Reducing the potential warning time to mere seconds was the principal means by which early anti-ship missiles sought to guarantee their terminal approach to an intended target. This was achieved primarily by “sea skimming”, i.e. flying at such a low altitude in the terminal phase that enemy sensors (usually radar and/or the Mk 1 eyeball) could not distinguish the approaching missile from the background clutter of the ocean’s waves until it was too late to do anything about it.

In keeping with steadily improving soft kill (e.g. electronic countermeasures) and hard kill (e.g. missiles and guns, and no doubt, eventually directed energy weapons) defences aboard ships, the terminal phase of anti-ship missiles has become more and more sophisticated since those early days.

The original Harpoon missile (the Italian Otomat is another example) used a terminal "climb and dive" (often described as “pop-up”) maneuver where upon the missile climbed sharply at a certain distance from the target (said to be 1,830 meters) and then dove at a 30 degree attack angle. A high apogee pop-up attack was ideal against small or fast, maneuvering targets such as submarines and missile craft. Subsequent versions of the venerable Harpoon have eliminated the pop-up maneuver, improved upon it, and even added multiple terminal maneuver options that can be selected by the launch platform operator.

Many Soviet era anti-ship missiles (e.g. AS-4 Kitchen) employed a terminal dive at such a high speed (transonic or supersonic) and from such a high altitude (as much as 230,000 feet) that the attack phase was nearly vertical, and so, while the defender could often see the missile coming, he may have in any event been hard pressed to do anything about it.

Most recently, terminal maneuvers have progressed in complexity to such options as “s-turns” or weaving attacks, or in other cases, to an increased terminal attack speed. Both are, as always, aimed at making engagement by point defence systems as difficult as possible.

The SS-NX-26, for example, employs both terminal maneuvers and a terminal attack speed that transitions from 1,650 knots up to 2,310 knots (Mach 3.5). Similarly, the SS-N-27 increases from a subsonic cruise speed of 528 knots to an attack speed of 1,380 knots in the final 11 nm of its approach.

It should, of course, be noted that terminal maneuvers are no longer limited to pure anti-ship missiles in the modern era. Modern, stealthy cruise missiles like the AGM-158 JASSM and Tactical Tomahawk employ selectable terminal maneuver options to make it ever more likely that they will reach their target intact.

How does all of this translate into Harpoon Classic Commander’s Edition ?

Not well, at least not yet. (We’re always the optimist here at HG). At present, while there does exist a “terminal guidance” flag, there is no “terminal maneuver” or “terminal speed” flag.

In its most basic form, a “terminal maneuver” flag might be as simple as adding a further calculation to the engagement process, either from the attack or defence side. In other words, a missile with terminal maneuver capability might have an increased hit probability in the terminal phase, or conversely, a defender might have reduced chances of success in trying to knock down a missile equipped with the flag.

A “terminal speed” flag seems, on its face, potentially more complex. But, as Tony has reminded me, the code already has the ability to model dual speed capability in torpedoes. (Something not possible in H3ANW, so chins up, people. )

It might be possible (and I’m speaking as someone who knows nothing about coding) to translate this into a workable model for missiles.

Having said all that, this thread is for discussion of ideas, concepts, options, and pipe dreams for incorporating a terminal attack model into HCCE. Discuss …

As an example a surface group in hostile waters sinks a neutral sub before getting a positive id. Maybe that sort of thing should be available as a victory condition for the opponent? Or maybe a neutral side could be triggered to align with another side, thus joining the enemy?

Or the scenario aim might be to defend a transiting surface group but not to escalate the strategic situation by taking out enemy bases or distant ships?

Patch 1 Features:

• Show scenarios within the HC directory and subdirectories.
  
• Show orders of selected scenario.
  
• If player chooses to launch the currently selected scenario, check that a valid DB is present somewhere in the HC directory structure and put the DB into place. Alert user if appropriate DB is not on the machine.
  
• Allow launching of saved game.
  
• Also include the battleset scenarios if possible (this may not be feasible for first patch)
  
• Similarly launch the SE (this may have to be basic, i.e. just starts the SE with chosen DB, doesn't load a particular scen)
  
• Launch the PE, ideally help manage one pfData file for each DB encountered
  
• Launch the Orders Writer for the selected scenario
  
• Enable/disable data export DLLs
  
• Manage custom battlesets in the same manner as scenarios (matching DB, etc.) may have to be of a very basic nature for first patch.
  

Future Capabilities:

• Grab xml listing of scenarios, databases, battlesets available on community sites and present it to user for seamless download.
  
• Make other content available (custom photos for DB editing, sounds for the game,...)
  
• Capture game statistics (platforms destroyed, lost, ...)?
  
• Enable deletion of scenarios, databases, saves from local computer.
  
• Enable uploading of scenarios, databases, battlesets to community sites?
  

As I continue designing, I'll update this thread.  For now, a photo of the page of notes.

I know I'm not the only person who has run out of <insert ammo type here> and wished I could stop off at my nearest floating, friendly 7-11 (the AOR) and pick up some more of them. Particularly SAMs, as the AI seems to think 12:1 ratio is nessessary to shoot down incoming threats.

What I propose is a simple, yet workable solution to this problem in several points.

Each ship/land unit has 4-6 different types of supplies that it can consume.

• Fuel
  
  
• Food/Water
  
  
• Ammo
  
  
• Spare Parts
  
  
• AV-Gas
  
  
• AV-Ordinance
  
  

Each ship unit and base has a finite amount of each. Each is consumed at a set rate.

