Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-11T03:26:45+02:00

Well, I think a game should at least stick to some inner logic and that has nothing to do with fantasy elements.
When it comes to harms and ground fire I think the logic part isn't a primary issue, since it could be either way. Balance wise I think ground attack is essential vs. harms, though.

When it comes to ground attack against subs... the micro to counter it is usually much less demanding (the only exception being the Atlantis).

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 11 Jun 2013, 03:26

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-10T17:36:01+02:00

Isn't it a bit silly to take realism into account when arguing about a game that includes aliens, teleportation, experimentals, etc.?

As long as the developers didn't say "This game is supposed to be 100% realistic", I don't see any reason to.

Statistics: Posted by Kurbain — 10 Jun 2013, 17:36

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-06T19:07:24+02:00

Batmansrueckkehr wrote:
too stupid to get the right battery going…

Batmansrueckkehr wrote:
Technology for quantum gates, space ships, nukes etc

Guess where all the money went

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 06 Jun 2013, 19:07

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-06T11:13:58+02:00

Batmansrueckkehr wrote:
no single submerged sub died because of projectiles/missles in ww2. mines, deph charges and torps were the only weapons vs subs - as it should be.

Batmansrueckkehr wrote:
well, missles explode on the surface and does almost no damage to the sea below them. shell could, but after some meters - lets say 100 - there would be no enough impact energy left to do any damage to a sub.
so to hunt down subs with shells and missles is just stupid. if the sub is surfaced then its ok, ofc - but when it is under water (by far normally) it should be immune to shells and missles.

If would say deeper than 20m there is no effect from surface explosions.

The point is that most coasts have shallow water. So in a distance of 20 miles the ground there has mostly a depth of 50m or less. The boats are diving perhaps at 25-40m depth. A boat has a height of 15m. So the top of the boat is 10m-25m underwater and can take demage from a missile or shell.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/models/figs/bshcmod.png

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 06 Jun 2013, 11:13

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-06T09:19:34+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
I am 100% sure that this is wrong... there sure have been subs that where shot when attempting to dive/coming to surface or being surfaced in general.
That said the subs in supcom are extremely close to the water surface... guess they are powered by solar power and need the sunlight to keep on moving...

ok – damed solar hype! Knowing this now, I would say subs are doomed to be shot by shells. Technology for quantum gates, space ships, nukes etc.. but too stupid to get the right battery going…

Statistics: Posted by Batmansrueckkehr — 06 Jun 2013, 09:19

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-06T03:58:05+02:00

Batmansrueckkehr wrote:
FireMessiah wrote:just rename ground fire mode to anti sub mode, on the BS. that should work for everyone.

projectiles/mines/missles fired from a BS/dest/frig through water to hit submerged subs has been a tactic since ww2, I don't see the issue.

no single submerged sub died because of projectiles/missles in ww2. mines, deph charges and torps were the only weapons vs subs - as it should be.

I am 100% sure that this is wrong... there sure have been subs that where shot when attempting to dive/coming to surface or being surfaced in general.
That said the subs in supcom are extremely close to the water surface... guess they are powered by solar power and need the sunlight to keep on moving...

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 06 Jun 2013, 03:58

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-05T09:21:50+02:00

laPPen wrote:
I agree nothing wrong with splash damage hurting under water units that are close to the surface like in shallow waters. In deep waters it should be different.

that would be fine for me too. but i guess with the game mechanics u cant have both. and hunting down subs in the mid of sera glaciers or setons is still very strange for me.

Mycen wrote:
I would be very interested in an example of a modern submarine in the ocean that was attacked and/or damaged by surface weaponry. I doubt there are any though, because modern submarines do not lurk about just below the water, they are hundreds of meters down, more than enough to protect against non-specialized weaponry.

The problem is not that ground fire can damage submerged units, the problem is that it is normal for it to do so because submerged units are much closer to the surface than they ought to be.

that is the point.

Statistics: Posted by Batmansrueckkehr — 05 Jun 2013, 09:21

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-04T23:04:23+02:00

I agree nothing wrong with splash damage hurting under water units that are close to the surface like in shallow waters. In deep waters it should be different.

Statistics: Posted by laPPen — 04 Jun 2013, 23:04

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-04T21:45:20+02:00

Batmansrueckkehr wrote:
u are relying on the simulation - every bullet and splash and stuff is calculated etc - but subs should be immune to ground fire, that is why they can dive - u know? otherwise diving has no purpose.

