literally moments after the scenario started, what must have been several hundred bombers and incoming missiles were detected. Those blew right through the few CAP assets that had gotten up, and swamped the shipboard defenses, and literally wiped-out my fleet. The AI achieved total victory within five minutes of game play ... the AI had something over 700-800 Tu-22 type bombers available to attack my group.

 

sucks to be you, dinnit?

 

I still can't figure how the scenario was set up so that AI bombers were in position to launch their missiles so soon after the scenario started, nor did I ever figure out how they were detecting/targeting my carrier group in that first run, where I hadn't even had time to turn on the sensors nor start the group moving.

 

One thing you could do is rerun the scenario from the other side. You should get a partial answer to your question. You will also find that YOU do not get that many planes. YOU might get 100! Again, sucks to be you, dinnit? I discuss this issue in my USNI 1 AAR.

 

(http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1997503)

 

The other thing you could do is to "show all" with CTRL-ALT-s.

Joe, I make you this offer:

 

Name a scenario in which the ground defences are wasting you. I or someone else will analyze it. That way, we will finally be talking about exactly the same thing. Of course, I can only make the offer for myself, but someone else may want to get in on it.

 

Second, as you are apparently only running the demo, and apparently only have access to the USNI and Westpac scenarios (if I recall correctly), I'm guessing that you're primarily talking about USNI scenarios, which are HEAVILY unbalanced and NOT the same from the other side. IIRC, AWACS tend to be in very short supply. As Blue, I don't think you get ANY. And note that the Hawkeye is NOT a Sentry - its radars are a lot worse. I don't remeember what RED gets that passes for AWACS, but their equipment is generally not up to American standards in this area. So it may well be that enemy aircraft can reasonably sneak up on you. That also we can maybe test.

 

As far as picket aircraft or ships go, even with radars on intermittently, especially picket fighters, I don't think you can ever count on these to detect incoming aircraft. You know, once in a blue moon you might get a hit. How good is visual detection? Almost useless in Harpoon, I would say. This is not a tactical fighter simulation. Space is big. Planes are small. The enemy aircraft almost certainly come in as low as possible because of radar horizon issues. And you can't even be sure that they came in from where you think they did.

literally moments after the scenario started, what must have been several hundred bombers and incoming missiles were detected. Those blew right through the few CAP assets that had gotten up, and swamped the shipboard defenses, and literally wiped-out my fleet. The AI achieved total victory within five minutes of game play ... the AI had something over 700-800 Tu-22 type bombers available to attack my group.

 

sucks to be you, dinnit?

Apparently.

 

I still can't figure how the scenario was set up so that AI bombers were in position to launch their missiles so soon after the scenario started, nor did I ever figure out how they were detecting/targeting my carrier group in that first run, where I hadn't even had time to turn on the sensors nor start the group moving.

 

One thing you could do is rerun the scenario from the other side. You should get a partial answer to your question. You will also find that YOU do not get that many planes. YOU might get 100! Again, sucks to be you, dinnit? I discuss this issue in my USNI 1 AAR.

 

Yeah, IIRC, I did... and it didn't. I just assumed the scenario was set up differently for each side.

 

The other thing you could do is to "show all" with CTRL-ALT-s.

What are all these special keys that I never heard of? Are they documented somewhere?

What are all these special keys that I never heard of? Are they documented somewhere?

 

Seek and ye shall find ...

 

Keyboard commands by location

 

Keyboard commands by type

Joe, I make you this offer:

 

Name a scenario in which the ground defences are wasting you. I or someone else will analyze it. That way, we will finally be talking about exactly the same thing. Of course, I can only make the offer for myself, but someone else may want to get in on it.

Well, I don't recall all the scenario names off-hand, but a number of the WestPac demo scenarios, especially the ones involving Japan vs Korea, and The BackYard. The North Viet Nam bridge scenario was also a bit costly, but with the RA-5Cs, at least I could detect the targets before tripping over them. I don't know which would be "best" (in the sense of causing the most casualties), but I recall the one Japan vs Korea (Middleweights) scenario being pretty tough (especially due to having no ARM missiles)... of course, I was having other issues in that scenario as well, so perhaps those things were connected somehow.

 

 

Second, as you are apparently only running the demo, and apparently only have access to the USNI and Westpac scenarios (if I recall correctly), I'm guessing that you're primarily talking about USNI scenarios, which are HEAVILY unbalanced and NOT the same from the other side. ...

Correct.

 

As far as picket aircraft or ships go, even with radars on intermittently, especially picket fighters, I don't think you can ever count on these to detect incoming aircraft. You know, once in a blue moon you might get a hit. How good is visual detection? Almost useless in Harpoon, I would say. This is not a tactical fighter simulation. Space is big. Planes are small. The enemy aircraft almost certainly come in as low as possible because of radar horizon issues. And you can't even be sure that they came in from where you think they did.

In that case, I guess the "best" that could be done would be to "stack" AEW types in one spot at each of the altitude bands - so their radars would cover each altitude?

 

Technically, it is correct that I can't tell for sure what path the AI group used for ingress... but, I can make a pretty good educated guess based on these factors:

1. As far as I've ever observed, the AI interceptor groups always vector directly from their base to the target. If so, this usually puts their ingress route through a whole bunch of friendly groups.

