Palex80

Facebook??? I didn't know there's a Facebook page for Harpoon. Link?

Much of this is because the AI is attacking the first player unit it detects. I understand, however perhaps one could install a mechanism to tell the AI when to stop attacking a specific unit. One of the situations one often experience is that a SEAD-package of 6 aircraft each armed with 4 Harm missiles is launched against an airbase. The airbase consists of the base itself, 1 long rage radar, 1 medium range SAM battery and 2 shirt range batteries. The SEAD package then launches all Harms in groups of 2 missiles over and over again at the first closest unit it detects, for example one of the close range SAM batteries. All other units are ignored, because the SEAD package loiters as soon as the closest part of the group enters the range of the Harm missiles. There are two possible workarounds for this: 1. Prevent the AI from repeating attacks, that have not ended yet. The AI tends to launch weapons at the target before the already launched weapons are still airborne. Perhaps one could tweak that, so that the AI waits until a) the weapons have hit the target or have been shot down themselves? 2. Prolong the time an attack takes place at the same target. Perhaps prologing the time between weapons' launches would be an alternative (although a very inflexible one). For example the AI needs to wait 2 full minutes before relaunching at a target already attacked by the same unit? This may however cause significat problems in air combat, so I would restrict that to air-surface & surface-surface attacks.

It could also be helpful if the AI had an idea about the value of each target and the forces allocated at it. I often see the AI target SAM installations around an airfield and completely ignore the airfield. The same happens some times with ship groups with huge repeated volleys of missiles launched at only the picket ships, ignoring the high-value target.

I hope everyone is enjoying the updated and seriously more challenging version. I am going to start working on the 6th scenario of the series this weekend. Cheers, Alex

I always assumed that large airstrikes against surface units by the AI are actually programmed patrols, meaning that for example 20 Backfires were sent into the middle of the Atlantic by the scenario writer and if by chance during their journey down there a sub or a Bear made contact with a convoy, the Backfires were vectored in to attack that. I did not realize that it was the AI launching a group of 20 Backfires to make the strike. Smaller groups of attack aircraft against ships are, as far I undestand, often split units from the formation editor. So pre-programmed ASuW patrols from the formation editor are split from the base to attack a ship being discovered by some other asset.

On the other hand AI attacks with great numbers of aircraft are programmed attacks. It's in the hands of the scenario designer to design such attacks.

Well, it seems then, that it all has to do with how one plays. Perhaps we should ask how everyone else plays. Do people use large groups of aircraft (say 10+) commonly or do they stick only to small groups of aircraft? The problem for me is not, that the radar won't detect all 60 Tomahawks at once. The problem is it won't detect anything at all, although there are 60 missiles out there. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to know that there are 60 missiles out there because radar picked up one of them. I would be happy to know that some missile(s) are out there at all. That would give me a chance to investigate. As far as claiming, that this will make the game easier, I cannot agree with you. The bigger chance of getting detected can actually help the AI fight off attacks on its bases and ships, something the AI often fails doing.

Perhaps the problem is how each of one is playing the game. Task: Sind a Kirov BCGN. Weapons at hand: 24 A-6 Intruders armed with 2 Harpoons each on an aircraft carrier 500 miles away. What do you do? 1. Launch 8 groups of 3 A-6s each, wait until they are all launched and every group at the same distance from the aircraft carrier and then order them to attack simultaneously. Then order all the groups to land, one by one? Good. That's probably how you could do it and it would probably be the closest to reality. It would probably cost me a lot of nerves to find loiter points at the same distance from the Kirov and then order all of the eight groups to move in, let alone launch more or less at the same time. And we all know a Kirov can shoot down 48 Harpoon missiles with its SAMs if they come at it over an extended period of time and not all at once. 2. Launch 1 group fo 24 A6s, send it to kill the Kirov, order it back to land. Surely that's the easiest way to do it. And frankly, that's the way I'd do it. Now, what's the problem here? The problem is that the Kirov will see that 24 A6 raid just as easily or hardly as a 3-aircraft raid. And that shouldn't be the case, in my opinion. Those 24 aircraft should be easier to detect. I am not sure why enhancing detection capabilities would make the game easier of the AI. Big formations of aircraft are not something used exclusively by the AI. Furthermore the AI chronically suffers from correct placement of AEW-assets and adequate air patrols in Harpoon, often not spotting aircraft coming in from non-prime threat vectors. Going not over the "typical" Great Britain - Iceland gap when attacking Keflavik, but rather attacking directly from the South is a common trick used when attacking the AI in GIUK/NAVC-Cold War scenarios. The same applies to large Soviet bomber raids against bases in the UK and France out of Kola airfields. I have repeatedly trashed NATO bases by simply not attacking directly via the shortest route over Norway, but rather going South first and turning over the North Sea to 270° flying to the targets. The AI has almost no chance to react to that, since most of the air patrols are stationed somewhere north of Britain / close to Norway. You can pull off 30 aircraft Badger raids like that, without getting spotted until you have launched. This is ridiculous. Imagine what a target a 30 Badger group would make on any radar... What I am tired of right now, frankly, is getting "jumped" by a group of 60 Tomahawk missiles appearing 20 miles off my air base. That's just insane... And they have been flying over water for like half an hour within range of multiple airborne radars... But sure, the game engine treats 1 Tomahawk the same as 60 of them in terms of detection.

