CV32

Well put.

Apparently it was the B-2s Spirit of Mississippi, Spirit of Pennsylvania and Spirit of Louisiana and they struck Ghardabiya (Sirte) airfield. Given the size of the warload, however, I am still left wondering if they didn't execute a "grand tour" of sorts, dropping JDAMs on more than one airfield. Meanwhile, RAF getting lots of good weapons testing with the Paveway IV and Brimstone dual mode.

From AGSI: The History of Harpoon

The format for all HCE scenario file names is: *.sc* The first asterisk (*) is for the scenario filename assigned by the author of the scenario. The second asterisk (*) determines the BattleSet to which the scenario belongs. When you create a 'user scenario', there are typically four files generated by the Scenario Editor: *.SC* - the actual scenario itself *.BL* - the BLUE orders file *.RD* - the RED orders file *.BK* - a backup of the scenario file More on the filenames and the BattleSets here: Understanding HCE file names The stock scenarios supplied with HCE use either a built in, non-editable database (which is not updated) or a supplied, editable version of the HCDB (which is updated regularly and the updates for which are available for download here). The editable database is contained within the file 'commondb.res' in the HCE main directory. When you download and apply an update of the HCDB, or you download and apply a custom database, it overwrites that 'commondb.res' file. Using a custom database that is needed for a custom scenario, then, is as simple as swapping out that 'commondb.res' file. Going back to the stock database (the HCDB) is as simple as applying the latest update that is always available for download here.

Nope, I can manage scens like Kola and Backyard just fine. Some of the tougher, busier scenarios simply require that you take your licks, focus on your own strengths and your enemy's weaknesses. Maybe read some Clausewitz between Staff Assistant pop ups. If I lose, so be it. Try something different next time. I never said that. But numbers do count when this development team looks at issues and decides priorities. If the existing model works more or less as it should, and there aren't a majority of people clamoring about it as an issue, then the probability is good that it won't be considered an issue that needs to be addressed or changed. No offense intended, JoeK, but since most people don't seem to have these issues, I am comfortable in saying that most of us are probably left wondering what your problem really is. I don't have any particular secrets that probably aren't already well known by the vast majority of folks familiar with HC. So, if we can't blame your particular computer set up, rogue code, or repeated bad luck, what's left? If you've really been playing HC for as long as you say, and if its all as hopelessly stacked against you as you seem to believe, then I have to wonder why are you still playing?

Yeah, the difference being, it seems, that I like to play the game rather than have the game play itself for me. No disasters happening around here. (Unless I'm just not paying attention). Its not a matter of not liking to do the math, but rather that I don't need to. Most of what I need is already computed and stored 'upstairs', and I'm quite accustomed to playing this game. No problems in management here. (Unless I'm just not paying attention). Or, I suppose, one could actually explore, try and develop some skills and tactics rather than repeating the same mistakes ad nauseum for years and years?

For the benefit of others who might read this thread and are wondering about (or fearful of) the same thing ... The format for all HCE scenario file names is: *.sc* The first asterisk (*) is for the scenario filename assigned by the author of the scenario. The second asterisk (*) determines the BattleSet to which the scenario belongs. When you create a 'user scenario', there are typically four files generated by the Scenario Editor: *.SC* - the actual scenario itself *.BL* - the BLUE orders file *.RD* - the RED orders file *.BK* - a backup of the scenario file More on the filenames and the BattleSets here: Understanding HCE file names The stock scenarios supplied with HCE use either a built in, non-editable database (which is not updated) or a supplied, editable version of the HCDB (which is updated regularly and the updates for which are available for download here). The editable database is contained within the file 'commondb.res' in the HCE main directory. When you download and apply an update of the HCDB, or you download and apply a custom database, it overwrites that 'commondb.res' file. Using a custom database that is needed for a custom scenario, then, is as simple as swapping out that 'commondb.res' file. Going back to the stock database (the HCDB) is as simple as applying the latest update that is always available for download here.

The GE accounts for differing aircraft speeds by defaulting to the cruise speed of the lowest speed aircraft type in the group. The system is simple and works well. You, as commander, have to do some of the thinking, you know. Yes, adding a tanker to a launching group will sometimes permit a launch that would not otherwise be possible. As I'm sure you've discovered, adding a single KA-6D to a group of 24x Hornets wouldn't work. But a smaller group of Hornets probably would. Someone who enjoys tinkering with the math (like Victor!) could probably investigate where the 'sweet spot' exists. (Tony is away for a week, and unavailable to provide the specifics of the code). The GE fuel/range calculation does not inspect the loadout and the range of the weapons in it. This is unlikely to change, and would probably cause more code trouble than its worth. Personally, I wouldn't want it to, because (1) I typically micro manage a strike mission, launching a group on a patrol mission (instead of attack), approach from off axis rather than directly, and (2) because I rarely launch weapons at their max permissible range.

