Refueling behavior question

[CV32]

I say it was a digression because the point here was that the usual split-off notification did not occur ...

 

Well, why didn't the usual split off occur, JoeK? That's the question, right? It should have, but to investigate same, it is necessary to know all the facts. Among the useful facts you posted, then, was the fact that we were talking about a 25x aircraft group. Maybe its the sheer size of the group that messed up the usual prompt to split off the tanker. I don't know. But a useful fact in any event. Hence, not a digression.

 

I readily concur that my specific 24-plane example was extreme ... example, and in hind-sight, probably not the best choice because it lead to a critique of my technique ...

 

If it answers some of your questions, gives you a better idea of how the game works, improves your 'technique' and keeps you from posting a thread asking why does my 25x aircraft group fall into the sea, then I see the discussion (and advice) as quite worthwhile.

 

Are you saying that a single KA-6 can not service up to 24 F/A-18s over a distance of about 2100 nm?

 

A 24x F/A-18 group (with 1168 nm ordinary range, presumably in strike loadout configuration)? Yes, I'm suggesting that probably won't work out too well. Such a group probably begins to require tanking inside 500 nm, and is probably close to bingo fuel even after tanking is complete. Hardly useful.

 

I can understand the issue of the KA-6 slowing the group down and thus eventually running it out of fuel, but I don't see why it never completed the re-fueling, and split off (and thus would have allowed those Hornets to resume their normal cruise speed ...

 

I am not sure you really do grasp it, but here's the benefit of the doubt.

 

I see this happen every so often where the tanker(s) does not ever split off (and it has happened with small groups, albeit without the loss of a/c as in my example). As I recall, it has usually shown up in connection with a ferrying operation, or with a group that is returning to base after a mission and the tanker was joined to the group sometime after the group had stated its return to base. I had always sort of dismissed this as possibly "normal" behavior, and my question was basically that: Are there circumstances where it is "normal" for (a) tanker(s) to stay with a group after finishing the IFR? If so, what determines that?

 

Did you check the issue tracker or the beta forums to see if similar issues with tanker split off had been previously reported? Off hand, there aren't any "game" circumstances where the tanker would stay with the group.

 

As an aside, I certainly realize that refueling operations may involve micro-management - at least as far as getting tanking groups together with thirsty groups in a timely manner, and coaxing them to start the IFR - but I didn't realize there was much to be done once they had finally started IFR. But if further micro-management is required, then may I suggest that something ought to be done to reduce that level of involvement, because otherwise, it would effectively mean that one cannot carry on other game operations concurrently with re-fueling activity - which seems to me to be unreasonably restricting of game play.

 

Nah, I don't see tanking as being a difficult exercise at all. Certainly doesn't interfere with game play. If anything, I'd like to see it being more complex than the already overly simplified model that it already is.

[VictorInThePacific]

I readily concur that my specific 24-plane example was extreme

 

Not only extreme, but the real-life equivalent would be you ordering a group of planes to fly on a mission that they don't have the range for, and when someone points this out (and the game engine refuses the mission), you promise them tanker support, but then you only give them a fraction of what they need, and they all die. Not that that never happens in real life.

 

I'm not following how that led to the non-split.

 

I claim that the reason the split never happened was that the process took so long that it was never completed or ... see below. You can test this by launching the same 25-plane group to any patrol point. Wait for them to run out of fuel and start tanking. When they want to return to base, refuse. 72 min. after tanking starts, the tanker should split off. Try this experiment, exactly as stated, and report the results.

 

Are you saying that a single KA-6 can not service up to 24 F/A-18s over a distance of about 2100 nm?

 

Roger that. Not in any meaningful way.

 

I can understand the issue of the KA-6 slowing the group down and thus eventually running it out of fuel, but I don't see why it never completed the re-fueling, and split off (and thus would have allowed those Hornets to resume their normal cruise speed - which may or may not have allowed them to reach base, but at least would have gotten further). But I digress yet again... the crux is why the split-off didn't happen.

