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.

 

Oh yes, many casualties... but, except for the "sniping" of my RA-5Cs and occasional Phantom group, all of the casualties were suffered while attempting to damage/destroy the AA defenses enough that it was clear to send in the big boys (B-52s).

 

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. ...

That's what I thought... yet, weren't you saying that the interceptors were undetected because the AWACS couldn't see them at Low or VLow altitudes... and fighters stationed at Low altitudes would not detect them, either?

 

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. ...

That's my understanding, although I haven't been aware of intercepts being launched from formation patrols. In any case, it shouldn't make much difference in most cases that I've observed because, in such cases, the AWACS usually are as much as 500 n miles from the interceptor's base... meaning that even if the interceptors did for some reason fly perpendicularly to the edge of their formation before breaking off on the intercept vector, that 255 nm maximum range of the formation is still the short leg of the triangle by almost 2:1... so, by the time their vector "arrived" at the AWACS, it would have been well within the radar range of various "pickets" arrayed near the AWACS (within about 100 nm, at various bearings). So, it seems that intercept vector would put the interceptors well within radar range of several groups, as well as the AWACS itself.

 

 

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. ...

OK, first off let me clarify that I'm not speaking to the case where the RA-5Cs or Hawkeyes (or other groups for that matter) were anywhere near the indicated radar range of the ground radar... I mean, perhaps 2x or more away. That's why it is so puzzling that the MiG-17s showed up "unannounced": It's a "double whammy" puzzle, where on the one hand, the AI could detect the RA-5Cs and other groups at spots well beyond any AI radar, and on the other hand, the friendly units could not detect the MiG-17s until they opened fire. There seemed to be some gross inconsistency there.

 

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.

OK, but I was referring to the general case. Regarding the bridge scenario specifically, I would say that all Ameerican planes were detected even well beyond (2x or more) the indicated radar range of the Viet Namese radars... and it appeared that the only times the MiG-17s would be detected - at any distance - was when they activated their own radar, or when they opened fire.

 

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but my assumption is that the MiGs ought to be detectable via radar when they approach the US air groups - especially the Hawkeyes - even when the MiGs aren't using radar. I'd also assume that the RA-5Cs' SS radar would be able to detect the MiGs, even though the MiGs are approaching at lower altitudes... or that the MiGs would be detectable via some other of the "magical" sensors of the RA-5Cs... yet they weren't.

 

Romulan cloaking device, indeed!

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.

 

...

Regarding the Rafales, I don't recall having any problems with them, other than avoiding their long-range AAMs. As far as I know, all of them were detected... which may deepen the puzzle when comparing to the F-16s and so forth that often behaved more "stealthily".

 

Maybe I'm confusing scenarios here, but I thought there was a need to destroy the Korean S-S missile launchers that were periodically bombarding the Japanese facilities. (?)

 

Also, I did attempt, in one scenario at least, to attack some air bases that hosted some of the fighters that had long-range AAMs - and thus destroy those planes on the ground - because those types were raising havoc in A-T-A engagements with the relatively inferior Japanese types. Beyond that, I don't recall the rationale behind the ground attacks.

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'.

But... but... that would be too easy!

 

Seriously, though, if I stick 'em somewhere else, then it's just gonna go back to the problem of them getting lost in the shuffle of my disorganization. But, lacking any better alternative, what the hey! At least I'll have them for awhile.

Maybe I'm confusing scenarios here, but I thought there was a need to destroy the Korean S-S missile launchers that were periodically bombarding the Japanese facilities. (?)

 

Yes, you're thinking about Akula's Operation Island Wind.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but my assumption is that the MiGs ought to be detectable via radar when they approach the US air groups - especially the Hawkeyes - even when the MiGs aren't using radar.

 

Detectable, yes. Always detected or always detectable at a safe distance, no.

 

I'd also assume that the RA-5Cs' SS radar would be able to detect the MiGs, even though the MiGs are approaching at lower altitudes... or that the MiGs would be detectable via some other of the "magical" sensors of the RA-5Cs... yet they weren't.

 

No, surface search radars will not detect airborne targets unless they (the targets) are flying at Very low (Vlow) altitude.

 

The RA-5C has no other means of detecting airborne targets, except ESM and the good ole Mk I eyeball.

(limbers up his fingers)

 

How am I supposed to cope with the information flow? I go away for a couple of hours, and now all this?

