Very tired and not at home , in a intelligence seminar. The ecm chaff or flares values are not cumulative, the GE only takes charge of the highest value.

I know I was spoiled when I got replies for all my first posts, but now I can only think that the last one is only being overlooked since it is at the bottom of the pile at the previous page of this topic. So here I go again, copying post #15:

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

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.

(2nd edition) Or keep it simple and lets just use the best DATA of the a/c after jettisioning.

 

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.

I know I was spoiled when I got replies for all my first posts, but now I can only think that the last one is only being overlooked since it is at the bottom of the pile at the previous page of this topic. So here I go again, copying post #15:

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Rest assured, we've seen it. I imagine some people are thinking and/or checking about feasibility of it, etc.

 

I imagine it was taken out at some point in the past because it can 'take advantage' of the AI, but I don't really think that's a huge issue anymore. If people really want to cheat themselves, there's always Show All.

 

However only one person can really comment on feasibility of coding such a thing at this point.

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.

My wife and I had our first little one 9 days ago so I haven't been and won't be terribly active for a while.

 

I see no issues with your approach and I very much like the detail and thought you have put in to the proposal. It is this kind of approach that jumps you to the front of the line .

 

The aborting is very attractive but also somewhat difficult. I'd like to start with everything short of the aborting and then take a look again at the aborting.

My wife and I had our first little one 9 days ago so I haven't been and won't be terribly active for a while.

 

 

Congratulations. Your life will never be the same, you know!

Congratulation Tony, best wishes to the family! Take time off the bridge!

I am rather new to this area of the game and I have just gotten interested in the future development of Harpoon, thanks to Tony.

 

After playing Harpoon since the early 90’s I have developed my own set of tactics for each situation.

 

I have played mostly the original series of Harpoon Scenario’s which I heavily edited before playing.

 

My option in this matter is to turn tail and run and fight another round later without jettisoning my weapons. This works pretty good unless I get to aggressive with the Mig-31’s. When turning tail and running you need to know the range of weapons that was launched at you. You retreat to where you are out of the missiles range and then proceed. One other thing to consider is to use the correct weapons system on the correct target.

 

You don’t want to get in a gun battle with a MIG-31 or Mig-25 with the 80 mile Mig-31 missile of the Mig-25’s 40 mile missile. The outcome would not be good.

 

Another example I am going to use is the F-22 and the Mig-31. Every time I have tried to go after a Mig-31 group with an F-22 group the Mig-31 group always detects and fires before I get into range with my AMRAAM’s. I don’t know how the GE or the AI handles the probability of detection of a target.

 

Harpoon is not a first person game as I call it when I describe it to people I know. You are not in the cockpit of the plane or air group in Harpoon. You are the overall commander of whatever side you are playing (Red, Blue). If there was some kind of air group overall increase in performance (speed/maneuverability) or by reducing the profile of your plane or air group (Smaller target) by jettisoning your weapons the it could be a feasible option.

 

As a pilot I wouldn't want to dump all my weapons unless there is some speed increase or maneuvering improvements to your plane or air group. I don’t know if the AI or the GE calculates that into its decision making process. Right now I see no benefit to jettisoning my weapons and turning tail and returning to base.

 

Not knowing how Harpoon thinks as I call it and without being of some benefit jettisoning your weapons is not an option I would use.

Not knowing how Harpoon thinks as I call it and without being of some benefit jettisoning your weapons is not an option I would use.

 

Really depends if the ATA rating of a plane is solely by loadout, or changes when all the weapons are gone. I'm guessing the ATA is solely by loadout, but, jettison code could take that into account, too, and change to a clean ATA rating.

 

Not knowing how Harpoon thinks as I call it and without being of some benefit jettisoning your weapons is not an option I would use.

 

Really depends if the ATA rating of a plane is solely by loadout, or changes when all the weapons are gone. I'm guessing the ATA is solely by loadout, but, jettison code could take that into account, too, and change to a clean ATA rating.

Correct on both accounts, ATA rating is based entirely on loadout whether the weapons have been used or not. Also true that jettisoning could change to the clean ATA rating.

My option in this matter is to turn tail and run and fight another round later without jettisoning my weapons.

 

No worries, jettisoning is for a/g ordnance only, not for all weapons. You'll still have your trustworthy sidewinder after jettisoning the GBUs, only you'll have a better chance to evade that incoming Amos from the Mig.

 

Actually there is an ordnance flag in the Weapons annex, could be a hint,

this is a F/A-18 on a precision run:

Would jettison the Mk82 and the drop tank when cornered.

