donaldseadog

An extra small thing, the colour relates to unit side as known by the player rather than whether there is an exact fix. In the case of an exact fix the icon is an icon only but in case of inaccurate fix the icon will be surrounded by an uncertainty trapezium.

The game tracks the various detection qualities for each unit in two different variables. one variable I'll write as UnitShowing contains a value which indicates jointly whether the opponent has an exact fix or not and whether the opponent knows it's side or not. I don't know the mechanism for it's calculation. the second variable I'll write as UnitData which indicates (amongst other things) the following related to the units enemy: ' has no location'; ' has fix including altitude/depth' ' has exact fix' ' has approx location' ' has bearing only'; ' - knows broad type'; ',knows size'; ',knows Class'; ', knows Name'; So for this purpose the info for both quality of location and quality of platform ID are in this variable. Again I don't know exactly how it is determined. It will relate to the value of the observer platforms' detectors, visibilty and the values of the observed units qualities such as radar cross section, hull noise, visual cross section distance mast height (or altitude). As there are two variables I assume there are two separate (maybe related) mechanisms for determining if the side is known on the one hand and how much is known regarding the physicals of the platform and how accurately it's position is known. The variables are continuously updated and not remembered. I think that the biggest thing to consider is that the best information collected isn't retained for so long as the contact is valid, which should be the real circumstance (although I have read of circumstances where confusion has occurred regarding multiple contact situations). Which means you need to remember yourself (although the game itself won't penalise you for shooting down or sinking an innocent neutral). Here are two screen shots I have of the instant in your game (I played Blue) when red group ZZS detects the blue group AAS - and fires missiles. I played it with my tool AI_window operating, it's console is in the lower left of screen and near the upper right of the console you will see contact information listed for respectively the red ship unit and one of the missiles it's fired. The Red unit in the group window is some what hidden by the yellow missile. The side and exact location of the red ship is known and in the next line all of it's attributes such as vessel class, vessel name etc are known. For the missile however the side is unknown (AI doesn't make assumptions I guess) and we know the class (type) of missile and have an exact position. So the solid yellow icon for missile and solid red icon for the ship. I know this doesn't answer your question but I hope it helps you a little to understand what is happening.

Your scenatio for the test runs ok in malacca. I have a little info I can give you tonight when I wind up the computer again. It was too late last night. I actually can't tell you much but maybe just seeing a little more on how it works will let you progress. Your scheme for the scenario sounds great. Don

It's OK, I think I found it is Malacca. This is a bit of a funny battleset as it has the same prefix as custom ones, not a unique prefix making it easy to ID.

Hi again Geo, can you tell me which BattleSet this is from, it is one of the custom battleset (the .scz file type shows this) is it one downloaded from here (if so which one) or one you have made?

Hi there Geoaegis, I think I know what you are highlighting, the step from unknown side to known side sometimes seems to be by magic, also if detail is known about a contact it is not remembered and so if the strength of the contact degrades such as when you turn off your radar then that knowledge is lost. Also there is a related matter that in HC we always know our friends, but in reality this is not always the case and sometimes friend fires on friend. I don't know the details on how the game works it but determining Enemy/Neutral/Unknown never seems to me to be definitely related to the quality of knowledge regarding the contact but perhaps it should. I have a few tools that look at some aspects of how the game operates so I'll play that zipped up test and see if I can observe anything meaningful. Don

