Akula

The main issues I see here are verifying copyright permissions or the public domain status of the pictures. One could always contact the copyright holder to inquire of permission.

Another anecdote from Iron Lady.

 

Dropped a Mk 46 Mod 5 on a Victor III, this time from 2 nm away as a test engagement. Torpedo tracked straight and true all the way, with the Vic III running away at 30 knots.

 

Missed in the endgame.

 

Dropped the next time right on top of that Vic III - zero range. Clean kill.

Sounds like having a good fix and dropping as near to the target as possible is paramount to success in this case.

I've once raised the problem of anti-runway ops in HCE http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m...y=

Currently use of dedicated anti-runway weapons doesn't have much appeal to the player, because planes can still take off from a base with reduced runway. So why bother? More, anti-runway weapons are scarce in HCDB. Changing this problem along the lines you mentioned below, will give the player much more tactical possibilites, which equals more fun!

About the code itself - would it be possible to give certain weapons (heaviest guided bombs) something like dual capabilities - I mean when You launch those 2000 lb JDAMs against an airbase You would get an option to use them in antirunway "mode" or in general purpose "mode"?

Generally reducing the runway itself should be much made easier and faster then destroying the entire airbase. If not, why bother with going after the runway?

 

Brady mentioned 1999's NATO air ops against Yugoslavia - look at the picture of Obvra airbase (one B2 and 6 JDAMs http://tinyurl.com/6cwzy5q

Many interesting pictures http://www.bf2brasil.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35717 - the article looks even more interesting, but it's in portuguese.

Honestly, any large ordnance like that is going to leave a large crater in the runway if it hits it. One would think that for even a simple WWII style iron bomb attack you would have a good chance of damaging the runways.

Is this a function of their poor equipment (similar to RL) or is there something I am missing? I am using 250lb floating mines as the targets. I think the range for the minehunting loadout is 0.7, is it possible the mine attack range is greater then that and I will never be able to get close enough? Thanks.

 

Its probably a function of the limitations in the sea mines and minesweeping models, more than anything. The range of the sea mine you're using is 0.5 nm, while the range of the minesweeping gear is 1.0 nm. Without a very good sonar set, however, it is extremely difficult and risky work.

 

I am careful about increasing the effectiveness of the minesweeping gear because it would make them very good at killing submarines (since the mines are modeled essentially as non-mobile submarines).

 

Likewise, I am careful about decreasing the effectiveness of the mines because we cannot hope to simulate the number and density of actual minefields. Hence, for every mine you destroy in HCE you've probably cleared a much larger field in RL.

 

I am, however, always open to suggestions about potentially improving the model.

Some thoughts on this:

What about changing the DP for the mines to '1' and any anti-mine weapons similarly have their damage limited to 1. In this way, they would be fine for hunting 'mines' but be quite ineffectual versus regular submarines. Unless of course this is already the way it is done, I honestly have not gone poking through the DB lately so my memory is rather vague.

Excellent summary, Tony. Further comments below:

 

The code examination did not reveal whether non-antirunway weapons can reduce the size of a runway. First glance suggests they cannot. This would be a great theory for someone to test in the game.

 

Agreed. I might take a stab at this (and the above) over the weekend if someone does not beat me to it.

You guys got me here (again), how do you 'see' runway damage in current GE??

 

Early consensus is to let planes land at damaged runways, anyone against the idea raise your voice.

 

I am of the mindset is that they should be permitted to land even if they cannot then take off again from the same damaged runway, but within reason. Very large aircraft landing at a runway damaged to STOL level would seem nonsensical, but I could buy, for example, the same aircraft being able to land at a Large or perhaps even Small runway.

I think the degree of compromise acceptable depends on how hard it is to code the AI a fair go at redirecting turned around 'planes. If this is hard then I'd agree with an outright allowance to land anything that could have landed before the damage. If the 'plane in question needs a vlarge 'strip but the 'strip is down to STOL then at least there is a fair delay before it can takeoff, that is still way better than at present.

 

 

do we want to reduce the quantity of takeoffs per 30 seconds for partially reduced runways (ex. two runways at installation, 1 cut so in reality only 1 VLarge plane could take off per 30 seconds instead of the normal 2)? I vote no since it makes my life tougher.

 

I like where the suggestion is heading, but I am willing to accept no change in the current arrangement. In reality, I guess it would really just mean more crowded hardstands and taxiways, with resulting stress on the ATC, sortie rate and damage resistance.

I agree, sounds good but too hard.

 

Probability of losing aircraft doing takeoff/landing at damaged runways? I like the idea, we need rules developed.

 

I am okay with this approach as long as the risk isn't too high. Presumably ground controllers and pilots would choose to divert elsewhere rather than land at unacceptably high risk (unless of course there were no fields to which to divert).

I agree with Brad but the decision whether to divert or give it a go would be fine for the player but could this be done fairly for AI, from previous comments I assume not.

