pboiler

Additions: 20. -ability to have different capabilities of ESM, not just a flag to either have it or not. 21. -different probability of detect of platforms, radars, etc. by ESM.

So the "test" was very close to what would be predicted. Very interesting to see how the results are calculated. That helps in deciding how many AAM's to launch at different types of aircraft. How is the hit chance determined for antiship missiles?

here is the info on the aircraft/loadouts. AIRCRAFT - DATA - ECM Rafale - 30 - Spectra ECM Mig-29 - 25 - no ECM F-22 - 35 - no ECM Hercules - 5 - no ECM

So DATA is used to defend against AAM... Is there anything else (besided ECM) that affects the chance that a missile hits a plane? I just made a test scenario where 100 F-22's launched 100 AIM-120D's from about 75 miles at 100 Rafale C4, 100 F-22's, 100 Mig-29 Fulcrum A, and 100 c-130 Hercules. (100 missiles at each aircraft). The attacking aircraft had AWACS support. The 400 other aircraft had ferry loadouts and were loitering on a patrol. I performed the test 3 times. Here are the results. hits test 1 hits test 2 hits test 3 Rafale 61 63 58 F-22 74 70 67 Mig-29 91 92 91 Hercules 100 100 100 Why is the percent hit higher in the test for the Mig-29 and Hercules than that stated percent hit of the missile of 85%? Is 300 out of 300 hits against the Hercules unrealistic? Did the high DATA of the F-22 result in the lower percent hit against it? Did the high DATA (although less than the F-22) combined with Spectra on the Rafale result in the even lower percent hit against it?

How does the climb rate value for an aircraft work? Also, I noticed that the climb rates for some aircraft are markedly more than the others. i.e. F-22, Eurofighter, Cheetah C. Is this a mistake?

Sorry, I was referring to the HCDB database. Is it too late to move that post there?

maybe consider adding the SM-6? http://strategypage.com/militaryforums/7-2383.aspx and an Indian Akula? http://strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/article...aspx?comments=Y also is the Astra currently in the db? http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/ar...s/20070402.aspx

File Name: Russia vs Japan File Submitter: pboiler File Submitted: 26 Aug 2008 File Updated: 26 Aug 2008 File Category: WestPac DB Used: HCDB Authors: pboiler Battleset-WPac: .scq - WPac - WestPac Russia-Japan war over newly discovered oil fields. Click here to download this file

Oh, ok. In any case, the Forbin and Andrea Dorea entries do have a 48 cell Sylver VLS, containing 32x Aster 30 and 16x Aster 15 missiles. Am I missing something? no. I just checked and am not sure what I was looking at. You're right, they do have 48. I must have been up too late when I was looking at it!

I see you're looking at the 'Horizon (CNGF)' entry under INTL. That's the old DB entry. You will notice that, under France and Italy, there are new 'Forbin (Horizon)' and 'Andrea Dorea (Horizon)' entries respectively. These newer entries should reflect the proper Sylver VLS arrangement. I haven't changed the old entry yet and haven't decided whether I will, since numerous scenarios were built using it. It may not make a huge difference to game play, so I'll look at it again in due course. I did actualyl mean the new Forbin and Andrea Dorea- shouldn't their magazine have 48?

added 18

added 17

Thanks, pboiler. When the Steregushchy was added to the HCDB, info was pretty sparse and it still isn't great. (I use Wikipedia only when there isn't much else, and H4 is much preferred). I'm aware of the 100mm A-190, for example, but didn't have much info about how it differed from the AK-100, etc. The entry will be updated in time. thanks. I know there's not much info on them. Also, I was going a little web surfing... on the Gorshkov- not sure how you want to handle future ships that not much is know about. Currently their sonar is not very great and I think the same as on some older russian ships. I would assume it would be an improvement on those but that is just guess work and don't know what you think about speculating on futue systems capibility. It's also supposed to have a new 130 mm A-192 gun. there supposedly has been an improvement on the Russian AEW http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/art...aspx?comments=Y Chinese varyag might be named the Shi Lang http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/a...aspx?comments=Y I think the Horizon class (Forbin and Andrea Dorea) have 48 Asters http://digilander.libero.it/en_mezzi_milit...drea_doria.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_CNGF And just about everything I can find says the Aster 30 range is over 100km. Also, is the chinee Su-30MK in the database the same as the J-11? thanks again, and sorry about all the comment. I don't want to request and inquire too much but I just really get excited about all the new stuff out there!

