mavfin

My understanding is that the GE sees a much better resolution than the screen gives. I have usually dropped torpedoes from A/c manually as I thought I could do a better job but is this my problem because although (as others have said) you can have the image of your helo right over the sub, drop a torp and it is 2 mile from the target.... does this happen if the AI is allowed to manage the drop?? and so does it get better results? When torps are dropped from fixed wings they have a 'shute don't they so as to hit the water at a reduced speed. How about from helos, do they normally drop from a hover or with say a 40 kt forward speed facing the target. Do the these torps have an initial programed course/ depth or do they need to get acquisition, ie what is their 'search' pattern between drop and acquisition? How well is the GE simulating this bit between drop and acquisition? This is what I'm starting to wonder, I was playing around earlier running some subs myself, and I could wriggle away from torps fairly easily dropped by the AI, so the 'lower fudging' may be hurting the AI's ability to hurt subs with air-dropped torps. Not sure yet, but something to be thinking about.

In the 2011.001 GE with the latest HCDB we have... Prowler ECM value 50 Admiral Lazarev (sorry if I picked wrong 'Kirov') longest ranged radar 300nm Top Pair SA-N-6 range 81nm In this situation the Prowler would loiter at 81nm and reduce the Admiral Lazarev's radar range to 227nm, not much improvement and doesn't decrease the SA-N-6 envelope at all. In the hypothetical case that the GE would use directors we could do like the book and jam the Palm Frond directors 40nm range Prowler ECM value 50 Palm Frond 40nm range SA-N-6 range 81nm If the Prowler loitered at 81nm the Palm Frond would be reduced to 31nm. If the Prowler managed to get to 40nm the Palm Frond would be reduced to 7nm, really putting a hurt on the SA-N-6. Funny, I was just re-reading The Sixth Battle the last day and a half of my vacation, back to work tomorrow! Actually, I can loiter a Prowler at ~27 nm at vlow. Will that cut the envelope any, or will radar horizon hurt me? Also, I got to 24 nm, he fired 5 missiles at me (1 at a time) and couldn't hit. However, as soon as I fired HARMs from behind the Prowler, he could fire at those pretty well, so, yeah, no Sixth Battle shenanigans, but, I think I have a few ideas on how to use less missiles on a Russian SAG because of this, too. I can also loiter at I think 50 nm at 'Low' altitude and not get fired on.

I don't have multiple monitors, but I have one big 24" widescreen.

Nice job Mavfin . 3) is the only place I think there is confusion and rightly so since the game doesn't act like it should in some of these cases. The cases that don't work right are multiple aircraft or weapons in the same unit (we remember that if we launch 4 x F-14B with the same loadout it is one unit with four aircraft but if we launch 2 with Phoenix and 2 with Sparrow only then we have two units each with two planes). Detection is only run once per unit and having multiple aircraft or weapons in a unit does not increase the detectability of the platforms even though it should. Mavfin is otherwise correct that more units means more sensor attempts both on the emitting and detected sides of the fence. So 4 F-14s, same loadout, one unit, also do one outgoing and one incoming detection, not four, right? Just to make sure I understand.

I might throw one like that in the zip...alternate courses work for player-side, too, right? It just picks one on loading, right? Edit: answered my own question. Yes, it does. Uploaded a new version playable by either side now. Have fun. I cut the Fencers to two, so they can still cause trouble, but not totally destroy everything.

Yeah, to be clear, for air units only, a 'unit' can be a number of aircraft of the same type launched together with the same loadout; i.e. 2 A-6E with SEAD loadout, or 12 F-15E with GP is one unit each, but 2 A-6Es with GP and 2 with ASuW are also 2 units, as are 2 A-6E with GP, and 12 F-15E with GP. If you launch any of those groups together at the same time, they'll make a group of the 2 units, but the only time you should ever launch them as one group is when they're all standoff weapons, same plane type, or all 'bomb-range' weapons, same plane type. Otherwise, you're wasting fuel on one type of plane or the other, most likely. I rarely launch more than 4 of anything at one time, though, unless I'm mass-ferrying. The Harpoon Ai gets confused by multiple-axis attacks fairly easily, so I try to attack from multiple directions when I have the time/range to do so, and I'll take the time to figure missile flight times so as to get (for example), Harpoons in range just in time to soak up the first launch of SAMs just as the HARMS come into SAM range. If the HARMs get a hit on a Top Dome, more of the Harpoons survive, after all. OK, experts: how much can a Prowler cut off of Mr. Grumble's range in the current GE? I don't figure you can pull anything like what's described in The Sixth Battle, but I wonder how much IS possible. I'm perfectly willing to test, but if someone's done the work, I'd be happy to not reinvent the wheel.