 

The conditions of the situation were not properly stated. The numbers you gave appear to be internally self-contradictory. That is why you have not been given a clear response. But consider this: If you try to launch an IFR-capable plane beyond its range, you can't. If you include a tanker in the group, you can now launch. It's like removing the safety mechanism from a machine. Safety is now your personal responsibility. BTW, once you include the tanker in the group, you can then remove it, and your first plane will launch to a place it can't actually get to. Also ... see above.

 

I see this happen every so often where the tanker(s) does not ever split off (and it has happened with small groups, albeit without the loss of a/c as in my example). As I recall, it has usually shown up in connection with a ferrying operation, or with a group that is returning to base after a mission and the tanker was joined to the group sometime after the group had stated its return to base. I had always sort of dismissed this as possibly "normal" behavior, and my question was basically that: Are there circumstances where it is "normal" for (a) tanker(s) to stay with a group after finishing the IFR? If so, what determines that?

 

Maybe the point is that in all these examples, the group is already doing the thing the tanker wants to do (returning to base), so there's no reason to split, while in the first example, the non-tanker planes are still out-bound.

[donaldseadog]

I see this happen every so often where the tanker(s) does not ever split off (and it has happened with small groups, albeit without the loss of a/c as in my example). As I recall, it has usually shown up in connection with a ferrying operation, or with a group that is returning to base after a mission and the tanker was joined to the group sometime after the group had stated its return to base. I had always sort of dismissed this as possibly "normal" behavior, and my question was basically that: Are there circumstances where it is "normal" for (a) tanker(s) to stay with a group after finishing the IFR? If so, what determines that?

I don't believe tankers don't split after completing normal IFR, I've tested a lot of IFR flights and have not seen it. Ofcourse normal IFR might not complete in particular cases, each case has its own reason.

If other occasions occur then get back to us with the specifics, it is useless just talking in generalities when there is no known problem.

 

Don

[Joe K]

I can understand the issue of the KA-6 slowing the group down and thus eventually running it out of fuel, but I don't see why it never completed the re-fueling, and split off (and thus would have allowed those Hornets to resume their normal cruise speed - which may or may not have allowed them to reach base, but at least would have gotten further). But I digress yet again... the crux is why the split-off didn't happen.

 

The conditions of the situation were not properly stated. The numbers you gave appear to be internally self-contradictory. That is why you have not been given a clear response. But consider this: If you try to launch an IFR-capable plane beyond its range, you can't. If you include a tanker in the group, you can now launch. It's like removing the safety mechanism from a machine. Safety is now your personal responsibility. BTW, once you include the tanker in the group, you can then remove it, and your first plane will launch to a place it can't actually get to. Also ... see above.

 

OK, seeing everyone wishes to continue beating on that particular example, let me say a couple of things about that - as there seems to be some misunderstanding:

 

First, what numbers are self-contradictory, and how?

 

Second, this specific situation did not involve launching a group beyond its un-refueled range. I thought that I mentioned it, but in case I didn't, the 24-plane primary group was allowed to launch without a tanker (per the dialog), but because it was a large group (with associated potential fuel-consuming delays), I added the only available tanker to the group, as sort of a safety precaution. I was not aware of - and therefore did not consider - that the slower cruise speed of the tanker would actually shorten the range of the other type of planes (Hornets) in the group. As it turns out, that was a mistake. But it was compounded by the tanker not splitting off from the group, and thus forcing the group to continue at slower speed, and thus further shortening its range.

 

As an aside, it would be helpful to understand the factors that are figured into the launch dialog's decision as to whether the group has enough range (fuel?) to reach the requested target. Empirically, it appears that the calculation takes the number of aircraft into account (in other words, any fuel consumption due to form-up of a large group) because I've seen cases where it will not allow the launch of very large groups against targets that are somewhat less distant than the specificed (individual plane's?) range for the assigned loadout, yet decreasing the number of planes assigned will allow it to be launched (and without subsequent fuel problems). Apparently, it does not account for these effects of un-matched speeds of different types of aircraft in the group, though. (?) If so, IMO, this is a bit of a problem.

