots,a multi vector, dissimilar asset time on target attack would be pretty hard to coordinate. I don't know if that is true. If those cruise missiles are smart enough to hit their moving target using their own navigation, assigning a strike time doesn't seem too complicated, as they can easily delay themselves a bit while still far away. Such calculations are not complex for modern processors. And the effectiveness of the strike would be so much greater that I cannot imagine they didn't put the effort in it, it that is their tactics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
I guess it comes down to how "modern" late-80s Soviet tech was/is. Not being facetious, I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
You're talking about coordinating very precise global time across a bunch of platforms though. Maybe they had NTP to handle that but I'm not sure, but you still have delays based on firing time of each platform. In the 80s I'm not sure how closely they could be linked globally. Also idk how advanced those cruise missiles were that in flight they'd be able to compensate for any delays and slow down or course correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
I worked with Eastern Block scientist in the 1980's, and they were pretty good at computational science. And maintaining accurate absolute time has been an art since the 18th century because of the importance for navigation, and millisecond accuracy would absolutely not have been a problem. And a 1 second accuracy in an coordinated missile attack would be more than good enough for a defence overload. My guess as a physicist is that if they could coordinate their attacks at all, synchronising them would have been possible. Those cruise missiles could use terrain cover on land, a little manoeuvring to match the 4th (time) coordinate in addition to the other 3 would be relatively simple.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:I've always wondered about this. On the one hand,a massively expensive asset, seemingly so vulnerable. On the other, it's moving at 36 knots,a multi vector, dissimilar asset time on target attack would be pretty hard to coordinate. It's pretty amazing that CMO throws all these weapons systems together in the way it does...and that it causes players to consider these things. That's pretty sophisticated. But yeah, the How do you balance increased force projection with increased asset risk? angle has always been pretty interesting to me as well. In a way, it intersects with game design and what fascinates me about their rule-sets. In real life, how do commanders calculate this risk? What are the parameters at play? We can certainly count the number of planes/guns and compare, but how are the more abstract notions of possible risk measured and quantified? And how can these systems be incorporated into other things (vid games; simulations) to help us study and better understand these situations via simulation? Good poo poo and why I love this genre. AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Dec 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
I’m not talking so much about tactically adjusting to a moving target but more strategically, the whole carrier group is moving through a very large body of water and its position is constantly changing. Satellites only give a snapshot of location, so there needs to be a constant eyes on target asset in order to allow for the coordinated attack. This might be more easily done these days with drones, etc. but it would have been a pretty big challenge in the 80s. Even with eyes on target you’re still dealing with cross-branch coordination of very different types of asset, some of which have only intermittent communications, and without an actual central fire control capability, there are many dependencies to get exactly right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
"Everybody press the launch button in 3...2...1"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Wait wait wait, on 1 or when you say "fire" after 1?! For god's sake, I can't explain how important this is!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
Has anyone had any experience with Supreme Ruler Ultimate? It was on sale and seemed like it'd be a ton of fun, taking over the world and all that. Like a sort of off-brand Paradox game, but it goes all the way up into modern days and the future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
The AI is trash to the point where it's not really fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
Anyone have opinions on Unity of Command II? I enjoyed the first one because it was simple enough for me to wrap my head around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Is it just me or is Germany much more fun than the other nations in RTW/2? You get good fights without having to deal with protecting a bunch of colonies or moving ships around to a bunch of different sea zones. I feel like I should branch out but every time I pick someone else it just feels like a lot more 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
I liked the first Unity of Command much better than II. Much cleaner in design, much less obnoxious clutter. Germany in Rule the Waves 1/2 is alot like France, but without any need to juggle different forces around the world (at first, before you take englands colonies or Alabama from the US). That said, you can fight as any nation and just say 'gently caress it's to protecting anything but your home waters and still win a war easily. Try it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 17:25
|
|