Yeah, the 'unknown' flag means active only homing. Don't ask why they didn't just use 'active only' or some such. Learn somethng new every day, I guess. I ran a couple tests, and the feel is better. Only 250 yards difference, but I got 1 hit on 4 drops in one test, and only half of the torps ran off in other directions, instead of all 4, so that's a better deal. I'll see if the trend holds. I did get a drop-on-top that still showed a 2-mile range, though. One comment on the 0-mile range still-weaving-around torps: usually when I see that, if you look at the depth, they're diving after the sub; i.e. they're shallow, and the sub is deeper. The 2-mile range one got an acquisition, though, while a close-in drop ran off the other way. Must have been a bad drop. Still, as i said, 2 out of 4 acquiring is definitely an improvement. (I was using MK 46 Mod5, 3750 in 0401) So I guess the deal on the old DBs is that you once had a tool that would at least read them, but now it's gone, or no longer works? i.e. you had to have had such a tool to know what those ranges were.

Possibly, though the original 'fudged' numbers appeared to be completely arbitrary, with no relationship whatsoever to real life values. Ok, so I took a look at the (0304) DB before I replaced it with 0401. The MU-90 that seems to be so reliable in the above posts has an acquisition range of 4000, as does the MKs 50 and 54. The sub-launched torps are wire-guided in the DB, so do they get some midcourse guidance from the subs, perhaps, or can you or Tony tell us the difference to the GE for those? On the other hand, the 46 Mod 2 that is the Asroc warhead only has a 1500 acquisition range, but it's going to get dropped in pretty close anyway. So, I'm off to test out the 401 DB, and see if it feels right. Edit: by the way, is the Mk 44 supposed to be sub-type 'unknown'?

I think the issue has been that, at times, you can drop directly on top of the sub in the zoomed-in unit window, and it still shows dropped at 2 miles sometimes, so the 'granularity' of the unit window does seem to matter in some cases. Maybe that's why the original fudges were there? Not to say they needed to be as big as they were, of course, but if you drop on top and you're still at 2 miles, that could be an issue. Also, one hit out of 4 or 6 torps is fine if you're using P-3s or you have a CVH nearby, but if you have 2 tin cans with only 2-4 helos available, and 1 or 2 of those on the deck being readied at any particular time, that's going to be difficult, especially if you can't even get a hit from an over-the-side shot of all three tubes when the sub's close enough for that. Seems like sub-launched torps are doing pretty well. It's most of the air-dropped torps that are having issues, it seems. I'll test the new DB and see if it helps. I'm sure that it's a case of 'just a little more' will get us there where it feels like you're actually dropping 'smart weapons', not just dropping rocks in the water.

Torpedo types involved? Mk 46 Mod 5, I think? Whatever Boone carries in her tubes by default in HCDB 110304, and I think I was using the ASW loadout with 2 of the same on the SH-60Bs. Stingrays on the Lynx XXX.3. (as opposed to the HMA.8) Couple more tries at the scenario, still no torps acquired. No animations for misses, either. And, the only time the Victor II even fired was when it was 4 miles from the Boone and I turned on Active Sonar. I've had it at 3 miles from the Boone, 5 miles from the merchies, and I just turned away at 18 knots, and no torpedoes fired...Is his sonar that bad?

Well, I left it that way because that seems to be the 'standard' now. One-side scenarios without any paths for the human side. I've played it several times today, and I think it's pretty decent so far. I've lost, I've won, and I've struggled, which is to say I've had all outcomes. Only thing is, the Vic-II won't fire those big wake-homers very easily. I've had him in over-the-side-shot range of the Perry, he *had to have* detected me, and he still didn't fire. The only time he did, I went to active sonar to get a lock on him, and he fired, sinking 3/4 of the ships. Next time, I stayed passive, changed course away from him with him at 3 miles from the Boone, which was at 15 knots, and he never fired a shot. Something's not right there, but I don't think it's the scenario itself. (Playing in 2009.054) Also, I still haven't got an ASW torp to acquire at all, even on over-the-side shots, and helo drops right on top. I think I have Brad's torpedo acquisition range fudge, since I'm using HCDB-110304 I'm not planning on making huge changes to the 'canned' scenarios, only making them work in the 'new DB' so it takes all the game changes into account. Some scenarios I'll have to rework the air balance a bit, I'm sure. Some sides of some canned scenarios didn't work well anyway, and aren't really going to, so I probably won't do them. 'The Storm' comes to mind. Does anyone really *want* to play Red on that? I didn't think so. My plan on Red is to remove the Fencers, and see what other strike a/c I can put in w/o making long-range loadouts available to the Red player. The AI can use it and still lose planes, while the human could just shred the group with it by hanging back till the Perry eats an ARM and can't fire missiles, then killing stuff with the shortrange PGMs.