For example:

CV Roosevelt has 999999 Fuel (Nuclear), 10000 food/water, 500 ammo, 100 spare parts, 5000 AV-Gas and 5000 AV-Ordanance. It uses 0 points of fuel per day, 100 food/water per day, ammo as fired (1 shot = 1 point), spares are used only if damage is present to the ships subcomponants, and AV-Gas and AV-Ordanace are used at a rate of 1 point per sortie (each plane that takes off is 1 sortie). As these points are used, it needs to replinish them either via an AO group or by docking at a friendly port...running out obviously makes the ship quite useless.

Now, each AOR along with having its own needs in the food/fuel/ammo departments also carries a set number of 'stores' that can be consumed by friendly ships that need to replinish.

Quick Example:

AOR Wichita carries 10000 fuel, 100000 food/water, 5000 ammo, 1000 spares, 2500 AV-Gas and 2500 AV-ordanance. Other ships can take on supplies from the Wichita until it runs dry, at which point it can return to a port and replinish itself.

Land units work the same, but they take supplies from convoys, that can take supplies from fleets or bases.

OK, now the replinishment type ships...any cargo ship can carry stores, though some can only be unloaded at a dock/beachhead. Also, not every ship carries every type of store. Merchant ships might only carry food/water and ammo. AEs only carry ammo, and maybe a few spares, etc.

Another thing, ships can share from their own stores of food/water, fuel and spares to help another ship.

What would we need?

Ability to replinish at sea

Ability to dock/draw supplies from ports/bases

Ability to track consumables

Any discussion on this issue would be good, as I'm sure I'm not the only person with ideas on how this could work.

Anyway, I wish I knew how to program, because I would definitely focus my efforts toward this new growth area. There's not even one serious war-game on the app store and - like I said - the device is tailor made for that sort of thing (much better suited than, for instance, the plethora of first person shooters that are available for iPad 2).

Chat 9/26 on IRC:

[22:36] TonyE: one thing DonG wants to see is Search and Rescue, I'm

interested to hear what he has to say.

[22:37] AOA: I like that

[22:38] TonyE: seems easy enough to me in HC, we have mobile land units,

we just need to make a land unit type that the friendly side must detect

(player side as it stands can see all player units, all the time)

[22:38] AOA: simulate emergency beacons after the destruction of a unit?

[22:38] TonyE: yah, I suppose that would help

[22:40] AOA: then the unit has to be "attacked" with rescue equipment??

[22:40] AOA: WHat would be the objective?? The benefit?

[22:40] TonyE: I think you are right with the attack with rescue

equipment

[22:41] AOA: In real life, rescuing a pilot is important because it is

expensive, but crews are not simulated in the game, so loosing the crew

is not an issue.

[22:41] TonyE: I imagine the objective is to rescue before the enemy

kills the rescuee, thereby allowing victory conditions to work

[22:41] AOA: ok, so it would have victory conditions purposes....

[22:43] AOA: could the rescue help in reducing ready times for A/C,

simulating that some of that time is crew rest, and therefore, if a

pilot is rescued, there are more pilots, then aircraft are ready more

often?

[22:44] TonyE: I'd dream bigger and think about logistics where the

rescued pilot goes back into the pool of pilot resources, which may

affect how often you can fly, sure.

[22:45] AOA: exactly

[22:45] AOA: wow, here is an idea!

[22:46] TonyE: I wonder if planes randomly create downed crews as they

are killed, boy that could be a mess.

[22:47] AOA: So the beacon goes off, but it can be detected by either

side, right? If your enemy picks the crew up, then, after a Guantanamo

treatment session, your enemy obtains imformation, such as location of

certain units.

[22:47] AOA: no need for sensors.

[22:47] AOA: your prisoner talks!

[22:48] AOA: yes, random

[22:48] TonyE: hehe, it was a manageable situation until you had that

last idea

[22:48] AOA: some die, others survive and want to avoid being captured

by the enemy, therefore, you are forced to rescue them

[22:50] AOA: or they will talk! So every time you pick up an enemy

prisoner, you get a momentary update of the positions (or certain

positions) of the enemy.,

[22:50] TonyE: I certainly like the idea

[22:53] AOA: For example, if you pick up a fighter crew, you get an

update of all aircraft positions, if you pick up an E-2 crew, you get an

update (estimate) of the aircraft and subs positions...

Don Gilman e-mail notes after seeing the chat:

The Intel part is probably a bit overkill as it takes a few days to get someone to talk, most scenarios are over by then. Talk to Rabbit about how all of that works.

Eventually doing crew morale to impact search and attack values would have a fatigue factor, pilot crews as cargo, repair crew as cargo (might as well model them too).

But really I was looking for crew units, crew count and rescue capacity as attributes of Platforms, SAR missions and VC penalties for NOT rescuing crew if you are Western. So it's a BIG modifier. That was in the ORIGINAL 1988 design. And I believe the architecture still supports just that.

The fix to this is of course to code in Magazines so that all the Torpedos are not located on the mount. The mounts also need to be made to adhere to the ROF restrictions assigned in PE.

From that point, it will need to be decided what constitutes a ready round for the sub, that is does it keep Harpoons ready to fire in the torpedo room or would it take a few minutes to load one up? How long would it take to move a torpedo from the storage rack in the torpedo room to the point it is ready to be loaded into the tube and fire? These are things I do not know, but that others might.

This topic will require discussion.

The formative ideas came from TonyE, pmaidhof, Brains, CV32, Akula.

HC_Amphibious_and_Land_Warfare_Expansion.doc