Joe K

I think mavfin is referring to detection via ESM, rather than radar. Yes, but doesn't whatever is involved in ESM still have to abide by the fact that the emitter is below the physical horizon? What's the emitter's signal doing, going through the water? Bouncing off the ozone layer? I claim no expertise in RL ESM capabilities, but... Think about HAM radio transmissions reaching around the globe. Seems like ESM ought to be as capable as that - if configured for such things. But the coverage and reliability of that sort of signal detection would likely be akin to convergence zones on sonar. My thinking is that, yeah, ESM might be able to detect signals at great distances... but would it be particularly useful for locating targets out in the ether? And the probability (reliability) of even making such a detection would seem to be rather low a times - influenced by the EM environment, weather, ozone, sunspots... maybe even by the phase of the moon? I would even suspect that ESM ought to be seriously affected by jamming. But, as I said, I'm no expert in the matter - by any means.

50% PK SM2ER Block I missiles at long range vs a highly maneuverable (high ATA rating) VSmall target? Yeah, very possible you'll have several misses. At that range on a VSmall plane target, it might miss more than with straight in (non-maneuvering) VSmall missiles. When you're on the other side of the equation, how does the player accomplish comparable jinking so as to avoid said missiles. It seems to me there is little parity from side to side in this regard.

Except that it is random as far as which probabilities get satisfied (i.e. - which groups of aircraft get included) in any given play of the scenario... which is what I was saying all along, so I don't get where all that other stuff came from.

We've told you how to get "confirmation", by using the "show all" keystroke. It has become quite clear that you don't believe anything that I confirm myself, so I sought confirmation from others. I seem to have an inability to convey the idea that I am not seeing what others say I should be seeing. If that were understood, then telling me to see for myself would be, well, nonsense. There is confusion here, and I believe it is because parts of three different iterations of the case are becoming co-mingled. Let me try to explain: 1. There were the circumstances of an original play of the scenario. 2. There were the circumstances of a later re-play of the scenario. 3. There were the circumstances of a recent test case that I executed at someone's request. Case #3 is what this discussion has evolved to cover, but some aspects of the earlier cases are being dragged into it, hence (I think) the reason for the confusion. So, let me summarize the test case (#3): I was asked to re-run the scenario in order to get actual data for various distances and so forth. I did so. In that test run, all I did was to launch two Hawkeyes into the general areas where I had them deployed in the earlier scenarios. I did this immediately upon starting the scenario. One was sent a couple hundred miles NE of the carrier group, and the second was sent about 150 miles to the ESE of the carrier. (As per normal, the Hawkeyes' radars were off until they reached their patrol areas). I then turned on the carrier group's radars because I was intending to measure their range as well as the other radar ranges - mainly to satisfy my own curiousity in that case, as that range info had not been explicitly requested. While I was measuring the ranges of the base radars and the carrier radars, the Hawkeyes were moving towards their respective patrol positions with their radars still off. When the Hawkeyes had gone about 100 nm, MiGs were first detected by the carrier radar within the range circle of the carrier's AAW missiles, and were heading towards the second Hawkeye, right across the carrier group. (Although not relevent here, the carrier group auto-fired at the MiGs and after three or four volleys finally downed them. I estimate they were about 20-40 nm from the carrier group icon at that time). Anyway, my first point is that the AI had detected the presence of at least the second Hawkeye, and had sent MiGs to intercept it, even though the Hawkeye never had its radars turned on. First puzzle: Howcum the AI even detected it when the carrier group was at least 330 miles from the nearest AI ground radar? My second point is that the MiGs arrived at the point they were detected, which was probably at least 350 nm from their base (because the carrier was 380 nm from that base, and they were detected within the missile range of the carrier group, which actually would put their trip a bit less than the 380 nm that I was thinking of before). Anyway, those MiGs must have travelled that 350 nm in the same timeframe as the Hawkeyes traveled about 100 nm... which my corroded algebra thinks should mean that the MiGs must have averaged 3.5 X the cruise speed of the Hawkeyes. So, the second puzzle is: How could they do this so quickly, and without exhausting their fuel, and without operating at a higher altitude which intuituvely I would think should have made them detectable at a greater range from the carrier group. Bottom line is that I remain puzzled how they could detect the Hawkeyes, and move so fast and so stealthily into the carrier's radar envelope. And BTW, it now occurs to me that it seemed to take an inordinate amount of AAW fire for the carrier group to down those MiGs.

