CV32

From DefenseNews

The HCDB (official), HCDA and HCCW databases have all been updated now with the torpedo acquisition range adjustment. I'd be grateful for your reports of how it impacts on game play. Keep in mind that your tactics should remain the same, i.e. confirm your target's position and get as close as possible before launch.

A new version of the official Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) Database (HCDB-110225) is now available. Get the new DB in the Downloads section. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Installations: Airfield secret - Intl Submarines: Seawolf (575) SSN - USA Skate SSN - USA Note: Torpedo 'acquisition' ranges artificially increased by 1,000 yd above real life values, excepting mines and straight runners. Enjoy.

A new version of the HCDA database, the Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) 'Americas' Database (HCDA-110225), is now available. It is available in the Downloads section of this website. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Installations: Airfield (secret) - Intl Submarines: Seawolf (575) SSN - USA Skate SSN - USA Note: Torpedo 'acquisition' ranges artificially increased by 1,000 yd above real life values, excepting mines and straight runners. Enjoy!

Those savegames are still available for download here if folks want to take em for a spin.

I'm no computer expert but I would tend to think that if some sort of memory leak was affecting the die rolls, it would be happening randomly, i.e. just as often against the AI as it would in favor of the AI. Is your PC a Cyberdyne Systems model by any chance? <g> Seriously, though, wouldn't you expect it to screw with the numbers generally and not in favor of one side or another?

Play in whatever fashion makes you happy.

I am a little surprised, given the rumours of late that Boeing was sort of resigned to losing the competition. Perhaps they really squeezed the numbers (to their detriment, perhaps?) in that last minute overhaul of their bid? In any event, a protest from EADS is almost inevitable. So, forgive me if I wait a little longer for the smoke to clear before putting the KC-46A into the databases.

I don't intend to dive back into that exercise in frustration, but you weren't the only one throwing up your hands, believe me. Neither can we, at least not from here. Hard, tangible evidence - something that can form the foundation of a genuine 'bug' - is what we need to discover, firstly, whether something is really wrong, and then, what can be done about it. Without something like that, like I said earlier, we're floundering around in generalities, hunches, impressions and perceptions, and that isn't going to get us anywhere. To my knowledge, Tony has never been able to find any evidence of that, and being hands on with the code, he would be in the know. Its not really technological differences, but rather database differences. The hard coded database uses wholly different values in many cases than what you will see in elsewhere. A Sky Flash with a PH of 45 in the old DB can be expected to behave differently than the same missile with a PH of 55 in the new DB. So you see this pattern across all databases, all battlesets and all scenarios, huh? Can anyone else attest to this? Please speak up. This is your invitation.

From RIA Novosti Russia to buy 1,000 helicopters by 2020 13:22 24/02/2011 Russia's Defense Ministry announced plans on Thursday to buy 100 ships, over 600 aircraft and 1,000 helicopters under a 2011-2020 arms procurement program. Russia will buy 10 new generation S-500 air defense systems, which will replace the S-400 systems currently entering service with the Russian forces, said First Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin, who is in charge of arms procurement. Russia plans to purchase more than 100 helicopters this year, including Mi-26 Halo heavy transport helicopters, Mi-28 Night Hunter and Ka-52 Alligator attack helicopters. Russia's Defense Ministry submitted the 19 trillion ruble ($651 billion) arms procurement spending plan for 2011-2020 to the government in December. Some 80% of the funds will be spent on buying weapons and 10% will be spent on scientific research. The official confirmed earlier reports that Russia will buy two Mistral assault ships from France, while two more of the ships will be built under license in Russia. Russia is planning to build eight strategic nuclear submarines by 2020 and equip them with Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which are expected to be put into service this year. Russia also plans to develop new heavy ballistic missiles to replace Soviet-era SS-18 Satan and SS-20 Saber ICBMs, Popovkin said. [emphasis mine] [CV32: If they still have SS-20's kicking around, someone owes someone else a very big explanation. ]

I am hoping that Crazedlog will tell us the battleset and scenario, because I have a sneaking suspicion that it was a pre EC2003 battleset and thus using the non-editable, hard coded database. Both Sky Flash and Tornado F3 suck royally in there, and the latter has a pitiful ATA/DATA compared to any version of the Flanker. I am inviting anyone who can attest to similar experiences of consistently getting murdered by the AI, please speak up and give details details details. SHUK, do you get demolished every time you play HCE?

