donaldseadog
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by donaldseadog
-
-
We still need verification that radars and sonars in loadouts really do their thing. Thanks all
You've stumped me here (how easys that), I assume we need an aircraft without built in radar or sonar but having same in one of the load outs. I can't find any such aircraft.
So I figured I'd make one in a modified database. I tried but I guess either what I picked as being a radar was something in the radar catagory but not really a radar because in the game engine and scenario writer it didn't show up in the 'display' for that aircraft.
I await with held breath to learn what this is all about.
Don.
-
I took the Oct 22nd version of the scen for a spin yesterday. The Enterprise took a DF-21 hit in the first hour (40%) damage but I proceeded to bust up Red air killing well over 100 planes. However I couldn't break thru the SA-21 SAMs having squandered TLAMs in what I thought would be sufficient attacks to do the job, unfortunately I was wrong and my Hornets got slaughtered trying to finish the deal. I gave up the ghost before even reaching Sicily.
Oh, and about those anti-sub death rays, there is a problem with the torp counter-fire. What you saw were surface guns managing to kill the sub underwater. While some of the mine hunting helos may have super-cavitating projectiles in this case it is a bug. I saw the same thing but did not write up a report on it so that is still an available task for someone to do
I might be border line cheating but on the basis that aircraft ordinacne is limitless I try to kill every thing I can with planes and keep ship fired weapons for last ditch efforts. (In my first attempt at breakoutUK I found (too late) that my AAW boats were out of SAMs. It got pretty grissly soon after.) I don't know how many long range AGMs I fired off but I'll be stuffed if someone plugs the bottomless pit that is the current magazine.
I figure that in this case a little stretching of fair play is OK?
Don
-
This mission is insane. It's the first time I've ever had to disable surface and air radar rings because there is too much clutter without it. Enemy achieved minimum victory in less than an hour.
I had a similar experience with 'BreakoutUK'. The DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile is one nasty piece of kit.
I have edited both of these, gently, to buy you some time in the beginning.I still have the original versions if you like.
Does any one know if there is a half speed time compression setting, I get tired of going from "0" to "1". Also I'm thinking the ctrl alt S setting could be called "satellite view" instead of cheat mode, it would sure be handy.
As a matter of interest (and possible envy) has anyone got out?
I've got about 30 hours game time to run (if I remember right) and I'm only about 50 miles from where I started, I've lost two ships, a few planes and copters and claimed a base, a few SAMs and SSMs, over a hundred planes and about ten ships and three subs, BUT they still keep coming. Do they ever stop?
Don (with pegs keeping eye lids open) Thomas
-
Just a quicky to thank you guys that put all the information into this site. Things like Brad's tutorials and things like the help files. So many places just can't be bothered to do a decent job with the "boring stuff". I actually went to the help files and found what I was after (and a lot more).
Don Thomas -
File Name: OK_Coral (HCWW BS)
File Submitter: donaldseadog
File Submitted: 24 Oct 2009
File Updated: 5 Feb 2011
File Category: WestPac
DB Used: HCWW_090925
Authors: don thomas
Battleset-WPac: .scq - WPac - WestPac
The gun fight at OK coral atoll. (Its in the west (west pacific), but no Wild Bill Hickock).
A small scenario for anyone that is hesitant in diving into the world of WWII naval gunnery.
Being small it gives an idea of what is happenning and how you might manage your assets.
Uses Brad's HCWW 90925 (or better) database.
Don
-
File Name: 65 Spy
File Submitter: donaldseadog
File Submitted: 24 Oct 2009
File Updated: 2 Mar 2010
File Category: Caribbean Basin
DB Used: HC_65to80_DB_091010
Authors: scen author Don Thomas
Battleset-Carribean Basin: .scs - CDB - CDB
This uses database HC_65to80_DB_091010 (by "divefreak"), find it in the database downloads (and don't forget to pick up the matching commondb.rsr file in the database section [picture file for HC_XXtoXX_db] for the pretty pics)
A rather slow llittle scenario in which subs and EW planes sneak past Cuba to spy on who's doing what, and try not to get clobbered. Meanwhile Cuba sits like a spider and pounces out if you get too close (and are detected). Just had to do something with this growing database.
