donaldseadog

I'd equate installation size to be a multiplication of the number of runways times their length as measured in HCE (1=small helo, 6=vlarge as Tony showed us earlier) I'm working here with the idea of "cuts" and take two "cuts" to reduce a runway's effective length by one HCE length (ie vlarge to large) I'll call the HCE # for runway length as RWL# the number of runways as RWN#, the current number of cuts as cuts# and current airfield condition (inverse of damage) as AFD% My guess at a repair algorithm is: repair time(hours) per cut = 6/RWL#/RWN#/AFD% e.g. That means 2 hour for a vlarge two runway airfield at 50% general damage to repair from an effective large runway back to vlarge. It is rough but simple. It does mean that multi runway airfields get back to full operation much sooner but this reflects not only the larger establishment but also the likely hood that one of the runways is much less damaged. I keep seeing a tussle between a good simulation and AI getting a fair go. Will the AI be able to redirect its aircraft soon after the damage has occurred? Will priority be given to undamaged alternative AFs and for long range units how to compromise with distance? How will AI utilise AC that have been redirected? I don't want to see the player getting a very big reward for minor damage that only takes an hour or so to repair. That said I think 2% base risk is good. I think it shouldn't go higher for more damage unless AI has some way of making a decision on the risk, maybe just that it only takes the higher risk if there is no suitable AF in range. Don Thomas

So if I have kept up, that would double the range at which many common torpedos might gain acquisition (but they still have a PH <100%), but for top shelf items it won't be making more than about 25% improvement in acquisition range. Taking Tony's ball park one second game time per 'look' once in acquisition range that does sound like a pretty good fudge, still maintaining a noticeable difference twix varying levels of sophistication but giving standard gear a more realistic chance of a hit. It will be a vast improvement (some of us will keep our hair for a decade longer I think ). Don Thomas

My thought is that you're dead right about using torpedos as being "challenging". In my game experience (and obviously many others judging from posts) it is often beyond challenging - down right unbelievable. Obviously Harpoon is about being realistic and this seems to be a case where in order to get the realism a fudge is necessary. Have you tried any runs with the fudge in place? If fudge + actual = 1 nm, is that still a bit tight for game engine? Once acquisition is obtained there is still a less than 100% probability of a hit isn't there? Is there a probability aspect of obtaining an acquisition even when within acquisition range, I'm assuming it is like sonar contact probability? Unless the target has really scarpered or the original computations for the fire were way wrong, it surely has to have a few throws of the dice for acquiring the target. The fudge has to be enough to give the torpedo its chance of getting its contact. If the acquisition range fudge needs to be significant to do that then the probability of getting the contact (once in range) could be fudged down a bit if needed to balance any overly large acquisition range? Should we do a few tests of different fudge levels? Do any of the logging readouts give 'die throw' results for obtaining acquisition or anything that would indicate that the torpedo is getting its chance of acquisition? What ever I vote for the fudge. Don Thomas

Its probably a function of the limitations in the sea mines and minesweeping models, more than anything. The range of the sea mine you're using is 0.5 nm, while the range of the minesweeping gear is 1.0 nm. Without a very good sonar set, however, it is extremely difficult and risky work. I am careful about increasing the effectiveness of the minesweeping gear because it would make them very good at killing submarines (since the mines are modeled essentially as non-mobile submarines). Likewise, I am careful about decreasing the effectiveness of the mines because we cannot hope to simulate the number and density of actual minefields. Hence, for every mine you destroy in HCE you've probably cleared a much larger field in RL. I am, however, always open to suggestions about potentially improving the model. Some thoughts on this: What about changing the DP for the mines to '1' and any anti-mine weapons similarly have their damage limited to 1. In this way, they would be fine for hunting 'mines' but be quite ineffectual versus regular submarines. Unless of course this is already the way it is done, I honestly have not gone poking through the DB lately so my memory is rather vague. Would this make them vulnerable to being cleared by inappropriate weapons? e.g. you can sink them (because they are a submarine) with a small torpedo but in RL I'd think it unlikely for a torpedo to hit the mine as it is so different in size to the intended target (I could be wrong, I'm guessing). I think the present works OK, if not perfect. It is tedious and slow work with the correct gear and unlikely to succeed with the wrong gear - at least that seems pretty realistic. Don Thomas

File Name: Singapore 1942 (HCWW - IndoChina) File Submitter: donaldseadog File Submitted: 19 Feb 2011 File Category: Custom DB Used: HCWW-100326 Authors: Don Thomas Battleset: Indochina (by Divefreak) Battleset-Custom: .scz - Custom BS - Custom BS Circa 1941 Japan invading Singapore, but not factually based. Uses Divefreak's Indo china battleset and CV32's HCWW database (version 100326 or newer). Plenty of aircraft action but at the end of the day Blue must deal with a superior naval force. Don Thomas Click here to download this file

