26. Detection of aircraft, sonobouys by subs - to help with evasion measures

 

Although I'm not familiar with the actual capabilities of various sub systems, my assumption is that at least some of the acoustic detection systems can detect and locate nearby sonobouys, and perhaps even nearby aircraft.

 

If this could be modeled and displayed in the game, it would enhance the ability of the player (and of the AI) to take realistic measures to avoid - or to escape from - detection by these entities.

27. Add Return to Base and Set Course option buttons to "Awaiting Orders" dialogs

 

When a group loses its contact, destroys its target, or otherwise completes its mission, a dialog box appears and reports the situation and that the group is now loitering while awaitng new orders. It would be helpful if those dialogs offered additional options allowing "Return to Base" (which would be equivalent to the automatic default action that a group would take in this situation in earlier versions of Harpoon), and "Set New Course" directly from the dialog. This is mainly to avoid the "interruptions" that occur otherwise, due to other events being "queued in" before new orders can be issued to the group.

 

A logical implementation might be to put these options on the notification dialogs as additional "buttons".

28. Add a 'bypass" method to the Set Sensors dialog sequence

 

When reviewing or adjusting sensors settings where some or all have been set to "mixed", it is necessary to either cancel or cycle through the "mixed" settings dialog sequence for each type of sensor; when no changes are to be applied, this is unnecessary extra time and effort, so it would help if there was a way to bypass the dialogs where no changes are to be applied. A possible way to do this would be to have a "No Change" button on each root dialog in the sensors group. so that sensors that are not to be changed can simply be skipped over - rather than having to cancel the entire operation, or else having to cycle through each sensor set - even when no changes are needed.

 

An additional (or alternative) display method would be a popup that shows the entire sensors configuration - including the cycling times for intermittant sensors - on a single display and/or data entry page, rather than the sequential pop-up dialogs. This would allow a quick overview/review of current settings, and also would allow only specific adjustments to be made at will - with no need to cycle through everything.

10. Formations for some air groups

 

Another way that air group "formations" would be useful is when escorting a high-value asset - such as an AWACS, or even a tanker.

 

Especially with an AWACS, which may have a patrol course set, it is currently quite challenging to provide reliable fighter escorts for the AWACS. This is because there are only two ways to do this, neither of which is really practical:

 

1. Just include the escorts in the "formation-less" group:

 

The main problem with this is that the escorts can't be positioned away from the AWACS, so typically AI interceptors will get shots on the AWACS before they're ever detected, giving no time for the escorts to engage them. This is compounded by the fact that often the interceptors have longer-range missiles than the escorts.

 

2. Put one or more escort groups on a parallel course to the AWACS patrol course, but far enough away along the axis of expected attack to be able to "picket" for the AWACS.

 

There are several "management" difficulties with this approach:

 

* It is difficult to accurately match the escorts' course(s) to the AWACS's course - because the AWACS's course is not visible when setting the course(s) for other groups, and

 

* It is almost impossible to match the speed of the escort group(s) to that of the AWACS group, because a group's speed cannot be "fine tuned" to match a specific speed, and

 

* It is impossible to provide a refueling tanker to cover both the AWACS and the escort group(s).

 

 

By having an air group formation, most of the difficulties could be resolved:

 

* The escorts could be positioned in the formation at a relatively fixed range from the AWACS, and such range could be adjusted according to the missile range of the escorts and/or of the expected AI interceptors, and/or based on the range at which the AI interceptors can be detected, in order to provide adequate engagement time for the escorts, and

 

* The relative positions of the escorts around the AWACS could be managed as needed, and

 

* The escorts' speeds and courses would automatically match the AWACS's course and speed, and

 

* One (large) tanker could be included in the formation - to refuel the AWACS and the escorts (although it would be even better if the tankers were capable of dispensing multiple refuels - at the times needed by the various aircraft types in the group)

 

All of this would make it much easier to manage the AWACS/escort/tanker group in a practical way. There are still a few disadvantages, though:

 

1. It is currently not possible to set the altitude of formation members independently - so all elements would have to be at the same altitude - as opposed to putting the AWACS at high altitude, with the tanker and escorts at low altitude (to reduce detectability) - which can be accomplished with separate groups, and

 

2. Current methodology for refueling would not be ideal (as mentioned above), and probably would lead to the old bug-a-boo where the "short-legged" members of an air group run out of fuel before the overall group deos, and so they crash - essentially unannounced.

