Jump to content

A tactical question about air-launched harpoon strikes.


Rescue 193

Recommended Posts

Hello!

When making air-launched harpoon saturation strike against multiple targets in a Red surface group, I find that if the weapons 'pointed' a large ship manage to score a hit then the other weapons, aimed at other units in the group, tend to forget about what they were told to aim for and make a beeline for the ship that's already been hit.

I'm guessing that this mimics what the weapons do "in real-life" (so to speak). So, I was wondering if there's a 'tactical/operational' trick to avoid wasting a lot of pricey-gee-wizardry kit from blasting an already stricken target into ever smaller bits?

Any and all hints and tips, greatly appreciated!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Rescue 193 changed the title to A tactical question about air-launched harpoon strikes.

Hey Rescue

I did a simple, about my level, about harpoons ganging up on a single ship. I put it in the Hello  by Byron

post in general. This is the simple version while others can get into more detail why like TonyE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks of the the reference to the conversation with Byron it was very interesting. 

I'd already been experimenting with the off-axis attack idea and it does seem to work quite well but I'm less confident/capable when it comes to playing with the mid-course guidance stuff.

Thanks again

R193

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main ability in running test as I have no programming ability. That is TonyE  and other who watch the forums but I know TonyE has a lot on his plate right now. I believe  the mid course guidance stuff is automatic in the game. With tool box I am wondering if it turns missiles mid course guidance capable. I will test some things and let you know the results with  mid course guidance and without weapons. Seadog said tool box  makes all weapons with or  without or with mid course flag able to  switch target in flight but not sure if it locks it onto a specific target as originally flag as capable of doing. As he said it would be cheating if the flag does not exist as the AI would not have the option at all. The sub problem I believe is an AI limitation currently that will only separate damaged units while a human can to say micromanage way more then the AI for now. Ah the 1 REP 2 seems to be a button to initiate some kind of repair option which I do not believe the game does not support. I am retired so usually lots of time on my hand and I try to lend a hand on question while hopefully not giving bad info as I usually do not go beyond knowledge I have not seen or tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if its best but I normally try to chew off closest targets, preferably after getting in a few anti radar hits. I figure they can act as a screen for the more valuable targets as well as a possible 'magnet' to a large scale strike on multiple targets. All guess work.

It can get very fiddly, which isn't what I like, so I tend to attack in waves. If a big target has been hit and is sinking, I try to come in from a different angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tony said:

My main ability in running test as I have no programming ability.

Tony,

LOL!

If having your no programming ability is an ability then I could be a veritable genius! I know "they" say it is all done by digital Bambleweeny Zapomatic*  Megadoodahs but I suspect its really magic beans.

Long long ago (I've been playing the game for far too many years to remember which iteration of the game it might have been) weapons like harpoon used to show little range circles in the unit window when they went active. I honestly don't recall if it made any substantive difference to the way the weapons actually performed but I guess it must have. Also, around the same time, some types of air-to-air missiles had the annoying habit of locking on to 'friendly' aircraft if they happened to be on, or close to, the missile track between the launch formation and the target. Although I don't recall (age-related memory failure again I'm afraid) if that it was problem with surface-to-air missiles engaging targets in a cluttered environment. That feature rather cramped my style when it came to sending 'bugs' ahead of the Tomcats to engage bombers while the F-14s picked-off the fighter escort from afar. Blue on Blue ("Oops Sorreee! I'll send the SAR helo asap") engagements were a real hazard back then.

Both of those 'features' (along with the keyboard command "J" which enabled a/c to jettison their weapons before landing-on -- a neat but redundant feature because every carrier trap was, and is, always successful) disappeared in later iterations  

"1 Rep 2" is something to do with repair? I had thought it related to 1 replenishes 2 but as I said I haven't dared to use it yet!

*Apologies to Douglas Adams for plagiarising that one.

 

9 hours ago, donaldseadog said:

I don't know if its best but I normally try to chew off closest targets, preferably after getting in a few anti radar hits. I figure they can act as a screen for the more valuable targets as well as a possible 'magnet' to a large scale strike on multiple targets. All guess work.

