Akula

Made a scenario with a group of planes set to 50% inclusion and got just that. Half the time they were there, half the time they werent'.

After reading Peter's wish list, I think we do need to add 'hanger space' into the mix as well. We could give the hanger space a number 'in square footage most likely' and then the aircraft would need a 'surface area' number to determine how much hanger space it would occupy. We currently have an arbitrary 'capacity' number, but as was pointed out, a Sea King takes up a lot more space than a Sea Sprite, etc. So you could have more short range helo's, or fewer big LR ones.

Let me make sure I understand what you are needing me to do. Create a scenario and give a group of planes a 5% chance to show up, save it and exit the SE. Reload the SE and the scenario, add in a ship for the planes to shoot at, then resave it. Go into the GE, load the game multiple times to make sure the planes both do and don't show up. Pretty much it?

The end is near! err...wait...according to that article it actually isn't. False alarm folks. I honestly think the whole global warming/cooling thing is really nothing but the earth's natural cycle. Every few years you'll have a warm spell that lasts a couple of decades, and then you'll have a period where its cooler for a couple of decades. But who really knows for sure.

Better than that, you can strike two birds with one stone : by allowing us to have "modified" instances of platforms and anything else from a DB, you have both this feature and the smaller DB all in one. Let me explain : instead of making a complete new DB for your battleset or scenario, you just basically add a particular instance of a platform, etc into the scenario. So that allows, for example, to have a special Typhoon to emulate Red October just in that scenario, or damaged ships, etc. This should work with a revamp of the DB scheme, where HCDB is just the common database : when you load a scenario, it first looks for instances or custom platform classes in the scenario itself, then in the battleset addendum/embedded DB, and finally, in the HCDB/common DB. That would probably work easier with a revamp of the whole ID scheme ( I mean scrapping the old one once the new one works) which wouldn't be based on sequential IDs for game engine use, but hash based keys, that would use the record itself to calculate the hash key. Standard key conflict resolution would be used for duplicates, but that's an implementation detail (hashmap). If needed I can expound on this in another writeup (Yes, my writeups will be coming soonish, I'm a bit of an obsessive perfectionist, hehehe, or I totally improvise like for this write up) Sorry for intruding like that Akula But yeah, a new DB scheme that would allow instancing of platforms and custom platforms in scenarios/battlesets without having to embed a full DB would be nice. Well you do have the knowledge of how to go about doing it, I just have the wild and crazy ideas that create more work for the team. These wishlists are open to comment AFAIK, so don't feel as if you are hijacking the thread by commenting on my ideas.

Think I have a simple solution to this one, or rather a work around. We go with the idea that use use the SAR equipment as a weapon. You're downed pilot would then have to be an enemy unit. The key to this is that you make the downed pilot, lifeboat etc would then be flagged with a speical flag as a special unit type which can only be attacked by the SAR weapon type. You flag the SAR weapon type so that it only works against the specific unit type. (sort of the way a HARM only works on radars currently). Adding to this, you could flag the SAR weapons to work on Nuetral and only nuetral targets and simply make the rescuees be neutral only.

I was thinking (and yes I got a headache from it...lol). From a scenario designers point of view, it would be extremely usefull to be able to set certain units to have damage or low ammo levels in the SE durign the design stage. This would open up a world of possibilities for designers. Keeping it simple, when you add a unit, have are given the option to edit its status. Things that you could forseeably edit would be the following: Overall damage Fires Critical Damage (rudder bridge etc) from a drop down menu Ammunition levels (done as a percentage) Anyway, would like input from others on this. Just something I know I'd have liked this morning in trying to make a mission for the USCG in a scenario...the burning frieghter would have been a nice one.

While reading through the wishlist threads, I realized something else that needs to go under the logisitics model: Aerial Refueling. In its current state, the refueling can only take place 1 time from a tanker, irreguardless of the number of planes refueled. If you refuel 1 or 100 it does not matter, cause the tanker can only refuel planes 1 time before being rendered useless. By using the point system we should be able to fix this by allocating a number of points to the tanker, which can be drawn from multiple times until the points are used up. Since we are tracking JP for the carriers and bases anyway, we might as well track it for the Tanker Planes at the same time.

I believe you can substitute 'Ghost' Grey or 'Gull' Grey for the two you are looking for. I personally prefer Humbrol Enamels in my projects, and they have a wide range of colors that you might be able to use. Dark Ghost Grey: http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=TS1741 US Dark Gull Grey: http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=TS5378 You can search through there just by going to the main page cause there are several different shades of both Ghost and Gull greys: http://www.squadron.com

For the ASW weapons, if we go with the pure point system, each item on the loadout will be assigned a point value. So those SBs will be limited by the total points available on each ship in the form of ordnance points. For example if the SB = 3 pts, and the Torpedo = 25 points and your helo carries 12 SB, and 2 Trops, then you have a total loadout cost of 86 points. If we give a DD 860 ordnance points, then it could launch 10 missions before running out of ordnance for example. Once those points are depleted the ships would have to stop off at a port or an AO to replinish the ordnance points or no longer be able to launch missions. Perhaps not a perfect system, but it does put a soft cap on the number of missions you can fly from each base/ship in the game. Also keep in mind that we are tracking AV-Gas as well...so if you try to cheat th ordnance limits by using the lowest point loadouts, you are still going to be limited by the amount of fuel the ship/base has available. And fuel loads are something you really don't have control over...sure you can use the LR loadouts to limit the strain on the ordnance pool, but then you are using more fuel and pulling more out of the AV-Gas pool.

