What really sucks is if you launch the ARM with a red fix and THEN the fix goes yellow. Wasted missile!

 

No, in fact you're okay there. As long as you have a solid fix at the moment of launch.

 

If you lose the fix after launch, the ARM will still actually work as it is supposed to (in real life).

 

Yeah, same as launching antiship missiles. If you have a good target lock on launch, they'll activate themselves at the right time and hit the right target just fine.

 

I'm guessing the HARMS use the same game mechanism as any other homing missile in the GE? i.e. to the GE, a HARM = a Harpoon or a Tomahawk or a Sunburn, just hits radar targets rather than doing big damage to the whole thing.

I think "we" are getting a bit "target-fixated" on the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario here, and indeed there are issues relating to that specific scenario that I might be interested in pursuing further in another thread or venue... BUT the scope of the puzzling inconsistencies that I observe is much broader than that one scenario, so discussing within the context of only that one scenario merely diverts attention away from the larger questions.

 

Also, some questions have been raised here regarding the quality of my observations, and certain misconceptions are apparent in some of those comments, so let me digress a moment to reiterate my "credentials" and current MO:

 

- I am not a newbie to the game, although there are clearly some aspects that I've somehow missed entirely. Instead, I have been playing Harpoon ever since my friend gave me his retired Three-Sixty DOS version after he had upgraded to the first Windows version. I have played (and in some cases, re-played) most of the "canned" scenarios that have been available in - as far as I know - all of the included Battlesets. Generally speaking, I have not played any "non-OEM" scenarios, other than ones I've occasionally created myself. I tended not to create my own scenarios, because in knowing the design of the scenario, they often were neither challenging nor particularly satisfying to play. Also, my skills and ability in regards to scenario creation probably are inadequate for creating any "worthy" scenarios.

 

- Beyond my fairly extensive experience with the GE and SE in all these older versions, I have no experience with alternate databases nor with the Platform Editor - because I was never able to figure out how to work properly with these (such that I did not corrupt some aspect of "normal" operations), and so I left well enough alone, and ignored them henceforth.

 

- Although I own (license?) a full copy of HC Gold, I have retired that and now use only the HCE demo, thus limiting my play to only the two demo Battlesets, so I have replayed those scenarios several times each - although I generally use only WestPac because of the extremely lop-sided scenarios in the USNI Battleset, and the generally more "interesting" platforms used in the WestPac scenarios. This frequent replay tends to make me attuned to the idiosyncracies that show up from time to time in those scenarios, for reasons as yet unknown. Further, my focus has moved away from completing the objectives of the scenarios, and instead rests more on developing skills and testing tactics.

 

- I do not have any intimate knowledge of real-life platform capabilites, although I have a general knowledge of many types of weapons systems, and a superficial knowledge of sensor systems. I generally understand how they work, and when they are used, and some of their primary deficiencies or limitations... but I certainly do not thoroughly understand all the nuances of such systems, nor the variations of performance among all similar systems.

 

That is a quick summary of my experience - or lack thereof - in regards to the various versions of Harpoon up through HCE. I have seen the evolution of the game, along with the accompanying changes in the performance and behavior of the game over those years. I believe my extensive use of the GE makes me reasonably qualified to observe and notice changes and anomalies in behavior of the game - even fairly subtle ones. Some of the observed behaviors have existed across at least several versions, while others are fairly new developments (or perhaps only recently noticed), and in particular, issues being discussed here involving the dealing with attached and detached AD units, and involving inconsistencies of detections, are relatively recent issues... and in fact have impaired somewhat my ability to enjoy the game in its recent incarnations - leading to these discussions.

 

 

That said, my objectives in this discussion - and in similar ones - include:

 

1. To determine the true nature of anomalies that I've observed - that is, whether they are issues with my understanding of the situations, or with my tactics and methods, or whether they are some "technical" misbehavior of the game itself (as several appear to be so far, pending any identification of other causes), or perhaps of the computer system.