Agreed. I might take a stab at this (and the above) over the weekend if someone does not beat me to it. You guys got me here (again), how do you 'see' runway damage in current GE?? I am of the mindset is that they should be permitted to land even if they cannot then take off again from the same damaged runway, but within reason. Very large aircraft landing at a runway damaged to STOL level would seem nonsensical, but I could buy, for example, the same aircraft being able to land at a Large or perhaps even Small runway. I think the degree of compromise acceptable depends on how hard it is to code the AI a fair go at redirecting turned around 'planes. If this is hard then I'd agree with an outright allowance to land anything that could have landed before the damage. If the 'plane in question needs a vlarge 'strip but the 'strip is down to STOL then at least there is a fair delay before it can takeoff, that is still way better than at present. I like where the suggestion is heading, but I am willing to accept no change in the current arrangement. In reality, I guess it would really just mean more crowded hardstands and taxiways, with resulting stress on the ATC, sortie rate and damage resistance. I agree, sounds good but too hard. I am okay with this approach as long as the risk isn't too high. Presumably ground controllers and pilots would choose to divert elsewhere rather than land at unacceptably high risk (unless of course there were no fields to which to divert). I agree with Brad but the decision whether to divert or give it a go would be fine for the player but could this be done fairly for AI, from previous comments I assume not. How about something like: if damaged runway is 'shorter' than 'plane's requirement by # (where # is from the HCE runway size numbers) then probability of loss is 2% times # ? EG a vlarge 'plane landing on a damaged to large runway is 2% probable of crash, on a damaged to small runway is 4% (if I've got the runway sizes correct). My thought is there is a mix of experience in the pilots so some will breeze it in while others are at their limit so some will crash but not many. Don

If you like the way it works, despite the 'Fixed AD' missile symbol, I will add it to other databases, starting with the HCWW. Seems to work fine. If you add some Sams to the 'base' in the SE then the symbol goes to mobile icon, in either case I think small price to pay for a handy little tool (I think). Don

This is sounding exciting! Can these five points be implemented then later go looking at more sophisticated stuff if still needed. The five points still need a decision on landing/ rerouting planes and repairs. Repairs should be made according to Brads original time table, easy. I think re landing the suggestion that (so long as airfield not destroyed) planes be allowed to land is best. They won't be of use till repairs allow them to take off, AI gets a win and everyone is inconvenienced. (new GE version out soon??) Don

Just discussing this with Brad on IRC... It should be possible to create a detectable yet not always visible airfield in the Installations annex by making it a type Fixed SAM. They are not visible until detected yet have all of the other capabilities and limitations of installations (such as runways of db designer specified number of size). I didn't think of that, I'll try it in my "Australia" database. Don PS "go IRC!!"

So will runway damage be caused by any weapon or only specifics (eg: antirunway only; any 'bomb'; any explosive warhead). If a weapon causes runway damage does it also cause general percentage damage to the base (is general damaged repaired?) Don

Then I think your earlier figures look good. I also agree with the quantum idea of "cuts" as it (I think) should allow fair realism with minimum logic. After all HCE rates 'strip length in just a few quantum amounts. Don

I'm not saying I disagree but should a Tu-160 or B-2 be able to land at a runway that was once VLarge but is not bombed to VTOL size? It seems wrong to me but allowing it certainly provides the most opportunity for the AI to live and fight another day. The takeoff run often exceeds the landing run (for example, a loaded transport) but I don't think I would like to see aircraft that ordinarily require Vlarge runways to be able to land at a Vertical only runway (probably not even a Small runway, for that matter). I'm of two minds, I don't want to see overboard reality at the price of complex number crunching etc, but reality is nice. Question? In general could turbo prop/ piston prop STOL s land on grass eg C130 hercs seem to be able to land when necessary on pretty ordinary 'strips? Also, is it wise to allow an AI plane to land where it might not be able to take off for quite some time, I'd prefer to see it redirected if possible but then I'd hate to see it run dry if it could have landed and waited for strip repairs? Don

Could rate of launch/ land be factored by the number of runways available? Does the tally of runways keep individual runway lengths and if so can it have a variable factor applied to it? The factor could just bring the runway size 'down' to a shortrer runway by a arithmetic subtraction, if the result is less than 1 then the runway is u/s until repaired and the repair could be an arithmetic addition by 1 for each time period as in Brads earlier rundown. I think (if coding not too hard) have probability of plane destruction for player only (or significant increase in time taken to land/ launch for both AI and player) and temporary runway length restrictions for both. Programmer sanity could be considered a cost of war

I'm not saying I disagree but should a Tu-160 or B-2 be able to land at a runway that was once VLarge but is not bombed to VTOL size? It seems wrong to me but allowing it certainly provides the most opportunity for the AI to live and fight another day. To me this aspect depends whether AI can re direct planes in advent of their home base being sufficiently damaged to prevent landing. IN current situation of a home base being destroyed air craft seem to wonder of looking for Santa (at the north pole) till they are at bingo relative the next closest landing facility and then head off, so I'd think there's some (albeit clumsy) mechanism there already that is pretty close. If AI can't handle it, could the player only be prevented from landing planes too 'large'? Good point re AI living to fight on, while these changes need to be fair to both sides, I don't think we can afford to prejudice the AI (actual idiot?). Don

