Jump to content

Refueling behavior question


Joe K

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Donald (post 7, this thread), has given some specific numerical results.

 

I have proposed that you do a measurement (post 17, this thread).

 

We need to be comparing specific narrow measurements, because nobody can do anything useful with anecdotal reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

Please allow me to introduce myself

...

I've been around for a long, long year

Stole many a man's soul and faith

...

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name

 

(Sympathy for Mr. Grumble)

 

The only thing that works is to simply run 'em out of SAMS, so why bother with all that other horsing around??

 

Actually, there are things you can do ...

 

Study this ... and I do mean STUDY

 

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2032492

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

System clock... or "system time services"... or whatever you prefer to call it.

 

The randomizing functions typically are provided by the programming language's "built-in libraries". Although I cannot speak to how Harpoon is designed, some of Tony's comments imply that it does indeed use the "canned" randomizing functions. That said, it is my understanding that the canned functions usually get incorporated into the executables, so you are correct as far as that portion being "built into" the executable code (although not into the source code). On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, all such functions eventually make use of the system time services that are part of the host computer.

 

Your "computer experts" may be able to correct this if it is wrong, but this is my understanding of the matter - and what I am basing my beliefs on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

True, this is not a ferry mission... but what of it? :unsure:

 

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).

 

You are correct: That should have been stated as the reported mission-required range, not the separation distance. My bad; Sorry for the confusion.

 

Notwithstanding the contradictions mentioned, consider the game mechanics. Your attack group flies to near the target. This takes about an hour.

What are the numbers for this? I was figuring longer than that... In fact, when I calculated, I was getting a two-and-one-half hour round trip... er, well, up to the point where they ran out of gas; not for the complete round trip.

 

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).

I also assume that the re-fueling would commence before they reached target (although I don't recall any report of that either, but because those reports are relatively subtle, I would not be surprized if I missed that one - considering that I was not particularly looking for it).

 

Believe me, I do understand why the slower tanker could cause the run-out condition, given the report that the game computes fuel consumption based on the throttle setting, not on the actual speed. I am not questioning the out-of-gas situation here; I'm only concerned about the tanker not splitting off.

 

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.

Two things that don't make sense to me in this:

1. Why would it take so long to do the re-fueling? (Are there numbers relating to this somewhere? If so, what are they - for future reference?)

2. Is it true that a tanker should not split off if the group is on a return-to-base leg? If so, it would explain some things about this - but, on the other hand, also would be inconsistent with my observations in other instances of similar situations - where the tankers do split off even on RTB legs. Are there some cases where they are supposed to split-off and others where they are not supposed to split-off? If so, what determines this?

 

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?

Sure of what? :unsure:

 

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.

As I've mentioned, one reason I did that was simply convenience - as I got tired of having to fuss with so many little groups, when it (apparently) made no difference in the outcome either way. (Ironically, when I did not include the tanker, fuel was not an issue - even for these large groups). Another reason was that I sort of hoped - despite all indications to the contrary - that launching a massive number of missiles all at once might swamp the defenses and allow one or two to get through. (I should have known better... but I'll try "anything" once. <_< )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Please allow me to introduce myself

...

I've been around for a long, long year

Stole many a man's soul and faith

...

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name

 

(Sympathy for Mr. Grumble)

 

Well, all I can say is if the Grumbles, et al, are actually so numerous and/or so effective in RL as what I see in the game, then I really don't see how the US forces could ever hope to crack that nut. And conversely, if in RL, US anti-missile defenses are as ineffective against incoming Soviet missiles as what I see when I play the game, then they'd better head for the hills!

 

And lest someone say that it's all the fault of my tactics, may I remind that the player has no control over AAW operations, and at best can only try to deploy the screen effectively - which is of little help since the defenders don't shoot (much) at the incoming missiles in any case.

 

The only thing that works is to simply run 'em out of SAMS, so why bother with all that other horsing around??

 

Actually, there are things you can do ...

 

Study this ... and I do mean STUDY

 

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2032492

Always interested in good ideas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, all I can say is if the Grumbles, et al, are actually so numerous and/or so effective in RL as what I see in the game, then I really don't see how the US forces could ever hope to crack that nut. And conversely, if in RL, US anti-missile defenses are as ineffective against incoming Soviet missiles as what I see when I play the game, then they'd better head for the hills!

 

I'm curious as to what happens when (or if) you play the Soviet side.