 

I have also seen cases where adding a single tanker to a group still would not allow it to be launched as a strike mission, yet adding one or two additional tankers would then allow it to be launched. As a result, my assumption was that the launch dialog takes into consideration the amount of re-fuel available - even if it doesn't account for effects of unmatched speeds of group members.

 

While on that subject, I've noticed that weapons range does not seem to be figured into the computation of adequate fuel. What I mean is that if a loadout gives, say, an 1168 nm range, and the weapon has, say, a 70 nm range, then theoretically, at least a single aircraft having this loadout could attack a target that was beyond its 1168 fuel range - due to the added distance of the weapon... but the dialog does not permit this launch. I have actually launched small groups of aircraft under these conditions and had them launch their weapons before they reached BINGO, so it looks like the theory holds true... and also looks like the dialog does not take the weapon range into account. Although not any tremendous problem, it does impose a rather inaccurate and confusing restriction on the launch criteria.

[Joe K]

I see this happen every so often where the tanker(s) does not ever split off (and it has happened with small groups, albeit without the loss of a/c as in my example). As I recall, it has usually shown up in connection with a ferrying operation, or with a group that is returning to base after a mission and the tanker was joined to the group sometime after the group had stated its return to base. I had always sort of dismissed this as possibly "normal" behavior, and my question was basically that: Are there circumstances where it is "normal" for (a) tanker(s) to stay with a group after finishing the IFR? If so, what determines that?

I don't believe tankers don't split after completing normal IFR, I've tested a lot of IFR flights and have not seen it. Ofcourse normal IFR might not complete in particular cases, each case has its own reason.

If other occasions occur then get back to us with the specifics, it is useless just talking in generalities when there is no known problem.

 

Don

Well, my whole intent when bringing this up was to see whether this "generality" was a known effect/problem - or if it is something that warrants the effort of investigation. Instead of answering that, people have embarked on "analyzing" the generality (or perhaps simply debunking my method used in the problematic example).

 

Bottom line: I will be happy to try to provide "specifics", but only if it is an unknown issue - hence my question of whether there was a known explanation for these non-splits, before putting effort into trying to capture it.

 

Actually, I think this basic misunderstanding of my intent has existed throughout the various issues that I've raised. That is, instead of "reading" my questions as, "What's up with this?", they were read as statements of, "This is really screwed up". I apologize if my frustration has come through such that my presentation has led to these misunderstandings of my intent.

[CV32]

As an aside, it would be helpful to understand the factors that are figured into the launch dialog's decision as to whether the group has enough range (fuel?) to reach the requested target. Empirically, it appears that the calculation takes the number of aircraft into account (in other words, any fuel consumption due to form-up of a large group) because I've seen cases where it will not allow the launch of very large groups against targets that are somewhat less distant than the specificed (individual plane's?) range for the assigned loadout, yet decreasing the number of planes assigned will allow it to be launched (and without subsequent fuel problems). Apparently, it does not account for these effects of un-matched speeds of different types of aircraft in the group, though. (?) If so, IMO, this is a bit of a problem.

 

The GE accounts for differing aircraft speeds by defaulting to the cruise speed of the lowest speed aircraft type in the group. The system is simple and works well. You, as commander, have to do some of the thinking, you know.

 

I have also seen cases where adding a single tanker to a group still would not allow it to be launched as a strike mission, yet adding one or two additional tankers would then allow it to be launched. As a result, my assumption was that the launch dialog takes into consideration the amount of re-fuel available - even if it doesn't account for effects of unmatched speeds of group members.

 

Yes, adding a tanker to a launching group will sometimes permit a launch that would not otherwise be possible. As I'm sure you've discovered, adding a single KA-6D to a group of 24x Hornets wouldn't work. But a smaller group of Hornets probably would. Someone who enjoys tinkering with the math (like Victor!) could probably investigate where the 'sweet spot' exists. (Tony is away for a week, and unavailable to provide the specifics of the code).

