Post by PaulV on Oct 3, 2015 0:14:46 GMT -5
One of the central design concepts in the game is to abstract the details of interactions between platforms and weapons using a scale of capability "rheostat settings". The probability of a successful "interaction" between two weapons or a weapon and a platform is a function of capability of the attacking weapon and a corresponding capability of the defending weapon or platform. For example the probability that a Surface to Air Missile fired at an aircraft hits it is a function of the missile capability level and the target aircraft's platform capability level (corresponding to aircraft's maneuverability). The game uses a lookup table that can be edited if you don't like the function we used.
Ours is a variation of "(A/(A+D))" where A is the attacking capability and D the defending one). We skew that somewhat based on research we did indicating that increasing technology tends to make engagments between "equal technology" less likely to be successful - i.e. weapon countermeasure pairings at parity are more likely to result in a successful attack the low end of capability, but the increased complexity at high capabilities tends to drive the success probability down. If you disagree, you can edit the table to represent how you think the relationship should behave!
Detection works a bit differently. Sensor capability level is based on extrapolating from a "baseline" with a multiplier. For example, in the base game a CL 1 radar is defined as having a 12nm detection range against a 10dB target. Each radar CL increases the base by a factor of 1.5 So CL 2 = 18, CL 3 = 30, CL 4 = 45, etc. Now this is indexed with the platforms signature level, which for aircarft are dB increments starting at 15dB for SL 1 and decrementing by 5 to -10dB and then by 10 to -30. In game terms that is where visual detection takes over. Again, if you don't like the detection ranges that come out of that, you can change them to your own.
Ours is a variation of "(A/(A+D))" where A is the attacking capability and D the defending one). We skew that somewhat based on research we did indicating that increasing technology tends to make engagments between "equal technology" less likely to be successful - i.e. weapon countermeasure pairings at parity are more likely to result in a successful attack the low end of capability, but the increased complexity at high capabilities tends to drive the success probability down. If you disagree, you can edit the table to represent how you think the relationship should behave!
Detection works a bit differently. Sensor capability level is based on extrapolating from a "baseline" with a multiplier. For example, in the base game a CL 1 radar is defined as having a 12nm detection range against a 10dB target. Each radar CL increases the base by a factor of 1.5 So CL 2 = 18, CL 3 = 30, CL 4 = 45, etc. Now this is indexed with the platforms signature level, which for aircarft are dB increments starting at 15dB for SL 1 and decrementing by 5 to -10dB and then by 10 to -30. In game terms that is where visual detection takes over. Again, if you don't like the detection ranges that come out of that, you can change them to your own.