 

Overall, though, there would be certain advantages in having air group formations.

12. Larger formation sizes; possibly more "layers" too

 

I'm not aware of any way to set the altitude (or depth) of formation members independently. (If such capability does exist, then the following is irrelevent).

 

It would be helpful in formations if the altitude of air units and the depth of sub units could be set independently - or at least could be set to some default that is somehow optimal for each type of unit - like ASW units at Low or VLow, as optimum, AEWs at their specific optimum altitude, CAP at Low or Medium, etc.

 

The disadvantage of automatically-set default altitudes/depths is that sometimes the current purpose of the unit in the formation is not what might be implied by its type and/or loadout - for example, when needing to use an ASW helo as a surrogate for a missing AEW asset, while retaining its ASW capability (due to limited ASW resources, etc.), or when a CAP is being used for anti-missile defense as opposed to anti-aircraft defense, or when some CAP units are being set as "lurkers" for ambush, etc. In cases like these, it would be helpful to be able to set the altitude/depth of the unit "manually", as needed.

29. Get BINGO fuel warning even when air group is already returning to base

 

Currently, if an air group is already "returning to base" (and apparently even if there is a return-to-base "leg" in its course), an air group will not get notification when reaching BINGO fuel. This causes some problems when trying to get a group back to base ASAP: For many aircraft types, setting the speed to Military or Afterburner after initiating the "return to base" order can cause the group to run out of fuel before reaching base.

 

Obviously, if the group is already BINGO when the "return to base" order gets initiated, then it's plain foolish to set the group to a higher consumption rate... but it's often desirable to hurry a group back to base before it has reached BINGO - like when it has exhausted its weapons, or it is needed to be re-armed in order to fight a "different type of fire", etc.

 

Currently, there are only three options for accomplishing this "rapid return to base":

 

1. Order the "return to base", then set a higher speed/altitude than the default; This often leads to running out of fuel - unless the group's speed can be micro-managed.

 

2. Set a course that does not include any "return to base" leg, and set a higher-than-normal speed; This may produce the BINGO warning - usually far enough ahead to prevent running out of fuel (unless it happens fairly close to the base) and the usual "return to base" option can be invoked at that point; However, this tactic has a second potential problem because if the BINGO point has not been reached by the end of the prescribed course, then the group may "over-fly" the base before the "no course" warning occurs, thus wasting time by having to turn around and go back to the base... pretty much defeating the original purpose.

 

3. Set a two-segment course that includes a high-speed run to a certain point, followed by a normal "return to base" leg; This can work, if a good guesstimate of the proper change-over point can be made, but if the quesstimate is wrong, then either the group will run out of fuel and crash, or else it will not return to base as quickly as possible. (As far as I know, there is no way to calculate this change-over point accurately by the user, thus forcing only a "best guess").

 

So, my wish is for one of two possible solutions:

 

A. Have the BINGO warning occur even during the "return to base" mode, or

 

B. Have the group automatically optimize its speed on the "return to base" run - such that it returns as quickly as possible, given its available fuel.

29. Get BINGO fuel warning even when air group is already returning to base

 

So, my wish is for one of two possible solutions:

 

A. Have the BINGO warning occur even during the "return to base" mode, or

 

B. Have the group automatically optimize its speed on the "return to base" run - such that it returns as quickly as possible, given its available fuel.

 

Regarding the "B" option above, this would need to be a user-selectable decision in each case - because of the cases where it is preferrable to return to base only at lowest altitude - in order to reduce the possibility of detection. However, it would still be possible to optimize the speed under the altitude constraint - it just would take a bit longer to return in such case.

