I don't know if the bug is in my head or the game so I thought I'd post here first.

I had a scenario which included killing a SAM barge as a victory condition and while my first tests seem to work it later turned out that it didn't.

In the scen editor, victory conditions command, I selected "ship" subtype "brg", but when I checked via the 'edit' it listed 'AAA'.

Anyone know how I should do this?

Don

SAM barges make little kittens cry.

 

(I really do not like the SAM barges. They are a holdover from a time when HC lacked the ability to have mobile, land based air defences and we're way beyond that now. And if I had my way, they would be gone, gone, gone, but unfortunately we need them in the DB to maintain compatibility with the legacy scenarios out there that use them. New user scenarios should not use them, imho, because one day they will be history).

SAM barges make little kittens cry.

 

(I really do not like the SAM barges. They are a holdover from a time when HC lacked the ability to have mobile, land based air defences and we're way beyond that now. And if I had my way, they would be gone, gone, gone, but unfortunately we need them in the DB to maintain compatibility with the legacy scenarios out there that use them. New user scenarios should not use them, imho, because one day they will be history).

 

Do SAM barges exist in the "real world"? (I'd never heard of them prior to their appearance in HC). If they do exist, why get rid of them? Or, can they be represented adequately by land-based mobile AD units of some sort?

Do SAM barges exist in the "real world"? (I'd never heard of them prior to their appearance in HC).

 

In WW2 there were floating AAA Batteries including floating Figther Controlships (google Nachjagtleitschiff Togo).

 

So why not put a conainerised Roland SAM System on a little barge? but Systems like SA-2, Hawk, Patriot etc need more space for a battery, than a normal barge can provide.

Do SAM barges exist in the "real world"? (I'd never heard of them prior to their appearance in HC). If they do exist, why get rid of them? Or, can they be represented adequately by land-based mobile AD units of some sort?

 

Anti-aircraft defenses used to be tied purely to the Installations in HC, but for quite some time now, we've had the ability to create and utilize individual SAM/AAA batteries and sites.

 

The barges were a work-around or kludge that is no longer required.

 

As for reality, no. Its a dumb idea. While it would be technically possible to put a small, relatively light air defense system (like Avenger or Roland or any number of examples), why would you want to? Even a barge moored in a sheltered harbor or tied to a wharf would be subject to wave action and the horrific effects of salt water on sensitive equipment. Moving them out into open sea would only aggravate the problem. Moreover, why tie a mobile air defense system to a barge, where space is lacking, it is exposed and visible, needs to be towed, needs difficult logistic support, and worse, can be 'sunk', when you can more easily put the same system ashore? There is little or no benefit to a barge.

There is little or no benefit to a barge.

 

Bases like Seafloat might benefit from such systems...

 

 

but those cases are more theoretical (Air Superority!)

 

So i dind model those systems in my dbs.

 

Except from floating Falk Batterys in the 35to50db...

SAM barges make little kittens cry.

 

(I really do not like the SAM barges. They are a holdover from a time when HC lacked the ability to have mobile, land based air defences and we're way beyond that now. And if I had my way, they would be gone, gone, gone, but unfortunately we need them in the DB to maintain compatibility with the legacy scenarios out there that use them. New user scenarios should not use them, imho, because one day they will be history).

Well that provides an easy solution to the original problem, shame they look pretty cute I reckon...

Looks like another updated file needed.

..Should we have some little list of 'things not good practice' for scenario writing, like the multiple subs in a group, I seem to keep goofing up these things?

Don

Well that provides an easy solution to the original problem, shame they look pretty cute I reckon ... Looks like another updated file needed. ..Should we have some little list of 'things not good practice' for scenario writing, like the multiple subs in a group, I seem to keep goofing up these things?

 

Maybe an FAQ will develop in due course but I should add that there aren't many hard and fast rules, and more than plenty of room for subjective viewpoints and flexibility.

 

Take the "multiple subs in a group", for example. It does make them easier to find, track and destroy, but on the other hand, suppose you are making a convoy scenario with minimal ASW support. A multi-sub group might offer you better wide area coverage of the sea lanes, and increase the AI's ability to find targets, something you might desire in exchange for their own vulnerability.