Akula

Here's another DB request. Could we have some generic AAA batteries in the 20, 23, 30, 40, and 57mm flavors? Non-mobile is fine as fair as I am concernced. I believe these systems are still in fairly widespread use in third-world countries. I'd add them myself, but the PE is not cooperating with me ATM. More on that in another thread.

As a general rule I go with taking whatever I *think* will destroy the base and then doubling it, as I am almost always wrong with my first assumption. On the other argument, I have seen plenty of historical examples of places being attacked with what was considered sufficient ordanance at the time, yet the facility was still standing (and in some cases only slightly damaged or still fully operational) following the raid. Basically, even those that know still get it wrong a lot of the time. There is no perfect formula for determining the exact amount of ordanance you will need to demolish a target, sometimes it takes multiple strikes to achieve the objective. As far as DP being revealed, I see both sides. The more casual players will look at it and know they need to send a lot of stuff to destroy it, but won't get technical they'll just launch a bunch of planes, missiles, etc and be satisfied with their results. On the other hand, more hardcore players will probably get pen and paper and do exact calculations (happens in all PnP type games), not that this is a bad thing, its just something that tends to happen. Personally I tend to take the more casual approach (this also leads to loading planes with stuff they probably shouldn't have). And on that note, wouldn't it be wonderful if bases were like ships and had a finite amount of ordanance that could be used? IE red airbase ABa has only 24 LGBs and 34 iron bombs available etc...

I've personally always thought of mines more as an area denial weapon than an actual combat effective weapon. You are eventually going to find the mines, either by visual, sonar or....the hard way. But now that you've found them you have to waste resources and time making sure you clear them all (or go around the mine field). Historically in WWII, many submarines carried mines and would go plant them in enemy harbor channels reducing shipping movements and forcing the owning country to clear the harbor before resuming cargo operations. They were also used to prevent forces from landing on beaches. Or in the case of land mines to detour or impede movement. Guess I've already answered my own questions huh? Of course this still leaves the question of how to set up a minefield with the editor and at what depth the mines would be most realistic/effective? My assumption is periscope depth unless I am setting up an anti-sub field, but assumptions almost always prove wrong.

Since mines are a relatively new addition to the game I thought I'd ask if anyone has pointers on setting up a believable and effective water/land mine field. Mostly for water, but here are the Qs. What is the best depth to place them at? How many would make a decent field? How far apart should I place them? In my few experiments with them, I almost always end up getting them into what I consider far to large an area. This could just be my perception however.

Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but IMO I don't think any of us is really looking for 100% accuracy out of the RCS model. We want believability sure, and having stuff appear out of nowhere while not 100% accurate to the RCS is both realistic and believable. Surprise attacks do happen. And it is just a game after all, it doesn't have to be 100% accurate to be fun. Little surprises are always nice as they add another dimension to the game. Now I have to plan my strikes, plan my defense, and be sure to leave enough reserves to deal with those units that manage to completely sneak by my defenses. Its not the things you can see that hurt you, its the stuff that you don't know about that will. That happens in battle all the time. Its rather cliche`, but the truth is that the enemy only attacks when you are least prepared for it; and they never attack where you expect them too.

I don't know if that speaks to the caliber of the aircraft, the skill of the Czech pilot or the failure of the Norwegian pilot, or a combination of all three, but at the very least, it tells you to never underestimate your opponent. That's one of those mistakes you usually only get to make once. As for the RCS, I've found that the current model is much...more accurate in a way than previous Harpoon games. Not only do you read about small craft being able to make suprise attacks in the fluff, now they can actually accomplish it. I find it adds a lot to the game, both in design and playing, because now those small missile boats can actually hurt something. I've also found it highly irritating (in a fun way) when the computer manages to sneak some small planes or boats in and attack what I thought was a relatively safe location. It really hurts to have a group of light attack aircraft sneak through air defenses and bomb your base, especially when they don't show up till they are about 50 miles out and all your CAPs are engaged elsewhere.

