HCDB II concept

[CV32]

As discussed in the other thread, I am toying with the idea of a new, revamped HCDB that would look to fully exploit the new increased entry limits in the DB annexes.

 

This new version of HCDB would depart from the stock scenarios supplied with the sim and from all scenarios created with the DB up to the point of departure.

 

The old version of HCDB (1980-2015) would be maintained in place to preserve compatibility with those older scenarios.

 

Goals for the new HCDB would include:

 

* a focus on the post Cold War period (post 1991)

 

* getting rid of the large amount of duplication in the Installations annex (no longer necessary now that we can rename units and bases)

 

* more differentiation and separation of platforms by point in time (so that a single entry would only contain weapons, sensors or loadouts relevant to that point in time, instead of all weapons, sensors, etc available to it over a long period)

 

* have a global focus (so, including the Americas) but probably omit or pay reduced attention to very small countries

 

* more attention paid to including images (and in time, perhaps some room for backwards implementation into the old HCDB)

 

* more room for hypotheticals

 

Thoughts? Comments and input welcome.

[TEPonta]

Sounds excellent, Brad.

 

Buddha

[broncepulido]

All fine for me, only I don't want too much hypotheticals (perhaps only the platforms in advanced stages of development, with prototypes or keel lay-down, as the big Soviet CVN, Comanche or A-12).

[CV32]

All fine for me, only I don't want too much hypotheticals (perhaps only the platforms in advanced stages of development, with prototypes or keel lay-down, as the big Soviet CVN, Comanche or A-12).

 

Yes, that's the intent, only those hypotheticals that might actually find good use in scenarios.

[TonyE]

Thoughts? Comments and input welcome.

I thought long and hard trying to come up with an argument to move the start date toward the early 1980s but came up short. In 91 we still have the F-14 in US Navy service, Iowa BBs, and perhaps most importantly game-wise is the prevalence in the US arsenal of the Sparrow missile. The character of air warfare imho changed significantly in the game with the introduction of AMRAAM.

 

Including more media, while a pain, is a welcome sight. If we want or hope to attract new talent, some attention to the flashy aspects will go far. Our capabilities with ExportDLLs these days should really enable additional media. Brad, care to start a separate thread to discuss media?

 

Overall, agreed with the main concepts and fresh organizational approach without the legacy baggage that originally made HCDB great but now limits growth and useability.

[TonyE]

In terms of effort, how can we help you Brad?

 

I have the beginnings of a laundry-list of related tasks for myself:

• GESE - Add automatic scenario to DB matching so that a reasonable DB is chosen and loaded for each scenario
• GESEPE - Re-task unused fields and flags. Example in the 8-bit ECM field in the aircraft annex that can be used for up to 8 Codes/Flags or a single value 0-255.
• PE - Add fields for information Brad has available that could add fidelity to future simulations. Example is RCS numbers from multiple aspects, IR signature, ESM sensitivity/generation, ...
• GESE - Add a Media manager ala H3 to handle media other than tiny and difficult to link images
• SE - Add filters when adding platforms to restrict by: country, ship type, ?in service years?,...

[eeustice]

I like everything that has been discussed here. I really like the idea of an automatic scenario to DB matching. This would make using customized DB's for scenarios.

[rainman]

This sounds great. Thanks for everything. I like all of these ideas, particularly filtering platforms by time period (as is presently done with some ships)

[CV32]

I thought long and hard trying to come up with an argument to move the start date toward the early 1980s but came up short.

In 91 we still have the F-14 in US Navy service, Iowa BBs, and perhaps most importantly game-wise is the prevalence in the US arsenal of the Sparrow missile.

The character of air warfare imho changed significantly in the game with the introduction of AMRAAM.

Yep, I am leaning towards '91 because of the global political changes, new era of conflict, and the advent of new game changing technology.

 

Including more media, while a pain, is a welcome sight. If we want or hope to attract new talent, some attention to the flashy aspects will go far. Our capabilities with ExportDLLs these days should really enable additional media. Brad, care to start a separate thread to discuss media?

In due course.

 

Overall, agreed with the main concepts and fresh organizational approach without the legacy baggage that originally made HCDB great but now limits growth and useability.

Yes, that is the impetus.

