Aah, the smell of the Ocean!

 

Intro: I was an avid Harpooner in the 90's with 132a, then bought H2, fought the bugs and though this game was dead. Recently somehow a googled Harpoon and was I in for surprise. I now have UE installed waiting to relive all the past glory and more.

 

Save the best for last I decided to take a tour of the classic battlesets with the latest classic version of the game. Having finished anno with 132a I already immensly enjoy aerial refuelling, Stornoway Tornado GR1s waited a long time to settle the score with the Kildistenroy Bears .

 

While the last versions improved the control over AAW missile engagement they have broken the AG ordenance jettisoning routines. Bombers doggedly vector for their target until they slaughtered to the last. 154A seems to be the last version where they turn tail when intercepted.

For those still interested attached GIUK save file with Tornado F3s closing on a group of Bears. No jettisoning (abort) with 157A/158E, also note the Tornados do not engage with cannons, only with 154A.

 

I've not found anything on this in the forums, has this been discussed?

Was there perhaps a fix or workaround for 158E for this?

Is 154A the best version for scenarios where you defend against bombers? (But I love the staff assistant asking me if I want fighters to launch at incoming missiles in range )

What is the tradeoff between these versions?

 

In general, are there release notes or similar for versions above 132A detailing the improvements, fixes?

 

thanks a bunch!

JETTISON.zip

While the last versions improved the control over AAW missile engagement they have broken the AG ordenance jettisoning routines. Bombers doggedly vector for their target until they slaughtered to the last. 154A seems to be the last version where they turn tail when intercepted.

For those still interested attached GIUK save file with Tornado F3s closing on a group of Bears. No jettisoning (abort) with 157A/158E, also note the Tornados do not engage with cannons, only with 154A.

 

I've not found anything on this in the forums, has this been discussed?

Was there perhaps a fix or workaround for 158E for this?

Is 154A the best version for scenarios where you defend against bombers? (But I love the staff assistant asking me if I want fighters to launch at incoming missiles in range <_>

What is the tradeoff between these versions?

 

In general, are there release notes or similar for versions above 132A detailing the improvements, fixes?

Welcome (back) Grumble!

 

First I'll start with the newest release notes. The current beta builds of HC are located at: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/topic/2049-current-files/ . Within say, "HC2009.075GE.zip", is a ReleaseNotes.txt detailing the changes since October 19, 2004.

 

Some of the older versions of HC that you are tinkering around with have information, examples in a default installation:

C:\Matrix Games\HUCE\HC20\DH00132A\README.TXT

C:\Matrix Games\HUCE\HC20\WH00163D\patch.txt

 

I would like to enable jettisoning again so this is a good opportunity to discuss how you would write the rules for when planes jettison their 'bombs'.

 

Some of the programmers that came before me didn't give much detail in code comments

/* gw 10/94 taken out Jettison(targetGroup,(UnitPtr)NULL,FALSE);*/ // AG ordnance so we can DUCK!!!

For the history buffs, gw stands for Gordon Walton.

Thanks Tony for the welcome.

 

The HCE release notes are exemplary, just reading them makes me salivate ,

but the classic versions from 132A above have nothing comparable, at least not in the UE directories,

the last comprehensive notes are in README.132 in the DH00132 dir for the 132 version.

Anything more out there on 151 through 158E to 163D?

 

This (README.132) by the way has notes on jettisoning rules, pretty reasonable:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-to-Ground Jettisons

Aircraft which are attacked by a sufficient number of fighters in
air-to-air combat will jettison all air-to-ground ordnance and abort
their mission! If you find your attack aircraft suddenly have no
more air-to-ground ordnance, chances are good that you let enemy
fighters get too close.

Tactics:
It is now *much* more important to establish at least temporary air
superiority over strike routes. Send fighters ahead of strike
packages to keep the enemy fighters busy.

 

and numerical details in the bug fixes

 

----------------------------------------------------------------
The aircraft Air-to-Ground ordnance jettison logic would drop ordnance
too easily in some cases. A significant threat level must be
exceeded before attack a/c will jettison (about 25% of the attack
a/c must be threatened). Some problems involving unformed airgroups
jettisoning ordnance have also been addressed.

 

I guess the hooks are there to trigger this, that is when SA warns air group xxA to turn radars on for missiles are incoming is about the right time for the AI to jettison (if threat level exceeded). Of course there are also cannon engagements, hmm.

 

BTW would aircraft benefit from unloaded DATA after jettisoning a/g ordenance?

Okay people, I'm not seeing much discussion, let loose your thoughts!

 

Think about an air force that only has Mig-21s going up against F-14s. Should the Mig-21s jettison on every sortie even when their dear dictator says attack or don't come back?

