pmaidhof

I would like to suggest an “enhancement” for the Range & Bearing Calculator in HCCE. Since the tool already determines range and bearing from one base/unit to another, how much more difficult would it be to allow the “player” to select the starting base/unit and then select a specific point on the map, not necessarily another base/unit. I would find this enhancement useful in strike planning when it comes to planning for aerial refueling points, and determining the need for either Standard or Long Range load outs during planning because the best route to the enemy's HVT is not always a straight line through the teeth of their defense. If this is a valid suggestion, who actually needs to hear it so that it may be considered for implementation? Thanks, Pete

Thank you to both of you for elightening me in regards to Helo-Dipped Sonars. I'm glad, in a weird way, to see that the question generated such a response.

So, to be certain, I have a SH-60F OceanHawk ASW-LR. Under sensors, I have energized both the radar and sonar. With the Group Display "active", the helo is also depicted with the yellow sonar ring around it in the Unit Display. The helo is hovering at VLow. Is the helo dipping the sonar at this point? Is pressing the "." key on the numeric keypad required as long as the ring is present? Or more appropriately is the ring present because I pressed the "."? Please forgive the infantryman in me trying to understand all things "naval"

I have been having varying results when it comes to the HCCE ASW Model. Through trial, error, and discussion, I now understanding that an aircraft such as a P-3C Orion must be selected in the main map, while also appearing in the smaller unit map, and the "." key be pressed on the numeric key pad. If all is working properly, a "box" representing the sonarbouy will appear on the unit map. I have run into a situation where the aircraft in question still has a quantity of sonarbouys, it is selected on the main map and depicted on the unit map, but when "." is pressed - nothing happens. The aircraft is at Low or VLow altitude and either cruise or loiter speed. The behavious is hard because while in my particular situation, I have 2x P-3C procecuting an Akula, which had been previously positively detected. While the aircraft are now covering the entire "yellow" area, sonarbouy deployment is haphazard at best. Could it be that there is some form of Rate of Fire which requires a certain amount of between sonarbouy employments? Also, dipping sonar seems to be hit or miss as well. In my case, the helo is hovering at Low altitude, the "." is pressed but I have no positive feedback that the gear havs been employed properly. Is it simply a trust thing provided the player has met the altitude and speed requirements? Thanks again

I can only begin appreciate the difficulties in developing a viable ground unit within the HCCE environment. I was only trying to get a better understanding of the methodology used. At first glance it seemed that an infantry division, which most if not all include tanks, was quite strong. In seeing that you have taken into account many of the items that you listed in the your example, my question is answered for the most part. Thanks again.

Brad - please see below from tonight's chat. Comments? 21:59 <TonyE> T-72 is 5DP in HCDB 22:00 <pmaidhof> And a tank division would be 50x or so? 22:02 <TonyE> looks like Brad is making infantry divisions 3000-5000DP 22:04 *Brains returns after ingesting a HeartStopper Special from Subway. 22:05 <pmaidhof> 3-5000? When the USMC had M60A1's (roughly equivelent to a T-72 IMHO) there were 58 tanks in a tank battalion, that would be about 290 per Bn 22:05 <pmaidhof> Hey brains 22:07 *Brains waves. 22:08 <Brains> Why would single vehicles throw off the scale? I mean, a tomahawk wouldn't kill more than a couple tanks even if it was lucky while still delivering enough power to kill several tanks' worth of DP... 22:08 *Brains can see the number of tanks throwing off the simulation by sheer numbers though. 22:10 <pmaidhof> Brigade would = 3-5 battalions, lets say three tank and two mech. If a tank bn = 300, I'd argue that a mech bn be 225-250, so ~1,650 per brigade, so about 5,000 per tank division. 22:11 <TonyE> sorry, kinda walked away on phone there (work ya know). 22:11 <pmaidhof> Throw off scale in a way that a tank would only occupy a tiny, tiny, minute, point on a map. Guess that happens with just about all of the installations as well. 22:12 <pmaidhof> Guess 5,000 DP would be quite the infantry division. 22:12 <Brains> Aside from collision and display, shouldn't be any real issue with location, I think. 22:12 <TonyE> wish Brad could be here to comment, perhaps a post on the forum?

Must a helicopter equipped with Dipping Sonar hover in order to effectively utilize this piece of gear? Must it be a Low Altitude or VLow? Thanks,

In scrolling through the DB, and after reading the Yugoslav AAR, my interest has piked again over HCCE's employment of ground units. I believe that I have seen indiviual tanks through brigades and divisions. Since the maps are road and other specific terrain-less, do they simply move as "land-ships" that are prohibited from moving into the sea? How about how they "fight" other ground units. Do they have an extremely short effective range, or must they be "in contact" with the opposing force? How were the unit's damage points determined? I'm sure that I'll have more questions and will post them later. Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Vice good read Brad, The one, first, question that came up when I read through this pertains to weaponeering. In HCCE, where would a player determine the damage points of a particular point target "in-game"? I do not recall ever seeing that however, it may be just like most things, I'm not looking in the correct spot. Thanks,