First off, I think this is a non-issue - and I'm kind of wondering why so much attention is being paid to it. I think from the start I said that I thought this situation was some sort of anomaly - which I meant in the sense of a highly unusual (but legitimate) event, not in the sense of a "defect". The whole thing just came out an anecdote about a rather memorable -and flustering- experience. I'm confused by this apparently contradictory set of statements, but I think you are simply reiterating what I tried to convey regarding the ability for the scenario to be set up such that various quantities of aircraft may or may not appear in any given run of the scenario, based on assigned probabilities. I have to believe that in the first run that I described, the quantities were pretty much all maxed out, for whatever reason - most likely all (or the vast majority of) the probabilities just happened to be fulfilled in that case. However, if the numbers that I saw exceed the total possible numbers, then I suppose something must be wrong. But, if you meant something else by this, then I've missed the point.

No quibble here. Yet, since you bring it up, I do rather wonder why you don't have more resources on the job. Let's see... Brad has a full time job and a family. Tony has a full time job, owns and operates a company in his spare time, and is fumbling towards being in a position to have a family. We are the major contributors. Then there are the beta testers like donaldseadog who go above and beyond. Database authors like Enrique and Rene who work their magic day in and day out provide valuable service. Scenario authors are out there too pouring time into their creations, keeping the game alive. All of us are volunteers. For none of us is this our job. We spend ~$400 per year to keep this website running (Brad, Fred, and I split the bill). The programming tools run around $750/yr these days. I've averaged about $200/yr in payment for the work, Brad a little less, Fred little at all. Note also that we did not ask for money. While we'd love to be paid a respectable wage for the work that won't happen unless a rich benefactor comes along. This year I'll spend hundreds of additional dollars out of pocket to ship copies of the game around the world to those that have helped the game over the years and have not been rewarded by any person or organization more senior than me. So do you still wonder why there aren't more resources who want to be battered in public forums while paying for the honor? Do others really want to finish a patch and not have it distributed by the publisher for over a year, all the while taking flack for not patching the game? Some have tried for a short while and most melt away just as quickly. Sorry to strike a nerve there, but I think my question was rather misunderstood. Specifically, considering that people are paying a fair chunk of change for each copy of the game set, it seems like there would be the wherewithal to have some other resources helping out - especially if they are all volunteers as you say. From my perspective, and considering the workload you describe, it's just very puzzling why the resources are so restricted for the project.

That was my assumption. It seemed that others were saying otherwise, so I just wanted confirmation. In that case, I don't see how it is reasonable for the MiGs to show up where they did, when they did. But then, I don't think it is particularly reasonable for them to be able to detect the Hawkeyes at those distances in the first place, so...???