 

While on that subject, I've noticed that weapons range does not seem to be figured into the computation of adequate fuel. What I mean is that if a loadout gives, say, an 1168 nm range, and the weapon has, say, a 70 nm range, then theoretically, at least a single aircraft having this loadout could attack a target that was beyond its 1168 fuel range - due to the added distance of the weapon... but the dialog does not permit this launch. I have actually launched small groups of aircraft under these conditions and had them launch their weapons before they reached BINGO, so it looks like the theory holds true... and also looks like the dialog does not take the weapon range into account. Although not any tremendous problem, it does impose a rather inaccurate and confusing restriction on the launch criteria.

 

The GE fuel/range calculation does not inspect the loadout and the range of the weapons in it. This is unlikely to change, and would probably cause more code trouble than its worth. Personally, I wouldn't want it to, because (1) I typically micro manage a strike mission, launching a group on a patrol mission (instead of attack), approach from off axis rather than directly, and (2) because I rarely launch weapons at their max permissible range.

[Joe K]

As an aside, it would be helpful to understand the factors that are figured into the launch dialog's decision as to whether the group has enough range (fuel?) to reach the requested target. Empirically, it appears that the calculation takes the number of aircraft into account (in other words, any fuel consumption due to form-up of a large group) because I've seen cases where it will not allow the launch of very large groups against targets that are somewhat less distant than the specificed (individual plane's?) range for the assigned loadout, yet decreasing the number of planes assigned will allow it to be launched (and without subsequent fuel problems). Apparently, it does not account for these effects of un-matched speeds of different types of aircraft in the group, though. (?) If so, IMO, this is a bit of a problem.

 

The GE accounts for differing aircraft speeds by defaulting to the cruise speed of the lowest speed aircraft type in the group. The system is simple and works well. You, as commander, have to do some of the thinking, you know.

 

That sort of thinking is what subordinates - or computers - are for. As I see it, the commander's thinking is in the nature of strategy - and maybe tactics. Number-crunching is for the accountants or the computers to take care of... and provide a summary for the commander to use in his planning. (IMO).

 

...

The GE fuel/range calculation does not inspect the loadout and the range of the weapons in it. This is unlikely to change, and would probably cause more code trouble than its worth. Personally, I wouldn't want it to, because (1) I typically micro manage a strike mission, launching a group on a patrol mission (instead of attack), approach from off axis rather than directly, and (2) because I rarely launch weapons at their max permissible range.

 

Well, my whole point here is simply that if the fuel/range computation is going to be accurate, it should account for all of the affecting factors - otherwise, it's just confusing the issue (and leading to disasters).

 

You say that you like to micro-mange, yet you don't like to do the math? Strange!

 

Anyway, I don't have any problem with micro-managing, if that's your thing... but IME, micro-managing stuff like that has been a lot of trouble for no gain. (Now, if it did some good, then that'd be different...) But, that sort of leads to why I was doing 24-plane strike groups in the first place: Because the only way that I've found to "crack" an AI carrier group is to literally run it out of SAMs, it requires massive and repeated strikes. It's a whole lot easier to simply mount those strikes as a few large packages rather than a bunch of little ones!

 

I think I mentioned that it was necessary to launch attacks by a total of 60 F/A-18s and 68 A-6Es (plus missiles from a SAG and a sub on the first iteration) a total of three different times before the first hit animation appeared for the AI's carrier group. (I ultimately launched these attacks eight times before finally killing the carrier group - of course that was after being down those 24 Navy F/A-18s). Not much micro-managing to be done when banging heads against walls like this! And before you say it, yes, I've tried many other tactics in these cases, most of which involved extensive micro-managing, including multi-axis attacks, use of assorted weapons, yada, yada, yada. The only thing that works is to simply run 'em out of SAMS, so why bother with all that other horsing around??