I guess one firstly needs to realize and understand that any database is always a 'work in progress'. They are constantly being updated, fixed, improved in a myriad of ways. So even though you might choose to play only the stock scenarios, many of those scenarios are still using a database that is continually being improved. Above and beyond that, there are a select few who like to tinker with custom databases, whether to explore "what if" scenarios, other hypothetical battles, or simply because they have a different philosophy of how a database should look and work. So they build a completely different database and, hopefully, someone builds 'user scenarios' for it. And that's one of the joys of Harpoon. Swapping the databases to suit a particular scenario is not by any means difficult. Just another way to squeeze extra enjoyment out of this game. The launcher program and the efforts around it are trying to automate the process a bit better, but again that's a work in progress. But for now, we have the system that has worked for twenty odd years without too much trouble. Your choice.

It is critical to match scenarios with the databases and battlesets that they use. Each scenario uploaded to HarpGamer should have the appropriate database listed on the same page where the scenario is posted for download. The available databases are likewise posted in the Downloads section of this website, appropriately enough called Databases.

Are you running the correct version of the database? You need HCDB-110304 or later to run Antaeus.

An excerpt from the April 2004 issue of Air Forces Monthly that some folks might find interesting:

Well, why didn't the usual split off occur, JoeK? That's the question, right? It should have, but to investigate same, it is necessary to know all the facts. Among the useful facts you posted, then, was the fact that we were talking about a 25x aircraft group. Maybe its the sheer size of the group that messed up the usual prompt to split off the tanker. I don't know. But a useful fact in any event. Hence, not a digression. If it answers some of your questions, gives you a better idea of how the game works, improves your 'technique' and keeps you from posting a thread asking why does my 25x aircraft group fall into the sea, then I see the discussion (and advice) as quite worthwhile. A 24x F/A-18 group (with 1168 nm ordinary range, presumably in strike loadout configuration)? Yes, I'm suggesting that probably won't work out too well. Such a group probably begins to require tanking inside 500 nm, and is probably close to bingo fuel even after tanking is complete. Hardly useful. I am not sure you really do grasp it, but here's the benefit of the doubt. Did you check the issue tracker or the beta forums to see if similar issues with tanker split off had been previously reported? Off hand, there aren't any "game" circumstances where the tanker would stay with the group. Nah, I don't see tanking as being a difficult exercise at all. Certainly doesn't interfere with game play. If anything, I'd like to see it being more complex than the already overly simplified model that it already is.

Most Vsmall types in the database (the HCDB, at least) are of the stealth variety, UAVs or aircraft types that might spend a lot of time in the weeds staying out of sight (e.g. attack helicopters). From a quick review, there are some that probably need adjustment up to the Small size, but for the most part, they are Vsmall for good reason. Keep in mind as well that HCE does not model clutter, terrain, foliage or flocks of birds, or smoke, haze, clouds, or diving out of the sun.

Yes, the assigned loadouts, formation patrols and long distance patrols can influence how the AI will handle unscripted attacks against detected player controlled surface groups. To be frank, while it is nice to see the AI "taking the initiative", so to speak, this can sometimes play havoc with the scenario author's intent. For example, you might notice that if the AI detects a player's surface group early on in a scenario, the AI may actually change its loadouts to suit an air to surface attack. The aircraft involved might include assets that you (as the scenario author) had intended to be used in renewing formation patrols or in later scripted attacks against installations. Similarly, the early detection of a player's air group might prompt the AI to change existing air to surface loadouts to permit an intercept, with the same results. Getting the AI to act in a way that optimizes gameplay (from all aspects) is probably one of the most challenging parts of tinkering with this sim.

Its the other way around. The AI can launch strikes of its own accord against surface groups, but they must be 'scripted' to carry out strikes against installations.

This typically happens when you store your savegame file in a directory other than the directory where the scenario files are stored.

Technically, I suppose, threads about particular scenarios should be in the Scenarios sub forum. I'll move the topic there, but no biggie.

Link to other folks' experiences with the scenario.

Not really a digression, because it was starting off from that foundation that led to your disaster. Heck, it takes about 12.5 minutes for that kind of a group (25x aircraft) to even launch and form up. One item I forgot to mention earlier was your admission that you weren't really paying attention. Well, in HC, as it has been from time immemorial (to borrow a phrase), tanking requires your attention as it is a prime example of where the player is expected to exercise micro management. It has always been that way. Large and unwieldy groups only aggravate the issue. No, because then you're pushing the KA-6D at military speed.

Considering one KA-6D has a maximum of 66.7 nm worth of fuel to give to each of 24 Hornets.

Yes, I was only talking about how the code handles air to air visuals, as that was the source of the reported difficulty in gameplay.

Two observations: 1. Your aircraft groups are probably too large and unwieldy to be useful. 2. A single KA-6D has very little fuel to offer to a group of 24x recipients.

The rumour (or rather, supposition) was that Venezuela might have supplied these SA-24s. Although that would have been quite a timely transaction. My original point, btw, was not that there was some kind of a 'new' threat (MANPADS was already a threat), but that the nature of that particular threat was potentially worse.

French Rafales and Mirage 2000Ds apparently used SCALP air launched cruise missiles in a night mission against an airbase south of Benghazi.