2. To determine why certain behaviors don't seem to make sense - either by improving my understanding of the legitimate reasons fo them, or by resolving any issues that cause them if they are not legitimate behaviors.

3. To develop my tactics and skills to make them as realistic as possible.

 

Regarding my alleged "inabilities" to observe accurately and/or to properly understand the goings-on for what they are, I think the jury is still out. I believe my observations are true and correct, although apparently not particularly repeatable elsewhere for some reason. I also tend to believe the conclusions that I have reached from these observations, combined with other knowledge and experience. Others obviously believe otherwise, and because I believe in the premise that there is always a correct answer to any situation, I seek to work through these issues until I can be convinced of a reasonble explanation, whatever it may be. So, to "explain" things by saying that I "can't possibly" see what I see doesn't help. Nor does saying that I'm "mis-understanding" or that I'm doing things "incorrectly" - without showing reasons that give plausible explanations of the situations, in light of the actual observations. I concede that I may indeed be mis-understanding or doing things poorly - but I need plausible explanations that match the facts before I can reach that acceptance... and so far, all I'm finding is yeah, it should be the way I expect it to be, but not why it actually isn't... or conversely, no, it shouldn't be the way I expect it to be - but no particularly compelling reason why not.

 

For example, in regards to the two main issues being kicked around here:

 

- Why are there such noticable and puzzling discrepancies between the two sides' abilities to detect, track, and engage air units? Or, put another way, why isn't it as "difficult" for the AI side to detect, track, and engage as it is for the player's assets to do so - particularly in cases where the player's assets presumably are superior technically?

- Why is it so puzzlingly difficult for the player's assets to detect and kill AD units, particularly in view of the maddening ease of AI units detecting and killing player's AD units (which, by the way, the player has little control over anyway)?

 

There has been a lot of reasonable information and discussion presented about why things ought to work in certain ways - and a lot of that even confirms my own understanding, expectations, or suspicions - but so far, I'm not seeing much to explain why things sometimes (often?) don't seem to be working the way they are expected to, or at least not consistently from side to side. That's what's really puzzling about all this - at least to me.

I think "we" are getting a bit "target-fixated" on the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario here, and indeed there are issues relating to that specific scenario that I might be interested in pursuing further in another thread or venue... BUT the scope of the puzzling inconsistencies that I observe is much broader than that one scenario, so discussing within the context of only that one scenario merely diverts attention away from the larger questions.

 

Well, I think that there are at the minimum miscommunications here. So I am trying to get to the bottom of it. But as long as we talk about generalities, then you and I can talk at each other forever, and there can never be any resolution. So we need to talk about very narrow issues, and then we should be able to figure out what is the basis of the miscommunication. The reason I keep talking about the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario is because I have analyzed that scenario in detail. Not played, not played many times. Analyzed in detail. Take advantage of it. A specific example of what is at least a miscommunication is your statement that your airborne assets were outside the range of the Vietnamese radar. I can tell you definitely that they were not. So you and I are making incompatible statements. We could simply keep shouting these statements at each other. I will not. There is a clear and specific process for resolving this. If you wish to participate, then we will resolve it (and move on, and maybe you will stop losing planes to invisible enemies). If you refuse to participate, then it becomes clear that we do not have a simple miscommunication, but rather that you are deliberately miscommunicating. Harsh words, perhaps, but I never claimed to be a nice guy.

 

Joe, I asked you 2 specific questions in my post 86, this thread (in bold). Please answer these questions.

I think "we" are getting a bit "target-fixated" on the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario here, and indeed there are issues relating to that specific scenario that I might be interested in pursuing further in another thread or venue... BUT the scope of the puzzling inconsistencies that I observe is much broader than that one scenario, so discussing within the context of only that one scenario merely diverts attention away from the larger questions.