 

When my B-2 comes within AAM range of a Su-27 but probably isn't detected by radar, should it jettison and run? The answer to that one is no by the way .

Okay people, I'm not seeing much discussion, let loose your thoughts! Think about an air force that only has Mig-21s going up against F-14s. Should the Mig-21s jettison on every sortie even when their dear dictator says attack or don't come back?

If the MiGs are configured for intercept, I don't want them to jettison and run. I want all of my fighter jocks on both sides itching for a fight.

 

And, off the cuff, I don't think I want any strikers (of the multi-role variety, anyway, carrying at least some defensive AAM), jettisoning just because they come into BVR range.

When my B-2 comes within AAM range of a Su-27 but probably isn't detected by radar, should it jettison and run? The answer to that one is no by the way .

Agreed.

So far as my own boys are concerned, I don't want them to jettison without my OK. Maybe there could be a manual jettison?

For the computer I'd guess on a bit of math considering the likely hood of detection, the threat level (if known - type and number of interceptors etc), available fuel and speed and distance to target. Also the direction of the interceptor threat relative to home and target. Finally I suppose the level of advantage of jettison.,

If that adds up to a need to do something then decide to either abort (and jettison if an advantage) and calculate a retreat path or alter the target approach to avoid the threat.

If there is a jettison and run then I think something smart enough to run away from the threat and not just run straight home, and to run at a speed dependant on available fuel and speed/proximity of threat.

I think with the current HCE software structure its not posible to make it user customizable?

Okay people, I'm not seeing much discussion, let loose your thoughts!

 

Jettisoning is a run or die decision pilots make when the RWR lights up or they spot a big column of white smoke rise from the ground at 10 o'clock. So this is the pilot's decision and happens only when missiles are incoming, in immediate danger of being shot down.

 

I'd like to see the game emulate what the individual pilot does (e.g. jettison)

while I'm taking the decisions of the theatre commander. E.g. send a CAP in front of the strike force to roll back the fighter cover or reroute or abort the mission if AWACS tells me they are being intercepted.

 

So as for a rule idea something like jettison when (say) 50% of the group has been engaged, that is

1. more than 50% destroyed
2. or detected large number of missiles incoming (group size < no. of missiles * 0.5 * ph of missile)
3. or detected arge number of enemy fighters within gun range and the group is also being painted by radar (more than group size / 2 fighters)

And this is for the air to ground ordenance only, AAMs are not jettisoned.

 

Would be great if this is triggered only after the side/group becomes aware of the threat. E.g. a SARH AAM triggers when launched, active homing AAM triggers when it's switching to terminal guidance and IR missiles might not at all (only after 50% of the group is spinning in flames).

 

Think about an air force that only has Mig-21s going up against F-14s. Should the Mig-21s jettison on every sortie even when their dear dictator says attack or don't come back?

 

An air force with only Mig-21s up against F-14s will have their nose bloodied. It was tried in 1975 over Satt-el-Arab by Saddam.

(There were F4s too.) Even after 1981 when Mirage F1EQs were added F14s were given a big berth. And that was with a real dictator waiting on the ground. So, yes, I'd say pilots do jettison when missiles are incoming and I'd love my Harpoon pilots do the same if I let them come harms way.

And the same for the computer oppenent.

 

When my B-2 comes within AAM range of a Su-27 but probably isn't detected by radar, should it jettison and run? The answer to that one is no by the way .

 

No, only if missiles are incoming or being painted and bandits are in gun range. Though it will not make much of a difference for a B-2 by then.

 

So far as my own boys are concerned, I don't want them to jettison without my OK. Maybe there could be a manual jettison?

 

I'd say the role of the theatre commander is to plan the strike in a way that there will be no need to jettison. But if it comes to that it's the pilot's decision, the theatre commander is usually not in the cockpit, it's not his life on the line.

He might order the flight to jettison, yes, but will not be able to prevent it.

 

Btw. there was a manual jettison, Alt-J, in the DOS version starting from v1.32.

 

 

now we're talking, much better. Grumble's approach is mostly possible with the exception of the attacked aircraft knowing when the attacking weapons go active and such.

now we're talking, much better. Grumble's approach is mostly possible with the exception of the attacked aircraft knowing when the attacking weapons go active and such.

 

A possible approach is to link the jettison test/decision to follow friendly detection events as opposed to linking it to follow hostile launch events. This way pilots will not "magically" know they need to jettison when being launched at, rather they "worry" only after the threat is detected.

 

Assuming jettison threat level is exceeded in the attached situation the Bear jettisons only when visually detects the incoming Phoenix at 9nm but has not jettisoned when the Tomcats launched 100nm further out (undetected).

