[emsoy]

Hi KBOSAK, thank you very much for your feedback Comments below:

Originally Posted by kbosak

Hi all, I have made and tested a complete scenario based on real life data:

The scenario setup & force disposition looks great. Curious about what your background is hehe

Originally Posted by kbosak

Actual state of readiness for Polish Navy in 2013 using public data sources and approximated platforms where available. The idea is to simulate shore defenses response to surprise attack from Russian Baltic Fleet from Baltijsk (Kaliningrad) naval base.
Modifications of the original game platforms include:
2x Tarantul I:
-should have no sonar
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-sensor model wrong Shave range in active mode should be around 30Nm, no OTH
-sensor model wrong Kolonka on all units visual targetting range should be 10nm or less, not 40

The range for visual/IR sensors is the max (cutoff) range for the sensor. The underlying model is a bit more complex.

The Kolonka in the Command database is not a search sensor, it is slaved to other sensors and is only used to ID targets detected by those sensors. It has a 4x maginification in the database (guessimated) which means it can ID a MiG-29 at just over 6nm, frontal aspect.

If slaved to a radar at distant targets, it can still see contrails for targets at up to 40nm. It will not make an ID at these ranges though.

If I remember correctly the Hood Wink will also be able to classify the MiG-29 as small/medium/large air contact at ca 12nm.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-Wine Glass ECM is only installed in Tarantul III, removed.
2x OH Perry:
-has no Phalanx ammo and no Mk13 launcher at all
-added four SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-mazine has 2x MU90 for seasprite
-changed main trop launcher to 2x triple MU90
-should add Kaman Seasprite
Stocks: -PWM has bought MU90 16-18 torpedos, OHP full salvo is 12, a few fired for exercices. Therefore max 2 spares per ship

Thanks! This is very useful information! Good info on Polish platforms has been very hard to come by.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-36 RBS-15 MK3 missiles, therefore 8 per each project 660 and a few spares.
1xKaszub
-changed torpedo mount to TEST-71ME, firing only into frontal arc
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
3x660 Grom:
-in fact carries 8x RBS15 mk3, while keeping only 4 containers during regular sailing
-removed false quad strela launchers, there are none
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
4xKobben:
-changed torpedo type to 613 Sub
-incomplete torpedo tubes (only 4 loaded with 613)
-no ASW torpedo for thsi type
-added one SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-should limit kobben battery range somehow, very old
1x877E Kilo:
-added one SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-ASW torpedos are now TEST-71ME
-removed Strela II mast
-should limit battery range, old
M28 Bryza, Mi-14 not included yet
-Shore AA batteries only guesstimate for initial wartime deployment after 24h notice
-Only eastern coast fixed radar posts are marked

Do you have more info on the Grom system?

Originally Posted by kbosak

Russian enemy are two surface groups of Baltic Fleet from Baltijsk.


All real radar placements of plish coastal defences and even NATO backbone long-range radars.

1. I would like to submit the scenario for testing.

I'm pretty certain you can attach scenarios to forum posts on the 'official' support forum on Matrix Games.

Originally Posted by kbosak

2. I would like to edit/clean up polish platform set, since there are multiple entiries that is a random mixture of guesstimates, wishful hopes of polishplanners and copy-pasting from western/eastern original ship versions.
The list is LONG and has many tiny details. Can I get some limited editing access to it?

Editing access can be a bit difficult, but if you send me a list of the changes you want to see made I'll make them here and pass on to you for approval.

Originally Posted by kbosak

3. Spotted game problems:
-it is practically impossible to use towed or even mobile 155mm howitzers in order to suppress Baltijsk naval base from polish territory. Ridiculous 12nm range of modelled platforms and inability to fire 'onto approx position'. Without this trick everything depends on Russian S-300PMU placed relatively close to the border.

The general area thingie is very very tricky to do. 'Coordinate targets' (point targets) is on our to do list, will add 'area coordiante targets' to the list but like I said its tricky. Sorry!

12nm is the max practical range for most systems, beyond that accuracy drops sharply. What systems/ammo would you want to use and what ranges would you like to fire at?

Originally Posted by kbosak

-AI overuses AA missiles for surface fire, which gives good results with US TICO maybe, bo wastes all russian magazines (sovremenny and gremashtshy) without much effect. I believe it shoudl be fired only on explicit ctrl+F1 order of fire.

Yeah this is a very difficult call... We also had complains when AI-controlled ships did _not_ use their SARH SAMs in anti-ship mode. So...

Let me think a little more about this. Could make it a Doctrine setting.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-for no reason MU90 is fired automatically at close range onto enemy surface combatants, guidance is ok, but there is always 0% hit probability. Of course it is a pure ASW torpedo.

Yes its a bug hehe. We've fixed this along with another related bug in the latest internal Beta release. Should be released to the public shortly.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-it appears russian manpads are never fired agains missiles. In practice their modern versions (Igla) are useful in frontal arc even against N-22 Styx, with minimal chance.

That is correct, MANPADs in Command are not capable against missiles.

So for instance the MANPADS version of the Mistral is anti-aircraft/helo only. The reason is that the team with the MANPADS will not be able to detect, identify and fire successfully upon a small & fast target like a missile.

The Simbad/Sadral/Tetral mounts use sensors/FCS to que the mounts and those Mistrals are thus capable against anti-ship missiles in Command.

If the Grom system is similar to Simbad and the rest let me know and I'll implement the system accordingly.

The same is true for the SA-N-24 Grouse, which comes in both MANPADS mounts and 3M-47 Gibka mounts with onboard sensors and laser ranger.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Goalkeeper damage points are badly modelled.
Kinetic energy is (30mm/20mm)^3 =3.4 times more than Phalanx and range shoudl be higher also.

The Goalkeeper has 20% longer range against air targets and 50% against surface targets in Command. Do you think the difference should be larger? Remember we're using _practical_ ranges rather than max ranges. Damage to air targets is not yet simulated as it is quite complex.

Damage by non-explosive warheads is calculated in TNT equivalents. But again, for air target it doesn't matter at the moment.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Makes difference for large russian supersonic missiles which reorted to need a few hits from phalanx to get stopped.
If you are unsure what a single bullet can do, assume that mass and therefore knetic energy rises as third power of mass. This, recalibrated to 20mm as unity, gives the following damage points:
5.45 0.02
7.26 0.05
12.7 0.26
14.5 0.38
20 1.00
23 1.52
30 3.38
35 5.36
40 8.00
57 23.15
60 27.00
76 54.87
100 125.00
127 256.05
130 274.63
152 438.98
155 465.48
Clearly, 465 for 155mm bullet is too much (would sink two FFG) therefore once can say DP from bullets is about 10-20 times overestimated in terms of DP in this example.

Agreed.

We also have to take the bust size into account here, which makes things a bit more complex. And does a 50% higher burst result in 50% more hits? What about burst duration? Do the first/last rounds in a burst score more hits?

If "20mm/85 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 0 Burst [200 rnds]" has 1 DP, what would the DP for the following weapons be:
20mm/85 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 1 Burst [300 rnds]
30mm Goalkeeper Burst [240 rnds]


Thanks again for your input KBOSAK, this is very helpful for us