How about something like: if damaged runway is 'shorter' than 'plane's requirement by # (where # is from the HCE runway size numbers) then probability of loss is 2% times # ? EG a vlarge 'plane landing on a damaged to large runway is 2% probable of crash, on a damaged to small runway is 4% (if I've got the runway sizes correct).

My thought is there is a mix of experience in the pilots so some will breeze it in while others are at their limit so some will crash but not many.

 

 

Don

The runway requirements for the aircraft are for combat loaded aircraft IIRC. One that is loaded with only enough fuel to get from base A to base B might not require as long a runway. Would a ferry or 'escape' loadout allow for a safer take-off from a damage shortened runway?

Joining the conversation late.

1. CV32 brings up a very good point with the fast turn around time of strike aircraft. This is the best case scenario assuming no damage or operational failures. 1 hour to refuel and reload. Perhaps a different reloading time for strike aircraft based on the loadout types? A2A loadouts would seem the most critical/fastest to perform, while loading out big bomb loads would take considerably longer.

2. Runway repairs should probably be based on a time interval in scale with strike relaoding.

What if, A2A loadouts keep their current 1 hour turn around time, while strike loadouts take longer (4 hours for example)?

Has no one tested these at all yet? If not, I can get to it this weekend (today is out, football).

... and if you've got Win 7 Pro or Ultimate, you can download a free XP virtual machine for it from MS that will run the Scenario editor just fine.

 

Yes, I may have to go that route if the Harpoon Ultimate SE is still going to be 16-bit. I just hate to spend $100 (or however much it costs to upgrade Home Premium to Professional) to be able to run ONE program. (I mean, for that kind of money, I can get a used laptop on e-bay with XP on it and have a laptop.) Grrr!

I use an old XP machine for SE, and simply use a flash drive (1GB USB) to transfer from one machine to the other...fairly easy way of doing it, and quicker than email.

I have the same problem (I think). I am running window 7 home edition and have tried the compatibility fixes but nothing resolves the issue. Under the orders button the

Attack

Depth and Speed

Course change

Formation boxes are cut off and I can not play the game.

I had a Win xp system and it worked fine.

Any ideas?

Thanks

Kevin

 

Stop the presses! I down loaded the clear registry file and it seems to be working now

Ok, just DL'ed the demo on my work computer and so far I've had no issues, Windows 7, did not set any compatability modes.. It started right up with no problems and has been playing just fine. So for future issues, it does indeed seem that it was just an isolated registry issue and that setting compatability modes is not necessary.

My personal preference is for option #2. While it would be good to be able to see what is coming for the AI's perspective from launch, it also gives away the patrol points long before the AI has a chance to make any use of information it could gain from the patrol point.

If every one is like me, the moment they see a hit on a recon/aew bird, they send something out to intercept it. The longer the player can be kept in the dark about AI recon/aew assets, the better IMO.

The bad thing about this is that when you want to create a minefield, you have to set it up as separate groups as well or you have the same problem. And having all those extra groups can get resource intensive, ideally it would be better if you could use groups.

Yes, I know I have been all but AWOL for a while, but we finally managed to fill all open positions at work. That means a great reduction in overtime, that is both good and bad...hated the extra hours, loved the money. . So the good news is that I can now start devoting time to HCE again. Going to get the game up and going with the latest updates this afternoon, and probably just set up a second computer with XP for the editor (take the easy way out).

Should be seeing everyone in chat once again too.

Good to know work is resuming. I've decided for now to set up my old computer which already has HCE installed and just use a flash drive to move files between the Win 7 and Win XP machine for now. Since the SE is the only thing that doesn't work under Win 7, that seems the simplest solution to the problem.

Mine is Win 7 Premium Home Edition. I might have to keep an older computer going to use the scenario editor then, which shouldn't be a problem, I already have a second set up that I use for older stuff as it is.

 

I just keep an XP VM around to run Harpoon and a couple other things on. My main machine is a quad-core, 6 GB, nice vid card, but I don't need to run Windows natively for anything, so I don't.

I have no idea how to even set up an XP virtual machine though. Someone will have to explain it step by step for me to even accomplish that.

Mine is Win 7 Premium Home Edition. I might have to keep an older computer going to use the scenario editor then, which shouldn't be a problem, I already have a second set up that I use for older stuff as it is.

OK, got a new computer with windows 7. Will I need to do anything to HCE other than re-install it on the new box, or are there any compatibility problems with HCE and windows 7. My experience with 64 bit systems is nil, so keep that in mind.

If you are curious...

Intel i7 Core 930

12 GB DDR 1600 RAM

GeForce GTS 250 Video

1 TB HD

I bought a full out gaming rig. It's working great so far. I dont' forsee having to upgrade for a while, and even if I do, the RAM is expandable up to 24 GB.

I LOATHED Windows Vista...Windows 7 I'm finding myself content enough with however, pleasant surprise TBH.