It can get very fiddly, which isn't what I like, so I tend to attack in waves. If a big target has been hit and is sinking, I try to come in from a different angle.

Seadog,

First, please accept my thanks for your work on Toolbox it is a superb piece of work and takes the 'nail biting' out of the business of IFR and mitigates the frustration of setting-up ASW and AEW pickets.  

My technique for tackling surface groups is pretty much the same as yours and like you the fiddly stuff is not my forte.  I tend to use an initial big strike to punch a hole in the screen and then smaller formations in follow-up waves to concentrate on the exposed HVTs. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. But I guess life's like that eh?

Could I please prod you reveal the secret(s) - actual, planned or still theoretical - behind the Toolbox "1 Rep 2" button?  It sounds like it could be fun!

*****

My thanks to you both for sharing your wisdom, thoughts and comments. I appreciate the time and effort taken you've taken to reply.

Regards,

R193

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rescue 193 said:

 

 

15 hours ago, Rescue 193 said:

 

Rescue,

Im glad you find the toolbox useful. From memory I set out just playing with whatcould be done then added a few things I wanted, prominently IFR and vectoring groups together to join. It then grew. A lot of the functions are just to see if they work but really need fine tuning such as the "1 rep 2" which lets group 1 repair group 2 - I intend (one day) to limit its use to bases and supply type ships and operate on individual untis within.

One limit in my mind is that too many functions available to the player, but not the AI only further gives advantage to the player, but some of the scenario writers are really good and they manage to make it hard for us by design :)

I've been a landlubber for a few years and the toolbox does need someupdating, as well as fine tuning of some of the test of concept stuff.

I'd really like to be able to drop 'pins' on the map to remember where targets lie (or did lie) in hiding after loss of contact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seadog,

Thanks for enlightening me about 1 Rep 2 - I shall leave it well alone for the time being.

Toolbox has saved me many losses. A common failure of mine (and I suspect I'm not alone in this) was that, having engineered a meeting of tanker and air group, I'd forget to 'join' them until it was too late, resulting in an embarrassing and vexatious big splash in an empty ocean 😱

As for Drop Pins: I think its a brilliant idea, particularly if it would be possible to link it to a staff note (revealed when you put the curser over it?) to remind you why you dropped it in the first place.  

Having said that, I do take your point about giving the the player too many advantages over the AI.  When attacking (particularly from fixed bases) one major AI handicap is that the axis of approach is always going to be fairly - if not entirely - predictable. The player can set-up - and your drop pins would make it easier - off-axis strikes. If the scenario designers, cunning as they already are (and I mean that in a nice way honest!) could use the AI to transit groups to way-points (your drop pins?) and launch attacks from them it would make life... umm... much more interesting.

From my (very) limited understanding of the game dynamics I guess, were such a thing possible, it could only really be applied attacks on bases but even that would be useful. A three-pronged Backfire attack on, say, Kinloss from a base in Russia and way-points in the northern Atlantic and southern Norway would be a far more difficult problem to hack than dealing with three waves from the same base or even three attacks from different bases (because their tracks tend to merge and/or their points of origin can be predicted).    

 A "Predicted Track" feature of a target based on its current course and speed might prove interesting don't you think? I know that the Intercept feature sort of covers this but a graphical representation of where a target appears be heading and when (given what's known about is movement) it might arrive at point X  would be useful if you didn't want to intercept it but merely get in its way. I don't suppose its any more realistic than the AI way-point thing but just a thought.

By the way, I saw your post about the yacht. If I ever "win really really big" on the lottery I'll keep it mind but even then a weekend rental might be the best I could do! Failing that, maybe somebody out there could add it to the database for your digital enjoyment?  

Regards,

R193 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

common failure of mine (and I suspect I'm not alone in this) was that, having engineered a meeting of tanker and air group, I'd forget to 'join' them until it was too late, resulting in an embarrassing and vexatious big splash in an empty ocean 😱

 

A handy thing you can do when setting a "course" is to add a staff note (f10) at a course location, eg if manually joining groups at the end point add a speed (f3) "loiter" and staff note "join group xxa" . I often use it when setting up an attack so at the spot where I want to launch the attack I add the staff note "attack xxb?"