 

Well, I think that there are at the minimum miscommunications here. So I am trying to get to the bottom of it. But as long as we talk about generalities, then you and I can talk at each other forever, and there can never be any resolution. So we need to talk about very narrow issues, and then we should be able to figure out what is the basis of the miscommunication. The reason I keep talking about the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario is because I have analyzed that scenario in detail. Not played, not played many times. Analyzed in detail. Take advantage of it. A specific example of what is at least a miscommunication is your statement that your airborne assets were outside the range of the Vietnamese radar. I can tell you definitely that they were not. So you and I are making incompatible statements. We could simply keep shouting these statements at each other. I will not. There is a clear and specific process for resolving this. If you wish to participate, then we will resolve it (and move on, and maybe you will stop losing planes to invisible enemies). If you refuse to participate, then it becomes clear that we do not have a simple miscommunication, but rather that you are deliberately miscommunicating. Harsh words, perhaps, but I never claimed to be a nice guy.

 

Joe, I asked you 2 specific questions in my post 86, this thread (in bold). Please answer these questions.

 

Unfortunately, the situations I'm trying to deal with appear to be general situations, not specific to the Bridge scenario... and in fact, not particularly well-demonstrated in that scenario - so it just seemed to me that trying to discuss them in that context was a bit futile. I would be happy to discuss issues specific to that Bridge scenario, but wouldn't it be better done in a thread that's dedicated to those particular issues, rather than muddying the other issues?

 

For reference, it may be worth reiterating that my personal objective in re-playing that Bridge scenario recently were not to achieve its stated objectives, per se, without sustaining any losses, but rather to develop techniques for successfully destroying the ground AD units. I admit that I was rather miffed that the MiGs could waltz into my own front and side yards, and track down and kill my AEW and EW assets - and even some Phantoms - there, without ever being detected themselves until the last minute... and that the Phantoms were basically useless except for a limited amount of intimidation effect, forcing me to use A-7s as self-escorts for my attack groups (which actually worked relatively well, except that they could not detect the MiGs in a particularly timely manner, and thus were always in "reactive" or "counter-fire" mode). But all that was sort of off-topic in regards to the main issue of destroying the AD units.

 

In any case, I cannot answer your two questions in any more detail than I already provided - because I'm relating that via memory of my past plays of that scenario (The last time I played it was perhaps a month or more ago). So, I can't give specific answers, but only general answers from my recollection... which, as I said before, is that the AI (Viet Namese) base radars showed a range of substantially less than 1/2 the distance between them and my Hawkeyes (which themselves were closer to the bases than was the carrier group. (This observation is based on the radar range circles, not any actual distance numbers, as I don't know how to determine those distances anyway, other than by referencing the radar range circles)). Because the range circles of the AI bases and my Hawkeyes did not even touch, and their respective range circles were roughly comparable, I saw that as indicating the distances between the AI bases and my aircraft as being a bit more than 2x the range of the AI bases' radars. Unfortunately, I'm unable to offer any more specific distances... because I simply don't know that detail. And, I'm not even sure what relevence the exact numbers may have.

 

However, I can say that my aircraft were definitely at least 2x the distance indicated by the bases' radar range circles at the time in question, which to me, indicates they are well beyond the bases' radar range (or else the range circles are extremely misleading).

Getting back to the BOL stuff, I was playing The Backyard and trying to neutralize the attached AD sites on the AI base out on the Peninsula, and they were apparently turning their radars off because even though the base showed radar range circles (which I assume means that some radar is active for the base or its attachments), I could not get release for any HARMs against any of the elements of that base, and all the attached units showed only as small areas of uncertainty, with no fixes. So, I was trying to deal with them using SLAMs, but of course could not get any fixes to shoot at. I finally tried some shots using the "automatic" bearing-only dialog, and got some really weird results (although I beleive I have seen similar things occasionally in the past). Anyway, none of the SLAMs would ever get any hits, but the wierd part is some of the missiles went off on perpendicular paths leading nowhere, and some even went in the opposite direction from where their targets were! Not much use in trying that mode of BOL, I guess!! I mean, the missiles were quite literally flying all over the place - except where their targets were.

