OFP Navy - Frigates

[olemissrebel 0]

nice

[chops 111]

Siiiiiiiiiiick!

[lee_h._oswald 0]

@Gnat

Is there any chance that you can make the 4 Weapons("Phalanx", "RGM84Tur", "Kashtan" and "9M317Tur") either setable in the editor or as a seperate addon.

I would like to use that guns as base defence in a "Capture the island" mission.

I can't find any other addon that could be used for that.

MfG Lee

[-HUNTER- 1]

The Falklands Mirage III bomber will take it out no problems 9/10 times...

[Jimboob 0]

Mirror by ArmA-NET

[[aps]gnat 28]

Is there any chance that you can make the 4 Weapons("Phalanx", "RGM84Tur", "Kashtan" and "9M317Tur") either setable in the editor or as a seperate addon.

I would like to use that guns as base defence in a "Capture the island" mission.

Mfg Lee, just use createunit to call them. Like;

_gun1 = "Kashtan" createvehicle[0,0,0]

_gun2 = "9M317Tur" createvehicle[0,0,0]

_gunner1 moveingunner _gun1

_gunner2 moveingunner _gun2

@manhunter09

Yeh, but most Aircraft addons in OFP are designed to take out Tanks in general. Try a test with BIS aircraft.

Anyhow, maybe I'll up the armour value in the next beta.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Great addition to Naval Warfare. I like alot!

Though it would be good if someone could help you with up-ing the textures a little.

Noticed a conflict with the Falkands Mod FLK_Harrier.

Gives a string of errors and the GEO LOD on the ship seems to disappear, ie. no more hard heli pad.

Not that they ever need be used together.

[tankieboy 0]

Any chance of making a "commanders" slot along with driver and gunner?

Or did I miss something?

[[aps]gnat 28]

Any chance of making a "commanders" slot along with driver and gunner?

Why? I've generally found the spot to be a waste of space.

The driver is the "commander".

[tankieboy 0]

I for one like to command a driver. Beats holding down the "E" key just to get anywhere.

[-HUNTER- 1]

Gnat @ Aug. 22 2006,01:43)]

Is there any chance that you can make the 4 Weapons("Phalanx", "RGM84Tur", "Kashtan" and "9M317Tur") either setable in the editor or as a seperate addon.

I would like to use that guns as base defence in a "Capture the island" mission.

Mfg Lee, just use createunit to call them. Like;

_gun1 = "Kashtan" createvehicle[0,0,0]

_gun2 = "9M317Tur" createvehicle[0,0,0]

_gunner1 moveingunner _gun1

_gunner2 moveingunner _gun2

@manhunter09

Yeh, but most Aircraft addons in OFP are designed to take out Tanks in general. Try a test with BIS aircraft.

Anyhow, maybe I'll up the armour value in the next beta.

Yes cool. Ill try some more angles of attack for the Mirage Fighter Bomber. The seawiz should be a bit more accurate though...

Or the AA rockets, but im still testing that because that was a head on approach. And when I tried with like 10 HAWK sites on shore close to the ship the mirage still got thrue.

Still testing, awesome work on these ship!

BTW> The other thing works very well indeed, nothing is lagging or what so ever!

[havocsquad 0]

The CIWS guns on these ships need an engagement range of 2000 to 2500 meters, not < 1000 meters.

The reason is that CIWS can attack enemy air threats up to a max range of 2 miles (long stretch, but possible.) 2000 to 2500 meters is much less than 2 miles, but with this range on the CIWS, they can actually defend the ships adaquately.

In addition, the naval SAM missiles do not engage the enemy target far away enough to protect itself.  When it does fire missiles at enemy aircraft, most of the time the missiles miss too many times.

I also highly recommend for the missile turret config that you give it a VERY low priority for attacking ships/armored vehicles and put a very high priority against enemy aircraft.

Get with the MCAR team and we'll see if I can get you some Harpoons to put on your OHP Frigate.

http://psyproductions.proboards21.com

[Shashman 0]

The CIWS guns on these ships need an engagement range of 2000 to 2500 meters, not < 1000 meters.

The reason is that CIWS can attack enemy air threats up to a max range of 2 miles (long stretch, but possible.) 2000 to 2500 meters is much less than 2 miles, but with this range on the CIWS, they can actually defend the ships adaquately.

In addition, the naval SAM missiles do not engage the enemy target far away enough to protect itself. When it does fire missiles at enemy aircraft, most of the time the missiles miss too many times.

Yeah and the OHP is armed with SM-1 SAMs which have a range of up to 100nm

Do you want the frigate to start shooting down aircraft the other side of an entire island? Not very fun.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Yeah and the OHP is armed with SM-1 SAMs which have a range of up to 100nm  

Do you want the frigate to start shooting down aircraft the other side of an entire island? Not very fun.

Thats not likely to happen unless you script the missile object itself like MCAR.  Using the OFP default missile system the best AI enagement range you can get is proportional to the viewdistance.  Even if you configed the missile for 50km you'd likely only get 8km detection and 5km engagement with a 4-5km viewdistance.  That would reduce massively depending on your settings.  We've spent alot of time testing and configing our SAM Firecontrol systems and cant get any better that 5-8km.