You work very fast Enrique, it looks like another beauty

View File WW2 Battle of Coral Sea (Alternative) In WW2 to strengthen their defensive position in the South Pacific, the Japanese decided to invade and occupy Port Moresby (in New Guinea) and Tulagi (in the southeastern Solomon Islands). The plan, Operation MO, involved several major units of Japan's Combined Fleet. Two fleet carriers and a light carrier were assigned to provide air cover for the invasion forces. The U.S. learned of the Japanese plan through signals intelligence and sent two U.S. Navy carrier task forces and a joint Australian-American cruiser force to oppose the offensive. On 3-4 May, Japanese forces invaded and occupied Tulagi, although several supporting warships were sunk or damaged in a surprise attack by aircraft off the U.S. carrier Yorktown. Alerted to the presence of enemy aircraft carriers, the Japanese fleet carriers advanced towards the Coral Sea to locate and destroy the Allied naval forces. On the evening of 6 May, the two carrier fleets closed to within 70 nmi (81 mi; 130 km) but did not detect each other in the darkness. The next day, both fleets launched airstrikes against what they thought were the enemy fleet carriers, but both sides actually attacked other targets. The U.S. sank the Japanese light carrier Shoho, and the Japanese sank the Sims, a destroyer, and damaged the fleet oiler Neosho. On 8 May, both sides located and attacked the other's fleet carriers, leaving the Japanese fleet carrier Shokaku damaged, the U.S. fleet carrier Lexington critically damaged, and the fleet carrier Yorktown lightly damaged. Both sides having suffered heavy aircraft losses and carriers sunk or damaged, the two forces disengaged and retired from the area. Because of the loss of carrier air cover, the Port Moresby invasion fleet was recalled. Although the battle was a tactical victory for the Japanese in terms of ships sunk, it has been described as a strategic victory for the Allies. The battle marked the first time since the start of the war that a major Japanese advance had been turned back. (^^^^ from wikipedia) The relative placement of the naval forces was influenced by many circumstances including tactical decisions, weather and luck. The four scenarios provided form a series which presents the participating forces in various differing locations. Uses Database HCWW_101110 _ https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/files/file/277-hcww-101110/ Submitter donaldseadog Submitted 01/18/2025 Category WestPac  

The attached scenario is run in westpac BS using HCDB 150929 database. GE 2024.006. There is a single sub. THe max speed of this sub on surface is 10 kts. It is currently submerged and traveling at its max speed or 21 kts. Use command F2 to set the speed/depth to surfaced and any speed about 10, say 15. Execute the command and the sub continues on the surface at an illegal speed. If you set the speed again you are now only able to set the legal speeds if it remains surfaced. A similar thing happens with subs that have a higher surface speed than their max submerged speed. I would expect that when changing the speed/alt from submerged to surface you should only be able to set legal surface speeds. SubChngeDepth_Spd.scq.zip

If a target is ordered to be attacked by an aircraft within gun range but outside gun arc (with no other weapons available) then a staff message is received "Sir, should we engage with only cannon fire?" If you answer yes the game will crash. If you answer no then your plane proceeds on its current course with no action. If you determine the bearing of the enemy plane using ctrlF then use course editor F3 to head generally in that direction you can engage the enemy. I'd expect that you should be able to answer yes to the staff message and have your aircraft turn to engage (if it turns fast enough), or at least not crash game. The test uses westpac BS and HCWW-101110 DB. I used GE version 2024.006 (but I've been seeing the issue for quite some time). To reproduce start the saved game, your (sole) aircraft group should be active (selected), the enemy plane group is likely hidden in the GUI but is visible, issue attack F1 command (there should be only one available target) and answer yes to the staff message. There is a brief pause of a a few seconds and the game crashes. The saved game and the original scenario are included. WW_cannon_GunArc.scq.zip

added Having mounts on aircraft, or some way of having aircraft gun turrets (eg B-17) operate outside of the aircraft's gun arc.

From Aust ABC news: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-27/finland-seizes-tanker-after-underwater-power-cable-outage/104765296