I was trying to force the situation specifically where the planes were not attached to the bases - so they would be independent from base settings... but I wanted them over the bases to make the case play right. I did not take into consideration the inability to force the AI to keep its radars off - but this is a hypothetical. Anyway... Part of the reason behind this case was to find out whether the planes could detect each other at those distances without the benefit of ESM detection of the other's radars, and without the aid of the ground radars. By the way, is it possible to detect planes via some form of ESM even when they have their radars off? If so, I'm curious about how and when this would take place. I'd question whether the Phantoms are actually a lot bigger than the MiG-21's, although I suppose it depends a bit on what aspect you're viewing from. Anyway that was the reason for my putting identical aircraft in the other two sub-cases. The smokey trails were reportedly a give-away for the Phantoms in RL; dunno about the MiGs in that regard, although I recall pictures of MiG-17s that were putting out some pretty serious smoke, albeit perhaps not at cruise. (Is any of that even modeled in any way in the game?) The primary reason for these sub cases was to "investigate" the maddening puzzle of why my pilots have so relatively poor vision compared to the AI's pilots. Specifically in the situation where an engagement occurs in an area well outside of anyone's radar coverage, it is clearly the norm for AI planes to sneak up on, or at least track, target, and kill my air groups without using any radar, while my boys must be blind as moles when they aren't using their radars, and have ineffective radar when they are using it - cause they can't find the AI guys either way, and if they do shoot at the uncertainties, they almost always miss. It just puzzles the heck out of me how the AI guys are so all-seeing, while my guys are such bumbling idiots. Gotta get some better optometrists... or some bionic eyes, I guess...

<Plenty snipped> Is there some reason you can't just work these cases up in the scenario editor to start with? (And bring the data back to the forums if there is something odd in your opinion, of course) Two things: 1. No scenario editor in the Demo. 2. I'm looking for opinons and explanations of what people are expecting these situations to produce - to see if my understading of their previous discussions of the matter is actually correct, or if something got lost in the soup. Just trying to bring it into focus a bit.

I believe the manual states that tankers can't refuel THEMSELVES. I think you are right but I think the translation into Harpoon reality is that you can't refuel tankers in general, at least I've never been able to using normal refuelling procedures. There might be a trick to do it, any ideas?? Don That reminds me of a situation that happened recently, where I had four F-14A's configured with tanker loadouts, and due to a SNAFU, they were heading off towards a base in Timbuktu, instead of to their originating base. Thus, they were running out of fuel. Fortunately - or so I thought - a KC-10 was nearby, so I introduced them and tried to re-fuel. It seemed to be working, but the range circle on the F-14s kept on getting smaller, and eventually they dropped out of the sky. Now, this was close enough that I'm not sure if it was just a case that there was not enough time to do the refueling, but it certainly gave the impression that the F-14's were not IFR capable (like the similar situation with that KA-6, which actually happened in the same incident, BTW). Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that F-14As were IFR-capable... or does having them in the Tanker loadout remove that capability?

That's why I lobby for some more "automatic" features for re-fueling - such as automatic vectoring of tankers to groups, a la fighter intercepts. I often suffer more losses from re-fueling SNAFUs than from enemy action - simply due to all the micro-managing that it demands at times when my attention is diverted to other pressing matters, such as air engagements and/or other battles. It would be nice, but I think other priorities do exist. Do you use the message system (short cut F10)? When you know you need to do something in the future select the group you'll be giving orders to and hit F10, enter your reminder message then you get a 'time delay' window, select the time delay required. When the time count down has finished you'll get the reminder pop-up and a chance to select the group so you can issue your orders. The F10 can also be put in as an order in the course editor so as to get your reminder at a certain location. This is very handy for arranging IFRs, if you have all group tracks showing calculate approx where you want to meet and course tanker and receiver groups to that spot and for each group put in a F10 reminder to look for the refuel. That way you don't forget. If your refuel spot is within the formation patrol area of you tanker's base you can also put the tanker in patrol formation in the overlapping sector, put in a F10 reminder at an inserted spot in the receiver groups course and when you get there do a 'join' manoeuvre to get the tanker out of formation and into the receiver group, then do the Alt R for immediate refuelling. Hope this helps, Don Thanks for the heads-up. Although I had been vaguely aware of the message feature, I was unaware of the extent of its capabilities, and consequently had ignored it, thinking it was a case of "more trouble than it's worth". As you describe it, it sounds like it would be helpful for a number of things, especially the re-fueling coordinations. One thing I'd wonder about though, is whether the reminders may just get lost in the flurry of Staff Assistant messages that always seem to come up right around the time that something else really needs attention!