Diving still has a purpose in that you can escape detection by radar and land/air vision, and cannot be directly targeted by normal weapons. Making subs arbitrarily immune to ground fire would be stupid, because, as everyone has pointed out, it is possible to destroy a submerged target with projectiles from the surface.

-_V_- wrote:
No of course not lol.
Just taking an example that ballistic simulation is everywhere in the game, and should not be castrated

Arbitrarily making underwater units immune to splash damage is a terrible idea indeed. But moving them lower so you need larger splash makes sense. Ahwassas, nukes, etc. have immense blasts that would reasonably penetrate well below the surface. Not so much a destroyer shell.

FireMessiah wrote:
projectiles/mines/missles fired from a BS/dest/frig through water to hit submerged subs has been a tactic since ww2, I don't see the issue.

Umm... what? In WWII, as has been pointed out earlier, submerged subs on the offensive still hung close to the surface so that they could see with their periscopes and target their torpedoes. I would be very interested in an example of a modern submarine in the ocean that was attacked and/or damaged by surface weaponry. I doubt there are any though, because modern submarines do not lurk about just below the water, they are hundreds of meters down, more than enough to protect against non-specialized weaponry.

The problem is not that ground fire can damage submerged units, the problem is that it is normal for it to do so because submerged units are much closer to the surface than they ought to be.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 04 Jun 2013, 21:45

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-04T18:09:11+02:00

FireMessiah wrote:
just rename ground fire mode to anti sub mode, on the BS. that should work for everyone.

projectiles/mines/missles fired from a BS/dest/frig through water to hit submerged subs has been a tactic since ww2, I don't see the issue.

no single submerged sub died because of projectiles/missles in ww2. mines, deph charges and torps were the only weapons vs subs - as it should be.

Statistics: Posted by Batmansrueckkehr — 04 Jun 2013, 18:09

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-04T17:55:30+02:00

just rename ground fire mode to anti sub mode, on the BS. that should work for everyone.

projectiles/mines/missles fired from a BS/dest/frig through water to hit submerged subs has been a tactic since ww2, I don't see the issue.

Statistics: Posted by FireMessiah — 04 Jun 2013, 17:55

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-04T17:35:16+02:00

well, missles explode on the surface and does almost no damage to the sea below them. shell could, but after some meters - lets say 100 - there would be no enough impact energy left to do any damage to a sub.
so to hunt down subs with shells and missles is just stupid. if the sub is surfaced then its ok, ofc - but when it is under water (by far normally) it should be immune to shells and missles.

it is completly different to things above water. so your example with the sera t4 killing asf is ok for me. but battleships hunting subs (which can not escape in from of diving) is just stupid. this behaviour i mean..
u are relying on the simulation - every bullet and splash and stuff is calculated etc - but subs should be immune to ground fire, that is why they can dive - u know? otherwise diving has no purpose.

in your point of view the only purpose can be that the player needs the knowledge that he can hit subs with shells and rockets and have to proof skill to switch his ships to ground fire and aim at the symbols manually. that is not cool.. that is just not ment to be. that should be not possible (coz subs are to far below water surface normally).
again, the concept like on the sera t4 example is good.. but not on submerged units.

Statistics: Posted by Batmansrueckkehr — 04 Jun 2013, 17:35

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-04T17:17:58+02:00

No of course not lol.
Just taking an example that ballistic simulation is everywhere in the game, and should not be castrated

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 04 Jun 2013, 17:17

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-04T17:03:55+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
Since when ocean stops missiles straight up ?

"Sorry mister missile but you shall not pass" hehe

It's a testimony that the simulation of ballistic does work in the game. How can that not be cool ?

I just had a game where an awhassa killed 70 asf while releasing its bomb. OBviously it's super rare, but the concept is the same.
You fire something , if it encounters something it does damages.

Hmmm, but the awhassa never becomes an accepted counter to asf spam...

I don't really play navy that much though so I don't think I'm gonna comment here... Just watch some opinions of decent players

Statistics: Posted by Nombringer — 04 Jun 2013, 17:03

Re: Destroying HARMS with ground-fire

2013-06-04T16:56:04+02:00

Since when ocean stops missiles straight up ?

"Sorry mister missile but you shall not pass" hehe

It's a testimony that the simulation of ballistic does work in the game. How can that not be cool ?

I just had a game where an awhassa killed 70 asf while releasing its bomb. OBviously it's super rare, but the concept is the same.
You fire something , if it encounters something it does damages.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 04 Jun 2013, 16:56