2. In the cases where the AI groups were detected, their approach direction was consistent with #1 above.

3. In many instances, the AEW "target" was amongst a number of other groups, that covered several of the approach directions.

 

But really, the bottom line here is that the AEWs - especially the AWACS - should have detected the AI interceptors sometime before they reached kill range... and probably well before that. I mean, in other cases, it seems they can detect stuff well beyond their indicated radar ranges, so having something be able to "sneak up" on them seems a bit implausible. Of course, the AI groups that do this are the ones that would be trying to sneak up on the AEW target, so I'm sure, in RL, they would be trying their best to be stealthy - as opposed to other groups which might not be so "careful" about exposing themselves. But is this modeled in the game?

 

One interesting related observation is with the RA-5Cs in the bridge scenario. They were forever getting "picked off" by undetected AI interceptors - despite their "magical" detection abilities... and despite the presence of Hawkeyes and so forth nearby. I always wrote this off to being due to the MiG-17s being small and hard to detect... yet a number of these instances occurred while the RA-5Cs were well beyond any ground-based radars, so it was a puzzle how the MiG-17s were able to locate and attack the RA-5Cs at such distances from their home bases/radars, and without exposing themselves in some way to some of the many intervening friendlies, nor to the AWACS and RA-5C's themselves. And it seems that it would be especially difficult to vector in on the RA-5Cs when the RA-5Cs themselves were not radiating. It all really was rather puzzling.

 

One other thing: If fighters' radar is so poor at detecting AI air groups, then how is it that the AI groups are so adept at being able to come into the player's "back yard" (that is, well beyond the range of the AI's ground or AEW/EW radars) and still track and target the player's groups? I mean, it doesn't make much sense to me that an AI group - especially one having inferior sensors - can waltz completely undetected into my back yard, under the umbrella of my AWACS, and plink my air patrols (whether or not my patrols are radiating). It begs the question of how the AI can track and target the player's groups, while remaining undetectable themselves.

What are all these special keys that I never heard of? Are they documented somewhere?

 

Seek and ye shall find ...

 

Keyboard commands by location

 

Keyboard commands by type

Thanks!

 

Now, um, how do I "bookmark" this for future reference?

Now, um, how do I "bookmark" this for future reference?

 

I can only hope and pray that you are kidding me.

 

You can find these here under Downloads, HC, Tools/Mods/Docs.

Now, um, how do I "bookmark" this for future reference?

 

I can only hope and pray that you are kidding me.

 

Not at all. As I said elsewhere, this forum does not resemble others that I'm used to navigating around, and I've yet to figure out how to bookmark, nor to sort posts, nor to link posts, nor to spell-check (since the spell-check icon does nothing), nor to access the first un-read reply, nor to do many of the other "standard' functions that are typical to other forums that I visit. And even the search "feature" behaves unexpectedly, or not at all.

 

I realize the hierarchal location of those references, but I need to set aside some marker (bookmark, pointer, URI, or something) that will allow me to easily find those again when I need to refer to them. As far as I could tell at a fairly quick glance, there was no means to mark/save either the reply here nor the actual location of those references - short of copying the URI and saving it off in a text file somewhere - which I'm not even sure would work here, and I'd probably loos it in the shuffle, anyway. Hopefully, there is some better way built-in?

I can only hope and pray that you are kidding me.

 

Not at all.

 

Oy.

 

I realize the hierarchal location of those references, but I need to set aside some marker (bookmark, pointer, URI, or something) that will allow me to easily find those again when I need to refer to them.

 

Some options:

 

1. Save the keyboard layout PDF file(s) in the HCE/Manuals directory (or some other suitable place) in your computer.

2. Make a 'bookmark' or 'favorite' using your browser.

3. Just physically/mentally remember they're in the Downloads/Tools section here at HG.

The North Viet Nam bridge scenario was also a bit costly, but with the RA-5Cs, at least I could detect the targets before tripping over them.

 

Joe, if you took any casualties in that scenario, you should definitely read my AAR mentioned above. I work it out in all the gory details, from overall strategic plan down to individual weapons fired. I should think that the results would be highly repeatable.

 

Warhorse gave an excellent AAR on The Backyard 2 here:

 

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=12712

 

He inflicted better than 10-1 casualties and was commended for his tactical brilliance, etc.

 

I've never played the scary big Westpac scenarios. I will have a preliminary look at Middleweights today. I may refuse to play it. But I think it's only the USNI scenarios that are insanely hard.

 

I guess the "best" that could be done would be to "stack" AEW types in one spot at each of the altitude bands - so their radars would cover each altitude?

 

Unnecessary, and impractical. The air search radar covers all altitudes low and above (iirc). If the AEW unit also has a surface search radar, that covers VL and surface targets. One AEW does it all, assuming it has those radars. Of course, if it gets unlucky, it gets no hits. So stacking a bunch of them in the same place dramatically increases the detection rate. But how many do you have, anyway? One? Two? Zero? They have to be spread out in space and time.

