I expect to release the first iteration of HCDB II this coming weekend.

Will you be using a different database name since you are clearly breaking backward compatibility? Such as "HCDB II" .

Will you be using a different database name since you are clearly breaking backward compatibility? Such as "HCDB II" .

 

Yes, it will be HCDB2-161201, for example.

This is somewhat of a major overhaul, and I don't expect the first few iterations of the HCDB2 will be terribly reliable for scenario authors.

 

I am, for example, weeding out things like duplicated installations, useless relics like SAM barges, some hypotheticals, etc and there will be a period where the DB will be in a major state of flux while I finalize certain things like the intended philosophy for issues like electronic warfare, guidance/seeker generations, etc.

Almost finished a very small scenario based on contemporary events. I will wait to complete it with the new DB!

Apparently everything is now Ok in the DB, thanks Brad.

Apparently everything is now Ok in the DB, thanks Brad.

 

Good, let me know if you have any further functional issues.

Philosophy question for the players and, especially, the scenario authors:

 

Should the HCDB2 include fire control radars on a platform (it presently does not) even if there is no direct link between an FCR and its attendant weapon system?

 

(In other words, destroying an FCR does not mean you disable the weapon associated with it, which is largely the case now in HCE/HUCE regardless of what we do in the DB.)

If there is no change in gameplay, I think it should not be a priority. Getting the ships/aircraft/loadout/weapons details sorted to Brad's satisfaction should be the first thing. I'm sorry to say that the next few years will provide us with many scenarios to model. Thanks!

If there is no change in gameplay, I think it should not be a priority. Getting the ships/aircraft/loadout/weapons details sorted to Brad's satisfaction should be the first thing. I'm sorry to say that the next few years will provide us with many scenarios to model. Thanks!

 

There would be no change in gameplay (absent further coding changes) except to complicate anti-radiation missile effects.

i.e, more targets to destroy before all radars are gone. Got it.

You might have noticed that the new HCDB2 also includes platforms from Latin America. My intention here is to include as much from the big players (Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, etc) as possible.

Modeling unguided rockets in the HCDB2:

 

Up until now, unguided rockets (e.g. 70mm CRV7) have been usually modeled as a single-salvo piece of ordnance (much like a bomb).

 

This has both advantages and disadvantages. I have been toying with the idea of modeling the individual rockets (e.g. a 19 tube pod of CRV7 would become 19 individual shots, each rocket with their own pK and DP values), but this also has pros and cons.

 

Another option would be to model the weapon as a number of salvoes, e.g. the 19 tube CRV7 pod becomes 4x 5 round salvoes (with rounding), but of course, this also may not be ideal (the necessity of rounding being an obvious one).

 

A further option would be to use a mixture of methods. For example:

 

1. Single or multiple salvo modeling for unguided rockets fired from fixed wing aircraft (with the line of reasoning that fixed wing air would probably only make or two passes on a target, and with the realization that the GE will likely have the aircraft dump the entire thing on large DP targets in a single engagement)

 

2. Individual rocket modeling for unguided rockets fired from helicopters (with the line of reasoning that helos might be more picky about targeting, and might often be found engaging larger numbers of smaller DP targets)

 

Unsurprisingly, this also has pros and cons. Not the least of which being the complexity of the model and the need for multiple versions of the same weapon in the Weapons Annex.

 

Thoughts?

Yeah, pros and cons for both.

Perhaps the limit should be the minimum damage hit points (Not calculus of warheads here) and group the individual rockets in a minimum damage amount.

 

Also remembering now the PH of unguided individual air-to-ground rockets in WWII was about 0,5, and of air-to-air Mighty Mouse about 1,33%.

Yeah, pros and cons for both. Perhaps the limit should be the minimum damage hit points (Not calculus of warheads here) and group the individual rockets in a minimum damage amount. Also remembering now the PH of unguided individual air-to-ground rockets in WWII was about 0,5, and of air-to-air Mighty Mouse about 1,33%.

 

Thanks for responding, Enrique.

 

I will add that rockets were modeled in the HCDB this way, i.e. only a proportion of the total DP that may have been inflicted by the entire pod of rockets fired in a single salvo. Typically 33% of that total possible DP. This tried to take into account the fact that some rockets will go astray or malfunction, and that some would fall outside the target such as not to inflict any real damage.

 

The pH of individual rockets in WWII and the post war era is not of much help here, because we already model two or three variations of a single bomb or rocket entry (which you will usually see depicted as v1, v2 and v3) in order to reflect varying accuracy when the weapon is fired from a different platform.