 

And lest someone say that it's all the fault of my tactics, may I remind that the player has no control over AAW operations, and at best can only try to deploy the screen effectively - which is of little help since the defenders don't shoot (much) at the incoming missiles in any case.

 

Not entirely true, as you can manipulate the range at which incomers are engaged, how many missiles you dedicate to your defense, and in some respects, whether you engage at all. (Now we digress ... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, all I can say is if the Grumbles, et al, are actually so numerous and/or so effective in RL as what I see in the game, then I really don't see how the US forces could ever hope to crack that nut. And conversely, if in RL, US anti-missile defenses are as ineffective against incoming Soviet missiles as what I see when I play the game, then they'd better head for the hills!

 

I'm curious as to what happens when (or if) you play the Soviet side.

Generally speaking, my past experience has been that when playing the Soviet side, the tables are reversed - that is, the US defenses are noticably more formidible, and the Soviet defenses are noticably more anemic. However, I will add that, overall, the Soviet stuff still seems to be comparatively more effective than the US counterparts - a situation that is puzzling because I would expect that the US stuff would be generally a bit more advanced.

 

And lest someone say that it's all the fault of my tactics, may I remind that the player has no control over AAW operations, and at best can only try to deploy the screen effectively - which is of little help since the defenders don't shoot (much) at the incoming missiles in any case.

 

Not entirely true, as you can manipulate the range at which incomers are engaged, how many missiles you dedicate to your defense, and in some respects, whether you engage at all. (Now we digress ... )

If you are referring to the settings for AAW "weight of fire" and engagement point, I have experimented with those in the past (read, in past versions of the game) and found them to have no noticable effect. (If this has been changed recently, then I admit that it may be different now).

 

I have no idea how to control whether the automatic AAW engages or not.

 

But the bottom line is that in no case that I've seen do the player's "automatic" missile defenses engage in a way that is at all comparable to the way the AI side's missile defenses respond. Although I've never really been able to count the actual SAMs (and as far as I know, it is impossible to count the CIWS shells), the animations and the Unit Display makes it clear that the player's side shoots only 1-2 SAMs at each incoming missile, while the AI's side fires considerably more than that at each incoming missile... I'd guess it to be on the order of 5-10 SAMs per incoming missile. Then, judging by the hit amimation display, the AI side often dispatches as many as 5-10 incoming missiles at close range (I'm assuming that is due to CIWS) with no "leakers", yet the hit animations for the player's side show perhaps 0-2 incoming missiles being downed at close range (while many others hit).

 

I had once thought this might have been due to the (in)capabilities of the specific platforms involved, or to the number of incoming missiles, but observation of a significant number of instances, invovling many types of ships, various numbers of incoming missiles, and including switching sides in some scenarios, and across many versions of the game, makes it seem obvious that the situation is simply that the missile defenses response differs for the player's side compared to the AI's side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, my past experience has been that when playing the Soviet side, the tables are reversed - that is, the US defenses are noticably more formidible, and the Soviet defenses are noticably more anemic. However, I will add that, overall, the Soviet stuff still seems to be comparatively more effective than the US counterparts - a situation that is puzzling because I would expect that the US stuff would be generally a bit more advanced.

 

Okay. A little too generalized to be terribly useful, but you should probably take a closer look at some of the Soviet era surface ships and their emphasis on air defense.

 

If you are referring to the settings for AAW "weight of fire" and engagement point, I have experimented with those in the past (read, in past versions of the game) and found them to have no noticable effect. (If this has been changed recently, then I admit that it may be different now).

 

Then you should probably try them in the current version. That's the only way to move forward on these issues.

 

But the bottom line is that in no case that I've seen do the player's "automatic" missile defenses engage in a way that is at all comparable to the way the AI side's missile defenses respond. Although I've never really been able to count the actual SAMs (and as far as I know, it is impossible to count the CIWS shells), the animations and the Unit Display makes it clear that the player's side shoots only 1-2 SAMs at each incoming missile, while the AI's side fires considerably more than that at each incoming missile... I'd guess it to be on the order of 5-10 SAMs per incoming missile. Then, judging by the hit amimation display, the AI side often dispatches as many as 5-10 incoming missiles at close range (I'm assuming that is due to CIWS) with no "leakers", yet the hit animations for the player's side show perhaps 0-2 incoming missiles being downed at close range (while many others hit).

 

I had once thought this might have been due to the (in)capabilities of the specific platforms involved, or to the number of incoming missiles, but observation of a significant number of instances, invovling many types of ships, various numbers of incoming missiles, and including switching sides in some scenarios, and across many versions of the game, makes it seem obvious that the situation is simply that the missile defenses response differs for the player's side compared to the AI's side.