 

Generally, the computer's interceptor planes come form a base i.e. a point in space. However, they often tend to come from the base's patrollers, which can spread them out over quite a large area. Of course, they always come straight in without course deviations except those determined by the pursuit routines.

 

Stealthiness in Harpoon is modeled through the RCS (study Brad's numbers above). The only additional hiding the AI planes do is to travel at low altitudes to benefit from horizon effects.

 

One interesting related observation is with the RA-5Cs in the bridge scenario. They were forever getting "picked off" by undetected AI interceptors - despite their "magical" detection abilities... and despite the presence of Hawkeyes and so forth nearby. I always wrote this off to being due to the MiG-17s being small and hard to detect... yet a number of these instances occurred while the RA-5Cs were well beyond any ground-based radars, so it was a puzzle how the MiG-17s were able to locate and attack the RA-5Cs at such distances from their home bases/radars, and without exposing themselves in some way to some of the many intervening friendlies, nor to the AWACS and RA-5C's themselves. And it seems that it would be especially difficult to vector in on the RA-5Cs when the RA-5Cs themselves were not radiating. It all really was rather puzzling.

 

I discuss this in detail in my AAR. I think you are exposing your Vigilantes too soon. Yes, you are dealing with cloaked enemy fighters. Your Hawkeyes cannot possibly get close enough to help sufficiently. A fighter without missiles has no need to turn its radar on. And you can bet your bottom dollar that your Vigilantes were seen by Vietnamese ground-based radar, as were your Hawkeyes, especially when their radars were on. Look at the size of the radar circles in the screen shots; you will see what I'm talking about. RA-5Cs aren't going to be detecting enemy planes unless they're lucky.

 

One other thing: If fighters' radar is so poor at detecting AI air groups, then how is it that the AI groups are so adept at being able to come into the player's "back yard" (that is, well beyond the range of the AI's ground or AEW/EW radars) and still track and target the player's groups? I mean, it doesn't make much sense to me that an AI group - especially one having inferior sensors - can waltz completely undetected into my back yard, under the umbrella of my AWACS, and plink my air patrols (whether or not my patrols are radiating). It begs the question of how the AI can track and target the player's groups, while remaining undetectable themselves.

 

Speaking about the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario, I can tell you definitely:

1) All American planes (or close to it) in the combat zone are seen by the Vietnamese ground radar.

2) The AI will attack all detected American planes.

3) It is hard to extremely hard to detect the Vietnamese planes. And I quote:

"The first solid contacts on enemy aircraft start occurring at about 40 nm from the Hawkeye."

4) The MiG-17s mount the Romulan cloaking device.

 

So I have to say that the behaviour you're reporting is about right.

I just had a look at Middleweights.

 

The Japanese get a whole bunch of pretty good planes - AEW, ASW, fighters, attack, and more. No recon planes, whatever they are. They also get a few ships. The mission is to defend a piece of real estate. The enemy is one or both Koreas.

 

There are rumours of Rafales around - that terror weapon! WE don't have them, so presumably THEY do. This means that our AEWs could easily just fall out of the sky for no apparent reason.

 

There is no particular reason to attack enemy bases. They get a whole bunch of them, so it's not a matter of killing one base and crippling the enemy. We do get ARMs, but only Mavericks for ground attack (and bombs, of course). Anti-ship weapons are much better; we get lots and lots of Harpoons.

 

My initial assessment tells me that any Japanese commander who went after the Korean airfields and thereby took casualties would be not only relieved of command, but would be court-martialled. That's not the mission, and we haven'tbeen given the assets to do that job.

 

One complaint I have with this scenario (or is it the whole database ?) is that there is no real way to find out what kind of radars the planes have without actually launching them.

One complaint I have with this scenario (or is it the whole database ?) is that there is no real way to find out what kind of radars the planes have without actually launching them.

 

You can open the Platform Display at any time and look at aircraft features, including radar type and range. You don't need to launch aircraft to do so.

4) The MiG-17s mount the Romulan cloaking device.

 

Let's look at the MiG-17.

 

MiG-17F Fresco C: RCS 135

 

Versus E-2B Hawkeye: max possible detection range: 82.7 nm

E-2C Hawkeye Group 0: 96.25 nm

E-2C Hawkeye Group I: 96.25 nm

E-2C Hawkeye Group II: 125.09 nm

E-2C Hawkeye 2000: 132.04 nm

E-2D Hawkeye: 138.99 nm

E-3A Sentry AWACS: 121.62 nm

I realize the hierarchal location of those references, but I need to set aside some marker (bookmark, pointer, URI, or something) that will allow me to easily find those again when I need to refer to them.

 

Some options:

 

1. Save the keyboard layout PDF file(s) in the HCE/Manuals directory (or some other suitable place) in your computer.

2. Make a 'bookmark' or 'favorite' using your browser.

3. Just physically/mentally remember they're in the Downloads/Tools section here at HG.

The first option seems to be the most practical... although, doesn't that directory get blown away each time the game is re-installed?

The first option seems to be the most practical... although, doesn't that directory get blown away each time the game is re-installed?

 

Then save the files somewhere else? Put em in 'My Documents' or create a special directory for 'HCE Mysteries'.