Dont worry about it.  

[havocsquad 0]

I can certainly say that currently all naval OFP ships are equiviliently sharkfood when attacked with the MCAR developed anti-ship missile system.

These missiles appear as an unit side and can be attacked and shot down like an aircraft. However, most non-scripted SAM's frequently miss hitting the missiles. The best defense against the missiles in OFP is the point defense guns put on the ships, unless you put some MCAR SAM's on your ships.

2000 to 2500 meters is more than fair maximum range for the CIWS, given that the enemy aircraft/helo missile attacking range usually is near 2000 meters. Effective range of the CIWS won't be until about 1600 to 1200 meters, depending on the target's size.

This anti-ship missile system has not been released yet, because I am waiting for a good addon to impliment it and serve as an open source example of how to include it into a ship addon. I was hoping Gnat would have gotten around to asking me for the files yet, but that hasn't happened at this time to posting this reply.

[Shashman 0]

Yeah and the OHP is armed with SM-1 SAMs which have a range of up to 100nm

Do you want the frigate to start shooting down aircraft the other side of an entire island? Not very fun.

Thats not likely to happen unless you script the missile object itself like MCAR. Using the OFP default missile system the best AI enagement range you can get is proportional to the viewdistance. Even if you configed the missile for 50km you'd likely only get 8km detection and 5km engagement with a 4-5km viewdistance. That would reduce massively depending on your settings. We've spent alot of time testing and configing our SAM Firecontrol systems and cant get any better that 5-8km.

Dont worry about it.

Yeah I realise that it's not possible, but who would want it to be possible? You're flying around the Nogova airbase, and an OHP FFG shoots you down, from the NE coast of Nogova

[[aps]gnat 28]

As Rock has mentioned and as I've said before, the standard missile system in OFP was never really meant to complement mobile long range defence systems like Frigates ...... generally if you can detect them, they can detect you; Problem, a ship is a bloody side easier to hit than a jet head on!

Thanks for the offer Havoc, but as much as I'd like to develop a MCARs system for all the fleet, I don't see the TIME<>BENEFIT being worth it. I'll be more interested in the various options/solutions that ArmA produces. So, in the mean-time it is (nearly) what it is. I probably should have beefed up the Armour of the ship and made the CIWS more accurate .... next beta

DETECTION IDEA ......

Anyone tried invisibly teleporting the Commander out > 1000m to various points of the compass in a scripted loop to act as an "in-person" radar?

He's like a Forward Observer .....

You'll notice that once a weapon (ie Frigate) actually engages a target the distance it will continue to attack can be very large ..... ie, longer than the "life" of the missile itself.

[-HUNTER- 1]

Wouldnt it be possible to use a trigger with a certain radius to give the ship that radius. For use with other islands aswell... ?

Im no genious in those things...

Also Im going to try putting the fighter on Actual so that the ship knows about the fighter before it comes in range...?

And the settings for the CIWS weapon, could you change the values for accuracy of that weapon? And maybee give it a bit more engagement range? Not much but just a bit. And also if a fighter flies on the other side of the island, the missile does need to actually reach the fighter. So if there's a mountain in between nothing will happen. And so you'll have to fly low!

Im currently testing ALLOT of different setups to find out pro's and con's so to speak...

Also maybee the explosion of the missile could be changed? More damage radius... But I think I can figure out what to change in the config to try that...

I love these ships they are very nice, and I would love them to shoot down enemy aircraft, thinks about Falklands style stuff...

Ive actually not tried attacking the ship myself Just realized that.. OMG

* runs of to blow the ship to shit...

[havocsquad 0]

Actually, if you take a look at the MCAR anti-ship missile system, its actually not that very hard to set up.

All you need to do is use the already configed weapons and ammo in the harpoon.pbo file and include it in your missile launcher's config.

When you successfully config the mcar_harpoonlauncher as a weapon on the missile launcher vehicle and the mcar_harpoonlauncher ammo in the magazines section of the vehicle config.  All that is required after this is the MCAR codes in the missile launcher's eventhandlers is "init" and "fired".

Here is the eventhandler code straight from the config file.

     init="[_this select 0] call (localize ""MCAR_createProxyAT"");_this select 0 exec ""\HarpoonLauncher\HRP_init.sqs""";

     fired="deleteVehicle (nearestObject [_this select 0, _this select 4]);[_this select 0, _this select 4] exec ""\HarpoonLauncher\MCAR_fired.sqs""";

I'll give it a shot soon on your OHP frigate soon.  If I've forgot anything, I'm sure it will be very minor easy details.

BTW, MCAR SAM's have never bothered me over +8000 meters, unless I felt dumb enough to fly straight at medium altitude into the SAM range.

True, I understand the reasoning on putting SAM's in which can reach +8,000 meters easily doesn't give the AI much of a chance to attack the ship.  However, real capable warships are much better suited to defend themselves than given credit for here.  By the way, the maximum range of the fire control system for the SAM's on the OHP frigate is 25 miles, not 60 to 80 miles.  Effective range is only 60% of that given that combat aircraft are not static sitting ducks and radar limitations (altitude of target in relationship to distance from target), so you get a engagement range of say 12 to 15 miles persay.