The problem with flying in anothers "shadow" is how you are going to model that when you have multiple radars scanning the same spot from different directions. Surely if you were to attack a radar site with a 4 aircraft SEAD "package" and all aircraft would be flying in formation behind each other, you would have a rather small RCS, comparable to that of one aircraft. The radar would be able to see only the first aircraft, since the whole package would be a row flying straight at the radar site. What happens however if there's a second radar scanning the same area situated 45° off the vector of the 4 aircraft raid? That radar would be able to see all 4 aircraft and the target would be rather big actually. Would it be possible to model this into the game? Taking into account the vectors of the aircraft and the angle at which radar scans the aircraft? I doubt it...

CV32, I understand you point, that a 64 aircraft group is not very realistic, but the problem we are facing right now has to do with ANY group size, irrelevant of how big that is. 1 aircraft is as easily detectable as 4 as 6 as 8 as 10 aircraft. And these are group sizes which are logical and realistic. And you can expect groups of aircraft of that size to fly together and carry out a mission together, even in tight formations in some cases. That's why people are suggesting to change the detection chance of such a group of aircraft. That's it. During the various Israeli-Egyptian conflicts large aircraft formations were common. I recall airstrikes by groups of aircraft launched from the same base on Egyptian and Israeli targets. Those were formations of half a dozen to a dozen aircraft with the same loadout performing the same mission, for example attacking airfields in the openining moves of the war. If you were to play such a scenario now with Harpoon, the Egyptian player would have the same chance to spot a single Phantom performing a patrol or a 12 aircraft raid going for his airfield. That's just not realistic and a flaw in the game. In my opinion, it needs to be changed. The same should apply to missiles by the way, as I have already mentioned in a previous post. And missiles is something you can launch in volleys. At least that is one more intelligent way of approaching it. I could live with a detection model where maybe, if the group is quite large, say >12, then the detection value or probability of detection is somewhat higher. There is no reason to suggest a "cut-off" value. This is not something that happens after a "magical" barrier of the number of aircraft is reached. It's a steady increase in detection chance, which grows proportionally to the number of aircraft involved.

Dear Tony, thanx for your input. Just to make something clear: I am not saying that it should be 4 times easier to detect 4 aircraft than it is to detect 1 aircraft. I am just arguing, that some kind of "bonus" should be added, making multi plane formations easier to detect than single aircraft. If the bonus would be 20% per airctaft, then in the case of 4 aircraft the possibility to detect them would be 172.8% (((100%+20%) + 20%) + 20%) compared to a single plane. So it's not even twice that probably to detect them. But that 20% is just a figure I pulled out of my hat. One could also argue for a different factor.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand your points CV32. Do you mean that a formation of 2 aircraft should be as hard to detect as a formation of 20 aircraft? I don't think that should be the case. Harpoon treats all formations of aircraft of the same type and loadout as tight formations. Same altitude, same bearing, same speed, same turn rates, etc... Thus the resulting radar cross section of 20 aircraft flying in close formation is going to be bigger than that of 2 aircraft. It doesn't have to be radar only, it can very well be visual detection or ESM-detection. 20 aircraft are easier to see (more vapor trails/reflections for instance) and will generate more electronic "noise" than 2 aircraft.

Well you can always program big strikes to happen, right? In the original Harpoon Battlesets large aircraft strikes were quite common. You probably recall those 20+ Backfire strikes coming down from the Kola or the Su24/Su27 strikes out of Norway/Iceland. In modern days you may also see large paratrooper drops performed by a dozen or so C17s (it happened during the Iraq invasion 2003). Anyways, the principle is basically simle: More aircraft should mean more a higher chance of detection. I guess a 20% added chance of detection per aircraft added sounds reasonable?

Has anyone finished playing this one? I am still struggling with programmed air strikes. It seems that the AI won't do, what I am telling it to do. Only a fraction of the programmed air strikes materialized in the game, which is frustrating. I hope you are still enjoying the game, I will be uploading a new version with newly programmed strikes in hope of making it more interesting. I have a question: What happened to shot down patrols in the formation editor? If I allocate AAW-patrols for the AI in the scenario editor and these are shot down, will the AI replace them with new aircraft (provided it has some ready on the ground)? If none are ready in the base, will it replace them as soon as the aircraft are ready? Thanx, Alex

Thank you for this clarification. Perhaps these setting are adaptable? 1. Increasing the number of missiles/aircraft would increase the chance of detection. Doubling the number of aircraft shouldn't double your chances of detecting them, but some added "bonus" would be IMHO logical. A 60 aircraft raid shouldn't go as unnoticed as a 2-aircraft patrol. The same applied to missiles. Large missile barrages should be easier to detect than single missiles. This actually makes sense in the case of AAMs. The radar emissions of 1x AMRAAM are less than those of 16x AMRAAMS, increasing the threat detection chances for the attacked. 2. Maybe it shouldn't be the loadout of aircraft that would increase the chances of detection (2 F15s Intercept I + 2 F15s Intercept II), but rather the size/type of the aircraft?