I wouldn't be concerned, it takes a long time to get through all the in built scenarios of HCE, you can click and play for years I'd reckon before you got tired of it. Don't forget the instant action button, really cuts down on the button pushiing , I used it for ages. There's also a zillion 'commondb' scenarios out there that only require a newer commondb, too. You can just overwrite/update the commondb file once in a while, and still play old scenarios with it, as well as the new. Commondb isn't supposed to break old scenarios when it's updated. The only ones excluded once you take this into account is the custom DB scenarios like Cold War, World War, 50-to-65, etc., and as a percentage of total, they're pretty small.

Thanks for that, Warhorse. Anyone else with a report? Still not having a ton of luck. Over-the-side shot never acquired at 3 miles in my remade Gauntlet scenario, and 4 helo drops right on top, with no uncertainty zone, never acquired, either. So, not sure exactly what to say about it yet.

I still have the paper manual from Harpoon 2 that I bought somewhere around 1996 or 1997. However, I still find the PDFs to be very useful to skim for details, especially for Platform Editor, etc.

I think part of the reason these aren't in the code is that the game was written so long ago originally, and they left several things out because computing power was limited at the time. ~1990 you didn't have multi-core 64-bit processors with power to burn, after all. I believe the original game was written for 2/3/486s at best, and also hard drive space wasn't unlimited. I got a game upgrade mailed to me on a 3.5" floppy in late 1995, I think. The game's had a couple of major upgrades, HC97, and HC2002Gold, but, again, it's a case of increments rather than full-on rewriting. And now, with ANW the 'flagship', this game just gets what volunteers are willing to put into it, so any improvements for known issues take time. It's still one of the most replayable games I've ever played, because you never know what's going to happen in a scenario, even if you won it five minutes ago and are just restarting it. Even when I *know* what assets are there, I still never quite know what combination things will take. And that's why I still play the game, warts, missing pieces, bugs, and all. Edit: deleted derail about why I don't like ANW as much, even though it's the 'flagship' and gets company resources

File Name: Gauntlet in CommonDB File Submitter: mavfin File Submitted: 30 Mar 2011 File Updated: 4 Apr 2011 File Category: GIUK DB Used: HCDB-110304 Authors: converted original GIUK Battleset-GIUK: .scm - EC2003 - EC2003 This is my first attempt at scenario making for a wider audience than myself. Just the old Gauntlet scenario from the original GIUK battleset, updated for EC2003 GIUK. I had to tweak the air units a bit, and I still haven't gotten the sub close enough to fire torpedoes at me, but, the last time I tried this, a Fencer clipped a merchie with an ARM, and missed the Brave with 2 of the ASMs, but I still won. Take a look at it, and see what tips you have for me. I'm learning as I go, remaking old scenarios. I'm not trying to do as much to them as was done in say, Fortress 3.0; my aim is making them work in a commondb battleset while still having them be enjoyable. So, this one shouldn't be too hard, since it was #2 in the original battleset for the game. A challenge I foresee down the road is some of the old canned scenarios that look like they were planned to do land attack with Mirage F1s and Exocets, for example. Those will take some major tweakery. Oh, be warned. The Nanuchkas will shrug off pairs of missiles fairly often, I've found. Tips from the experts are welcome, especially as far as balance, etc. Edit: a couple of tweaks to Vicond, formation, added support to play Red, so Blue has course(s) now. Edit2: fixed an error Click here to download this file