Huh? So, how far away can you get a visual under ideal conditions? When I detected the MiG-21 - apparently by virtue of it turning on its radar (for some reason that I can't fathom, but probably isn't relevent here anyway) - the MiG was about 2/3 of the way out in the Hawkeye's radar range circle, and homing on the Hawkeye. I immediately turned off the Hawkeye's radars, dove it to Low, and then sent it off on a somewhat zagged course, that was perhaps 40 degrees off the initial intercept vector on average. Watching the MiG (when I could "see" it by virtue of its own radars), it was easy to see that the MiG reacted to each change of direction of the Hawkeye as it closed the distance. Being that the Hawkeye was out of range of ground radar at all times, it must have been tracked by ESM or visually, I suppose. But it's puzzling to me just how this was accomplished with such precision at those distances. And the kicker is that if it was a visual on the part of the MiG, then howcum none of my groups in the area could get a visual on the MiG, and could "see" it only when it turned its radar on? BTW, it seemed that it closed on the Hawkeye faster that is should have, judging from the reported speeds, and the implied relative speed. I still can't make sense of it. The only way I can reconcile this with my own observations is if the MiGs already exist way out in the formation at the outset of game play. Otherwise, I'd assume they have to launch into formation, and then eventually vector off for intercept. All of which presumably would take an appropriate amount of time... and actually would take some time longer than if they vectored directly from their base (well, unless their formation position was directly on the bearing of intercept). My best guess of the approximate numbers involved in the situation is: Worst case: MiGs had to launch and travel from their base to the point of detection (about 380 nm) in the same time that it took the Hawkeye to launch and travel approximately 100 nm. Best case: MiGs started at the extreme edge of their formation (255 nm), at the point on the bearing line from the base to the Hawkeye, so they traveled (380 - 255) or 125 nm in the time it took the Hawkeye to travel the 100 nm. So, in the worst case, wouldn't the MiGs have to travel at an average speed of 3.8 X of the speed of the Hawkeye? If so, should they have been able to sustain that speed considering their fuel consumption? In the best case, the traverse time at crusing speed seems plausible... but it requires that the scenario start with the MiGs already out at the full formation range and in the position of that formation that just happened to be closest to the Hawkeye. If the MiGs actually start the scenario at some point in the formation, but presumably not at the point where they are closest to the Hawkeye, then some additional travel time would be required, tending to stretch the plausibility of them being able to traverse that increased distance at cruise speed in the same amount of time. But, as I said - and has been "attested to" by others - my algebra is corroded, so you'll have to make any actual calculations based on these estimated numbers.

Welcome back! I play HCE exclusively. I have never really gone far into the others, because the feel of HCE is more to my liking. Consequently, I can't offer any comparisons. I couldn't have said it any better myself, although I would add that, personally, I am interested in WWII era and onwards... and I'm more oriented towards the air side of things than the naval side. Joe K

Yes - well, sort of: I think - and believe I stated - that it seemed to be that number of bombers and missiles. As for screenshots, I didn't realize they were required. I mean, I didn't see this situation as a "defect", I just figured (initially) that it was a horrendously lop-sided scenario. But, to clarify a few things about the experience: - This 700-800 situation was an estimate, and tended to be supported by the info that I could gather after the fact. Specifically, there were about three or four red airbases (I don't recall the exact number), and when I looked at the estimated numbers of aircraft on those bases, each one had at least 100 bombers listed on base, with over 200 in some cases... and I believe these numbers did not include the aircraft which had launched the missiles, because I assume those were still airborne at that point. In any case, it indicated that there were at least 400-700 bombers in the game, that were currently landed, and most likely at least 100 more still ariborne - probably a lot more. - This situation occurred the first time I tried to play the scenario. I played it againt right after, and there were considerably fewer bombers involved. I think I counted something in the neighborhood of "only" 250 bombers listed at bases at the outset of that game. - My assumption is that there must have been quite a number of conditionally-included bombers in the scenario, and for some reason, my first game pretty much got maxed out. (I assume someone who has a scenario editor can confirm or refute this assumption). - If this situation can't be explained by the numbers included in the scenario, then perhaps there is some "defect" involved that would explain the hordes of bombers that apparently existed in the first play. (In this case, I'd have to guess it would trace back to some problem with the randomizer that caused huge numbers of a/c to be present).