Remember how USCENTCOM's attention was gotten when USS Tripoli (LPH-10), acting as the flagship of the US Mine CounterMeasures Group Staff, and USS Princeton (CG59) struck technologically old mines within hours of each other back in 1991. While it is accepted as truth that the whole deployment of of Marine forces aboard amphibious shipping and the establishment of Fire Support Areas for the battleships and other fire support ships off the coast of Kuwait was a feint to keep Iraqi forces pinned there while XVIII, VII Corps did the deep left hook, the effectiveness of these early 1900's technology weapons against a ship that was actively searching for mines and using technolgy designed for that purpose is startling. See the photo on this site of the damage inflicted on Tripoli. Ref: Geocities Pentagon GulfLink site Whether searching for mines at land or at sea, the searcher always strives to find the mines on his terms. Proceeding also had an article or two of the counter mine efforts in the northern Persian Gulf immediately following Operation Iraqi Freedom I. IMHO, a mine actually sinking/damaging a ship is just a bene as how the knowledge of mines being in an area effects the conduct of an opposing naval commander is the desired effect. S/F Pete

Brad, The first perhaps would be power projection. It could include planning and conducting strikes (to include Time On Target) to eliminate SAM threats. Planning and conducting in-air refueling. Weaponeering. Use of Electronic Warfare Assets. A second could be about the lesser known facets of HCCE. for example, what exactly do the "keyhole" satellite reports represent and does the player have any influence over them? How to effectively utilize submarine (diesel-electric and SSN) and ASW, ((sonar bouey(sp) assets, helicopter-borne sonar dipping, ASW torpedoes, etc) in HCCE. How about an introduction to non-US technology. A package of A-6E and F/A-18E, led by an EA-6B can make pretty quick work of an air defense system, but how about the Indian Navy, PLAN, or even still the Russians? How about a piece that outlines basic use of the scenario editor to include the capabilities of the new land units, and how they interact with each other and the more traditional HC units. i'm sure this is just a start. I'm willing to participate to the extent that it would be benficial. Thanks for the interest. Pete

On Ed Ladner's web page (I think) there are old links to "discussion" articles on HC weapons characteristics, tactics, theory, etc. I think that it would be a great boast to HCCE to see more like them, relevent and updated, like how to set victory conditions, how to set up the most basic scenario, how to plan a coordinated strike, how to take down a SA-10 battery, how to take out a CVBG, etc. What do you think you old salts? Thanks, Pete

Do multiple EA-6B's, or their equivelent, in a group have a significantly higher jamming power or is simply one EA-6B going to provide the most jamming effect for a stike group(s)? Thanks as always, Pete

One of the reaons that I ask is that I am just putzing around with in the scenario editor of 2005.b09b. I have established four SA-6b batteries along the coast which are defending a generic building some distance behind the "line". Across the Persian Gulf, I have established a small detachment of US aircraft at an airbase in the UAE. I wrote generic orders in the "orderswrite" program and now when I attempt to run it I get an error which causes the game to shut down. I am sure that I am the culprit because I did not establish victory conditions or some other reason. So, is there an idiots guide to scenario editing somewhere? Thanks

Would any of you more-prolific HC scenario designers care to share some of your tricks of the trade in creating your scenarios? Not so much story line, but actually sitting down and using the editor to tie everything together. Thanks

Nows not time for a pity party Herman - I read them...with interest!

Per Dave Schueler over on CSW: VLow/NOE Radar Detection Answer Here is the response I got about the radar detection question. The answer is based on the Smart Radar article in The Naval SITREP. Situation: An A-4 (Small Signature) approaching from VLow with land (Pebble Island) behind it. There is no rain, and the scenario's SS 3 will not affect the radar return. Type 965 Radar range from Annex J1: 174/110/82/35/10. 10% of 174 is 17.4. The rule is the smaller of 10% of max range or the range based on the contact's signature. This is because the aircraft has entered the lower edge of the radar's beam. It's not attenuated by distance, so the detection threshold will be very sharp. The problem is usually not signal strength, but if the A-4 had a Stealthy signature, it still would not be detected until it reached 10 nm. The 17.4 nm is halved because of the return from the land mass behind it (4.2.5.2), so the distance is reduced to 8.7 nm. The rule reads "a surface radar," which could be misread as "surface search" but really means a radar transmitting from the surface of the water. Line of sight is a little tricky, since the A-4 is flying into the lower edge of an upward-pointing beam, but if the beam can see the A-4, then it has to see the land behind it as well. This clarification will appear in the next SITREP. Dave

The problem, or more appropriately my problem, is that there are only a limited number of platforms when I solo scenarios in the H4 paper rules, especially since I am just getting my hands around much of the rule set. That said, I'll see what I can do in time.

Very interesting reading Herman as in my quest to become proficient in H4.1, I have been gaming many of the new wave of PRC naval platforms like the Type 052B/C DD's and Type 054 FF. Possible scenarios involving the power-players, as well as the more regional powers, in the Western Pacific/Indian Ocean region are almost boundless.