Getting back to the BOL stuff, I was playing The Backyard and trying to neutralize the attached AD sites on the AI base out on the Peninsula, and they were apparently turning their radars off because even though the base showed radar range circles (which I assume means that some radar is active for the base or its attachments), I could not get release for any HARMs against any of the elements of that base, and all the attached units showed only as small areas of uncertainty, with no fixes. So, I was trying to deal with them using SLAMs, but of course could not get any fixes to shoot at. I finally tried some shots using the "automatic" bearing-only dialog, and got some really weird results (although I beleive I have seen similar things occasionally in the past). Anyway, none of the SLAMs would ever get any hits, but the wierd part is some of the missiles went off on perpendicular paths leading nowhere, and some even went in the opposite direction from where their targets were! Not much use in trying that mode of BOL, I guess!! I mean, the missiles were quite literally flying all over the place - except where their targets were.

 

This was explained earlier in the thread. See posts #32 and #33.

 

Unless you're shooting down the line of bearing, your efforts are wasted.

Getting back to the BOL stuff, I was playing The Backyard and trying to neutralize the attached AD sites on the AI base out on the Peninsula, and they were apparently turning their radars off because even though the base showed radar range circles (which I assume means that some radar is active for the base or its attachments), I could not get release for any HARMs against any of the elements of that base, and all the attached units showed only as small areas of uncertainty, with no fixes. So, I was trying to deal with them using SLAMs, but of course could not get any fixes to shoot at. I finally tried some shots using the "automatic" bearing-only dialog, and got some really weird results (although I beleive I have seen similar things occasionally in the past). Anyway, none of the SLAMs would ever get any hits, but the wierd part is some of the missiles went off on perpendicular paths leading nowhere, and some even went in the opposite direction from where their targets were! Not much use in trying that mode of BOL, I guess!! I mean, the missiles were quite literally flying all over the place - except where their targets were.

 

This was explained earlier in the thread. See posts #32 and #33.

 

Unless you're shooting down the line of bearing, your efforts are wasted.

Not with you here. #32 and #33 dealt with the question of the "narrowness" of the uncertainty window along the bearing line. In this case, I believe those criteria were well met, because the uncertainty diamonds were tiny - barely larger than the icons themselves - so not only was the bearing well-constrained, the distance to target was as well. Despite that, a good share of the missiles flew more or less perpendicular to the bearing line (in other words, not even close to the uncertainty areas), and some even flew in the opposite direction, roughly along the bearing line, but away from the target (i.e. - behind the launch group). It was all rather goofy.

 

Note: Probably most of the missiles did fly along the bearing lines towards the targets, but invariably overflew the targets and died. This is "normal" behavior (for the game); the missiles that flew off in grossly different directions were not "normal".

Not with you here. #32 and #33 dealt with the question of the "narrowness" of the uncertainty window along the bearing line.

 

Then obviously you did not fully grasp what was being said, because the issue is exactly the same. Not only should the uncertainty polygon or 'window' be narrow, but you must also shoot down its length. In other words, down the line of bearing.

 

In this case, I believe those criteria were well met, because the uncertainty diamonds were tiny - barely larger than the icons themselves - so not only was the bearing well-constrained, the distance to target was as well. Despite that, a good share of the missiles flew more or less perpendicular to the bearing line (in other words, not even close to the uncertainty areas), and some even flew in the opposite direction, roughly along the bearing line, but away from the target (i.e. - behind the launch group). It was all rather goofy. Note: Probably most of the missiles did fly along the bearing lines towards the targets, but invariably overflew the targets and died. This is "normal" behavior (for the game); the missiles that flew off in grossly different directions were not "normal".

 

It was "goofy" because you weren't shooting down the line of bearing. In other words, if your shooter doesn't have matched bearings, your missile will be launched (and will seek) in the completely wrong direction, as you witnessed. I really don't want to have to produce screenshots of this, but if you really aren't getting it, I suppose I will have to.

Not with you here. #32 and #33 dealt with the question of the "narrowness" of the uncertainty window along the bearing line.