New file added 2 march 2010 to correct time limit and victory conditions (Thanks for feedback)
Don
-
Brains, Brad, and I just threw around a bunch of ideas on IRC and came up with a work around for the unintended strafing runs. That workaround is to remove the air to ground capability from the majority of modern aircraft cannon. So for instance Brad will in HCDB remove air to ground capability of the Vulcan 20mm carried on the F-22. He also has the flexibility to leave air to ground fun capability on most WWII aircraft.
That sounds fine to me. By the way, has anyone seen planes with air to air cannon exhibit the same desire for blood at all cost?
It isn't in any way an ideal solution but it does return us to something better than parity with past builds. No doubt the AI needs to be smarter but this gets us to a more useable game again.Perhaps (I had this thought while talking to my goats) there can be some sort of setting introduced that the scenario author can make when writting the scenario, perhaps when setting up a group to launch (could also be available for player) Could be maybe a strafing capable toggle or a defensive/aggressive balance value (I'd like that). Maybe tie in with the warning re entering AAW range (AI just scarpers if not close to fire point)??
Don (jumping and happy I can still strafe flak in my beaufighter)!!
AND that means Brad gets all the work and Tony can put his feet up (Sounds sus to me Brad, did they gang up on you?)
-
If I were behind the gun I guess I'd take a stab at calculating what effect my pea shooter will have on the target in question, what value will the enemy place on the target's loss/damage and what's the chance it will shoot me. If it 'looks good' I'd go in and shoot, otherwise I'd scarper. Is that logical and is it simple enough for the AI.
Brads suggestion that AI doesn't go hunting with weapons of less than a critical DP would be a good start if the code can't handle anything better, but if we want realistic scenarios where some important targets are soft and we don't waste limited and expensive ordinance on them then I'd like to see AI have a go at them. There are some neat scenarios with lots of land units (Phillipine Crunch in westpac is one I think) that I played late last night and got a whole new result - flanker fighter took out one of my tanks or APCs. Brad's HCWW database (well scenarios written to it) is quite different being able to use escorts to take out flak and slow, if not sink, torpedo boats etc.
Also I've seen harriers with antiradar loadouts come in low and fast (as they should) my SAMs trying to knock of the sidearms are unable to reload fast enough to hit the plane which then inflicts damage with cannon, in some cases finishing off the minimal damage done by the sidearms. I just think its well worth persuing, especially as it will take Tony's mind of beautiful, rich and smart women.
Having said that I'm not sure there isn't another problem which seems to crop up sometimes with other short range ground attack wepons and that is the attacking plane going backwards and forwards seemingly not able to get close enough for a shot. Has any one come across that and knows what's happening?
Don.
-
Since everyone is screwing Tony, I figured I could too.
Why do AI planes head north when their base is destroyed instead of looking for alternate airfields?
Hehe, thanks for the kind words guys. As you recognized, I don't, couldn't, and wouldn't do it alone. Now if someone would just provide me a smart, rich, attractive (real) woman to marry we could really build a nifty wargame.
............
So if we get you a smart attractive rich woman,.......
I don't think you'll be spending more time on this harpoon game, my friend!!!
Don.
-
That is always the entertaining part in talking to some service guys from navy and air force, how much of the most advanced equipment is still run by some computers built around 20 years ago.
Probably because that generation of computers was more reliable!
The most reliable system is still the Eyeball Mk I.
Funny as it sounds, an old Bofors 40mm with visual guidance is not going to fail you on air defense, even if the computer and radar completely fail. So in some ways, older ships are more dependable, if less survivable.
Yep, if you're going to go down, you may as well have something to do while you wait.
In the same way it's nice to have some (unreliable?) radars, computers, SAMs, rotary canons etc to have something to watch as well.