Thanks, mavfin. Lots of good stuff in there. Acknowledged. Still, do you intend the game to only be usable by people who have a certain level of "external" knowledge... or do you intend it to serve as a bit of a learning tool at the same time? Personally, I learn stuff from playing the game, combined with bits of knowledge that I've picked up elsewhere, and it sort of brings it all together. But if players would need to have all of the knowledge beforehand, then it seems like it would actually cut down on the appeal of the game because it would reduce the learning experience aspects. So, why not have some learning "hooks" in there? Looking for another perspective, what is the comparative effort-versus-value ratio of putting in certain bits of information or advisements like this, as compared to generating considerable information in the form of logging? Just thinking...

How about the game's namesake, for example? I think I've said this before, but most anti-ship missile types are of the active radar homing variety, and any of these would make for useful tools in the BOL mode. My intended point was that I typically don't remember all that stuff without some sort of prompting or reference material. In other words, I don't keep it all in my head - at least not available for instant recall - probably because it is not my bread and butter job. I do have a question, though: For BOL, my assumption is that we're were talking radar self-guided weapons, not weapons guided via radar from the launcher or target-director platforms, correct? I can think of more useful things to do with our limited coding/beta testing time. No quibble here. Yet, since you bring it up, I do rather wonder why you don't have more resources on the job. You know (or should know) where the beta forum - where wish list items should go - is located. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge. Well, I kinda thought that I'd used up my quota there...

About the only weapons that I can remember being radar-guided - well, radar-homing, if you want to get technical - are ARMs; all others disappear into the soup of guidance types as far as I'm concerned. I agree that I don't like being denied something - which is why I suggested an advisory-only indication as an option. However, we're already being denied ARMs at times, with no choice, so perhaps a little consistency is in order? If an appropriate advisory was provided along with the activation distance dialog, it wouldn't even be necessary to spoon-feed the player all the weapons info anywhere. Instead, it would just be a generic reminder at the time of attempted use.

Considering the MiG cruise speed is roughly twice that of the Hawkeye, I am not surprised at all. Well, lessee... I'm a bit rusty at algebra, but (going (375 + 100) miles at 2X) > (going 100 nm at X) means X equals... um.. well, as I said, my algebra skills are corroded... but wouldn't that mean that the MiGs would have to be going almost five times as fast as the Hawkeye?? Good idea! Someday, I'll get used to using that feature, yet! The missiles are long-ranged... and something like 475 knots, IIRC. So, they don't arrive really soon after they are launched at normal range. I don't recall the name of the scenario, but it involved a Blue carrier group near the north end of Norway, and it was either trying to move into the area, or else it was trying to extricate survivors of a carrier group from the area, not sure which. Almost seems like the carrier group was on the offensive in that one, and then the extrication scenario was a follow-on, supposedly taking place after the carnage of the first scenario. But my memory is vague about that... Not so vague about getting blown out of the water the first time by what must have been hundreds of A-S missiles, though...

The animations only show "almost hits". (This is starting to sound like an Abbott and Costello routine). Maybe that explains some things! Anyway, I was just asking if there is any conventional terminology used to describe/differentiate the two conditions - so as to make any discussions more concise... and less Abbott and Costello-esque.

Were your missiles launched against specific targets or were they BOL? If you're asking about the general case (and not the specific situation that occurred the other night) then I can't say for sure about all the cases... but... it is highly probable that most of the situations were cases where the missiles were launched against specific targets. The reason for this estimate being simply that I rarely use the activation distance mode, due to it not working for me.