 

This would be good enough for real already I think.

Plus should sometime detection routines be further developed to cater for the Phonix radar going active for terminal approach jettisoning might just become close to perfect with the same code.

Any complaints with Grumble's posts #8 and #10? If not we'll give it a try, ideally before Fall but no promises.

I agree with Grumble;

 

Jettisoning is a run or die decision pilots make when the RWR lights up or they spot a big column of white smoke rise from the ground at 10 o'clock. So this is the pilot's decision and happens only when missiles are incoming, in immediate danger of being shot down. I'd like to see the game emulate what the individual pilot does (e.g. jettison) while I'm taking the decisions of the theatre commander.

 

What does the pilot know and when does he know it?

 

When the enemy radar lights up the RWR is a good time to jettison fuel tanks (but not bombs, yet) and start deploying chaff, flares and decoys. If that breaks the radar lock, the flight can continue to the target. When the enemy radar re-acquires, repeat chaff, flares, decoys.

 

How does the AI change the hit-miss calculation when chaff, flares and decoys are used?

 

When the pilot has a visual on incoming missile(s), or when the enemy fighter is behind and in gun range at 4 to 8 o'clock, then the pilot should jettison bombs. The only maneuver that I know works in Harpoon is 'run-away-fast'.

 

Does the pilot also jettison the bomb racks (TER's or MER's) and pylons (if possible)? I read in a pilot's Vietnam memoir where he criticized a fellow pilot for dumping everything, because in his opinion, it did not give any extra speed or maneuverability.

 

Grumble has it right;

 

I'd say the role of the theatre commander is to plan the strike in a way that there will be no need to jettison. But if it comes to that it's the pilot's decision, the theatre commander ... will not be able to prevent it.

 

How does the AI change the hit-miss calculation when chaff, flares and decoys are used?

 

(AFAIK) Currently HCE does not model the deployment of individual chaff/flare rather the effects of these are embedded into the plane's (loadout's) DATA (Defensive ATA) ratings. Use of countermeasures is "assumed" and it all comes down to chance of survival, to the "die roll", when the missile's ATA competes against the target's DATA.

A plane gets DATA bonus for onboard chaff/flare dispenser or ECM just as for high maneuverability, these both improve the chance of survival.

 

Some loadouts also include ECM ordnances, check for example the Tornado GR.1 Guided loadout in the NACV battleset. There is a

"Sky Shadow ECM Pod" with 15%, and a

"BOZ 100 Chf/Flr Pod" with 10% modifier.

I'm not sure though if these are applied to the die rolls or to the radar detection rolls.

 

When the pilot has a visual on incoming missile(s), or when the enemy fighter is behind and in gun range at 4 to 8 o'clock, then the pilot should jettison bombs. The only maneuver that I know works in Harpoon is 'run-away-fast'.

 

Yeah, would be great but aspect is not (yet?) modelled for firing solutions, anything within 3nm is considered a gun firing solution, so currently we need jettison regardless of aspect.

 

But we should strike up a topic on firing solutions and hope that Tony will bite on it . I so much hate those Mig25s launching Acrids on my rear aspect interceptors without ever twitching their nose. Comeon, armies spent billions on toys like JHMCS and AIM-9X, you can't do it just like that.

(AFAIK) Currently HCE does not model the deployment of individual chaff/flare rather the effects of these are embedded into the plane's (loadout's) DATA (Defensive ATA) ratings. Use of countermeasures is "assumed" and it all comes down to chance of survival, to the "die roll", when the missile's ATA competes against the target's DATA. A plane gets DATA bonus for onboard chaff/flare dispenser or ECM just as for high maneuverability, these both improve the chance of survival.

Yes, it is factored into the DATA. It remains possible to add other countermeasures, however, as discussed below.

Some loadouts also include ECM ordnances, check for example the Tornado GR.1 Guided loadout in the NACV battleset. There is a "Sky Shadow ECM Pod" with 15%, and a "BOZ 100 Chf/Flr Pod" with 10% modifier. I'm not sure though if these are applied to the die rolls or to the radar detection rolls.

It depends on whether the ECM are identified as offensive or defensive in the DB. Offensive types will affect enemy radar detection, while defensive types will bolster your DATA rating against attack.

But we should strike up a topic on firing solutions and hope that Tony will bite on it . I so much hate those Mig25s launching Acrids on my rear aspect interceptors without ever twitching their nose. Comeon, armies spent billions on toys like JHMCS and AIM-9X, you can't do it just like that.

While nice, that's probably unlikely to happen in HCE at this point.

Any complaints with Grumble's posts #8 and #10? If not we'll give it a try, ideally before Fall but no promises.

