Airfield damage/repair brainstorm

[donaldseadog]

The code does not currently keep track of # of damaged runways but we certainly know how many runways an installation has. Those of you beta testing know that the saved game format is in flux so yes, we can add a field to the code that denotes # of runways damaged. An alternative would be correlating damage % to # of runways out of commission. In either event we need rules on damaging the individual runways (one could distribute bomb hits randomly via a die roll).

 

Could rate of launch/ land be factored by the number of runways available? Does the tally of runways keep individual runway lengths and if so can it have a variable factor applied to it? The factor could just bring the runway size 'down' to a shortrer runway by a arithmetic subtraction, if the result is less than 1 then the runway is u/s until repaired and the repair could be an arithmetic addition by 1 for each time period as in Brads earlier rundown.

 

We don't currently model aircraft damage, so that's probably not an option. Total loss is a possibility, but we probably don't want the AI using a damaged airfield without paying any attention to the potential risk. More thought needed here.

I think (if coding not too hard) have probability of plane destruction for player only (or significant increase in time taken to land/ launch for both AI and player) and temporary runway length restrictions for both.

 

For reasons of code nightmares and programmer sanity we will avoid at almost any cost the idea of destroying planes that are in the process of taking off or landing. Yes, that means a way to game the system (launch everything when a strike is incoming). However, I have to admit affection for the idea of a chance that planes scheduled to take off from a damaged runway or landing at a damaged runway will be destroyed. That can be accomplished before that horrible interlude during launch and landing. Again we'll need rules to determine % chance of planes being lost.

 

Programmer sanity could be considered a cost of war

 

[donaldseadog]

I think landing in a damaged airbase can be allowed (with some low % penalty), but not take-off, i.e. if the plane don't fits in the remaining runway lenght.

 

I'm not saying I disagree but should a Tu-160 or B-2 be able to land at a runway that was once VLarge but is not bombed to VTOL size? It seems wrong to me but allowing it certainly provides the most opportunity for the AI to live and fight another day.

 

The takeoff run often exceeds the landing run (for example, a loaded transport) but I don't think I would like to see aircraft that ordinarily require Vlarge runways to be able to land at a Vertical only runway (probably not even a Small runway, for that matter).

I'm of two minds, I don't want to see overboard reality at the price of complex number crunching etc, but reality is nice.

Question?

In general could turbo prop/ piston prop STOL s land on grass eg C130 hercs seem to be able to land when necessary on pretty ordinary 'strips?

Also, is it wise to allow an AI plane to land where it might not be able to take off for quite some time, I'd prefer to see it redirected if possible but then I'd hate to see it run dry if it could have landed and waited for strip repairs?

 

Don

[donaldseadog]

Runway repair is pretty sophisticated these days, with separate team components comprising crater teams (to fill in the hole), mat teams (patching the surface), airfield lighting team (to install strobe and approach lights), and a mobile aircraft arresting system (much like a carrier's arresting wires) team. They used to employ a lot of steel mat and gravel to fill in runway craters, but nowadays they have aluminum planks, quick set concrete, ready made concrete slabs, even folding fiberglass mats. I understand the goal is to have a 60 x 45 ft mat in place within 1 hour 47 minutes.

Then I think your earlier figures look good.

I also agree with the quantum idea of "cuts" as it (I think) should allow fair realism with minimum logic. After all HCE rates 'strip length in just a few quantum amounts.

Don

[donaldseadog]

So will runway damage be caused by any weapon or only specifics (eg: antirunway only; any 'bomb'; any explosive warhead).

If a weapon causes runway damage does it also cause general percentage damage to the base (is general damaged repaired?)

 

Don

[TonyE]

So will runway damage be caused by any weapon or only specifics (eg: antirunway only; any 'bomb'; any explosive warhead).

If a weapon causes runway damage does it also cause general percentage damage to the base (is general damaged repaired?)

 

Runway criticals may be caused by any weapon, they are more likely to occur with antirunway weapons. The criticals are what reduce the runway length.

 

The base is the only entity with damage points, the individual runway(s) do not have damage points, they only have a length. Any weapon with a non-zero DP will apply damage to the base.

 

General DP damage is not repaired at all in the game. I think that started from the idea of Harpoon being a naval wargame and DP damage would for the most part be fixed in port (structural damage). Criticals generally have a chance of repair (your broken weapons mount might be repaired, rudder fixed, etc.).

 

I tend to think DP damage should be repairable at installations. How's that for floating a big idea?

[CV32]

Runway criticals may be caused by any weapon, they are more likely to occur with antirunway weapons. The criticals are what reduce the runway length.

 

You really have to hammer an airfield hard to start reducing its runway length when not using anti-runway weapons.

 

General DP damage is not repaired at all in the game. I think that started from the idea of Harpoon being a naval wargame and DP damage would for the most part be fixed in port (structural damage). Criticals generally have a chance of repair (your broken weapons mount might be repaired, rudder fixed, etc.). I tend to think DP damage should be repairable at installations. How's that for floating a big idea?

 

Makes perfect sense to me. When not directly repairing damaged facilities or equipment, airfields 'make do' by bringing in other equipment, exploiting dual use, dispersing valuable assets, etc, etc. A reimbursement of lost DP over time, perhaps at a rate in proportion to the size of the installation, would make sense.