Do people really think that when torpedo explodes it just completely ceases to exist? Of course there would be chunks of shrapnel of which some would be large enough to recover. Torpex residue would be a clue too, as the explosive always leaves some type of evidence...simple forensics.

The more you hear about this, the worse it gets. If I lived in Seoul right now I would seriously consider moving south in a hurry.

What the world doesn't want to admit, but obviously the DPRK is keenly aware of is that the Korean Conflict (it was a war, btw) still isn't resolved. DPRK apparantly has no problem with shooting, so what's the world going to do about it? Is the UN going to be just as useless in this as it has been all along? I doubt sanctions will have any effect at all.

If I put up an E-3 Sentry in the Formation Editor, does it automatically turn on its sensors and fly at the right height? Or, should it be positioned manually? What about the Prowler and the Raven? What about if I put any of them in groups with other planes?

 

It will energize its radar and perform a High altitude airborne early warning (AEW) patrol if you set the associated Installation radars to active. Alternatively, you can click on the E-3 Sentry in the Unit Map window and activate its radar.

 

 

Additionally, if you launch it on a 'Patrol' mission (where you pick a point on the map for it to go to and patrol) it will light up its sensors automatically when it reaches the patrol point.

Just FYI Tony, I won't be able to make it, I teach classes Wednesday nights from 6 PM to 10 PM central. I'll try to get a log from you afterwards.

Well, when you look at my scenario 'Operation Island Wind' there really was only 1 objective. In that case, it only made sense to spell it out to the letter 'go blow up base A'.

But in a more complex scenario...say a Taiwan under attack by China for example my orders might read: 'We must hold out with at least 50% of our bases surviving until reinforcement arrives in 72 hours.' That is directly stating the objective.

On the other hand, one could be even more ambiguous by saying 'It is imperative that our forces remain largely intact until reinforcements from the US start arriving.'

Either way gets the message across...force preservation is a key to victory. But in method 2, the player does not have to know that a big 'on station' box is surrounding Bases A, B and C saying at least 50% must be active for 72 huors.

The main thing is to be sure that in the orders, the player can get the general idea of what he needs to do to win.

Now I refer to this as an example only, often I read a post where people have had problems getting any victory even though they have destroyed the whole opponent's forces.

People with more experience than me comment please.

Yes, I'm often in the same situation. Only after the game play I open the scenario file and read the victory conditions (for sake of elude spoilers).

And yes, many times the victory conditions are difficult, unimaginable or impossible to fill, but you have whipped out all the oposition forces in that same scenario

Sometimes are dubtious victory conditions or clearly unthinkable (as to imagine a determinated map rectangle where you must positionate some indetermined forces, and the map rectangle not is neither clearly determinated), but other times obscure victory conditions are the result of the scenario designer pretending to create a fog of war situation (in the real world many times you don't known what you must do to win, many times the situation it's not as clear as you sink the enemy CV, you win ), or to represent the incertitudes of the war outcome, or to represent a determinated political element (as if a merchant ship obtain a damage point, that's a representation of the merchant ship boarded/capturated by the pirate forces ), but I think in those situations, the scenario designer must write clearly those obscure victory conditions, or the scenario would be frustrating and unplayable.

Part of the problem there is that the scenario designer does not make clear what your objectives actually are. I really put forth effort to make sure you understand what you must do to win both the minimum and total conditions.

If this is the case, it is an issue and should probably be written up in the issue tracker. This does seem like one that is simple enough to fix, just add in a minimum victory condition that is the same as the total conditions already there. At which point you get both conditions triggered on completion.

I like your solution, on looking in more detail at the scenario in question, the other of the two total victory conditions (Kill four bases) has one of the minimum victory conditions damage four bases - so that's why it always works.

I kind of wonder maybe it is correct to 'insist' on meeting the minimum before being awarded the total, I think you, Akula, pointed out your terminology 'tactical' and strategic' victories and we should always I think be going for the tactical as a minimum result, so to speak.??

Don

That is generally the way I look at it.

Right then. The Conservatives are the largest party in a hung parliament, Labour did better than the polls suggested and the Lib Dems failed to translate an increase in support into seats.

 

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg wants the Conservatives to form a government that works "in the national interest", which basically is code for "you've got first go at trying to woo us, but we might not reach an agreement". You've got a right-wing Eurosceptic party that wants to limit immigrant numbers and opposes electoral reform trying to reach a deal with a pro-PR party that favours the Euro and an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

 

Seriously, I don't see this lasting.

The nice thing about your system is with a hung parliment, the various political parties actually have to work together, instead of one party getting a full majority and running amok like what happens here in the US.

Democratic governments only work when there is parity and compromise. Full majorities are very corrupt. Like the saying goes: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If this is the case, it is an issue and should probably be written up in the issue tracker. This does seem like one that is simple enough to fix, just add in a minimum victory condition that is the same as the total conditions already there. At which point you get both conditions triggered on completion.