 

Vow, honored. Also these rules were basically the rules from the DOS version v1.32a as far as I can tell from the release notes and from playing that version.

 

But let me dump here more of my thoughts on jettisoning, what could be done within the game, who knows, some of this might give you ideas that can be implemented.

 

So, aircraft groups which are attacked by a sufficient number of fighters in air-to-air combat will jettison all air-to-ground ordnance (and abort their mission). A significant threat level must be exceeded before attack a/c will jettison. I used "50%" and "0.5" for "significant" but 50% might just be too high, 50% is not an acceptable loss on a single mission IMO.

 

Thus for game rules we look at air groups jettisoning when

1. significant portion of the air group has been destroyed
2. group/side detected significant number of incoming missiles
3. group/side detected significant number of enemy fighters within gun range and the group is known to be detected with high probability

1. significant part destroyed

This is the straightforward part, if the group is decimated it jettisons and aborts, even if they did not detect the threat.

** Interesting to play with the thought that this check will also jettison and turn home the group if half (significant part) of them is lost due to pilot error while flying at vlow. A possible side effect but not unrealistic. A crazy brass orders the flight to go tree top for 300nm without TFR??? 2-3 mates hit the dirt the pilots go "up yours!" and turn home.

2. significant number of missiles incoming

Important that these are missiles detected by the group or friendlies as discussed above.

 

Significant number is (again, significant=50% only as an example)

• more incoming missiles than group_size * 0.5 * ph_of_missile

If the code makes this possible, I'd use the final ph with modifiers applied, so if, say, there is a standoff EW aircraft in the area that modifies the missile ph it would modify also the jettison decision. As if implying a veteran pilot who trusts the Prowler to toast the enemy radars while going in.

 

Mental note: there might be more than a single detected incoming missile group, which cumulatively exceed the threat level.

 

3. bandits in gun range

This is probably the most complex, since there is no (at least no apparent) detection event linked to bandits closing within gun range. We might get the fix (and the detection event) well outside of gun range and then the bandit just closes in under fix. Fortunately there are several events that I feel relevant (realistic to use) to which the gun range tests can be linked.

But first a proposed significant "gun bandit threat number" formula

• more bandits than group_size * 0.5 * ph_of_guns / gun_rounds_per_fighter

and these are of course bandits in range with exact fix on, otherwise we don't know the position, distance, number of them anyway.

 

As for the events, perform "bandits in gun range" test after these events:

• any member of the group is shot down (see shotdown.jpg). E.g. pilot checks six if wingman goes down.
• the group is detected by hostile radar (see RWR.jpg). This event seems to be generated at two minutes intervals when the group is within hostile radar detection range. Perfect. Pilot certainly checks six periodically when RWR is alight.

  ** I trust this event also correctly handles stealth aircraft, e.g. B-2 is not reminded by the Staff Assistant to go active when flying into enemy radar. Lets apply the same filter for the jettison test.

• the group knows it's within visual range of hostiles (see visual.jpg).

  ** Again, apply same filter for jettison as for the general visual detection of stealth a/c.

• if the group is being engaded by guns (even if it misses). If not before, the group becomes aware when bullets are zipping.

These events also solve the "the group knows it's being detected" criteria since these imply that the group has already been detected (1st and 4th point, engaged too) or is probably detected (2nd and 3rd).

 

The jettison is triggered by these events and does not happen immediately when bandits cross the line, which is just as well in a fog of war.

An observant theatre commander might want to warn them sooner though a manual jettison key could be handy (CTRL-J?).

 

After jettisoning

How to make jettisoning attractive?

• Make sure the jettisoning aircraft also benefits from it and can defend itself better. (The intercepting one obviously achieves it's goal of defending the HVU easier but also more realistically with jettisoning enforced.)

The obvious way is to give a DATA bonus to the jettisoning aircraft.

Like aircraft after jettisoning benefits from a modified DATA of ( loadout_DATA + best_loadout_DATA ) / 2

For example an F/A-18 on an Antirunway sortie (Anti-run DATA=20, best_loadout=Intercept DATA=45)

could use a DATA of (20+45)/2=32.5 after ditching those durandals.

 

Aborting

I guess removing the air-to-ground ordenance triggers the "out-of-ammo returning home" routine already, but that might not always be preferred. A reverse direction and max throttle feels better, the "no orders" and/or "bingo fuel" will catch the group then.

But I wonder, when jettisoning, could the AI plot a course that

• reverses direction of the group
• uses highest available throttle settings
• 10nm long
• with a Staff Note attached to the end "Group XXX has been intercepted, jettisoned a/g ordnance, please plot a course out of the threat zone!"

thanks.