Happy Tony = more code work

More sea mines (only german at the moment I think). More AAA, (only Italian and German at present?) Maybe passive "observers". Common intelligence gatherers of the Pacific Islands. Something to simulate a 'secret' airfield, the type that were built over much of North Australia. They were built relatively quickly and their location wouldn't have been known to enemy until detected or they saw short range aircraft a long way from known bases. Don Thomas

By coincidence I've just finished (more accurately I just got finished off) playing a WWs scenario I'm developing using brad's HCWW batabase and wiped out a mine field using some escorts (torpedoes and hedgehogs I think) and plane dropped light torps. Sonar isn't real good and you have to approach very slow. Visual obs from aircraft seemed to help to maintain absolute fix. Don Thomas

Assuming this makes sense, how could this approach be translated into a form useful for HCE? Maybe, and this is just brainstorming ... STOL aircraft can still use a Small runway damaged up to 50%, a Large Runway damaged up to 66% or a Very large runway damaged up to 80% Jet aircraft can still use a Small runway damaged up to 33%, a Large runway up to 50%, or a Very large runway up to 66% Twin engine aircraft can still use a Large runway damaged up to 33% or a Very large runway up to 50% Four engine aircraft can still use a Very large runway damaged up to 33% Still brainstorming ... 10% damage repaired within 2 hours 25% damage repaired within 4 hours 33% damage repaired within 8 hours 50% damage repaired within 16 hours 66% damage repaired within 24 hours 75% damage repaired within 36 hours >75% damage repaired within 48 hours Not sure how, or even if, the submunitions or mines can be accommodated code wise. As for repair crew capability, it would make sense that airfields with Very large runways would have better repair capabilities but they would also have better resiliency to damage, so maybe this cancels out the effect? I'd be thinking skewing out the repair times for the more substantial damage, eg 50% damaged is pretty severe and I'd think large sections would be needing rebuilding - many days work or a week? Are strips concrete? If so then any substantial patch would probably be two days(?) to cure to the hardness that they must require? Should helo/ vtol be uneffected? No mention of number of runways. Is this taken into account in HCE? For say a four runway airfield then there could be a fair degree of % damage but at least one strip is probably effectively fully functional? Only take off/ land interval time should be effected but not aircraft runway requirements? Planes in formation need to get advance warning of need to redirect and adjust time on patrol. If landing/ takeoff using a damaged strip, should there be a probability of damage/ loss of aircraft? Don thomas

I've been to a number of short seminars relating to global warming aimed at farmers. The up shot is that while actual temperatures won't go up an appreciable amount for perhaps 50 years (if we don't so anything about it) the changes that are already here (and producing receding ice caps etc) move the existing major weather patterns (generally towards the equator) and are likely (according to computer modelling) to produce a much higher incedence of extremes - ie worse hurricanes, worse drought, worse monsoon rain. In Australia we're recovering from a very bad six year drought, we've just got hit by worst flooding on record right up our east coast and last week about 2,000 miles of coast was damaged by the most intense cyclone on record. So global warming will intensify weather conditions, get used to heavier snow, more floods, etc. Don Thomas

Interesting that (unless I missed it) there's no mention of ANW/ harpoon 3. Don Thomas

Not withstanding anything others have said (because it all seems pretty correct), I still find playing with scenarios using the WWs database fun. Maybe there is less action but more planning? There are ways of cheating, but that is like teasing a dog pretending to throw a stick, you know you're smarter than the dog so why prove it, ditto you know you can e.g. 'double take' with gunnery but what's the point in cheating (yourself). You can play and make allowances for the deficiencies, eg if you spot an enemy fighter within 3 miles range it will probably shoot you down with out being able to shoot back, well these things happen. Any way I think if you're interested give it a fling and accept that it won't be a perfect representation but its not bad and it is fun. I still often play my own westpac scenario "Bases Loaded" - http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=502 - and always enjoy it. I think I've done three or four WWII scenarios, all in westpac BS, some very simple some more involved. If you do something like battle of Midway I'd love to have a play (hint). I tried a (sort of) Battle of Coral Sea but limitations mean its hard to do a good historical reproduction (I think). PS it can be slow finding the various scenarios for particular DBs as they are arranged by Battleset not Database and I for one hadn't thought about putting a hint in the scenario name if it didn't use the standard database, but I'll try to remember from now on. Don Thomas

Good point, thanks for "un-pansying me" Don

I didn't realise any one else was old enough to remember Gomer Pyle (being Australian, we're always ten years behind the rest of the TV world so I figure that give me a ten year head start so to speak in remembering old stuff). Why is it that when TV went colour it went down hill? On the same note, why is it that when computer games concentrate on the graphics they go down hill Don (old timer) Thomas

I've just had a look at that wish list, a real impressive quantity of things to do - I thought HCE was almost perfect before I saw it :-) Just completing half of them would made HCE the best strategic/tactic "game" around! Thanks Francesco Huh, ain't it already?? Don