 

Then obviously you did not fully grasp what was being said, because the issue is exactly the same. Not only should the uncertainty polygon or 'window' be narrow, but you must also shoot down its length. In other words, down the line of bearing.

Then you must be saying that it is not possible to "shoot down its length" using the abbreviated bearing-only launch dialog? If so, then it goes back to my original premise that using that dialog is worthless... making me wonder why it is even provided.

 

In this case, I believe those criteria were well met, because the uncertainty diamonds were tiny - barely larger than the icons themselves - so not only was the bearing well-constrained, the distance to target was as well. Despite that, a good share of the missiles flew more or less perpendicular to the bearing line (in other words, not even close to the uncertainty areas), and some even flew in the opposite direction, roughly along the bearing line, but away from the target (i.e. - behind the launch group). It was all rather goofy. Note: Probably most of the missiles did fly along the bearing lines towards the targets, but invariably overflew the targets and died. This is "normal" behavior (for the game); the missiles that flew off in grossly different directions were not "normal".

 

It was "goofy" because you weren't shooting down the line of bearing. In other words, if your shooter doesn't have matched bearings, your missile will be launched (and will seek) in the completely wrong direction, as you witnessed. I really don't want to have to produce screenshots of this, but if you really aren't getting it, I suppose I will have to.

Screenshots aren't necessary... but perhaps an explanation of how to "shoot down the line of bearing" or how to obtain "matched bearings" when using the abbreviated bearing-only dialog would be of help. Keep in mind that I'm not referring to the full B-key BOL procedure here, but rather to the dialog(s) that appear(s) right after the weapons allocation dialog in the cases where a target(s) is (are) not fixed.

Then you must be saying that it is not possible to "shoot down its length" using the abbreviated bearing-only launch dialog? If so, then it goes back to my original premise that using that dialog is worthless... making me wonder why it is even provided.

 

It certainly isn't useless, because I use it regularly with success. But it is (of course) less accurate than having a solid fix on the target.

 

The point you must understand here is that the bearing to the uncertain target (the target that lies in an uncertainty zone) must usually lie between the Shooter and the target, and not necessarily between the friendly Detector and the target. If the shooter and the detector are one and the same, then great, its not usually a problem.

 

If the shooter lies behind the detector, or even in front of it, and you can draw a straight line that connects all three, then you're still ok.

 

But if the shooter and the detector are separate platforms, and have separate, widely spaced bearings to the same target, then it is pointless for the shooter to try and exploit the bearing being picked up by the detector.

 

Screenshots aren't necessary... but perhaps an explanation of how to "shoot down the line of bearing" or how to obtain "matched bearings" when using the abbreviated bearing-only dialog would be of help. Keep in mind that I'm not referring to the full B-key BOL procedure here, but rather to the dialog(s) that appear(s) right after the weapons allocation dialog in the cases where a target(s) is (are) not fixed.

 

Let me know if this is becoming clear, otherwise I will try and illustrate with screenshots.

Then you must be saying that it is not possible to "shoot down its length" using the abbreviated bearing-only launch dialog? If so, then it goes back to my original premise that using that dialog is worthless... making me wonder why it is even provided.

 

It certainly isn't useless, because I use it regularly with success. But it is (of course) less accurate than having a solid fix on the target.

 

The point you must understand here is that the bearing to the uncertain target (the target that lies in an uncertainty zone) must usually lie between the Shooter and the target, and not necessarily between the friendly Detector and the target. If the shooter and the detector are one and the same, then great, its not usually a problem.

 

If the shooter lies behind the detector, or even in front of it, and you can draw a straight line that connects all three, then you're still ok.

 

But if the shooter and the detector are separate platforms, and have separate, widely spaced bearings to the same target, then it is pointless for the shooter to try and exploit the bearing being picked up by the detector.

 

Screenshots aren't necessary... but perhaps an explanation of how to "shoot down the line of bearing" or how to obtain "matched bearings" when using the abbreviated bearing-only dialog would be of help. Keep in mind that I'm not referring to the full B-key BOL procedure here, but rather to the dialog(s) that appear(s) right after the weapons allocation dialog in the cases where a target(s) is (are) not fixed.