[CV32]

That sort of thinking is what subordinates - or computers - are for. As I see it, the commander's thinking is in the nature of strategy - and maybe tactics. Number-crunching is for the accountants or the computers to take care of... and provide a summary for the commander to use in his planning. (IMO).

 

Yeah, the difference being, it seems, that I like to play the game rather than have the game play itself for me.

 

Well, my whole point here is simply that if the fuel/range computation is going to be accurate, it should account for all of the affecting factors - otherwise, it's just confusing the issue (and leading to disasters).

 

No disasters happening around here. (Unless I'm just not paying attention).

 

You say that you like to micro-mange, yet you don't like to do the math? Strange!

 

Its not a matter of not liking to do the math, but rather that I don't need to. Most of what I need is already computed and stored 'upstairs', and I'm quite accustomed to playing this game.

 

Anyway, I don't have any problem with micro-managing, if that's your thing... but IME, micro-managing stuff like that has been a lot of trouble for no gain. (Now, if it did some good, then that'd be different...) But, that sort of leads to why I was doing 24-plane strike groups in the first place: Because the only way that I've found to "crack" an AI carrier group is to literally run it out of SAMs, it requires massive and repeated strikes. It's a whole lot easier to simply mount those strikes as a few large packages rather than a bunch of little ones!

 

No problems in management here. (Unless I'm just not paying attention).

 

I think I mentioned that it was necessary to launch attacks by a total of 60 F/A-18s and 68 A-6Es (plus missiles from a SAG and a sub on the first iteration) a total of three different times before the first hit animation appeared for the AI's carrier group. (I ultimately launched these attacks eight times before finally killing the carrier group - of course that was after being down those 24 Navy F/A-18s). Not much micro-managing to be done when banging heads against walls like this! And before you say it, yes, I've tried many other tactics in these cases, most of which involved extensive micro-managing, including multi-axis attacks, use of assorted weapons, yada, yada, yada. The only thing that works is to simply run 'em out of SAMS, so why bother with all that other horsing around??

 

Or, I suppose, one could actually explore, try and develop some skills and tactics rather than repeating the same mistakes ad nauseum for years and years?

[Joe K]

That sort of thinking is what subordinates - or computers - are for. As I see it, the commander's thinking is in the nature of strategy - and maybe tactics. Number-crunching is for the accountants or the computers to take care of... and provide a summary for the commander to use in his planning. (IMO).

 

Yeah, the difference being, it seems, that I like to play the game rather than have the game play itself for me.

 

I must assume, then, that you deal with only a few engagements and other activities concurrently?

 

Well, my whole point here is simply that if the fuel/range computation is going to be accurate, it should account for all of the affecting factors - otherwise, it's just confusing the issue (and leading to disasters).

 

No disasters happening around here. (Unless I'm just not paying attention).

So inaccurate numbers only count when it's in regards to my examples?

 

You say that you like to micro-mange, yet you don't like to do the math? Strange!

 

Its not a matter of not liking to do the math, but rather that I don't need to. ...

I don't like to do the math on the fly, either... which is why I'd like the computer to do the mundane stuff for me.

 

 

I think I mentioned that it was necessary to launch attacks by a total of 60 F/A-18s and 68 A-6Es (plus missiles from a SAG and a sub on the first iteration) a total of three different times before the first hit animation appeared for the AI's carrier group. (I ultimately launched these attacks eight times before finally killing the carrier group - of course that was after being down those 24 Navy F/A-18s). Not much micro-managing to be done when banging heads against walls like this! And before you say it, yes, I've tried many other tactics in these cases, most of which involved extensive micro-managing, including multi-axis attacks, use of assorted weapons, yada, yada, yada. The only thing that works is to simply run 'em out of SAMS, so why bother with all that other horsing around??

 

Or, I suppose, one could actually explore, try and develop some skills and tactics rather than repeating the same mistakes ad nauseum for years and years?

You seem to keep missing the point that I have tried numerous different tactics - none of which had any greater effectiveness in general. So, perhaps you could share some of your wisdom in the matter?