 

Using the logging features already suggested to you on several occasions would help answer many of these questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, my past experience has been that when playing the Soviet side, the tables are reversed - that is, the US defenses are noticably more formidible, and the Soviet defenses are noticably more anemic. However, I will add that, overall, the Soviet stuff still seems to be comparatively more effective than the US counterparts - a situation that is puzzling because I would expect that the US stuff would be generally a bit more advanced.

 

Okay. A little too generalized to be terribly useful, but you should probably take a closer look at some of the Soviet era surface ships and their emphasis on air defense.

I am aware of that. What puzzles me is why they wouldn't be comparably effective regardless of whether they are played from the AI side or the Player's side - unless this observation is simply an artifact of a peculiarity of my own installation, or some such.

 

If you are referring to the settings for AAW "weight of fire" and engagement point, I have experimented with those in the past (read, in past versions of the game) and found them to have no noticable effect. (If this has been changed recently, then I admit that it may be different now).

 

Then you should probably try them in the current version. That's the only way to move forward on these issues.

Fine. Then please let me know how to allocate a desired number of defensive missiles, and how to control whether or not the automatic AA defenses can be enabled or not, as you decribed previously.

 

But the bottom line is that in no case that I've seen do the player's "automatic" missile defenses engage in a way that is at all comparable to the way the AI side's missile defenses respond. Although I've never really been able to count the actual SAMs (and as far as I know, it is impossible to count the CIWS shells), the animations and the Unit Display makes it clear that the player's side shoots only 1-2 SAMs at each incoming missile, while the AI's side fires considerably more than that at each incoming missile... I'd guess it to be on the order of 5-10 SAMs per incoming missile. Then, judging by the hit amimation display, the AI side often dispatches as many as 5-10 incoming missiles at close range (I'm assuming that is due to CIWS) with no "leakers", yet the hit animations for the player's side show perhaps 0-2 incoming missiles being downed at close range (while many others hit).

 

I had once thought this might have been due to the (in)capabilities of the specific platforms involved, or to the number of incoming missiles, but observation of a significant number of instances, invovling many types of ships, various numbers of incoming missiles, and including switching sides in some scenarios, and across many versions of the game, makes it seem obvious that the situation is simply that the missile defenses response differs for the player's side compared to the AI's side.

 

Using the logging features already suggested to you on several occasions would help answer many of these questions.

They aren't questions but rather observations. The question would be whether my observations are consistent with "normal" expected behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of that. What puzzles me is why they wouldn't be comparably effective regardless of whether they are played from the AI side or the Player's side ...

 

They are, imho.

 

unless this observation is simply an artifact of a peculiarity of my own installation, or some such.

 

It is, imho.

 

Fine. Then please let me know how to allocate a desired number of defensive missiles ...

 

Go to Settings / Staff Options / Surface SAM Fire Rate. Play with the options there.

 

'Light' should generally allocate one SAM per one attacking/incoming missile.

'Normal' should generally allocate two SAMs per one attacker.

'Heavy' should generally allocate three SAMs per one attacker.

 

Also, under the same options, see 'Auto AAW Fire Range'

 

Here, 'Optimum' refers to the full range of your SAM unless that value >60 nm, at which point it becomes 82% of range if the target is a missile or 88% of range if the target is an aircraft.

 

The other choices are self-explanatory.

 

and how to control whether or not the automatic AA defenses can be enabled or not, as you decribed previously.

 

You can't control point defense, but you can exercise some degree of control of whether to engage at all by playing with the Auto AAW Fire Range options above. Also, where SAMs are semi-active radar guided (and many are), you can keep them from firing by shutting down your radars. Whether it is wise to do that is, of course, your call.

 

They aren't questions but rather observations. The question would be whether my observations are consistent with "normal" expected behavior.

 

I would say very few (if any; we'd probably have to be very specific to be sure) of your observations are consistent with normally expected behavior by the vast majority of players around here. Are you going to try the logging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unless this observation is simply an artifact of a peculiarity of my own installation, or some such.

 

It is, imho.

 

See below...

 

Go to Settings / Staff Options / Surface SAM Fire Rate. Play with the options there.

 

'Light' should generally allocate one SAM per one attacking/incoming missile.

'Normal' should generally allocate two SAMs per one attacker.

'Heavy' should generally allocate three SAMs per one attacker.

