Just noticed that the World War DB is live and still being added to. But I am not noticing that there are any scenarios to be downloaded using it. Am I missing something?

 

I am currently reading Shattered Sword, about the battle of Midway, and am wondering about using HCE to look at some WW2 actions. I'm assuming that HCE would not be especially useful for surface actions, but my interest is mainly carrier operations so it seems HCE might do just fine.

 

If I were to put together a simple WW2 carrier scenario using the WWDB, how would I approach it as I assume there is no battle set for it. I guess I'm confused about how to go from a DB to an actual scenario (I had done scenarios before within a HCE battle set).

My personal opinion is that HC is far from ideal for WWII action but some others find that it works well enough to satisfy their desires.

 

Some existing material...

 

 

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=523

 

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=459

 

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=447

 

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=596

 

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=424

 

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=377

HC is far from ideal for WWII action

 

I'd be very interested to hear why?

I'd be very interested to hear why?

 

From the HCWW FAQ:

 

It is important to keep in mind the limitations of the current code when it comes to modeling WW1/2 era engagements, however, including: less than ideal modeling of aircraft guns; difficulty in modeling radio intercept; no limitations to communications; targeting based on formation center rather than unit to unit; etc. That said, I think there is still potential for extracting enjoyment of WW1/2 warfare simulation from HCE, and it is always possible we may be able to overcome some of these barriers in due course.

 

Big fan of Shattered Sword btw, excellent reading.

less than ideal modeling of aircraft guns

Didn't you guys recently improve this? Can't find it in the Release Notes now, of course.

 

difficulty in modeling radio intercept

What is 'radio intercept?

 

targeting based on formation center rather than unit to unit

Hmm, didn't the modern carrier at the center formation evolve during WW2? Thinking Midway, wouldn't putting the four big Japanese carriers in the center section of the Formation Editor simulate things fairly well?

 

The only other simulation I can think of usable for WW2 carrier ops is Carriers at War. Do you feel that does a better job than HCE for the time period?

less than ideal modeling of aircraft guns

Didn't you guys recently improve this? Can't find it in the Release Notes now, of course.

 

The code has difficulty modeling close range (<3 nm) air to air engagements. Of course, in the WWII era (and even today), 3 nautical miles might as well be a million when it comes to guns only engagements.

 

I'm also less than satisfied with the anti-aircraft artillery. I need to overhaul rate of fire and hit probability values, as right now it is quite difficult to get close enough to an AAA defended target to hit it with bombs or guns.

 

What is 'radio intercept?

 

As you know, HCE models the detection of enemy radar emissions via ESM. In the WWII era, though, with such things still in their infancy, it was mostly about radio intercept and radio direction finding. HCE does not, however, model communications at all. So we have ESM but no radio intercept/DF.

 

Hmm, didn't the modern carrier at the center formation evolve during WW2? Thinking Midway, wouldn't putting the four big Japanese carriers in the center section of the Formation Editor simulate things fairly well? The only other simulation I can think of usable for WW2 carrier ops is Carriers at War. Do you feel that does a better job than HCE for the time period?

 

I am referring in particular to the way that HCE models surface gunnery engagements, ie. use of the center of an enemy formation to determine the range, rather than say, a picket on the edge of the formation.

 

Pure carrier warfare, i.e. launching and recovering planes in long range strikes against other carriers or land targets, is probably where HCE manages to model WWII warfare fairly well (with some caveats). I have no experience with CaW.

Ah, now I understand more better. So for Harpoon to shine, one should restrict oneself to periods when aircraft are more reliant on missiles than guns, there is radar and there is little surface to surface gunnery; basically approx 1960 ???? forward.

Ah, now I understand more better. So for Harpoon to shine, one should restrict oneself to periods when aircraft are more reliant on missiles than guns, there is radar and there is little surface to surface gunnery; basically approx 1960 ???? forward.

 

Far be it from me to suggest that anyone 'restrict' themselves from playing around with a World War I/II database (especially since I worked so freakin' hard on putting one together ... ).

 

But essentially, yes ... and therefore, since I have recently been accused of being old enough to remember Gomer Pyle ... Shazam!

 

HCE Cold War Database

 

Harpoon Commander's Edition is particularly well suited, I believe, to modeling warfare during this period - the dawn of the missile age. The models in HCE are relatively simple and lend themselves well to the emergent technologies of the period: missiles, radar, electronic warfare, weapon guidance, to name but a few.

Golly Gee Mista CV, Gomer is just a classic.

 

Actually, looking over at the Matrix version of Carriers at War, I'm either going to dig out my old copy of Complete CAW or try out Harpoon WW2-I like the idea of having just one base program to use.

 

And, of course, you guys could always tweak the code some more in your copious free time.

 

Seriously, the air to air gunnery seems the biggest problem as long as one is not getting involved in surface gunnery engagements. And it should really be fixed anyway, otherwise the problems, and solutions, in VN aren't really modeled. And you know the problem with AAA is going to eat at you until you fix it.

 

Really seems not too far off.

 

And was radio direction finding actually used at the operational level much? I'm not remembering reading about it used that way back then.

Limitations from my perspective:

 

* Surface gunnery - inability to disengage.

 

* Surface gunnery - ability to cheat the ROF limitations to get extra shots.

 

* Surface gunnery - minimal armor modelling.

 

* Attacks in general - group-center targeting makes any intercept a manual affair which makes it tough for the AI not to mention the player.

 

* Weather - limited affect of weather on operations as a whole.

 

* Communications - instantaneous and flawless data network in HC takes away a lot of the strategy of WWII operations.

 

* Communications - inability to model communications intercepts, not only for direction finding but also as an intelligence tool to cue forces to a certain location (though one can mimic this with Staff Messages with much effort).

 

* Logistics - lack of logistics in HC seems especially limiting to Pacific operations.

 

* Map interface - inability to lay precise courses at high zoom levels.

 

* Sensors - HC checks most sensors only every 30 seconds, this makes Brad's AAA difficult at the correct ranges and certainly affects dogfights and other interactions. At a minimum visual detection should be checked more frequently for WWII ops.

 

* AI smarts - this is not my own criticism though I agree, the AI will tear off after any detected target and often it would behoove the WWII situation for the AI group to follow the course of events that the scenario designer intended.

 

Those are the ones that come to mind right now.

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

With some possible future changes in the Game Engine I think it will be more playable only with guns. I enjoy the game as is, but I know it can be improved. Meanwhile, I'm researching and compilating data for future DataBases ...