I think if it’s used as SF where the result is demolition only, then SF can only be used in one function when they are used in so many other ways. This basically means that there can be fewer MP missions created that involve the use of SF as part of submarine operations.
I need to verify, but if I remember correctly, when the command from navigation is executed, DW runs its own subroutine and ignores actual coding in the editor(custom mission), basically by-passing the design. So regardless of the mission performed by SF, demolition is always the outcome.
If submarines use SF for intelligence gathering, rescue, retrieval, insertion or / and reconnaissance, then having SF destroy objects doesn’t make sense. And, if the mission is demolition, then, yes of course blow up the object!!!
If you make it so it blows up objects in close range only, then only demolition missions can be made for scenarios involving SF. The other kind of missions that SF are capable of can’t be made.
But if you make it where it does not blow up objects in close range, not only you can make the non-destructive SF missions(I.E. rescue, retrieval, insertion, etc) but you can also simulate destruction of objects using the mission editor. Simply use event triggers checking for range between two objects and run a script that plays explosion.wav and removes the platform when logic conditions are true.
I used this trick to simulate su-27 interceptors engaging a UAV as visual contact or promoted link in one of my dynamic MP scenarios. If / when contact made, the flankers break CAP, use afterburners to close distance and engage with missiles. If any of the missiles are fired at the UAV come within critical range OR if the missiles miss and the flankers come close enough for guns, the UAV plays an explosion sound and is removed from the scenario.
If this approach sounds okay to you, I can run some tests on beta RA and send you .mu files so you can monitor results.
I’m thinking the wire-guide as UUV approach avoids premature destruction of objects, while in same time gives the designer complete control over design w/o being over-ridden by DWs subroutines. I guess the mini-sub shouldn’t be noisy, probably just as noisy as the UUV if not slightly less noisy.
Also, in the grand scheme of things, when the submarine is in position, SF are briefed before deployment based on intelligence provided by the submarine. Having it wire guided would just simulate deployment to a location or target of interest based on intelligence briefing.