 

Let me know if this is becoming clear, otherwise I will try and illustrate with screenshots.

Yes, I'm with you on all that. My (unspoken) assumption was that, in the case in question here, the shooter was the detector (because all the uncertainty zones seemed to be pointing at the shooter group - albeit they were small and thus might have been a bit deceptive). In considering the larger picture, there were other groups around the general area that could have been getting some sort of detection on those AD units - including Hawkeyes, TARPS, at least one EA-6B, and a couple groups of A-6Es - although all of those groups were significantly further away, and arrayed at assorted bearings relative to the targets. I did that specifically in attempts to get a fix on the targets, but did I shoot myself in the foot (almost literally) by having them there and trying (out of frustration at not getting a fix) to launch anyway - causing a bearing-only launch? I mean, would these other detectors have somehow influenced the shot in a negative way? If so, it sort of defeats the purpose...

 

BTW/FWIW, I believe I mentioned that I've tried fix-less shots numerous other times, and as far as I can recall, I have never gotten a hit without having a fix, regardless of how small or narrow the uncertainty zone, nor where I set the activation distance. From my perspective, that makes it useless - or futile, or whatever.

 

One thing that I don't know is whether the SLAMs in this case are capable of BOL; another thing I don't know is whether the activation distance dialog is offered for weapons that are not BOL-capable. (I would hope not, but...???)

One thing that I don't know is whether the SLAMs in this case are capable of BOL; another thing I don't know is whether the activation distance dialog is offered for weapons that are not BOL-capable. (I would hope not, but...???)

 

See my post #16 in this thread

 

Only the radar guided weapons have a consistently reliable performance when it comes to bearing only (BOL) attacks. The electro-optical/infra-red (EO/IR) weapons, the anti-radar missiles (ARMs) and the acoustic homing weapons (torpedoes) are virtually useless in the BOL mode.

 

SLAM is an EO guided weapon. Chances of success with a BOL hit are slim.

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 meant to comment on this earlier. The USNI scenarios are challenging, I'd agree, but "insanely hard" or impossible to the point that anyone should refuse to play them? Nah, can't agree with that. I would be interested in hearing about others' experience with them. Are you getting your butt handed to you regularly in USNI?

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 meant to comment on this earlier. The USNI scenarios are challenging, I'd agree, but "insanely hard" or impossible to the point that anyone should refuse to play them? Nah, can't agree with that. I would be interested in hearing about others' experience with them. Are you getting your butt handed to you regularly in USNI?

More regularly than in scenarios from other battlesets... To the point that I use other scenarios for developing tactics.

One thing that I don't know is whether the SLAMs in this case are capable of BOL; another thing I don't know is whether the activation distance dialog is offered for weapons that are not BOL-capable. (I would hope not, but...???)

 

See my post #16 in this thread

 

Only the radar guided weapons have a consistently reliable performance when it comes to bearing only (BOL) attacks. The electro-optical/infra-red (EO/IR) weapons, the anti-radar missiles (ARMs) and the acoustic homing weapons (torpedoes) are virtually useless in the BOL mode.

 

SLAM is an EO guided weapon. Chances of success with a BOL hit are slim.

OK, then back to my point about whether the activation range dialog is offered or not: Because it is not possible (AFAIK) to determine the BOL capability of a particular weapon without external knowledge, it seems that the activation range dialog should not be offered as it is... or perhaps even that the incapable weapons should not be released for that target (as is the case with ARM-types)... or if the weapon is "slightly capable", at least that there would be an advisement that the weapon is not really suitable.

 

I conceed that it is arguable that a "professional" should be knowledgable about these sorts of nuances, but considering the inavailability of that information within the game, it seems that it would be more consistent with other comparable situations (such as the attempted ARM launch situation) if the use was blocked or at least had an associated advisory - instead of offering a dialog that implies, "Hey, this is good - go for it!" Just my two cents.