30. Have a means for a scenario to have the probability of unit inclusion dependent on the outcome of the previous scenario

 

When writing a series of scenarios as a "campaign", it would be helpful if the probability of including various units in a scenario could be made contingent upon the outcome of playing the preceeding scenario in the sequence. Or alternatively, to have a fixed number of units available at the start of the "campaign", with the "pool" being depleted based on the outcome of playing each scenario in the sequence.

 

The purpose of this would be so that each scenario would not "start fresh" but rather would be affected by the attrition of units that occured when playing the preceeding scenario(s). This would allow a continuity from one scenario to the next, where the losses suffered by each side in preceeding scenario(s) would be reflected in the units that would be available when playing the subsequent scenario(s).

 

This would also simplify the configuration of an overall "campaign" (i.e. - series of related scenarios) by allowing it to be simplified into multiple these scenarios, rather than having to create one all-encompassing scenario where the entire campaign would need to be played out in a single scenario/game. It would allow victory conditions for each "battle" (i.e. - scenario) in a campaign, yet have a continuity of losses that would ultimately influence the probability of success in the overall "campaign" (as represented by the subsequent scenarios in the set).

31. When a group is selected, if it currently has a designated target, highlight that target.

 

This would simply be that when a group (including a missile group) was selected on the map, its current target (if any) would be highlighted by some graphical means - like color change, flashing, outline, etc. - giving a quick visual confirmation of the proper target. This would be especially helpful in "furball" situations, where it is necessary to quickly confirm which enemy group or base is being targeted by each friendly group.

 

The reverse of this would be when an enemy base or or group is selected on the map, to similarly highlight all groups - incuding missiles - which are currently targeting that selected enemy base or group.

 

All this would help by giving a quick visual assessment of attack "configurations" - especially when multiple groups are being designated to attack a given enemy target, or when there are concurrent attacks in progress on separate targets.

 

Note: If "rendezvousing tankers" are implemented, it would be similarly useful to have this - or similar - highlighting applied to the target air group of the tanker, or conversely to highlight assigned tanker group(s) when an air group is selected.

 

Another useful extension of this idea would be highlight an air group's current 'home" base when the air group is selected.

Wishes 1 thru 31 noted on master wish list

32. Modifications (tweeks) for the Ready Aircraft displays

 

It would be helpful at times to be able to quickly view only the "Ready5" aircraft on the Ready Aircraft display, rather than also viewing the "Readying" aircraft, too. (This can be accomplished by starting the attack/ferry/patrol dialog series, but having the ability within the Ready Aircraft display itself would be more convenient).

 

Off-hand, I can think of a couple of ways to accomplish this:

1. Put a Radio Button set on the panel, that presents options such as "View All" (default), "Ready Only", and "Readying Only". The user then selects one of these views, according to the "filtering" that is desired.
   
2. Have sortable columns (as with the Details display for the folders/files in Windows Explorer, messages in Outlook, etc.). This would be useful in many ways in addition to selecting the desired readying status to be viewed:
   
   • Sort the list by Quantity (might be useful in some situations)
     
   • Sort the list by aircraft Type (like if you wanted to see all the AEW assets grouped)
     
   • Sort the list by Aircraft name (such as group by F/A-18, etc.)
     
   • Sort the list by Loadout (for example, to easily see all available ASW assets grouped)
     
   • Sort the list by Status (this is the one that facilitates the original objective here, by grouping the "Readying" and "Ready5" aircraft separately)
     
   • Sort the list by Time to ready (this would be *really* handy during the heat of battle)
     

If the "sorting heads" worked the same as in WE or Outlook, the sorting order of each column could be reversed simply by re-clicking the column head, which would be handy.

Anyway, the ability to manipulate (sort or filter) the Ready Aircraft display would be helpful, even if only to filter out the Readying or Ready5 aircraft, when the other category is the one of interest.

