Inconsistant altitudes flown in formation patrols for same helo configuration

[donaldseadog]

use GE 2022.014, database HCDB2-170909, westpac BS

In the zip is the scenario used to produce the saved game, (Important) start the scenario with auto formation patrols enabled, this produced the first MCM Sea Dragon patrol unit AA-001 which is patrolling correctly at low alt to the north east. At game start a second Sea Dragon is set via formation editor F3 to patrol to the south west and is unit AA-002, it is patrolling at medium alt and not dropping any markers. (alts can be seen in the toolbox window)

In the formation editor box 001 unit is shown as an ASW Patrol, 002 unit as an AEW Patrol.

I would expect both instances to patrol at low altitude and in the formation editor to be listed as ASW patrols. Game play suggests that the helos patrolling at medium alt are not detecting mines.

Not shown to maintain simplicity, if an MCM helo is sent out as a Group to patrol it will fly and then hover at low alt, as expected.

screenshot:

MCMHelo.zip

[TonyE]

The player created formation patrol is 'correct'.  The MCM loadout type of the MH-53E in HCDB2 is categorized as MISSION_PATROL (type 114 specifically).  See https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/31399-operation-gauntlet/#comment-59996 for the MISSION_MAP of how the game interprets loadout types.  To see a list of the loadout types in the particular DB, look at qLst_LoadoutType (a query in pfBuild2005.mdb aka the PE).  So going to Medium and turning on radars is the appropriate reaction, even if it isn't what you want as the player.

I haven't looked at the auto-created formation patrol.  I am moderately disturbed that the GE creates its own patrols and doesn't leverage what the scenario author did in the SE but that's for a different thread/discussion. 

 

[TonyE]

The auto-created formation patrol.  Looks at the aircraft type, not the loadout of the aircraft.  It sees the MH-53E as NAVL which defaults to an ASW type for the first auto-created MH-53E formation patrol.  If the GE had enough MH-53Es to create another automatic formation patrol, I suspect based on reading the code (but I haven't tried adding more MH-53E) that the second and subsequent MH-53E MCM auto-created formation patrols would be AEW.  

[TonyE]

My initial position is that the 'fix' is to update HCDB2's MCM loadout type to point to one of the MISSION_ASW slots.  That will not fix the auto-created formation patrols (first would still be ASW, the rest would still be AEW).  I validated that if you had enough MH-53E MCM to trigger two auto-created patrols, the second will be AEW as I suspected.

Thoughts?

[donaldseadog]

2 hours ago, TonyE said:

The auto-created formation patrol.  Looks at the aircraft type, not the loadout of the aircraft.  It sees the MH-53E as NAVL which defaults to an ASW type for the first auto-created MH-53E formation patrol.  If the GE had enough MH-53Es to create another automatic formation patrol, I suspect based on reading the code (but I haven't tried adding more MH-53E) that the second and subsequent MH-53E MCM auto-created formation patrols would be AEW.  

I 'll have a play with that with regard more available helos of same class.

Looking at the mapping of load out ands missions, there seems no entry for load out mcm, (I'm not on computer so running off memory here) which is the loadout in this case. So I'm thinking to obtain what I'm after, and I'd guess any one utilising mcm helos, the database entries need to be altered or the ge needs to map mcm to ASW?

For me the surprise was to find that auto formation active gave a better result than manual formation patrol assignment 😁

I'll look more at the database, various mcm loadouts on different copters, and compare to hcdb (original), then come back if I think I have useful info.

Thanks

PS, it all came about when a ship hit a mine and the helo had been patrolling right there 🥴

 

 

 

[TonyE]

1 hour ago, donaldseadog said:

Looking at the mapping of load out ands missions, there seems no entry for load out mcm, (I'm not on computer so running off memory here) which is the loadout in this case. So I'm thinking to obtain what I'm after, and I'd guess any one utilising mcm helos, the database entries need to be altered or the ge needs to map mcm to ASW?

True there is no underlying MCM type for the game to differentiate behavior. I agree that MISSION_ASW is the closest.  

Now what should the auto-created formation patrols be doing?  My opening position is that the code should look at loadout type just like the player created formation patrol creation does.  

[donaldseadog]

On 9/8/2022 at 9:33 AM, TonyE said:

Now what should the auto-created formation patrols be doing?  My opening position is that the code should look at loadout type just like the player created formation patrol creation does. 

I agree, as a side note TonyD had spotted a related problem with some enemy aircraft in a formation patrol not breaking off to effect an attack which seems to relate to the aircraft being in an inappropriate patrol. And with that change loadout type MCM could get a handle, so to speak, and be treated same as ASW.

Looking at aircraft type; Naval, ASW, Attack etc as you say is the current situation would be ok if they had no versatility, and so generally it probably works OK, but for most modern attack aircraft they are very multi role, I'd think an anti ship loadout would patrol differently to an intercept, and maybe subtle but perhaps an escort is different again.

On a connected note, but I guess separate, I'd like to see some way that a scenario writer can lock in certain of his air assets to a particular loadout, and have them always available for a set patrol.  Maybe even be able to stipulate patrol alt as well as ring/sector. My reason here is that I think you want interceptors or escorts lying in the outer rings at low alt, no radar, so as to pounce on intruders with best chance of not being detected, but the same loadouts would be a useful addition to 'eyes' in the mid rings flying high with radar on. Or maybe an escort loadout could be the stealthy fly low, and be put in the outer rings, while intercept loadouts could be mid alt with radar on and put a bit closer in?