One major challenge with modern Harpoon Classic is detection. In the older versions of Harpoon you were able to spot the enemy at ranges of 200 miles and more, when they were coming at you. Most of you probably recall those NACV scenarios, where you were defending Northern UK and were facing volleys of Su27s/Su24s from Iceland and Norway. The E3s were able to spot those formations at long range, giving you ample time to vector in your F15s/Tornadoes. In the current versions detection is really challenging. Most of the times I pick up aircraft at ranges less than 100 miles, some times only after they have fired upon me and this despite the fact that multiple units are scanning the areas (both AEW assets and friendly fighter aircraft). Cruise missiles are even harder to detect. Tomahawks are visible only in ranges of less than 15 miles, not to mention ACLMs which are practically invisible until the hit you. I understand that the radar cross section of modern aircraft & missiles has become significantly smaller than in the past, but radars have also improved. Do you think that Harpoon is a bit too "strict" on that isuue? And one final question: How does the size of the an aircraft group alter the chance of the group being picked up? Is a group of 4 F22s "more stealthy" in the game than a group of 8 F22s? Does this apply to missiles volleys as well (a 20 Tomahawk missile volley being more visible than a 4 Tomahawk missile voley?) Thanx, Alex

Ok, those are legitimate points.

I am not sure, why the Sao Paolo should not be able to operate JSFs in their STOVL variant? The Brazilians could remove the catapults and simply buy JSFs from the US (if the US would sell them those as they would to the Royal Navy). This is an alternate history scenario, one where Brazil is a US coalition partner and thus entitled to huge benefits. By the way I just found out how to rename units. :-) I am renaming the sold Type 22 frigates to Brazil with their current names and adding some fictive name to the "sold" (per scenario) Underwood frigates (upgraded O.H. Perry). This is fun!

Indeed. ---Spoilers ahead--- The idea with the Foch is that the Brazilian Navy is helping the Americans to invade the Azores. This "coalition" is explained in the scenario orders. There are no Brazilian vessels in the database I'm using, thats why I had to "steal" the french Foch. The same applies to its escorts, which are supposed to simulate purchased vessels of the Brazilian Navy.

Oh, thanx for that information. I'll make sure to delete/replace them in the next update!

File Name: MED5 File Submitter: Palex80 File Submitted: 05 Sep 2015 File Category: MEDC This is the fifth scenario in the series. PRELUDE: Operation “Southern Shield” managed to oust US Coalition forces out of the Azores. With ECON forces leaking their wounds and stretched to the limit it was a rather less joyful Christmas. Once again however the US Coalition unfortunately took the initiative and with it the fight to ECONs front …or rather back door. The citizens of Tel Aviv woke to air sirens, uncommon sounds since the signing of the peace accords with their Arab neighbours 2 years ago. They looked at the sky in anticipation of Katyusha rockets coming down raining on their ballistic trajectories and caught an unfamiliar glimpse of a new foe: dozens of cruise missiles heading for their targets across the city and beyond. Only moments later waves of aircraft came in from the southwest adding to the carnage. The surprise was complete and the Israel Defence Force suffered horrifying losses in the hands of what seemed to be a joint US-Egyptian attack, while the Egyptian ambassador e-mailed the official declaration of war to Israeli prime minister Dalia Rabin. It was not over yet. In a surprising move, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan endorsed the attack on Israel and announced that Turkey will be joining the US Coalition. The back door of ECON instantly became a very unpleasant spot. Click here to download this file

That's some excellent advice! Great job, thank you!

Thank you for the offer Tony, but I've started rewriting the scenario, that's ok. It would be really great if some future version of the Scenario Editor could allow removing or editing those Staff notes. Or maybe a small app like the "write orders" app, could do that? I have decided to start writing down all the air strikes I have ordered in an Excel sheet. That way I can keep track of when the strikes are planned. It's handy when you are designing a big scenario with multiple strikes from different bases and missiles strikes programmed in it.

Yes, you ought to exploit the 'repeat attack' tool and wherever possible, vary the time line so that AI attacks are not predictable. It is one of the most under-utilized features of the SE. Do you know if the AI will launch the attack with only part of the forces allocated to it, if for example some of the aircraft had been shot down in a previous attack? Do you know how I can delete or edit Staff Notes I entered in the Scenario Editor? Thank you!