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

 

The AEW plane in question in the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario is the E-2B. It can't pick up MiG-17s outside of 238 nm x 1/3 = 82.7 (VSmall). What I actually saw was this: "The first solid contacts on enemy aircraft start occurring at about 40 nm from the Hawkeye." (quote from my AAR) Actually, those statements are not inconsistent. The plane comes in, the AEW starts trying to detect it, gets some sort of blip, and eventually it gets a full contact. ESPECIALLY if the enemy plane decides to turn on its radar! Then the AEW plane gets an immediate full contact.

 

BUT

 

The MiG-17F has no missiles! So it never turns its radar on! So if you get unlucky, you don't see it

 

UNTIL

 

it's right on top of your fighter

 

BECAUSE

 

your fighters need to be quite far in front of the Hawkeye.

 

To make the point, I say that the MiG-17 has a cloaking device.

 

This does not make the MiG invincible! Did I mention that it has no missiles? Just don't try dogfighting it with a Phantom!

 

Anyway, I discuss all this in my AAR (I keep saying that).

The North Viet Nam bridge scenario ...

 

Oh yes, many casualties... but, except for the "sniping" of my RA-5Cs and occasional Phantom group, all of the casualties were suffered while attempting to damage/destroy the AA defenses enough that it was clear to send in the big boys (B-52s).

 

All discussed in my AAR. There is a reason why I keep saying this. That AAR can be used as a basic manual on how to conduct an air assault against a static defence.

 

weren't you saying that the interceptors were undetected because the AWACS couldn't see them at Low or VLow altitudes... and fighters stationed at Low altitudes would not detect them, either?

 

I said:

 

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.

 

The only additional hiding the AI planes do is to travel at low altitudes to benefit from horizon effects.

 

The horizon effect affects all planes. The lower you are, the less you can see & A-B line of sight = B-A LoS.

 

I haven't been aware of intercepts being launched from formation patrols.

 

The computer does it all the time. You can do it too. Select an enemy group. Order an intercept. If your base formation planes have the range and weapons to do the job, they will volunteer.

 

the interceptors ... would have been well within the radar range of various "pickets" arrayed near the AWACS (within about 100 nm, at various bearings).

 

Picket ships out in front with radar energized are not long for this world. Ditto for picket fighters. Are you doing this with your fighters? If the picket fighters are trying to hide, they won't see much. Which one are you doing?

 

 

OK, first off let me clarify that I'm not speaking to the case where the RA-5Cs or Hawkeyes (or other groups for that matter) were anywhere near the indicated radar range of the ground radar... I mean, perhaps 2x or more away. That's why it is so puzzling that the MiG-17s showed up "unannounced": It's a "double whammy" puzzle, where on the one hand, the AI could detect the RA-5Cs and other groups at spots well beyond any AI radar, and on the other hand, the friendly units could not detect the MiG-17s until they opened fire. There seemed to be some gross inconsistency there.

 

I think that's just wrong. The Vietnamese radars extend well out into the Gulf of Tonkin. And a Vigilante is quite large. The Hawkeyes, with radar energized most certainly are seen. There is no inconsistency. The Hawkeyes are the least stealthy units in the scenario. The MiG-17s are the most stealthy.

 

Regarding the bridge scenario specifically, I would say that all Ameerican planes were detected even well beyond (2x or more) the indicated radar range of the Viet Namese radars... and it appeared that the only times the MiG-17s would be detected - at any distance - was when they activated their own radar, or when they opened fire.

 

The only way for the American planes to get 2x outside the Vietnamese radar range is to fly SE from the carrier! Just look at this screen shot:

 

http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww33/Vi...ridge/brdgA.png

 

Mig-17Fs have no radar whatsoever.

Based on the discussions we have been having here over the past several days, and speaking specifically about the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario, I can confidently make the following statements:

 

1) I humbly state that I am an expert on that scenario.

2) The Americans should be able to win that scenario and lose nothing at all, except perhaps a maximum of 2 ground attack planes.

3) I describe the scenario in gory detail in my AAR.

(http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2104380)

4) Harpoon functions exactly as intended.

5) There are certain difficulties in that scenario, none of which is insurmountable.