Even though they are now decomissioned, my favorite is still the Iowa class. Peru's Almirante Grau comes in second. Still active and still sporting 6" guns. Yeah, I like ships with big guns.

I'm still voting for the simple each weapon has a point value, and every time you load it that amount of points is deducted from the pool approach myself. Like you said, no way to really know exactly how much of what is carried. And I'm sure it could be modified based on what the mission was going to be.

Brad any plans to add in the land based SM-3 that is in the current events?

Ok, here is what I usually do. I will pick a base, generic or otherwise as to 'mark' the location of the structure (For an example of this take a look at Operation Island Wind in the Scenario Editor, you will see what I mean...there is a stucture at the missile base you must destroy). And that is exactly what I do, place the stucture somewhere in the main body of that base, being sure to use a small area in formation editor...basically I change zone sizes to 4, 6, 8, 12 for that base. For defences, I make a group or multiple groups so that you must detect them yourself (Again reference Operation Island Wind via Scenario Editor). Sometimes I do add the short range defenses (IE AAA mounts) mounts to the base itself, but long range SAMs are almost always in their own groups. This gives you a true layered defense. This accomplishes 2 things. 1 it limits the number of possible target items to sift through when attacking the structure at the base (you need only get in range of the building itself, and you have only the building, short range defenses and base to contend with when you order your strike on base ABC for example), and 2 it makes it a little more challenging with the defenses needing to be taken out first to open the path. The main thing is that if you want to landmark your target, using one of the generic bases and repositioning it is an excellent way to go.

Do we need to test this workaraound, or will there be an actual fix to test in the future?

That's a good question. Personally I play with the radar range circles off so this wouldn't help me any, but it might be usefull to others.

No, it's the beginning of an external API allowing us to write "plug-ins" to complement, or maybe eventually override stock behavior. It's a toy for programmers to bring new toys to the players and designers alike Ok. So its a way to add player made mods, in simplistic terms. Gotcha. Keep in mind my programming skill is like a -1000. So some things I really don't understand.

Yeah, filling out requisitions on screen = not my idea of fun. If you make it an automated process, then the ship or ships in question take on supply points of each type until they are topped off. I'd rather see an interface that lets me just load 'missiles' for instance for a quicker turn around. The actual movement would be automated, but I choose how much and of what I reload at sea. AFAIK, DIW would only apply to really old oilers such as the ancient T-2s that are still in services in some countries. Basically WWII relics...I know the USSR was still using a few of these at the end of the cold war, but one would assume they are now decommissioned.

In very simple terms that I can understand, what exactly is the purpose of this? Is it to be used like a debugging tool that gives you info you need to track down an error?

Subic was still open when I went active, but was sent to Camp Lejuene. Many of the Sgts and SSgts of the time had completed WestPacs, and the stories they could tell, might even make a sailor blush...Buddha?... By the end of my active time Subic was gone, and now, given my retirement papers arrived this past Saturday, probably just a fading memory in the Navy/Marine Corps collective-memory. UnRep/VertRep are tremendous opportunities in a operationary sense...I can see how some tactical complications can make implementing it in HCE become problematic. However, lets still try to see what we can make of it. When I left Saudi Arabia in '94, I stopped off to visit the Philippines on the way back to San Diego and wound up staying a year. The place was a mere shadow of it's former self, although a good time could still be had. Buddha As well as some things you didn't want as well I'm sure.

1. So we cap the speed of the entire task force for a set amount of time to complete the replinishing. I don't know how long it takes but obviosly its not something that is done in 30 minutes. Of course there is also the ships that much replishish DITW. This would require the group coming to a complete stop. 2. VertRep could be accompilshed underway I assume. You just assign a set number of replinishment points per helo load and let them fly from one ship to another. 3. Torpedo contacts: Preferably you would want to find a 'safe' place to replinish anyway. Question is do we want to auto-break if the contact is made, or do we want to keep the simple speed limit on until it completes? One of those things that puts a little planning into it, instead of topping off after every engagement. You pay your money and take your chances basically. 4. Obviously by my #3, I think UnRep should be a player initiated action. It doesn't attempt it until you are comfortable doing it.

Coming back to this one. While the point system is not ideal, it is probably the easiest to implement and balance. As far as actual cargo space, if we got some input from navy guys that served aboard the replinishment ships it would certainly be beneficial.

Yes I realized that. The commander of the Hanoi Hilton was on TV news spouting lies a couple of days ago.

Having some current/former sonar operators to ask would be a big help here. I'm sure it depends on the competency of the operator, years of experience, etc.