In regards to the Stereguschihiv: according the wikipedia: the gun is the A-190 100 not the AK-100. Not sure the difference but assume and newer and imp? version there is a bow and towed sonar they have the furke radar the tt are 400mm

Thanks, I'll add it to the 1st post.

Just thought of another... Different sized aircraft occupying different amount of a ship's space. For example, a ship may be able to handle 1 large helicopter or alternatively 2 smaller UAV's. As it is now a ScanEagle is equivalent to a Hawkeye in a ships aircraft capacity.

I especially like 3, 4, 8, and 10!

I didn't see harpoon missiles as a possible loadout for the JSF. I would expect that they will be able to carry them?

in no particular order 1- MP 2- 1 more zone in the formation formation that does not have a range limit (for better long range patrols) 3- Easier ASW patrols with auto SB drops/dipping sonar use 4- Ability to set paths or areas of coverage for patrols and not be limited to patrols fling to just 1 point, loiter, and then return. 5- model for USV, UUV 6- easier scrolling on map (instead of having to use scroll bar- similar to googlemaps, mapquest, etc) 7- Ability to set sensors on/off and altitude when setting up patrols/formation 8- Easier aerial refueling- be able to have tanker and the plane needing refueling to automatically take best course get close enough to refuel 9- Also and similar- if wanting to join different groups to be able to have the groups automatically move towards each other to be close enough for them to join. 10- Different levels of ESM capability for different platforms/sensors- ie different rates that a particular platform is able detect other sensors/platforms and different rates that a particular emitting platforms/sensor will be detected by other platforms 11- different rates of being able to shoot down a weapon- based on the weapons size, speed, maneuverability, etc 12- ability for a weapon to loiter looking for a target 13- waypoints for missiles 14- a lot of these are ways to minimize the need to micromanage every unit- any other changes to help with this would be nice 15- smarter AI 16- Different sized aircraft occupying different amount of a ship's space. For example, a ship may be able to handle 1 large helicopter or alternatively 2 smaller UAV's. As it is now a ScanEagle is equivalent to a Hawkeye in a ships aircraft capacity. 17- when setting air patrols (and possibly also with ships/subs)in the formation editor having the option of picking the individual patrol's altitude and sensor status. Then in the GE having an option box when setting group sensors that can be clicked if you want this to override this. This would make it easier to optimize the groups patrol/sensor coverage. As it is now I almost always have my AEW outside of the formation with sensors on with the rest of the group quiet. 18- similar to #6--> an interactive way to be able to progressively zoom in/out on the map in addition to the the fixed 2x, 4x, ... options 19- having the full country name displayed when adding a base in scenario editor. addition to 8- make it easier/possible for the AI to use aerial tankers. thanks again! great game!

Could you add a few more unit names to the Gorshkov class. Maybe. I'll take a look at it. The R-77M1 will appear in the next version of the HCDB. I was lacking H4.1 data on both these sonars when they were created in the HCDB. If anyone has H4.1 data or suggested provisional data, I'd be glad to receive it. Saw the posts in the other forum! Awesome!

Sorry- thought I was in this thread but accidentally added it to another. here are a some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Aster http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=1764&catid=305 http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=2544&catid=270 http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=2179&catid=271 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steregushchy_class_corvette

Would you consider adding the Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov? I found this on Janes and several other sources: 4500 tonnes 132m armament will include: 8 SS-N-26 SA-N-7 Uragon VLS (I assume similar to SA-17) 1 Kashtan Medvedka 2 SS-N-29 VLS 130mm A-192 Also, after reading Janes and then doing some quick research online I found a few bits of interesting info that is slightly different from the current DB. For Yaseni, most sources I read have 24 missiles (8 launchers with 3 missiles each) which will be a combo of cruise missiles and SS-N-26. Also, all the sources I find has Aster 30 range of approx 100km. For Steregushchiy, everything I can find says that they will also have the Medvedka 2 SS-N-29.

Maybe. I'll take a look at it. The R-77M1 will appear in the next version of the HCDB. I was lacking H4.1 data on both these sonars when they were created in the HCDB. If anyone has H4.1 data or suggested provisional data, I'd be glad to receive it. Saw the posts in the other forum! Awesome!

Thanks again! Looking forward to the next update.