That's why a good navy is the key to supremacy, park an AEGIS ship near any invading nation's airspace/airfields and you'll have a much shorter war than without it around.  

I'm going to slightly increase the damage points on the CIWS ammo config and increase the range to 2500.  That should be an effective and accurate setting for the OHP frigate.  As for both frigate's SAM's, they will need a lot of tweaking to get a good effective balance of destruction.

Swatting massive numbers of flies is what you need when you're outnumbered 4 or 6 to 1 on the ground.  There is more ways than one to make a good campaign interesting.  

A North Korean offensive type of conflict which Armed Assault's campaign seems to be doing is a great idea.  Put the good guys very badly outnumbered and isolated at the start, then storm in after they hold off the enemy long enough for the reinforcements to arrive.

I'm certain this would be the plan for such a scenario in Real Life.

# 1 Gain air superiority over conflict area, deter enemy naval assets and deploy special forces via submarine assets.

# 2 Hit key air defense, infrastructure (roads, bridges), C3, logistics, supply storage, and other key parts of a military.

#3  Establish naval control of region and employ naval air defense assets to ensure air supremacy is assured.

#4  Land Marines and possibly Army units at friendly controlled ports or territory to reinforce the FLOT.

#5  Conduct rigorous CAS and Interdiction missions to preserve ground forces and terrority held.

#6  Deploy additional forces when arrived to prepare for offensive.

Anyways, I hope such a campaign for Armed Assault can be realized in the near future.

[havocsquad 0]

News update on tweaking these frigates...

For my config build, this is what I've fixed:

Changed CIWS threat config to focus on aircraft so it won't spam enemy ships with 20mm, but will attack lightly armored vehicle threats and infantry if needed.  This is to cut down on needless weapon fire that slows down the game and saves the CIWS ammo for the aircraft, which are the most dangerous threats to most ships.

CIWS engagement range changed to 3000 meters, dispersion set at realistic level.  Also, CIWS config changed to find and attack targets better.

Missile launcher config changed to prioritize attacking air threats first.  This if course doesn't work if its already attacking a ship or armored target beforehand.

SAM's have also been given larger maximum range to about 5000 meters, they are also configed to have 25% more manuverability, which greatly increases their lethality, but keeping it far from perfect.

Currently I am working on trying to impliment the MCAR Harpoon's on the frigate launcher.  Currently having syntax errors when I try to input both MCAR and the frigate's config executable statements.  Once I squash these syntax errors, I believe I will have "REAL" harpoons available for the OHP frigate.

To get a Russian sided MCAR anti-ship missile will take some time and rework of the MCAR harpoon coding.

[.COMmunist 0]

That sounds like a good upgrade to me. Will Gnat approve the changes to his baby? I hope so. These frigates are such a cool addition to OFP, they deserve to be more lethal.

Also question to Gnat. Do you plan on releasing the Russian sub before the Arma?

[[aps]gnat 28]

That sounds like a good upgrade to me. Will Gnat approve the changes to his baby? I hope so. These frigates are such a cool addition to OFP, they deserve to be more lethal.

Also question to Gnat. Do you plan on releasing the Russian sub before the Arma?

Already working on fixing the bits and bobs meantion by various people (no but not MCARs) and added a surprise or 2

Both subs I plan to release for OFP .... soonish. If you can tell me exactly when ArmA gets released then maybe I can beat it

[.COMmunist 0]

Gnat @ Aug. 22 2006,01:43)]

Is there any chance that you can make the 4 Weapons("Phalanx", "RGM84Tur", "Kashtan" and "9M317Tur") either setable in the editor or as a seperate addon.

I would like to use that guns as base defence in a "Capture the island" mission.

Mfg Lee, just use createunit to call them. Like;

_gun1 = "Kashtan" createvehicle[0,0,0]

_gun2 = "9M317Tur" createvehicle[0,0,0]

_gunner1 moveingunner _gun1

_gunner2 moveingunner _gun2

@manhunter09

Yeh, but most Aircraft addons in OFP are designed to take out Tanks in general. Try a test with BIS aircraft.

Anyhow, maybe I'll up the armour value in the next beta.

About this post. Is it possible to release the AA batteries as a separate addon with this new update? To be honest, I have no idea what your answer to Mfg Lee meant (how to do it) Or perhaps someone could explain it in more details, please.

[[aps]gnat 28]

place a man on the map, call him a1, put this in his INIT line;

Quote[/b] ]gun1 = "9M317Tur" createvehicle getpos a1; a1 moveInGunner gun1

[vektorboson 8]

Hi Gnat,

Nice addons, but there is one thing that bugs me:

Could you prefix all your classes with GNT (respective GNT_) for OFPEC-Tag compliance? (this includes vehicle-, weapon- and ammo-classes, well it even extends to the model filenames, as they normally need a CfgModels-entry...)

That would be quite nice!