Hmm, could be tricky with the tank though, would jettison need to modify the range of the a/c? Or perhaps we may assume that the feed order ensured that the external tank was used fist.

 

Khm, also an AS-4 under the belly of a Tu-95 is not ordnance.

 

Ok, the point is that AAMs are not jettisoned.

 

This works pretty good unless I get to aggressive with the Mig-31’s. When turning tail and running you need to know the range of weapons that was launched at you. You retreat to where you are out of the missiles range and then proceed. One other thing to consider is to use the correct weapons system on the correct target.

 

I actually hope that the usefulness of this maneuver will be cut to size by the GE sometime.

Even a fighter does not turn tail at mach 1 at 30 angels, especially not when loaded with bombs.

Actually we already have a GE enforced delay of turn based on the plane ATA.

Carrying this further could mean that you would need to decide whether you have 30 more seconds in AAW range for a slow turn heavy with the bombs or you dump them and do a turn in 5 secs?

Like in real.

 

You don’t want to get in a gun battle with a MIG-31 or Mig-25 with the 80 mile Mig-31 missile of the Mig-25’s 40 mile missile. The outcome would not be good.

 

Yes, though a gun battle I don't mind with them, but BVR is not good indeed.

 

Another example I am going to use is the F-22 and the Mig-31. Every time I have tried to go after a Mig-31 group with an F-22 group the Mig-31 group always detects and fires before I get into range with my AMRAAM’s. I don’t know how the GE or the AI handles the probability of detection of a target.

 

I would expect that the Mig-31 could not get an exact fix on an F22 head-on before outside AMRAMM range.

But in my view this is a bug (I plan to file it) that the GE currently allows (player/AI both) to launch AAM on a target without exact fix (SARH and IR included). This could by why the Mig prelaunches your F-22.

 

Harpoon is not a first person game as I call it when I describe it to people I know. You are not in the cockpit of the plane or air group in Harpoon. You are the overall commander of whatever side you are playing (Red, Blue). If there was some kind of air group overall increase in performance (speed/maneuverability) or by reducing the profile of your plane or air group (Smaller target) by jettisoning your weapons the it could be a feasible option.

 

As a pilot I wouldn't want to dump all my weapons unless there is some speed increase or maneuvering improvements to your plane or air group. I don’t know if the AI or the GE calculates that into its decision making process. Right now I see no benefit to jettisoning my weapons and turning tail and returning to base.

 

Not knowing how Harpoon thinks as I call it and without being of some benefit jettisoning your weapons is not an option I would use.

 

No worries, we went through this, see posts #4 to #10. Also remember, this is for a/g only.

Some thinks a months ago about ATA doubioustly vinculated with rate of turn after some experimental testing, reflected in some experimental tables. The conclusions is the planes in the GE are turning too fast, from ATA=30 full turn in 1 second ...

 

Maneoubravitliy:

HCE:

See table as attached file in post #29

 

 

Some thinks a months ago about ATA doubioustly vinculated with rate of turn, in some experimental tables. The conclusions is the planes in the GE are turning too fast ...

Impossible to correctly paste the Word table, If someone are interested, requested it to me.

Basically, from ATA=30 and up, a plane, indifferent to speed, does a 360º turn in one second ...

Some thinks a months ago about ATA doubioustly vinculated with rate of turn after some experimental testing, reflected in some experimental tables. The conclusions is the planes in the GE are turning too fast, from ATA=30 full turn in 1 second ...

 

Fully agree, the best sustained turn rates do not exceed 30 degrees per second

and usually much less than that. Human pilots additionally impose G restrictions on the planes.

 

 

Impossible to correctly paste the Word table, If someone are interested, requested it to me.

 

Could you dump it into pdf and attach?

Ok, here it's, the first time I convert a Word doc in PDF!

Harpoon Mods HCE Observed rate of turn vinculated to ATA in Harpoon Commander.pdf

Another basic issue I don't see very clear in this topic:

Usual DATA is the reflected in the DB

Example:

F-16C/D Blk50/52 CCIP, entry #10415

ATA=45

DATA=25

 

with the loadouts:

#55899 Intercept, DATA=45 (the same value as basic ATA value).

#55888 to 55894, with air-to-ground ordnance, DATA=25 (the same value as basic DATA value).

 

In case the F-16 is with air-to-ground ordnance and forced to jettison, DATA is reverted from 25 to 25? other examplas of planes I see in the DB are with the same DATA value issue: DATA (if works so) don't change after you eject the air-to-ground load!

Probably something escapes to me in this question ...