[CV32]

I must assume, then, that you deal with only a few engagements and other activities concurrently?

 

Nope, I can manage scens like Kola and Backyard just fine. Some of the tougher, busier scenarios simply require that you take your licks, focus on your own strengths and your enemy's weaknesses. Maybe read some Clausewitz between Staff Assistant pop ups. If I lose, so be it. Try something different next time.

 

So inaccurate numbers only count when it's in regards to my examples?

 

I never said that. But numbers do count when this development team looks at issues and decides priorities. If the existing model works more or less as it should, and there aren't a majority of people clamoring about it as an issue, then the probability is good that it won't be considered an issue that needs to be addressed or changed.

 

You seem to keep missing the point that I have tried numerous different tactics - none of which had any greater effectiveness in general. So, perhaps you could share some of your wisdom in the matter?

 

No offense intended, JoeK, but since most people don't seem to have these issues, I am comfortable in saying that most of us are probably left wondering what your problem really is. I don't have any particular secrets that probably aren't already well known by the vast majority of folks familiar with HC. So, if we can't blame your particular computer set up, rogue code, or repeated bad luck, what's left? If you've really been playing HC for as long as you say, and if its all as hopelessly stacked against you as you seem to believe, then I have to wonder why are you still playing?

[Joe K]

No offense intended, JoeK, but since most people don't seem to have these issues, I am comfortable in saying that most of us are probably left wondering what your problem really is.

As am I.

 

I don't have any particular secrets that probably aren't already well known by the vast majority of folks familiar with HC.

Then I'd surely appreciate it if you would not assert that I am also unaware of - and have not tried, or am unskilled in - those tactics.

 

I readily admit the possibility that some such situation may exist, but - as you like to say - I'm not seeing any direct evidence of it, so I can't take it seriously. Yet, if it is true, then I'd certainly want to know about it.

 

So, if we can't blame your particular computer set up,

I'd say the jury is definitely still out regarding that aspect. At this point, it seems to be the most plausible explanation that I've seen.

 

... rogue code,

You mean like viruses, etc.? Or are you talking corrupted code or databases?

 

... or repeated bad luck,

Given past life experiences with computer-related stuff, I certainly wouldn't discount that possibility! But, I tend to doubt it in this case.

 

... what's left? If you've really been playing HC for as long as you say, and if its all as hopelessly stacked against you as you seem to believe, then I have to wonder why are you still playing?

The key word here may be "hopelessly". I do keep hoping that the reason(s) for this will be found, so that I can get back to enjoying the game as in years past.

 

And yes, I really have been playing Harpoon for as long as I said... and yes, I do believe that there are some aspects where the AI and the player do not have parity (for reasons perhaps still not entirely known)... and I do occasionally throw up my hands and seriously consider going back to an older version of the game where things behaved more "normally" - but then I'd have to give up all the nice embellishments in the newer versions, too. And like any addict, I've become "hooked" on those. So perhaps the answer to your question is analogous to why an addict keeps on an addiction that in some ways is hurtful.

[CV32]

Then I'd surely appreciate it if you would not assert that I am also unaware of - and have not tried, or am unskilled in - those tactics. I readily admit the possibility that some such situation may exist, but - as you like to say - I'm not seeing any direct evidence of it, so I can't take it seriously. Yet, if it is true, then I'd certainly want to know about it.

 

If they don't work for you, but they work for others, what conclusion should be drawn? It seems apparent that the problem is not with the game, but rather, over there where you are. This is not aimed at you personally, so please don't take it that way, because honestly I would like to see your issues resolved in a permanent way, but is there any other way of describing it?

 

So, if we can't blame your particular computer set up

I'd say the jury is definitely still out regarding that aspect. At this point, it seems to be the most plausible explanation that I've seen.

 

The 'computer experts' around here tell me that this is highly implausible.

 

... rogue code,

You mean like viruses, etc.? Or are you talking corrupted code or databases?