A correct understanding of Air Intercept Radars with inherent Surface Search capabilities under the Smarter (and Simpler) Radar rules found on the Admiralty Trilogy yahoo group. So in summary, for the UK Blue Fox, I can utilize, separately, the Air Intercept and Surface Search capabilities per the High Tide Data Annex as the Air Intercept data is identical for the Blue Fox in both the "Smarter Radar" and High Tide while the Surface Search data is apparently missing from "Smarter Radar".

A correct understanding of Fire Control Directors with Cmd guided SAM's from the yahoo admiralty trilogy group. > HHQ-7 has Type 345 Castor II Fire Control Radar. After > unsuccessfully reviewing Smarter Radar, and High Tide, I found The > Castor II listed in the H4.1 Annex K - Fire Control Radars where it > was expressed to be an FCR for the Compact 76mm/62. As with all > FCR's listed in Annex K, no ranges were given. > > As the HHQ-7 has Command Guidance, it can be controlled by the Type > 345 Castor II provided that the missile remains in the Radar Line Of > Sight of the firing platform from launch to impact.

**some errors made, nothing too drastic - see Admiralty Trilogy yahoo group ** Direct competition over oil has brought India and China to the brink of war. Over the shipping lanes through the Andaman Sea, a Tu-142 Bear-F Maritime Patrol Aircraft detects a PRC Type 054 Jiankai Class FF escorting a generic oil tanker heading SSE to The People's Republic. On that report, the White Tigers of Indian Naval Air Squadron 300 operating notionally out of Car Nicobar AFS, sortie a section of Sea Harrier FRS.51's armed with 2x Sea Eagle missiles each. Flying in the Low Altitude Band the Sea Harriers, while detected well out, launch 2x Sea Eagles at a range of 19nm. The Type 054's main AAW weapon is the HHQ-7 with a effective range of 5.5nm has after calculating the SAM's 3.0 ATA versus the 0.5 of the ASM + 1 for sea skimming, and +1 for the Sea Easgles Small RCS, a 35% Ph. The Type 054 launches two HHQ-7 so that they will intercept the vampires at 5.5nm, shooting down one. Next up in the ship's defence is the 100mm/56 which starts with a Far 15% Ph before modifiers of x.5 (not sea skimmer capable) and x.85 (- 15% vs small RCS Target) misses at both the far and near ranges of 4.5nm and 2.25nm respectively. The final ring of the Type 054's defense is its AK-630 with far/near ranges of 1.8nm and 0.9nm. Both bursts miss and a the solitary Sea Eagle slams into the frigate with 46 damage points. The Type 054's 113 points are reduced to 67. Damage Points incurred/remaining = .69 rounded down to .60. A d6 is rolled resulting in a "4". The "4" is cross referenced which resulted in 5 critical hits. Five D10's are then rolled resulting in Critical Hits to two weapon mounts, the rudder, bridge/CIC, and caused flooding. Results of the attack leave the tanker open to attack by the second Sea Harrier, and the Type 054 severely damaged. While a new platform, the Type 054 does not appear to optimized for AAW or operating outside of the umbrella of more capable anti-air assets, and would be unlikely to have been tasked with a mission such as what has been depicted. I cannot state that the above calculations are correct as I am still learning H4. If you see any glaring errors, please comment. Thanks, Pete

Yeah, I thought that too. I was completing a Ship reference form for the relatively new PRC Type 054 FF and noticed it had two former soviet/reverse engineered radar and two western radar for the same function. The western ones do lend themselves to "blending in", but in general, if a ship has one radiating, it would most likely have all? Thanks, Pete

When a ship has more than one radar for the same purpose, say Air Search, if a ship CO chose to utilize one of them, under what circumstances would he not just utilize all of them? I would assume that redundancy is the key, so if one it lit, they all might as well be. Thanks, Pete

Ran through the Intro to H4.1 AAW last night. US wiped up the floor with the Russians 4:0. Each of 4x F/A-18C launched 1x AIM-120's at 40nm. A second salvo of 4x AIM-120 was launched at 33nm before the 4x Russian MiG-29A could respond with their long range threat, R-27R, letting loose with 4x AA-10 Alamo's. AIM-120 4th Gen 7.0 ATA vs MiG-29A 5.0 ATA +1 for 2nd Gen J&D. 7-6=1.0 or =<40%. This is when the dice gods stepped in and the US rolls 16, 19, 84, 19 - three hits. Feeling bad for the opponent, I roll for the 4x Alamo's before the rightful second wave of AIM-120's. R-27R 3rd Gen 5.5 ATA vs F/A-18C 4.5 ATA and 3rd Gen J&D. 5.5-6.5= -1.0 or =<20%. MiG rolls 73, 59, 46, 75. Nothing! Solo MiG-29A downed by the second wave of AIM-120's I realize die rolls came into play here but this "intro" scenario seemed so one-sided. I know that I have the option to jazz up the MiG's armament. however, I think I will try it with much less capable A/C say from the Sea of Dragons Annex. Thinking like an F-5 freedom Fighter vs. J-8 II Finback Pete