6) Joe, all of the effects that you have described that suggest to you that there is something wrong with Harpoon or the way Harpoon works on your computer merely show that Harpoon is working correctly, and (don't take this the wrong way) that you are either misinterpreting some game information or using your assets in risky and inappropriate ways. If you don't believe me, study my AAR, and using it as a walkthrough, try to duplicate what I did. If you cannot duplicate my results, then either take some screenshots or save some games and send them over for us to analyze. But I am confident that you will get the same results as me.

...

Picket ships out in front with radar energized are not long for this world. Ditto for picket fighters. Are you doing this with your fighters? If the picket fighters are trying to hide, they won't see much. Which one are you doing?

...

 

As we're talking about the Thanh Hoa scenario in Vietnam, the US side used 'red crown' called radar equipped cruisers to pick up enemy air activity. For a more complete coverage of the subject, see PIRAZ article on wikipedia. Whlen I added those ships to my Vietnam scenarios, the balance of air to air combat ultimately shifted to the US favour.

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.

 

The key piece of information I need is whether radars are air search or surface search. I just went through all the battlesets and it turns out that all of them give me this information via Platform Display, except the 4 EC'03 Battlesets and Westpac. There, that information has been removed, and because i cannot possibly remember it for all the units or even a small fraction of them, my only recourse is to load a scenario, launch all the planes, look at their range circles, write it all down, and reload the scenario.

 

(Actually, I had raised this issue previously, maybe a year ago.)

...

Picket ships out in front with radar energized are not long for this world. Ditto for picket fighters. Are you doing this with your fighters? If the picket fighters are trying to hide, they won't see much. Which one are you doing?

...

 

As we're talking about the Thanh Hoa scenario in Vietnam, the US side used 'red crown' called radar equipped cruisers to pick up enemy air activity. For a more complete coverage of the subject, see PIRAZ article on wikipedia. Whlen I added those ships to my Vietnam scenarios, the balance of air to air combat ultimately shifted to the US favour.

 

I'd say that's a special case. A SAM cruiser with plenty of fighter support and no realistic airborne enemies isn't what I think of as a picket ship. A picket ship is small, poorly armed, and alone. If it turns its radar on in the presence of Oscars, Backfires, Bears, Badgers, or the like, it is toast.

The key piece of information I need is whether radars are air search or surface search. I just went through all the battlesets and it turns out that all of them give me this information via Platform Display, except the 4 EC'03 Battlesets and Westpac. There, that information has been removed, and because i cannot possibly remember it for all the units or even a small fraction of them, my only recourse is to load a scenario, launch all the planes, look at their range circles, write it all down, and reload the scenario.

 

Most of the radars and their platforms are fairly intuitive ...

 

Fighters generally have air search radars, with many modern types also having surface search modes

Reconnaissance and strike aircraft generally have surface search radars

Airborne early warning aircraft generally have both

 

... but if you need a lot of detail, then look to the Platform Editor or maybe Google.

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

A few questions:

 

1. What is the actual function/purpose of ALT-3 "Nuke 'em"? Is that a general override for nuclear release, or...?

 

2. What is the purpose of the O command, and when can it be used? (I couldn't see that it did anything).

 

3. Is there any difference between I and ALT-I? (They are listed as though they do the same thing, and it appears that they do, so I am curious if there is some subtle reason for the two forms).

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but my assumption is that the MiGs ought to be detectable via radar when they approach the US air groups - especially the Hawkeyes - even when the MiGs aren't using radar.

 

Detectable, yes. Always detected or always detectable at a safe distance, no.

OK, but what circumstances would cause them to remain undetected consistently until they get within their gun range?

 

I'd also assume that the RA-5Cs' SS radar would be able to detect the MiGs, even though the MiGs are approaching at lower altitudes... or that the MiGs would be detectable via some other of the "magical" sensors of the RA-5Cs... yet they weren't.

 

No, surface search radars will not detect airborne targets unless they (the targets) are flying at Very low (Vlow) altitude. ...

I thought the thesis in this case was that the MiGs were not detected by the Phantoms and Hawkeyes because the MiGs were approaching at Low or VLow, which I assumed would mean that the RA-5Cs S-S radar would be able to detect them?

 

In any case, the bottom line is the question of how they can regularly fly by ships, Phantoms (at various altitudes) and a Hawkeye or three, and yet still track and approach an RA-5C totally undetected by any of those player's platforms. It just doesn't seem plausible.