Nope, the player and the computer use the very same weapons pulled out of the database. So the performance values are the same on both sides, with no modifier to boost the AI performance at all. I play a LOT of HCE (as you might imagine) and I just don't have these issues. Yes, sometimes the die roll is really poor and my missiles suck. Sometimes I can't seem to score anything but kills. The odds do balance out, imho, just like real life if you spend any time looking at random probabilities. I could never get anywhere trying to get JoeK to help us nail down his particular issues, so I am hoping that if there are other folks out there who never win their HCE battles, you can be very specific so that we can at least make an attempt to help. Otherwise we're stuck mucking about in generalities. No tweaks in favour of one side or another here, either.

At least you seem to have a sense of humour about it. What battleset and scenario were you playing? (If you dig around the forums you will find that a few folks do complain of terrible performance against the computer AI (for lack of a better term), while others will give accounts of wiping the floor with the computer AI, and everything in between.)

A new RAND report: Shaking the Heavens and Splitting the Earth: Chinese Air Force Employment Concepts in the 21st Century Download the PDF file here

I'm no jet engine mechanic, but I would say yes, but thanks to auxiliary power unit (APUs) and modern technology, we're talking only a few minutes. I'd guess much of the 'warm up' time is dedicated to just making sure everything is running as it should. With four catapults on a Nimitz, I think the rule of thumb is two aircraft every 37 seconds in daytime and one per minute at night. This is not the same as overall sortie rate, however.

A new version of the Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) 'Cold War' Database (HCCW-110222) is now available. Get it in the Downloads section of the HarpGamer website. New additions include: Installations: Airfield (secret) - Intl Ships: Altay (160) AO - USSR Amga (1791) AE - USSR Amguema (550) AK - USSR Amur (304) AR - USSR Andizhan (1850) AE - USSR Andizhan mod (1850) AE - USSR Baskunchak (1545) AO - USSR Chilikin (1559V/1) AO - USSR Chilikin (1559V/2) AO - USSR Dauriya (596P) AK - USSR Don (310/1) AS - USSR Don (310/2) AS - USSR Don (310/3) AS - USSR Dnepr (734) AS - USSR Dubna AO - USSR Ivan Susanin (97P) AGB - USSR Kazbek (563) AO - USSR Khobi (437M) AO - USSR Lama (323A) AE - USSR Lama (323B) AE - USSR Leninskiy Komsomol AK - USSR Mayak (502P) AGI - USSR Mayak (502R) AFS - USSR Moma (861M) AGI - USSR MP-6 (572) AE - USSR MP-6 (572) AK - USSR Muna (1823) AE - USSR Natya I (266M) MCM - USSR Nepa (530) ASR - USSR Nikolay Zubov (850) AGI - USSR Okean (1962) AGI - USSR Okean (1974) AGI - USSR Olekhma AO - USSR Oskol (300) AR - USSR Oskol II (301T) AR - USSR Oskol III (303) AR - USSR Pevek AO - USSR Primorye (394B) AGI - USSR Prut (527M) ASR - USSR Purga (52) - USSR Sofiya (1552) AO - USSR T-43 (254) MCM - USSR T-43 (254K) PG - USSR T-43 (254V) AGR - USSR T-58 (264A) MCM - USSR T-58 (264GR) PG - USSR T-58 (264V) AGR - USSR Telnovsk (650) AK - USSR Uda (577) AO - USSR Ugra (1886) AS - USSR Valdai (T-58/532A) ASR - USSR Yevgenya (1258) MCM - USSR Yurka (266) MCM - USSR Submarines: Mine AMD-1-500 - USSR Mine AMD-1-1000 - USSR Mine AMD-2-500 - USSR Mine AMD-2-500M - USSR Mine AMD-4-500M - USSR Mine AMD-2-1000 - USSR Mine A Mk 12 - UK Mine APM - USSR Mine ATM (PTM-1) - USSR Mine A Type S - UK Mine Cluster Bay - USSR Mine Cluster Gulf - USSR Mine GM - USSR Mine KRAB - USSR Mine KRM - USSR Mine Lira - USSR Mine Mk6 - USA Mine Mk36 DST - USA Mine Mk40 DST - USA Mine Mk41 DST - USA Mine Mk49 Mod1 - USA Mine Mk52 Mod4 - USA Mine Mk55 Mod4 - USA Mine Mk56 - USA Mine Mk57 - USA Mine Mk V - UK Mine Mk XVII - UK Mine MR-80/A - Italy Note: Torpedo 'acquisition' ranges artificially increased by 1,000 yd above real life values, excepting mines and straight runners. Enjoy.