[broncepulido]

Clearly a very good idea for me. I'm in doubt about if a completly destroyed airbase can be "repaired", I think it can, but I think it would generates victory conditions and code problems.

[CV32]

Clearly a very good idea for me. I'm in doubt about if a completly destroyed airbase can be "repaired", I think it can, but I think it would generates victory conditions and code problems.

 

I don't think a completely 'destroyed' installation would be able to conduct repairs, for our purposes. The repairs would only be available and active as long as intact DP remain. The rate of repair might also be degraded as DP are eliminated, ie. as damage becomes worse.

[TonyE]

I don't think a completely 'destroyed' installation would be able to conduct repairs, for our purposes.

 

Agreed, actually I know a destroyed installation will not be able to conduct repairs.

[Warhorse64]

Well, submunitions and mines will add a sweep-up time to the repair time, and they will increase the amount of the runway that cannot safely be used. You should be able to simulate both those effects just by increasing the amount of damage they do against runways, no? Is there a 'submunition' flag or category in the DB?

 

The principal problem is that we have no way to simulate the delayed effect of time fuzed submunitions or area denial mines. Everything in the Weapons annex of the DB explodes on impact. You could simulate the effect, perhaps, by putting these kind of delayed action weapons into the 'anti-runway' category but again the effect is immediate (acting like any other anti-runway munition).

 

I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at, here. Are you saying that these weapons (in Real Life) can be dropped at time x, but they have no effect until time x + n, and the game has no way of simulating that?

[CV32]

I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at, here. Are you saying that these weapons (in Real Life) can be dropped at time x, but they have no effect until time x + n, and the game has no way of simulating that?

 

Right, we have no way of simulating the delayed effect of the munitions or, for that matter, complicating factors like: that no aircraft can take off/land; the time needed to clear them; or that no runway repairs can be undertaken until they are cleared.

[CV32]

From chatter with Tony on IRC:

 

* it only takes a single runway critical hit to reduce a runway by one size, ie. a single Durandal bomb could score a critical

* runway size is not influenced by % DP damage at the installation, but rather it is entirely critical hit based

* there is only a 2% chance that anti-runway ordnance will apply DP damage

* example: if 100x Durandal @ 20 DP each, then DP(20)/16 = 1

* cuts = crits/number of runways, each cut reducing runway size by one

[donaldseadog]

From chatter with Tony on IRC:

 

* it only takes a single runway critical hit to reduce a runway by one size, ie. a single Durandal bomb could score a critical

* runway size is not influenced by % DP damage at the installation, but rather it is entirely critical hit based

* there is only a 2% chance that anti-runway ordnance will apply DP damage

* example: if 100x Durandal @ 20 DP each, then DP(20)/16 = 1

* cuts = crits/number of runways, each cut reducing runway size by one

This is sounding exciting! Can these five points be implemented then later go looking at more sophisticated stuff if still needed.

The five points still need a decision on landing/ rerouting planes and repairs. Repairs should be made according to Brads original time table, easy.

I think re landing the suggestion that (so long as airfield not destroyed) planes be allowed to land is best. They won't be of use till repairs allow them to take off, AI gets a win and everyone is inconvenienced.

(new GE version out soon??)

Don

[CV32]

This is sounding exciting! Can these five points be implemented then later go looking at more sophisticated stuff if still needed.

 

Heh, the five points describe the current state of the code, as it is now.

[TonyE]

My opinion of where we're at in the discussion:

• Damaging runways and reducing their length is already implemented in a reasonable fashion.
  
  • Antirunway ordnance applies chRUNWAY crits according to the formula weaponDP/16 = crits. 1 crit = 1 cut. If there aren't enough crits to reduce runway length the damage is still stored (ex. one chRUNWAY crit spread across four runways will not reduce runway length of the installation, but if you get three hits the next attack you now have four total and runway length drops by one level).
    
  • Currently a runway cannot go below STOL size (the two smaller are large and small helopads
    
  • The code examination did not reveal whether non-antirunway weapons can reduce the size of a runway. First glance suggests they cannot. This would be a great theory for someone to test in the game.
    

  [*] Use of damaged runways

  • Early consensus is to let planes land at damaged runways, anyone against the idea raise your voice.
    
  • Planes will not be able to take off from an installation with runway size less than that required for the plane.
    
  • # of runways, do we want to reduce the quantity of takeoffs per 30 seconds for partially reduced runways (ex. two runways at installation, 1 cut so in reality only 1 VLarge plane could take off per 30 seconds instead of the normal 2)? I vote no since it makes my life tougher.
    
  • Probability of losing aircraft doing takeoff/landing at damaged runways? I like the idea, we need rules developed.
    

  [*] Repair of runways

  • Brad listed some believable numbers for repair times. Work with that given the above. How can that be tied in with the below (i.e. the idea that more extensive damage multiplies repair time)?
    
  • Repair speed influenced by installation size was mentioned.
    
  • In tandem with repair speed how does multiple runways at the installation affect speed? My thought is that we'd have installation DP tiers (i.e. 1000 DP installation can repair 1 cut per 4 hours, so 4 runways with 1 cut each would take 16 hours to fix).
    

  [*] Repair of DP damage at installations - let's leave this for another adventure and focus on the runways for now.