33. Highlight (or default) the originating base when the list of bases is offered upon splitting a tanker from a group

 

In HCE, when a tanker in an air group finishes refueling its group, and if the popup asking whether to split the tanker from the group is accepted, then a popup appears that lists the eligible bases for the tanker to return to. It would be helpful if the base from which the tanker was launched would be made the default (perhaps by highlighting that base, or even by a "Original Base" button), so that the tanker could be sent back to its home base quickly and simply (and without error) with just one mouse click (rather than having to scroll through the list of bases to find and select the proper one - which can lead to mis-selections at times, especially when base ID names are similar).

 

On that same list of bases, it would be helpful to mark the bases which are beyond the remaining fuel range of the tanker with some warning, perhaps with a different color, or with an asterisk, etc. in such a way that they have an obvious warning yet could still be selected (in case tankers can be re-fueled in some future implementation, allowing them to actually make it to such out-of-range bases).

34. When a group completes its attack on a target (expends its weapons or destroys the target), offer the option of returning to base

 

In HCE, once a group has completed its attack (by expending its eligible weapons or destroying the target), there is a notification popup of the situation, advising that the group is loitering and awaiting orders. It would be very helpful to have a "Return to base" button on that popup, so that the group can be sent home quickly and easily (which was the "automatic" procedure in prior versions of Harpoon Classic). Such a button could either simply send the group to its base of origin, or it could offer up the "enhanced" list of bases with its home base as the default (as discussed in Wish #33, above).

 

A further enhancement might be an "Orders" button, so that new orders could be issued via a direct link from that notification popup, rather than having to manually go through the added steps of Selecting the group, then selecting the orders menu item. (Not a big problem, but it is a bit cumbersome and annoying to have to go though those "extra" steps).

35. After a group expends its primary weapons, offer the option of continuing with alternate weaps, or returning to base, loitering on site, etc.

 

One of the "gotchas" that "bites" me frequently in HCE is that air groups which have, say, SEAD and Air-to-Air weapons, will prosecute their SEAD attack on a target, and after exhausting those weapons, they will proceed (unannounced) to attack any formation air patrols the target may have. Because the SEAD weapons are typically longer-ranged than the attacker's AA missiles, this behavior tends to lead to the attackers flying well into the target's AA range, and getting shot down! And in cases of heavy "workload", this behavior is easy to overlook - until it's too late.

 

So, my wish is that when a group has expended its "primary" weapons (that is, the weapons that it was ordered to attack with, typically via an attack on the "Surface" elements of the target group), then a popup would advise of the situation and offer the options of, "Return to Base", "Attack with secondary weapons", "Loiter", or "New Orders" - instead of automatically going on a headlong attack on the target's air formations, or whatever. (Because it's not a typical method of attack, I'm not sure, but I don't believe that an air group will automatically attack surface elements after completing an attack on the air elements, but if so, the same type of notification popup would be applicable in such cases, too).

36. Modify the automatic behavior of attacking aircraft so they don't "over-fly" their own missiles

 

One of the problems that crops up frequently during air attacks using "stand-off" weapons is that the aircraft, even at cruise speed, seem to be faster than those stand-off weapons. This causes the situation where the aircraft launch some of their stand-off weapons, but then continue flying towards the target, passing by their missiles. Usually, especially in the case of SEAD attacks, this results in the aircraft flying into effective range of the target's AA, and getting shot down, before the SEAD weapons reach the target - sort of defeating the whole point of stand-off attacks!

 

My wish is that the aircraft would automatically "evade" the target's weapons, perhaps by moving away from the target after launching a volley, at least until they are out of the target's AA range or until their missiles have hit (or self-destructed).

 

(Note: At times, this "evading" does seem to occur, while at other times, the attacking aircraft just fly headlong at the target after releasing a volley, so perhaps there are conditions which cause variations in the post-launch behavior of the aircraft - perhaps related to those "automatic" attacks on the air formations of a target, mentioned in Wish #35, above. In any case, it would be helpful to eliminate this "over-flying" behavior in all cases).