As to the reason for keeping old computers for fire control and the like, probably a pretty easy job for a computer and the old ones do it fine. I think original fire control computation was done by mechanical computers a bit like large adding machines (a small room full of gears and shafts), I think it was one of these units I saw shoot down a towed target with a 4.5" gun back in the early 70's.
Don
-
The question is 'Can the AI be programmed to behave in a sane manner?'
As in, should the AI have an air defence check similar to this:
If air defence = not present, then engage with guns;
If air defence = present, then do not engage with guns;
Very simplified I know, but you get the idea.
Player can do what they want to, but at least the AI would err on the side of caution.
I'd say concise, not simplified. That is I guess what I was trying to get to.
I perceive that AI seems to do this better than your own side (with out micromanagement), but not sure. Where it does act with caution it does seem to linger (until bingo) when perhaps it should retreat home.
Also does any of this pertain to naval vessels, eg surface craft in range of SSMs/artillary, subs in range mortar/ torpedo.
Also how much of the info is really available (in reality)? You might identify a ship by electronic or visual methods, and therefore know what it should have, but it might be out of suitable ammo. (EEk, where does it end?)
Don
Don
-
29. Get BINGO fuel warning even when air group is already returning to base
I'd like to lobby hard for something to solve this problem... because it's gotten to the point for me that I lose nearly as many aircraft to unreported fuel exhaustion as I do to any "legitimate" causes.
I know what you mean
I cat my vote with you. Seems to be a few conditions that can cause problems, if I'm in doubt instead of just ordering return to base I set a course to a point next to the base then insert the land command in the course. A bit fiddly but I have to make a lot less cap in hand visits to next of kin.Don
Does that actually make the BINGO message come up when it's appropriate? I was thinking that I tried to do that awhile back, but it appeared that any course which included a return-to-base leg would cause the BINGO report not to come up (and the planes would crash), regardless of whether there were course legs other than the return-to-base, or if that was the only leg. I know for sure that the warning doesn't occur if the return-to-base is the only leg, and I'm pretty sure that it also does not appear if a multi-leg course includes a return-to-base leg... so I just assumed that the presence of any return-to-base command in the path would suppress the warning. (?)
I'll have another look but I think it works, got to have return to base right at the end. I haven't exhaustingly tested it though. Would still be nice if as you suggest the warning came up at bingo no matter what.
Don
.....
Here's an autosave showing what I mean, the hornet is coming home on military and will run dry before home but calls in reporting at bingo and requesting ordered home, reply yes and she goes onto cruise and glides in. Don
-
Yes, sadly the air to surface guns are giving aircraft enough reason to close on target, in modern battles that pretty much means wasting aircraft that could have repeatedly toted longer-ranged munitions. Brad made a test scen for me over lunch that proved it. Scenario attached, play as Red, use Show All to launch Hornets against the Red base, then watch bad things happen. I've been away and now I'm crying,
snip
(Don goes away and plays scenario while sobbing)....
OK , I've run the scenario, the AI planes come in , launch missiles then close to attack with cannon. Not a good Idea but is this a problem of air 2 ground guns or a problem re any mix of long and short range ground weapons? Surely the same thing would happen if you had antiradar loadouts that included guided bombs, (I haven't tested I'm guessing)?
This is a land target that AI will only attack if scenario writer instructed an attacks, is that correct, how will it go if the target is a surface ship group? (I'll test).
The AI can be pretty dumb, is this just another example?
As some one greater than I said, "I'll be back"
Don.
Here's my test, now I'm not saying Brad doesn't have a valid point, he does cause the planes act like kamikazies, but I don't think it's cut and dried.
Test is similar to Brad's, play red and use "show all" to launch blue planes. Try the antiradar loadouts and attack or patrol right over the red surface ship group, watch. If you turn on your radar you get HARMed (he,he) leave it off till you see the whites of their eyes and SAMem. In the end you'll be hammered 'cause the carrier will rearm with standoff ASUW and blitz you.