OK, finally got around to trying this one myself. Must say nice little scenario. Spoilers follow: Firstly I decided that I would make a quick strike against the ammo dump and airfield, I did make the mistake here first of hitting the ammo dump first, which allowed the PRC strike package to launch damaging Naha (must add in that I never detected the strike package until it was on my doorstep, the RCS is working quite nicely since they slipped right past my Phantoms). Also, rather than launching my patrols via formation editor, I launched them all manually, that allowed me to know exactly what assets were available and position them exactly where I needed them. Fist order of business after launching 4 phantoms to hit the ammo dump was to gain air superiority and get my search assets into place. The flankers and J-10s proved best outwitted by either the afore mentioned fire and run tactic with F-15s or to bait and switch using both the F-15s and F-2s. The operative word here is caution, use you assets conservatively and even lead enemy fighters over your ships and let the SAMs take care of them if you like. The sole submarine I had available never fired a shot, but was great for keeping tabs on enemy surface formations. My gorup of 2 Hayabusa's sucessfully engaged the PRC missile boats south, though 1 survived to get shot off at the tanker. 1 Hayabusa lost to aircraft. The remaining one moved at max speed to engage the remaining PRC missile boat with guns...this is where you learn to be thankfull for powerful engines and a medium calibre gun. Hayabusa successfully sank the PTM and retired back to Japan at max speed. PRC submarine did get the better of my northern SAG, sinking one destroyer and slipping away unscathed, the southern group faired much better sinking a PRC Song before it could launch an attack. After re-readying my F-4Js to GP and launching a 2nd strike, this time hitting the southern airfield, I was awared the victory. I lost 4 ships to the PRCs 9, 17 aircraft to PRCs 86, 1 base damaged to 2 lost. I have to say this was more of a thinking scenario than an action scenario...too many losses and you don't succeed, and diving in too agressively is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Not so much of a scenario idea, but I'm sure that a guide/FAQ to the make-up of a SAG or CVBG would help some folks. It wouldn't have to be specific, but something that would show the general make-up of a of a task force by type and decade would be handy. Sort of like CVBG for X country consists of 1 CV, 3 DD, 4 FF, etc. Obviously minor navies would probably be omitted, but when you look at a modern Russian navy versus the navy of the Soviet Union in 1980 you're certainly going to see a big difference in the task force units present. The same most likely goes for all other major nations, because as time goes by, navies adapt to doing more with less. On a side note, a 'Scramble' type scenario that basically throws you in to a situation that the enemy is inbound and you have to try to stop it with what you have as is sounds like a real challenge. Especially if the ships and aircraft are scattered and not exactly set with optimum loadouts for the sitation.

On the subject of a WWII DB, I've been kicking the idea around some myself, and I came up with a few Qs that require some thought. Harpoon as it is simulates things nicely given an even playing field. WWII started badly for the allies and ended badly for the axis for a few reasons that I'm not sure can be simulated that easily. 1. How do you model in the training factor where Axis troops (particularly Japanese pilots) were so much better trained at the beginning of the war than their allied counter-parts, then the opposite being true late? 2. How do you simulate low morale and fatigue which accounted for some of the allied losses that could have easily been victories early in the war? 3. And how to accurately model the gun only attacks of WWII aircraft? How do you simulate that a B-17 was hard to attack from any angle? I've kicked around a few ideas, all of them involving making different models of the same ship/aircraft with the armament having different hit % chances. But there may be a better way.

Here's a bug I found yesterday. Original GIUK battleset. Scenario "The Duel" as NATO. The NATO surface fleet does fine for about 5 seconds, then starts moving backwards at -12851 kts until it moves completely off the map. No amount of speed/course adjusting fixes it. No other scenarios suffer from this phenomenon (that I have found). I will be reporting this to the dev team as well.

Actually just one today. I am trying to figure out the fuel category. This one eludes me, as I can't seem to come up with how that number is figured or what units of measure are used on it. It seems that when I check sourses against the existing DB, none of the figures I am using is matching the number in the slot for that AC. Now this could mean my sources are not entirely correct, or that I am making a calculation error or its even possible that I am totally clueless (actually a high percentage chance on the latter) . Is there an easy explanation and I have just completely missed it?

Well actually I was wondering if the AI opponant could do it (I should have been more clear on this), but I believe you answered my question all the same. That being that it is not possible for the AI to perform excessively complex actions. So the AI opponant would need the separate groups and a lot of planning to execute such a precise attack, or simply have them launch as one group. Looks like I'll be figuring a lot of airspeeds and times to target when I start building actual scenarios.

OK, to put it another way. Is it possible to have the AI perform the actions you just described or is that beyond its limits? Perhaps I am not quite as familiar with the Scenario Editor as I should be.

Out of curiosity, what is the current status of this idea? Also, would just the core DB be made available to end users to modify to their own needs?

Just adding to that as an end user, the guide is very helpful when in comes to adding in aircraft and understanding things. It was really needed and very much appreciated. The PE can be very confusing for someone with little or no database experience (in my case it was pure determination that made me keep at it) and having a more in depth guide can only help those that want to add to the game. A more in depth FAQ/Users Guide will help those with less experience.

Yes, that helps quite a bit, thank you. It is one thing to know a number to put in, it is another to understand why the modifier is the way it is. And yes, the paper rules are undoubtedly more complex than the computer version. I do play pen and paper Battletech, so I can appreciate the differences quite well.

Well, since I never played the paper rules even a quick and dirty explanation of how it works would be helpfull, if you don't mind. My experience with Harpoon started with the old Three-Sixty game back in the early 90s (man its been a long time). I just stumbled across HC2002 one day and remembering how fun the old game was, I got it. Lots of improvements, but the one thing that I liked about the old classic game is still there...its realistic without being overly complicated. You can still sit down and play out a scenario in an hour or two and have fun with it, and having fun is the most important part.

Another question about the aircraft annex. On the ATA and DATA category values. How do you know what is the correct value to use? Up to this point I've been using the values of aircraft with similar profiles as the one I am adding, but is there any way to know what is actually correct? I apologize if these has been covered and I have overlooked it. Also, if there is a guide/FAQ to the different values, could someone please point me that way as I have not found one.