This is how the staff notescome up at the end of a toolbox patrol or when a group has "covered" a targets previous known position.

 

I have pondered if I could write a proceedure that would allow an enemy group sent to a patrol point to start seeking targets from there (but not before) I think that might be possible. That sort of thing can be done with surface groups but the scenario writer can't give airgroups involved courses, just simple patrol, attack or ferry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, donaldseadog said:

A handy thing you can do when setting a "course" is to add a staff note (f10) at a course location, eg if manually joining groups at the end point add a speed (f3) "loiter" and staff note "join group xxa" . I often use it when setting up an attack so at the spot where I want to launch the attack I add the staff note "attack xxb?"

 

Yeah!

I know I can do that, I know I ought to do that, but do I actually do it? Bananas!  

I suffer from the terminally disaster-prone trilogy of complaints known as cocksureness, laziness and incompetence! Or, to put it another way, I rely on a memory that lacks the fidelity it ought to have and thus I pay the price for not doing the 'staff work'. But, your magnificent little widget has saved me (and large numbers of digital aircraft and aircrews) from all that. Hence my undying admiration of, and gratitude for, your work on Toolbox.

The Attack/Ferry/Patrol limitation for air groups does place a severe limitation on scenario designers and the nastiness they can inflict upon mere players like myself (which is probably a good thing). I guess, since limitation has been a constant through all iterations of Harpoon, the game engine would probably require an unfeasibly large amount of work before it could happen if, indeed, it were even at all possible to do so in the first place.

Regards,

R193

      

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2021 at 8:11 PM, donaldseadog said:

I don't know if its best but I normally try to chew off closest targets, preferably after getting in a few anti radar hits. I figure they can act as a screen for the more valuable targets as well as a possible 'magnet' to a large scale strike on multiple targets. All guess work.

It can get very fiddly, which isn't what I like, so I tend to attack in waves. If a big target has been hit and is sinking, I try to come in from a different angle.

And I've had several missiles decide to kill a ship that was reported as already sunk...go figure :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Byron said:

And I've had several missiles decide to kill a ship that was reported as already sunk...go figure :)

It appears that some ships take longer to disappear beneath the waves than others - which is fair enough I suppose - but frustrating when you wind-up pummelling a Grisha to matchwood when a juicy HVT that you actually targeted is only a mile or two downrange 🤯.

Ho hum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/8/2021 at 6:09 PM, Rescue 193 said:

 

It appears that some ships take longer to disappear beneath the waves than others - which is fair enough I suppose - but frustrating when you wind-up pummelling a Grisha to matchwood when a juicy HVT that you actually targeted is only a mile or two downrange 🤯.

Ho hum!

I am half thinking the reports say "sinking" and that you can find ghost like critters in the unit window for quite some time untill they disappear and untill then they are a target that can be picked up by missiles.

If you send two volleys of missiles at a target and the first inflicts 100% damage on the unit then it is removed from its previos group and a new group created with it as 00 unit, if you look at the second volley of missiles its target name has been amended to the units new designation. It sort of fits in. If the unit sinks (and no longer has its ghost showing) I think the missiles go "no target" state but i don't know if they get a trigger to start looking for a target like they would if launched "bearing only". A nice exercise to run perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2021 at 9:11 PM, Rescue 193 said:

........

Long long ago (I've been playing the game for far too many years to remember which iteration of the game it might have been) weapons like harpoon used to show little range circles in the unit window when they went active.

............

Regards,

R193

 

I think that was in the dos version? !

I can see it in my minds eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree except that if you fire a volley two consecutive volleys at, say 3 or 4 targets in a group,  the missiles in the first wave will hold their lock on the individual targets designated and, provided the missile run-time to the targets is roughly the same, they will generally hit what they were meant to hit (barring counter measures and being shot down of course).   However, if, say 2, of the group are "damaged"  or "damaged sinking"  the second wave, even if its a matter of moments behind the first wave, will head for the burning wrecks.

I suppose my question is what is it about a damaged target that makes it a magnet?  

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...