You might see the situation where the planes are loitering about seemingly wanting to come in and gun you, but apparently worried about your SAM and just turning back, is AI that smart? If it is then AI needs to know when its in stalemate and go home.
If blue planes are sent in one at a time red has a fair chance of getting a few, but if the initial attack is four planes its hard not to get done straight off although you should shoot down something.
I'm interested in what everyone thinks
Don.
-
29. Get BINGO fuel warning even when air group is already returning to base
I'd like to lobby hard for something to solve this problem... because it's gotten to the point for me that I lose nearly as many aircraft to unreported fuel exhaustion as I do to any "legitimate" causes.
I know what you mean
I cat my vote with you. Seems to be a few conditions that can cause problems, if I'm in doubt instead of just ordering return to base I set a course to a point next to the base then insert the land command in the course. A bit fiddly but I have to make a lot less cap in hand visits to next of kin.Don
-
Yes, sadly the air to surface guns are giving aircraft enough reason to close on target, in modern battles that pretty much means wasting aircraft that could have repeatedly toted longer-ranged munitions. Brad made a test scen for me over lunch that proved it. Scenario attached, play as Red, use Show All to launch Hornets against the Red base, then watch bad things happen. I've been away and now I'm crying, I was having so much fun taking out flack with zero fighters. I hadn't had time to look much at modern databases (just one scenario which seemed to go OK) It seemed not only was air 2 ground guns working but with multiple targets (eg a number of flack units) planes were going from one target straight to the next without sitting like mullets in the middle asking what to do next.
It seems generally worth persuing if can overcome this hurdle.
Don.
(Don goes away and plays scenario while sobbing)....
OK , I've run the scenario, the AI planes come in , launch missiles then close to attack with cannon. Not a good Idea but is this a problem of air 2 ground guns or a problem re any mix of long and short range ground weapons? Surely the same thing would happen if you had antiradar loadouts that included guided bombs, (I haven't tested I'm guessing)?
This is a land target that AI will only attack if scenario writer instructed an attacks, is that correct, how will it go if the target is a surface ship group? (I'll test).
The AI can be pretty dumb, is this just another example?
As some one greater than I said, "I'll be back"
Don.
-
I think it would be cumbersome to incorporate it into an HCE database, because 'skills' are reflected in the ATA/DATA and PH values for aircraft and their weapons. You'd have to create duplicates of many entries to reflect this.
An interesting situation because in the extreme cases different countries have such differences in maintenance and operator skills that the same platforms are totally different in ability. Perhaps sometimes duplicates (with appropriate ATA/DATA and PH values) would be worth while.
Don Thomas
-
(I'll restart my numbering I think),
1. When the assistant comes up to advise a new contact, I'd like to see the new contact on the unit and group windows (behind the assistant window) before dismissing the assistant.
2. I'd like to be able to set a group to "shadow" an enemy group.
3. In scenario editor, when editing a group I'd like to see the % prob. of the units. Also when editing group events (eg launch aircraft) I'd like to see the details for repeat launches.
4. When instigating an air intercept from the new contact window I'd like to be able to somewhere override the current speed of each group chosen for intercept. I'd also like to be able to both come back to 1:1 time compression and fill in the intercept option.
Don (never satisfied) Thomas
5. When assistant advises a new contact, have the option of selecting your group that made the contact.
6. Air intercepts, be able to select for intercept a group (or unit) that already has an assigned target. They are sometimes to close for comfort to the new contact and I'd like to either/both fire something at them or get out quick.
7. When intercepting (generally from the new contact advice window) and selecting a unit form a multi unit group, I'd like the option of splitting the unit from the group - eg fighters escorting bombers.
8. anything that reduces any type of micro management- I love this game for it's stategy realism, it makes me the Admiral (yehhh!!!) Running an air to air attack or short range bombing run, navigating ships through narrow straights etc can be left to some lowly dog captain, I want the big stuff. (hope I didn't step on any captain's toes, I haven't done that for 30 years but I still remember they yelp pretty loud).