[CV32]

In terms of effort, how can we help you Brad? I have the beginnings of a laundry-list of related tasks for myself:

• GESE - Add automatic scenario to DB matching so that a reasonable DB is chosen and loaded for each scenario
• GESEPE - Re-task unused fields and flags. Example in the 8-bit ECM field in the aircraft annex that can be used for up to 8 Codes/Flags or a single value 0-255.
• PE - Add fields for information Brad has available that could add fidelity to future simulations. Example is RCS numbers from multiple aspects, IR signature, ESM sensitivity/generation, ...
• GESE - Add a Media manager ala H3 to handle media other than tiny and difficult to link images
• SE - Add filters when adding platforms to restrict by: country, ship type, ?in service years?,...

I am thankful for all those possibilities, and welcome any input or commentary the community may have to offer.

 

The flags and PE fields are especially attractive. Things like ESM generation, RCS aspect, etc have massive potential.

[broncepulido]

Sonic, infrared and visual aspects? (if feasible).

Clear in service and out of service dates in the platform and weapons names (as examples in my personal DBs: "Iowa (82-92), Zulfiqar (F-22P)(08+), HQ-7A ((FM-90)(1998?+), Sea Eagle (85-00)).
It's very useful to avoid simple goofs designing scenarios (because that the "retired" date is very important).

I think different ESM generations will be one of the most useful additions.

Perhaps arcs of view of ESM/RWR, but perhaps not so useful post-1991, with I think all the platforms are equipped with 360º ESM or RWR.

I think different types of air refuelling (probe and drogue, flying boom, wingtip-to-wingtip, as some Soviet/Russians) is not a must, as when you design a scenario you put matching warplanes with matching tankers (example: you design a scenario with a side with F-22, F-16 and KC-135 tankers, not with F-22, F-16 and Il-76 tankers).

 

- A flag for anti-torpedo (hard kill capability), for some Mk46 variants and some Russian types at least (these and many others concrete types to be researched).
- Some type of torpedo decoys, if possible.

[CV32]

Lots of good suggestions there, Enrique.

 

I am most interested in the features that address existing gaps or provide some measure of 'leap ahead' game play.

 

Some of those that are ranking highly (subject to edit):

 

* ESM generations

* RCS aspect

* torpedo countermeasures (whether decoy or hard kill, or both)

* waypoints/re-targeting

* armor penetration for bombs

* snorkel/AIP flag for subs

[broncepulido]

Something about ECM:

 

- Add more generations of ECM and decoys (I think now are as five generations in the paper rules).

 

- Add widely used decoys to usual aircrafts, as ALE-29 (mostly USN types), ALE-39 (mostly USN types), ALE-40 (mostly USAF types), ALE-44 (F-15), ALE-47 (replace previous decoy dispensers from 1998)... or do greater use of generic decoys in aircrafts. I get an approximative table with ECM and decoys, painfully developed by years, but I'm not sure if better to use only generic ECM and decoys (or opposite, even add named ECM systemsand decoys for the ships, now we know even the Russian names).

 

- Clear distintion between OECM and DECM, mostly in ships, and generate generic ship mounts by each generation, one with DECM and one with DECM, and perhaps also one with both DECM and OECM.

 

- Add for aircrafts some generic DIRCM of each generation (Are they similar systems for ships???).

[CV32]

Something about ECM:

 

- Add more generations of ECM and decoys (I think now are as five generations in the paper rules).

 

- Add widely used decoys to usual aircrafts, as ALE-29 (mostly USN types), ALE-39 (mostly USN types), ALE-40 (mostly USAF types), ALE-44 (F-15), ALE-47 (replace previous decoy dispensers from 1998)... or do greater use of generic decoys in aircrafts. I get an approximative table with ECM and decoys, painfully developed by years, but I'm not sure if better to use only generic ECM and decoys (or opposite, even add named ECM systemsand decoys for the ships, now we know even the Russian names).

 

- Clear distintion between OECM and DECM, mostly in ships, and generate generic ship mounts by each generation, one with DECM and one with DECM, and perhaps also one with both DECM and OECM.

 

- Add for aircrafts some generic DIRCM of each generation (Are they similar systems for ships???).

 

I would much rather see the ECM field in the Aircraft annex become useful than to start using up the valuable space in the Loadouts annex (and in turn, elsewhere) with individual specific entries for decoys.

[CV32]

So, its been a year since I tabled this idea for discussion and consideration.

 

And the conclusion I have reached is that basically I do not have the time or energy to commit to an entirely new version of the HCDB.

 

Instead, I will continue to work with the current HCDB template, except that there will be some changes that may affect scenarios built with earlier versions of the HCDB.

 

One of these changes will be separation of platform entries (existing and newly added) by year of service.

 

The 'old' HCDB (HCDB-150928) will remain available for continued compatibility.