***SPOILER ALERT*** My last spin of this great 'game' pack was playing Red side, no AGI version. I will say I enjoyed this very much, while the bulk of the Red side lethality is I think in it's bombers they are stationed far afield and the orders call for a solid quick strike from the navy and so while I got most of the ready bombers on their way to targets I spent most of my time getting new intelligence and updating my use of the local surface and sub forces. I asked for volunteers in I'm sure the correct Russian fashion and had no shortage of chopper crew willing to fly medium level patrols with radar burning out the location of the cursed enemy. Getting patrol locations close enough for good contacts, but far enough out not to get downed was I think accurately described Russian Roulette, and we did loose quite a few rounds but generally we knew where our targets were, how to best close our various surface and sub groups and keep our incoming flyboys happy. With a good supply of SSMs in the larder of our main surface group we did, as ordered, get off large volleys as soon as we had the range and accurate location to hit the entire main carrier group target, typically allocating the majority at the JPK itself but always having a few targeting her escorts. This seems to work well with most ships in the carrier group sustaining damage form our first attack, assuredly slowing their aircraft efficiency and reducing their SAM defenses - we hoped. With the last of our useful SSMs gone we turned our main surface group to maintain a buffer but still have our choppers up for surveillance, meanwhile our subs were mostly able to close without resorting to noisy speeds until within close range to send in their load of torpedoes with good results. By 'Game Over' we'd cleared up the JFK carrier group, a sub and four bases that could have been used to support aircraft as their home ships were sunk. Our list of 'profit and loss': [Kill Detail Blue Side ] SH-60B Seahawk 84/Helicopter=6 Ticonderoga Blk1 (85)/Ship=1 Leahy (80/2)/Ship=1 Lupo (80)/Ship=1 S-3A Viking 84/Plane=9 Underwood 84/Ship=1 F-14A Tomcat 86/Plane=24 A-6E Intruder USN87/Plane=10 A-6E Intruder USMC87/Plane=10 EA-6B Prowler ICAP II 87/Plane=4 KA-6D Intruder USN80/Plane=4 E-2C Hawkeye Grp0 80/Plane=4 SH-3H Sea King 87/Helicopter=4 John F Kennedy 85/Carrier=1 CH-46E Sea Knight 80/Helicopter=4 Kilauea/Ship=1 Miaoulis (FRAM II/86)/Ship=1 Bainbridge (85)/Ship=1 AB.212ASW 84/Helicopter=3 Spruance (80/1)/Ship=1 Ardito (91)/Ship=1 Wichita/Ship=1 Elli (82)/Ship=1 AB.212ASW 84/Plane=2 Sturgeon (81)/Submarine=1 [Kill Summary Blue Side ] Ships:=11 Helicopters:=17 Carriers:=1 Submarines:=1 Planes:=67 [Kill Detail Red Side ] Kashin mod (61M)/Ship=1 Ka-25Ts Hormone B 80/Helicopter=2 Ka-25PS Hormone C 80/Helicopter=1 Ka-27PL Helix A 81/Helicopter=1 Sovremennyy (956/84)/Ship=1 Krivak I (1135)/Ship=1 Krivak II (1135M)/Ship=1 Tu-16K Badger CMod 80/Plane=4 Tu-22M3 Backfire C 83/Plane=4 Victor III (671RTM)/Submarine=1 Slava (1164/83)/Ship=1 [Kill Summary Red Side ] Ships:=5 Helicopters:=4 Submarines:=1 Planes:=8 [Victory Summary] Time=14 May 1988, 02:02:01 The RED side has met their minimum victory conditions Time=14 May 1988, 02:28:01 The RED side has met their total victory conditions [Damage List Blue] AFa: 00 Nea Anghialos damage=2500/2500 AGa: 00 Skiros damage=2500/2500 AHa: 00 Souda damage=5000/5000 AEa: 00 Iraklion damage=2500/2500 I've attached a full stats report file for anyone wanting the gory details. Thanks again Enrique AARdata-JFK_USSR_RED_NoAGI.txt

Done and dusted, pretty much same as with AGI so I won't bore anyone with a second AAR. Ive now also knocked over the blues while playing for the red side, quite a tussle mostly manipulating my naval ships and subs, the aircraft didn't come into play until most of the hard work was done. Putting together a report might take a bit of time, it was a busy exercise. You've done a great job putting this together as a HC scenario Enrique, thanks heaps. It's a ripper. Don

Japan pitches 'superior' warships in bid to clinch $10 billion Australian contract

I'm still slogging thru the similar No AGI ships version ... but I think I'm going to get there.