Then I mis-undestood. And while I'm not quite sure what you said above, my concern about creating new scenarios under different program conditions is that if those don't demonstrate the same problem, that may be construed as "proof" that the problem never existed in the first place, where in reality, it may simply be demonstrating a different set of program conditions where the problem does not manifest. That's why I hope to maintain circumstances that don't change the game conditions, but only move to a different platform - to see whether the problem follows the save-files or actually is machine-specific. Now, if instead you are implying that you don't believe the reported behaviors exist anywhere, then it seems you've already reached your verdict, and so anything I do is just going to be a waste of time - because there'd be nothing I could provide that would constitute adequate "proof". Regardless, I wish to satisfy myself - as best I can - whether the same problem shows up on machines other than my own - because that itself should shed some light on potential causes. If nothing else, I hope to lay to rest once and for all the question of whether this stuff really is some local gremlin - because if it is, then the solution becomes simple: I just play on some other machine... case closed! On the other hand, if I see it show up in the demo on other machines, then it shows the problem is not local - and then it makes sense to put significant effort into attempting to reproduce the same behavior in the HUE version of HCE. Even if the HUE version of HCE is the "same" as the HCE Demo version, there are certain aspects that must be different by definition (e.g. - registry entries, directories used, save-file formats, etc.), and it seems plausible to me that any such differences could be involved in this. Considering the evidence to date, it especially would not surprise me to find that the problem is specific to the Demo, in light of the probability that I'm running the Demo while most others are running the release version or the Beta, so if the problem is Demo-specific, it would make sense that few others see/report similar behaviors. And, again, the solution would be relatively simple: That is, I either migrate to the HUE version, or (more likely) I simply "live with" the Demo, due to financial considerations. Call me lazy if you will, but I always try to find the simple solutions first.

And, likewise, not having any proof of it, I am resistant to the notion that it happens anywhere else. Which is why I'm trying to develop that proof. Meanwhile, I don't want further stack the deck against that possibility.

Having missions already underway and in the air is not currently possible, but it is on several folks' wish lists and may someday see some beta attention. As I suspected. But it leaves me quite puzzled after experiencing some situations - like that one USNI scenario where the carrier group is obliterated by hoards of bomber-launched missiles that seem to arrive sooner than would be possible if all those bombers had to launch and move to launch positions and send the missiles... or in the Bridge scenario where MiGs arrive to pounce on Hawkeyes that are only 100 nm into their runs even though the MiG bases are about 375 nm away... etc. It sure seemed like attacks developed sooner than they could have if they had to be launched from the bases - particularly in that USNI case where numerous bombers would have to be launched, formed up, traversed to launch range, and then the relatively slow missiles would have to traverse their own long ranges. Just didn't seem like there was enough time for all that to happen when it did. Oh, well...

See my post #16 in this thread SLAM is an EO guided weapon. Chances of success with a BOL hit are slim. OK, then back to my point about whether the activation range dialog is offered or not: Because it is not possible (AFAIK) to determine the BOL capability of a particular weapon without external knowledge, it seems that the activation range dialog should not be offered as it is... or perhaps even that the incapable weapons should not be released for that target (as is the case with ARM-types)... or if the weapon is "slightly capable", at least that there would be an advisement that the weapon is not really suitable. I conceed that it is arguable that a "professional" should be knowledgable about these sorts of nuances, but considering the inavailability of that information within the game, it seems that it would be more consistent with other comparable situations (such as the attempted ARM launch situation) if the use was blocked or at least had an associated advisory - instead of offering a dialog that implies, "Hey, this is good - go for it!" Just my two cents.

I meant to comment on this earlier. The USNI scenarios are challenging, I'd agree, but "insanely hard" or impossible to the point that anyone should refuse to play them? Nah, can't agree with that. I would be interested in hearing about others' experience with them. Are you getting your butt handed to you regularly in USNI? More regularly than in scenarios from other battlesets... To the point that I use other scenarios for developing tactics.