TeTeT's wishlist

[TeTeT]

Here my wishlist, in no particular order:

 

1. SAR option, shot down planes may generate pilots (undetected) that can later be picked up by helos
   
2. Defense zones for neutral powers, when red or blue fly/sail there they will be engaged by green
   
3. SAM launch increases the chance of a visual sighting of the launcher
   
4. A bomb sight value for planes to differentiate their effectiveness in delivering iron bombs
   
5. Laden vs empty speed difference in planes
   
6. New icons for bridges, buildings, etc.
   
7. Option for collateral damage to nearby units/structures when bombing
   
8. Automatic evasive maneuvers by pilots when engaged by SAMs or air to air missiles
   
9. Damaged planes
   
10. Buddy bombing, increased accuracy when FAC/friendly fighter is close to target
    
11. Area of operation of AI aircraft in scenario creation
    
12. White phosphorous option for ARM, e.g. increased change in visual detection of launcher after ARM impact
    
13. Labels for victory conditions in the editor
    
14. Jettison option for planes
    
15. Refueling of in flight helos from ships
    

[TonyE]

Thank you for typing this up, I thought I might have to beat it out of you!

 

1. UncleHarpoon wants this too...

 

8. I played with this for about 6 months back about 5 years and had disastrous results (a player driving an F-14 could intimidate all of the opponents away and while that was fun and somewhat realistic , it demonstrated that this is a difficult request to implement well). Still I happen to agree that automatic evasion should happen.

 

13. Can you elaborate? I don't understand what you mean.

 

14. This exists in the code too but is turned off. The planes when threatened would drop their bombs and benefit from the increased maneuverability (the loadout DATA vs the plane's DATA) so I imagine it could make a return at some point. Similar difficulties to #8, surmountable, just not as easy at it seems.

[TeTeT]

...

13. Can you elaborate? I don't understand what you mean.

 

Instead of saying 'Total victory condition' and 'Minimum victory condition' in the scenario editor I'd like to give it a label like '[T] Bases to destroy', '[M] Bases to damage', where T and M depicts it's a total or minimum victory condition. Might be useful in complex scenarios with many victory conditions. It's really a very minor request.

 

On the automatic evasion on SAM and air to air missiles, I understand it's hard to implement. On the other side I found that the system in the Downtown boardgame works nicely. For a SAM launch the rule is: See if missile hits (14+ on 2d10), then check SAM defense (regardless if missile hits or not) of air plane. SAM defense depends if plane has RWR aboard or not. The result of SAM defense can be no effect (so any hit would go through), SAM avoidance and Miss. In case of SAM avoidance the ordnance is jettisoned and the flight displaced slightly (we're talking hexes here .

 

So maybe a system of 'SAM or air to air missile detection', 'reaction', 'avoidance' or 'no effect' or 'miss' might be handy. On the other hand it might be just to far away from the Harpoon rules.

[Gopher]

8. Automatic evasive maneuvers by pilots when engaged by SAMs or air to air missiles

 

I would be careful about this point. In an old version of HII a red a/c had only to launch a missile and the blue a/c turned back home even the blue a/c is not in range of the red missile. Maybe as an option by the game start, or as individual option for a/c yes, but please not for all scenarios and all players.

 

If a user could program the behavior individual via AI and Staff logic, then yes.

[JMS]

8. Automatic evasive maneuvers by pilots when engaged by SAMs or air to air missiles

 

I would be careful about this point. In an old version of HII a red a/c had only to launch a missile and the blue a/c turned back home even the blue a/c is not in range of the red missile. Maybe as an option by the game start, or as individual option for a/c yes, but please not for all scenarios and all players.

 

If a user could program the behavior individual via AI and Stadd logic, then yes.

 

Agreed, IIRC a previous version of HCE had a similar issue, enemy air would reverse course and go afterburner if it detected a missile launch, with the end result that enemy air was going round and round until running out of fuel

[donaldseadog]

8. Automatic evasive maneuvers by pilots when engaged by SAMs or air to air missiles

 

I would be careful about this point. In an old version of HII a red a/c had only to launch a missile and the blue a/c turned back home even the blue a/c is not in range of the red missile. Maybe as an option by the game start, or as individual option for a/c yes, but please not for all scenarios and all players.

 

If a user could program the behavior individual via AI and Stadd logic, then yes.

 

Agreed, IIRC a previous version of HCE had a similar issue, enemy air would reverse course and go afterburner if it detected a missile launch, with the end result that enemy air was going round and round until running out of fuel

I have in the back of my mind that AI planes were harder to kill in much older games. Currently a lot are wasted by lack of caution, anything to even the fights would be good I think. As for evasion/ chaff/ flare etc, database people could advice weather the hit probabilities and the like already take these things into account? I don't know of anything that says they do but eg is a sidewinder just as likely to hit an A330 as a F-22 and does aircraft speed (launch and target) make any difference??

Anyone with older games (or Harpoon Ultimate) could have fun comparing a similar small scenario in a few different game versions. (hmmm, I might try it myself)

Don Thomas

[gkm]

#4 I think is already accomodated in the database. For a 500# iron bomb you would find probabilites of 15%, 25%, 35%, and 45%, covering the range from basic bombsight to advanced computing bombsight.

[donaldseadog]

wishes 1-15 added to condensed wish list