 

I mean some bug or flaw in the code. In most cases, these can be fairly easily rooted out - given enough material to work with (like the issue with the neutrals reporting player positions) - and squashed. Corruption, however, would likely prevent you from playing at all or else cause repeated error messages and crashes.

 

... or repeated bad luck,

Given past life experiences with computer-related stuff, I certainly wouldn't discount that possibility! But, I tend to doubt it in this case.

 

I doubt it too, because the 'die rolls' are shown to go both ways, given enough tosses.

 

I do keep hoping that the reason(s) for this will be found, so that I can get back to enjoying the game as in years past.

 

Me too, because I rather dislike the suggestion that your own experiences are commonly found or are a characteristic of HCE, because they most certainly are not.

[Joe K]

Then I'd surely appreciate it if you would not assert that I am also unaware of - and have not tried, or am unskilled in - those tactics. I readily admit the possibility that some such situation may exist, but - as you like to say - I'm not seeing any direct evidence of it, so I can't take it seriously. Yet, if it is true, then I'd certainly want to know about it.

 

If they don't work for you, but they work for others, what conclusion should be drawn? It seems apparent that the problem is not with the game, but rather, over there where you are. This is not aimed at you personally, so please don't take it that way, because honestly I would like to see your issues resolved in a permanent way, but is there any other way of describing it?

 

I'd hope the conclusions would not be drawn until the facts support them. As far as I know, no conclusion in that matter is warranted at this point since the cause(s) is (are) not known/understood.

 

I'd say the jury is definitely still out regarding that aspect. At this point, it seems to be the most plausible explanation that I've seen.

 

The 'computer experts' around here tell me that this is highly implausible.

I would tend to concur myself - except for the recently-developing evidence that I've been seeing here.

 

I mean some bug or flaw in the code. In most cases, these can be fairly easily rooted out - given enough material to work with (like the issue with the neutrals reporting player positions) - and squashed. Corruption, however, would likely prevent you from playing at all or else cause repeated error messages and crashes.

 

Personally, I don't suspect code corruption - and mainly for the reasons you mentioned. Database or in-memory data corruption could be another matter, although the probabilities would favor a more random effect with this as well. A bug or flaw in the code should recur under the proper "environmental" conditions, so the probabilities would favor it showing up in at least a few different installations.

 

Given past life experiences with computer-related stuff, I certainly wouldn't discount that possibility! But, I tend to doubt it in this case.

 

I doubt it too, because the 'die rolls' are shown to go both ways, given enough tosses.

Assuming there is no problem with the clock or randomizer in a given situation.

 

I do keep hoping that the reason(s) for this will be found, so that I can get back to enjoying the game as in years past.

 

Me too, because I rather dislike the suggestion that your own experiences are commonly found or are a characteristic of HCE, because they are most certainly are not.

Understood. But please keep in mind that in most cases, I was questioning whether the things I noticed were typical or anomalies - rather than asserting that they were. I regret if my frustration over them came through in a way that indicated otherwise.

[CV32]

Assuming there is no problem with the clock or randomizer in a given situation.

 

I am not sure what you mean by the 'clock', but the 'randomizer' is not separate from the GE. Its built into the code, so if there were some problem with it, it should be repeatable in different computers.

[VictorInThePacific]

I can understand the issue of the KA-6 slowing the group down and thus eventually running it out of fuel, but I don't see why it never completed the re-fueling, and split off (and thus would have allowed those Hornets to resume their normal cruise speed - which may or may not have allowed them to reach base, but at least would have gotten further). But I digress yet again... the crux is why the split-off didn't happen.

 

The conditions of the situation were not properly stated. The numbers you gave appear to be internally self-contradictory. That is why you have not been given a clear response. But consider this: If you try to launch an IFR-capable plane beyond its range, you can't. If you include a tanker in the group, you can now launch. It's like removing the safety mechanism from a machine. Safety is now your personal responsibility. BTW, once you include the tanker in the group, you can then remove it, and your first plane will launch to a place it can't actually get to. Also ... see above.