Heh, we've had this discussion before. Non-SSC (sea skimmer capable) missiles get a penalty of 4.0 added to the target's ATA. See rule 6.4.1.6. There is no bonus for SSC weaps, afaik. They simply get to employ their full capability against a sea skimming target.

Appears confirmed by more, better pics available here.

I'd have to say yes to all sensors, including ECM, RWR. I am not sure what ACM means here? context? 200 kiloton nuclear warhead option. SSC=sea skimmer capable, i.e. the missile can shoot down sea skimmers. Mk 13 GMLS guided missile launcher system) (aka the Perry's single rail missile launcher up front) with a 40 round magazine and controlled by a single Mk 92 fire control director.

Good eye, Enrique. Looks like the Matra 155 to me, and fortunately, still full. More pics here.

Let's try and focus the discussion now on what remains undecided, which we will need to nail down before we proceed to implement any changes. 1. Repair algorithm Things to consider: * time to repair minor, medium or serious damage * size of installation * number and size of runways (often related to the size of the installation) * whether repair capability is influenced by installation size, number and size of runways, and if so, how? 2. Chance of aircraft loss during takeoff/landing from damaged runway * whether aircraft risk loss (crashing) on takeoff from or landing to a damaged runway * what should be the chance of loss be? Tony and I are both leaning toward a small chance, maybe 2%? * should the risk (percentage chance of loss) rise as the damage to the runway is increased? this is a possibility for future implementation if we choose a single risk value (e.g. 2%) for the interim This, of course, assumes that the aircraft is capable of taking off from or landing upon the damaged runway, i.e. we will prevent takeoff/landing from runways too short to permit operation of the aircraft.

When the database for Harpoon Classic was first cracked open, the torpedo acquisition ranges were already artificially higher, actually considerably higher than I am now proposing to adjust them. It was too much in the other direction; for example, a Type 65 could track you from dozens of miles away. The hit probability of the torpedo (its PH field) only comes into play in the 'endgame', so adjusting the acquisition range will only improve the torpedo's probability of finding and chasing a target, not whether it will result in a hit. A good question for Tony if he has an opportunity to look at the code. I expect it works much the way as missiles when it comes to targets within the seeker cone. My approach is going to be conservative (adding only a 1,000 yd (0.5 nm) fudge) because I still want to be able to simulate the disparity between torpedo generations.

We can't currently account for the actual loaded or unloaded weight of an aircraft, so this approach is not presently feasible. I expect the easier, more likely approach will be an 'all or nothing' approach when it comes to whether a damaged runway imposes a risk of aircraft loss or the aborted takeoff idea.

Not sure what to take from all that, but I'm guessing you think it might be a good idea to fudge the seeker acquisition ranges? No significance.

As many of you know, HCE has some difficulty with the geometries of short range engagements (witness the ATA gunnery issues). Aggravating this limitation is the fact that the seeker acquisition range of many torpedoes is 1,000 yds (roughly 0.5 nm) or less. This can make effective engagement of submarines, even submarines that you have precisely located, a 'challenging' exercise to say the least. Currently the seeker acquisition ranges reflect the actual best guesstimate of their real life effective range (according to H4 specs). I am currently considering, however, introducing an artificial boost to the acquisition range to improve torpedo performance and alleviate the aforementioned problem. Perhaps something like a floor value of 1,000 yd plus the real life range? Open to thoughts and suggestions.