Minor observation...

 

I noticed that some of the facilities one can blow up in the HUD3 are schools and churches. Nice, Darren. Why don't you just add an orphanage and a petting zoo while you're at it? : )

 

Just kidding...actually, I can see why you would want to have "facilities" that are, in effect, anti-targets...if you blow them up by mistake, you lose, even if you blow up the bad guys, too. It's a very nice touch.

If you check carefully you'll notice that the Roland missile uses 'command line of sight' guidance where as the SA-15 uses command guidance. The bottom line is that the SA-15s radars are much better at picking up low flying Tomahawks than the Roland. In fact, Roland 1 is more or less only daylight capable, which NORMALLY means that the system was only good against aircraft.

 

Later

D

Hi Mark,

 

Standard Database is not longer maintained by AGSI. I use both HUD 3 and ANW DB. The guys already have explained the differences. So if you want your first ANW scen to be tested, just post it here or mail it to rkoelbach@yahoo.com.

 

Regards,

Ralf

1) Standard Database (ODB) pretty safe to say is not to be used for new scenarios. The only updates it tends to see are the bare minimum to keep the related scenarios functioning. ANWDB (Dale's baby) is actively maintained. He tries to translate the H4 paper data faithfully to the game. Dale is responsive to requests when he isn't out sailing the seven seas (conversely when he is sailing the seven seas response may be sparse). HUD3 is Darren's beast. He takes an approach more focused on fitting the numbers to the results seen in the game. In general this means more thorough testing before he commits to an algorithm to convert his source data into game values. Darren has the grander ambitions and that is both good and bad. In general I would be writing scenarios with HUD3.

 

Tony is mostly correct. The two DBs are products of the time available to us. Darren, by the simple virtue of having a regular job, is able to dedicate more time to the DB than myself, who's gone usually on the whim of the government. I don't have the time to do the indepth research that Darren does so I use the Masters Annex that is developed and updated by a small core of players.

 

I'm able to respond to emails and occasionally do check in to a few forums [this being one of them]. Contacting me isn't so much of a problem but time is. When I'm pulling a watch work pretty much comes to a halt. When I'm on days [as when I'm the XO] then I can devote more time to it.

 

Later

D

I think I will probably work with the HUD3 for a while. This is NOT meant as a judgment of ANY of the DBs beyond "what seems to work best on my machine." ANW is more stable than 3.63 for some reason. I have no idea why. Probably something to do with my machine and the 64-bit version of Windows 7. This was always a big obstacle for me when it came to earlier versions of H3. To be blunt, I'm lazy. I don't want to have to fiddle with my machine or reinstall stuff every time I want to play a game. ANW has solved these problems for me. As for the database, HUD3 and ANWDB are equally easy to use, but HUD3 seems to have a few more "toys" to play with. : )

 

Completely different question (more along the line of "lessons I am learning as I go")...

 

Rolands are pretty much useless against cruise missiles, aren't they?

 

I noticed that when I ran my second trial scenario (Phibron heads to Venezuela to blow up airfield) and I pop off four Tomahawks from the SSN Scranton. (No, I don't know why a Phibron has an SSN with it...Actually, it makes sense, but I just do what the GlobalSecurity website says and what the voices in my head tell me to do, okay?) Anyway, the missiles level the airfield in short order. End of scenario. I figured out how to attach the Rolands to the airfield, making it a Group. This did not help. And, of course, since the Venezuelan planes are on the airstrip, blowing it up eliminates most of them before they get airborne, and they really are the main thing that could hurt the Phibron.

 

Now, when I added SA-15s (I assume the Russians sold the Venezuelans some)...okay, THAT took down the Tomahawks.

 

In other words, what I'm learning is that the gods of war did not create all SAMs equal. : )

 

More comments and questions later...

 

Thanks again for all the help so far.

 

Mark

 

G'day Mark,

 

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I'll try to answer your questions as I have time. Things are rather hectic for me right now, so I'll apologise in advance.

 

Thanks for trying things out in ANW and using the HUD3. You'll have a lot more new "toys" shortly as I've been working on further updates and adding platforms to the DB.

 

SAMs

 

Roland or any other SAM for that matter will have to deal with a mix of variables.

 

- Guidance systems/Target Cross Section:

Depending on the system used and the appropriate cross section of the intended target, the range of a SAM will differ from the range given in the database display. The ranges you'll see in the HUD3 represent the maximum range under ideal conditions. Imagine a RGM-109 Tomahawk with a Diameter of 20.4 in (0.52 m) is flying directly at the SAM launcher, as against the same Tomahawk flying perpendicular to the launcher and exposing the full length of the missile of some 18 ft 3 in (5.56 m). Since the diameter or in terms of the length the height of the missile is the same, we have a target some 10 times the size in terms of radar reflectivity.

 

- Launcher Siting:

Taking the example above into account, siting your SAM launchers is a key factor in determining their capability and worth as defensive weapons. Although you want to avoid creating "crossing targets" for your SAMs, you can afford to do this with inbounds like Tomahawk since their speed is low enough to avoid the crossing target penalty. A "Crossing Target" is any aircraft or missile that, has a speed in excess of 1300kts.

 

The Roland system was designed primarily to engage targets such as battlefield helicopters (Mi-24 Hind) and ground attack aircraft (Su-25). Therefore in my attempts to model "reality" in ANW & the HUD3, it's not a really an effective system against very small or stealthy targets (your Tomahawks).

 

I don't recommend you attach/group your SAM or AAA facilities with a base you create. I always separate them and have for my reconstructions of the original Harpoon 2 scenarios. There are two reasons for this, firstly it allows for ease of setting sensor variances. By selecting the AAA or SAM site and hitting the F9 - Sensor hotkey you can set each facility possessing a radar to switch on and off with a given variability. This is very important in terms of providing protection against incoming anti-radiation missiles. I witnessed inbound "Wild Weasel" aircraft having to return to base when the SAM site switches off and the Weasels hit bingo fuel and are forced to RTB. Secondly, using the Home key - Auto Detect hotkey the player or AO (Artificial Opponent, there's no intelligence in the computer side, it simply reacts to triggers and sensor data it gains.) will be required to locate the AAA site or SAM launcher to enable an attack to be launched. This allows for mobile sites to be simulated (they've moved since the last recon mission) and in the case of shoulder launched SAMs, they should always be set to non-autodetect, since the chance of a single or two soldiers hiding behind a tree being known to the other side unless under direct observation is low.

 

The Venezuelans actually have the SA-15 9M331 Tor (approx 26 units) so no problem there Mark, the RBS-70 & Mistral have also been added to the Venezuelan country file in the HUD3. I will need to add the Barak Mk.3 Rafael ADAMS (Air Defence Advanced Mobile Systems) SAMs and several ground based radar systems to the database and subsequently the relevant country entries. The Venezuelan air force needs to be "filled out" with further new aircraft requiring addition to the HUD3.

 

Mark, I'll check through your other posts and provide my views or answers to your other questions.

 

Cheers

 

Darren