 

Also, under the same options, see 'Auto AAW Fire Range'

 

Here, 'Optimum' refers to the full range of your SAM unless that value >60 nm, at which point it becomes 82% of range if the target is a missile or 88% of range if the target is an aircraft.

 

The other choices are self-explanatory.

Those are the settings that I'm familiar with; I guess I misunderstood and thought you were saying that it was possible to allocate specific numbers of defensive missiles somehow.

 

and how to control whether or not the automatic AA defenses can be enabled or not, as you decribed previously.

 

You can't control point defense, but you can exercise some degree of control of whether to engage at all by playing with the Auto AAW Fire Range options above. Also, where SAMs are semi-active radar guided (and many are), you can keep them from firing by shutting down your radars. Whether it is wise to do that is, of course, your call.

 

OK, again, I thought you were referring to some setting to explicitly enable/disable the automatic Air defenses.

 

They aren't questions but rather observations. The question would be whether my observations are consistent with "normal" expected behavior.

 

I would say very few (if any; we'd probably have to be very specific to be sure) of your observations are consistent with normally expected behavior by the vast majority of players around here.

 

If that is true, then perhaps it is safe to assume that there is nothing to be done about any of this - short of my obtaining a different computer to use - considering that this one seems to be the only place where things get screwy.

 

Are you going to try the logging?

IIRC, that requires the launcher. I thought that I had downloaded that when Tony mentioned it (somewhere in earlier discussions), but darned it I can find it now, so I guess I'll need another copy... but in browsing the HCE forum, I don't see the download repository that people mention every so often. Where is that, anyway? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, that requires the launcher. I thought that I had downloaded that when Tony mentioned it (somewhere in earlier discussions), but darned it I can find it now, so I guess I'll need another copy... but in browsing the HCE forum, I don't see the download repository that people mention every so often. Where is that, anyway? :unsure:

 

Top bar on the right, look in HCE --> Tools/Mods

 

or

 

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=445

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread has been killed and run over. But I will add one more item about the original refueling topic. When I do a scenario that requires refueling, I am usually eager to get the refueling done and send the tanker(s) home. So I don't wait for the Staff Assistant to remind me. I guess I don't entirely trust that the reminder will happen. If you watch the group of aircraft after the refueling has begun, within a short time the bingo fuel number will jump. After that you can split off the tanker and send it home.

Now this may be gaming the game, rather than reflecting real life. But it works in HCE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notwithstanding the contradictions mentioned, consider the game mechanics. Your attack group flies to near the target. This takes about an hour.

What are the numbers for this? I was figuring longer than that... In fact, when I calculated, I was getting a two-and-one-half hour round trip... er, well, up to the point where they ran out of gas; not for the complete round trip.

 

OK, so with the corrected values:

 

So you are flying an atack mission with Hornets. Now the way BINGO fuel works in Harpoon, approximately, is that when the amount of cruise fuel left is somewhat more than the distance to base (source base or any base ?), the plane wants to RTB. Somewhat earlier, the plane will attempt to refuel if it can.

 

Maximum ONE-WAY range for these Hornets is 584 nm. So BINGO happens when they have flown OUT about 500 nm. Assuming that these Hornets are carrying Harpoons, and since the target is about 500 nm away, the attack point is about 450 nm from the source base. This is also approximately the point where automatic refueling would start. Note as well that the combined group flies at 415 nm, so refueling starts just about when the Falcons launch missiles, about an hour out from their base.

 

Preliminary calculations:

 

With a range of 1168 nm, at 490 kn, these planes can fly for 2.38 h. Subtract .2 h for launching the full group. Since they actually fly at 415 kn, their range is now 906 nm. However, they only flew 450 nm x 2, and they had some extra fuel from tanking, so the full group won't die UNLESS there is some further critical information that was not stated. Once again, there is an internal contradiction in the numbers provided, so there's no point in me continuing this calculation with the data available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread has been killed and run over. But I will add one more item about the original refueling topic. When I do a scenario that requires refueling, I am usually eager to get the refueling done and send the tanker(s) home. So I don't wait for the Staff Assistant to remind me. I guess I don't entirely trust that the reminder will happen. If you watch the group of aircraft after the refueling has begun, within a short time the bingo fuel number will jump. After that you can split off the tanker and send it home. Now this may be gaming the game, rather than reflecting real life. But it works in HCE.

 

I tend to perform the split manually too, after refueling, usually because I'm looking to get the strike package (or whatever the recipient of the fuel was) back to its ordinary cruise speed and back on the job. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...