I'm no expert, but I'll try to go over a few things. 1) Target emissions: radar emissions, and IR detectability do matter *if* the detecting platform has either the ESM flag or the FLIR flag set. If they don't (like the E-2B has no ESM) then emissions don't matter for detection by that platform. Basically, the ESM flag on the detecting platform determines whether it can 'see' your radar emissions. FLIR flag presence determines if a ship or platform can be seen with IR means. Not sure how IR detectability is done. May just be a <target-size> function. I think there's an RCS entry in the DB, though, as well as a radiated noise value, at least for subs? 2) Tony/Brad can correct me if needed, but I don't think aspect, speed, or relative speed matter. Speed will matter for sonar, though, as more speed makes for more noise. Is self-noise built into the sonar model? I expect it is, but I could be wrong. 3) number of units will definitely matter, as that raises the RCS or visual size, or if not exactly that, it gives more chances for a detection. Detector group size doesn't matter, as far as I know, other than that multiple ESM-equipped platforms can triangulate for better fixes on emitters, and multiple FLIRs or radars give more detection chances for a given target; i.e. in a 30-sec detection cycle 5 radars in range of the target are more likely to definitely detect a target than 1 radar is. Same for sonars, but the range involved is smaller, and I think sonar is on a 5 or 10-minute detection cycle, if I remember correctly.

Top bar on the right, look in HCE --> Tools/Mods or http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=445

Anytime I need a different database, I just use Tony's launcher (available in Downloads section here), and put in the 'other' DB location, and the scenario to load, then start the game with the launcher. I don't have to move or rename anything. I keep my 'other' databases in a 'HarpDB' folder, in subdirectories under that named for the DB, and just use the Launcher to point to them when needed for a particular scenario. I keep my commondb updated, and if the scenario uses it, I just start the game normally, and load scenarios, without the Launcher. After all, anything that uses <date> commondb should work in <later date> commondb. Harpoon's a simulation more than a game, so it will require more knowledge. It's always been that way. This is no arcade game. Fact is, the interface hasn't been updated in years, and is a bit clunky at times, but it doesn't *need* to be updated. The simulation behind it is the important part, and changing databases to use Cold War equipment, or Korea-era equipment also isn't something that is *needed* to be automated, compared to other things that can be done to the game. If you're wanting a slick game that does everything for you, and doesn't require 'external knowledge' to play, then you may be playing the wrong thing, really.

I think that is incorrect. The critical issues are new contacts, where you have the "show" and "select" options, and ditto for "new orders wanted" situations. Keep in mind that the SA window can be moved to expose the map underneath. Did I mention that you should have some paper handy to write things down on? I keep a notepad file open for notes, and tend to not run huge groups around.

In the same vein, I've read that in the Battle of the Philippine Sea (i.e. the Turkey Shoot), contrails made the Japanese planes easy to see from miles away. At least that's what I read in The Big E. So that's not something you can model reliably, either.

On a similar tack to Don, i'll click 1:1, then hit '-' as soon as I can, to get to 0 time, so I can do what needs to be done w/o more staff boxes. '

I may be wrong, but I don't think that's possible for the AI. As far as I'm aware, the AI will not automatically launch land based aircraft in response to a detected surface group. It's not even possible to order a land base to launch against a surface group, either immediately or at a later time. Launches by the AI are only available against bases. In the case of this particular scenario, no launches of any kind are contained for the Backfires. The only possibility other than a design error that I can think of is that the Backfires are included as an asset only used when the player elects to play as Red. Maybe Tony or someone else who understands the guts of the program could add something on this particular topic. Buddha Actually, as Brad says, it's the other way around. Surface targets can cause bombers to launch on their own, and air targets can cause fighter launches. Airfields/ports/etc always have to be attacked by the scenario author's wishes. Been that way since 1995, at least. It's unfortunate that it's so simple to kill off the entire bomber force in the original Fortress Keflavik if you pay some attention to your BARCAP and AEW positioning. Dead bombers can't launch at you again, after all. That's where the inability to use waypoints for air/missile strikes make the game a bit too predictable sometimes on the defensive side. As far as loadouts, I've seen the AI use ironbomb loadouts vs ships a few times in the old days. Derail: Brad, do you think removing the fighters in Rapier is a good step, leaving Tomahawk defense to the base defenses only, or is there more balancing required?

The Backfires are there for when the AI gets a fix on the Blue fleet, if I remember correctly. Of course, if they never get a fix, they won't launch. I've had it happen both ways. Sometimes a sub gets a quick fix on my fleet, and I have to hustle to get fighters out there to thin the Backfires, and fight off the Sandboxes/Shipwrecks if the Red fleet is in range, too, and other times, they never found me in time, so the Backfires never launched.