***SPOILER ALERT*** After Action Report Enrique has provided a double barrel effort here, two similar scenario for us to delve into... I started playing blue side the version 1988-05 JFK USSR N BARCAP.sco There was sufficient hint that things would be hot from the start so I opened the game in zero time compression, started the process of arming the many 'dormant' aircraft and allocating those ready to fly with patrol locations or sectors within their group formation. This included a few fighters, a couple of ASW and very handy AEW from the carrier group. Once the ball started rolling it was on for young and old ... we got a contact close in of a Kashin unit and visual of a number of incoming missile. Radars went hot and four ships opened fire with their bug guns, the Kashin went down quick and our SAM units were put into heavy defense mode but still JFK took a few hits, enough to markedly reduce her efficiency and slow down the aircraft armaments that we obviously would need. The Kashin had apparently been assisted by an Okean class unit sailing beyond our guns, but not our Harpoon, she soon joined the denizens of the deep. But in these first minutes the near continuous rain of missiles came at us. Our first airborne fighters put their metal in to play getting right down to cannon fire on the incoming missiles, many probably form undetected submarines but form the incoming bearings we at least had vectors to search on. Getting the ASW patrols out early and with an idea of direction was showing it's virtue with an Alpha class SSN detected within the first half hour, but it would take some time before she was sunk. An hour in, coming up on our screens to the north were numbers of large air contacts, some identified as various EW, recce and bombers, Backfires, Blinders and Badgers. Armed fighters started to roll out of the hangers and into the air heading out to hopefully intercept now expected incoming bombers before they let loose their belly loads of mischief. To a large degree we succeeded but some got thru and our fighters exhausted their AAM on the incoming onslaught but as evidence of the pilot skills only a few made it thru to need interception by ships SAM batteries. In the meantime a large surface group came under the radar of the AEW, it had been expected, or at least made allowance for, and our strikers were half way thru taking on predominantly ARM munitions and some harpoon for good measure. 40 minutes after the sighting of the first attacking missiles and our own boys were returning the compliment with Standard ARM damaging two escorts. We now had a significant, and busy, ASW guard around the carrier group, and also our smaller surface group comprising our valuable auxiliaries and escorts which were trying for a safest route. Also our own EW units were operating and extra surveillance from land based ASW units based to our west. By the three hour mark our fighter screen had downed significant numbers of bombers and large auxiliary air units, the numbers of incoming missiles from the north had greatly reduced allowing them to move to provide addition defense against the inevitable missile attacks from the surface group approaching from the west which had by now suffered significant damage from our Standard ARM greatly reducing their ability to defend. And so we continued, both fixed and rotary wing ASW units scouring for the submarines we new were their following their surprise missile launches, then over four hours in as a sign they were getting in closer we had torpedo contacts. Evasive action standoff ASW ship defense and heavy air unit ASW work saw results with what would be the next of many subs sunk, but also the loss of one of our valuable escort. Holding of our own SSM until we were close enough to launch a significant attack of the SAG we sank most of the group including Slava, Sovremennyy and Krivak class ships. This got us a heart warming message of Minimum Victory, but with the Reds now offering much less aggression we knew we could finish the job and 40 minutes later with the sinking of a further Okean class vessel we succeeded. Another epic Enrique, thanks for your time and skilled effort.

Missiles launched from Bushmaster vehicles could soon be operated by the Australian army

Oh Enrique you have made a tough one

Just starting to play, Enrique I love your self description " rivet counter " but by then weren't they welding everything?

I was thinking about the developing systems using semi-submerged drones, in HC I see a snorkeling sub as the closest sim. I recall some of the ukraine drones were being fitted with short range SAM for self protection. What weapons were the Russians using against the semi-sub drones? I guess if a genuine snorkeling sub there are differences to a sem-sub drone, as the drone would be vulnerable to a hit where most gunnery aimed at a sub (even at snorkel) would skip off water surface as would be at a low angle (unless the round hit the snorkel) Maybe a CIWS would be at a trajectory angle steep enough ?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-18/biden-allows-ukraine-to-use-atacms-missiles-on-targets-in-russia/104612578

While started of as a means of getting Nuke powered subs to Aus, AUKUS has been mentioned as broadening its range of co operation. https://www.defenseadvancement.com/news/ai-enabled-autonomous-uas-swarms-showcased-in-aukus-trials/