Don. (is very picky)
9. Separate zoom buttons for group and unit windows. (maybe shift Z and shift X for unit window) I get tired of tabbing from one to the other to change zoom setting.
10. In staff options (or somewhere) toggle the bingo warning from on to auto return to base. (maybe for each group in perhaps course editor).
11. When a new contact is reported an option to select your detecting group and option to come to real time if intercept option is taken.
13. Planes ask to return to base or (better) course editor after completing attack (instead of loiter)
14. ship's officer of watch pencil in location of stationary items like mines (when they are detected) so that you don't blunder into them just because you lost contact. Even if they go yellow in a small trapazoid that would be OK.
15. (maybe) A real time limit switch so that I get to bed tonight instead of tomorrow morning
Don.
-
File Name: Bases Loaded (HCWW BS)
File Submitter: donaldseadog
File Submitted: 24 Sep 2009
File Updated: 5 Feb 2011
File Category: WestPac
DB Used: HCWW 090917
Authors: don thomas
Battleset-WPac: .scq - WPac - WestPac
Another WWII type scenario. Requires minimum HCWW 090917.
Various bases and surface groups for both sides attempting to reinforce/ destroy new bases.
-
File Name: backup
File Submitter: donaldseadog
File Submitted: 1 Sep 2009
File Category: WestPac
DB Used: HCWW-090825
Authors: don thomas
Battleset-WPac: .scq - WPac - WestPac
Using database HCWW-090825 (or more recent) this is off the north east coast of Australia and edging into the Pacific giving another chance to play with the new database of WWs ships etc dodging around the islands.
Don Thomas
-
HCE - 2009.037
==============
..............................
For testing Baka and Air to Air guns you'll need other than stock DBs. Baka can be tested in Brad's WWII database. The Air to Air guns I imagine will come soon, I'll attach my test rig to a later post.
We need testing of air to air guns in pre-EC2003 battlesets, the old 3nm Intercept/Escort dogfight guns should still work there and ideally any guns in loadouts should not work in an air to air capacity.
I've posted in issue tracker (#128) a test which indicates inability to shoot with aircraft cannon an air target that is in formation patrol about a surface group or land base.
Don thomas
-
I don't have Microsoft Office on this machine, so this isn't going to work.
Sorry I can't help but I like the idea of a small specific database for a scenario (especially something a little out of ordinary).
Would be nice if we could copy between databases (without needing other programs and knowhow of using them)
Hope someone comes up with the answer.
Don Thomas
-
Confirmed. AAA (3x Bofors batteries) shoots down the F-16 loitering at Low in 2009.036. It does not in 2009.039.
Time to post it up in the Issue Tracker, Don. Good work, btw. (Unfortunately).
Fixed for 2009.040, don't bother with the Issue Tracker this time.
Gee, go away for a week and every one else gests all the fun
Don,
-
-
Anything to report with 2009.037, guys? Problems? Issues? Or is everything hunky dory?
I've done some tests indicating a possible loss of ground to air defence in beta 2009.039 & 2009.037 compared to release 2009.036. The test with problem result is in EC2003 GUIK, a very similar scenario in EC2000 GUIK showed no problems.
Attached in zip package is the test save and explanatory txt file.
Basically planes loiter over AAA. Play the test in the release and all is fine (the planes are shot down) but when played in the betas AAA fire never happens.
Don Thomas
Water Depth Determination?
in General
Hi guys, (I've just come back on line after a while busy looking after my sick dog), I've read this thread from start to finish and I'm wondering if any one is getting anything out of it, are you?
My interpretation of Tony's advise is that individual problems be targetted and a saved game showing the problem be sent in for us all to look at. In my experience any problem I've had and gone to the trouble of doing this has produced a result.
In some ways I like to play more at the top end of the command, looking at strategies and not so much the micro management, but considering that Harpoon deals in very real life quantities (I know of no other such game that comes close to the realism) I think it does a very good job of dealing with the micro stuff and what admiral is going to dream up some big plan where the smaller detail isn't doable?
Don