 

First, what numbers are self-contradictory, and how?

 

"For example, yesterday, I lost 24 F/A-18s after launching them, along with a KA-6 tanker, at a carrier group that was nearly at the limit of their un-refueled range (I think the numbers were 1168 nm range, and 1026 sepration between the carrier groups). So, I threw in my only tanker "just to be safe". However, as the group reached its attack point, I noticed that the tanker was still attached, yet the report showed that it had no re-fuel stores. The group completed its attack and turned back but the tanker remained attached. The fuel range circle indicated at that time that there was still enough fuel to reach base. I then became distracted by other engagements, and next thing I knew, there was a report of 24 F/A-18s running out of fuel and crashing - about 150 nm from their carrier. So, apparently, including the tanker didn't ensure there was enough fuel. I wonder whether the re-fueling process was interrupted by the attack itself, although the group report already showed no re-fuel stores awhile before the weapons launch point, so...??? Oddly enough, I had launched my other 24 F/A-18s at the same target shortly after the large group, but in two groups of 12 planes each, with no tankers... and those groups got back with plenty of of fuel to spare, despite not being re-fueled at all."

 

You mention 2 carrier groups. You mention attacking. Thus we conclude that the planes are flying from your carrier to attack an enemy carrier group. This is not a ferry mission.

 

Apparently the range of your attack planes is 1168 nm. As someone has already stated, this means there AND BACK, so the furthest out one plane could fly is 584 nm. Yet you say that the carrier groups are separated by 1026 nm. So this is impossible; the GE won't let you do it ... UNLESS you add a tanker to the group (even if you later remove it, heh, heh).

 

That is only one example of an internal contradiction in this anecdotal report, which leads me to conclude that there are errors in the report, and neither I or anyone else has the time and energy to figure them out. So we can't do anything with it.

 

Second, this specific situation did not involve launching a group beyond its un-refueled range. I thought that I mentioned it, but in case I didn't, the 24-plane primary group was allowed to launch without a tanker (per the dialog), but because it was a large group (with associated potential fuel-consuming delays), I added the only available tanker to the group, as sort of a safety precaution. I was not aware of - and therefore did not consider - that the slower cruise speed of the tanker would actually shorten the range of the other type of planes (Hornets) in the group. As it turns out, that was a mistake. But it was compounded by the tanker not splitting off from the group, and thus forcing the group to continue at slower speed, and thus further shortening its range.

 

Notwithstanding the contradictions mentioned, consider the game mechanics. Your attack group flies to near the target. This takes about an hour. The planes are at about 50% fuel, and probably would have reached the request-for-fuel state sometime earlier, so tanking starts. And continues ... and continues ... for more than an hour, while the planes complete the attack, turn around and head for home. Unfortunately for them, the fuel they get is very limited, and that damn attached tanker slows them down, so while the tanker is still busily refueling plane 20 ... 21 ... they all run out of gas (except the tanker). Since the process was never completed, the tanker never splits off. And in any case, as soon as the group starts to head for home, the tanker has no reason to split off, because it's going there too.

 

As an aside, it would be helpful to understand the factors that are figured into the launch dialog's decision as to whether the group has enough range (fuel?) to reach the requested target. Empirically, it appears that the calculation takes the number of aircraft into account (in other words, any fuel consumption due to form-up of a large group) because I've seen cases where it will not allow the launch of very large groups against targets that are somewhat less distant than the specificed (individual plane's?) range for the assigned loadout, yet decreasing the number of planes assigned will allow it to be launched (and without subsequent fuel problems). Apparently, it does not account for these effects of un-matched speeds of different types of aircraft in the group, though. (?) If so, IMO, this is a bit of a problem.

 

Are you sure? A plane's stated range must account for there AND BACK, so the GE should only allow you to launch an attack at half that distance.

 

Incidentally, in this situation, you really do need to be launching your planes in smaller groups so the big blob doesn't waste so much fuel, especially if you're only using up defensive SAMs anyway.