HCE Demo Discussion Thread

[Joe K]

Further to CV32's reply to #4, above, I have found that when attacking a base, which has attached SAM units in its formation, with standoff weapons, you can have a solid lock on the base itself, but you may get a good lock on the independent SAMs only when they are radiating. Examine the base in the unit window. If the SAM unit is yellow, rather than red, even if there is no uncertainty area showing, you do not have a solid lock on it at this time. It is very nearly a complete waste of time and weapons to attack the SAM under these circumstances!!!! Wait until it turns red again, indicating that you have a solid lock. Your success rate goes WAY up this way, even if you have to spend a couple of minutes loitering ...

 

Well... I'm really not sure about the colors in the various situations. I did, however, notice a couple things:

 

* The AA units had no trouble downing my planes - whatever color the AA units were ;-}

 

* In the re-plays of the scenarios, I tried "parking" planes having SS radar (F-16s or Su-24s) near the target bases, and turned their radars on. They survived long enough in some cases to "guide" other attack groups to the target bases, yet didn't affect the "no-re-attack" behavior.

 

In a somewhat related question, does setting a group's radar(s) to intermittant make them as detectable as setting their radar(s) to On? Observation seems to indicate that groups are very easily detected when using intermittant settings - even with long cycle periods.

[CV32]

Well... I'm really not sure about the colors in the various situations.

 

As detailed by Warhorse, yellow means an uncertain contact. It means you've detected something, maybe even had a firm contact on it once upon a time, but you don't right now. Sometimes a yellow icon will be surrounded by a yellow polygon, which denotes the size of the uncertainty zone. The larger the zone, the more uncertain your sensor is about exactly where the object is located. Red means you have a firm idea of where the contact is located. For most weapons, accuracy goes way up when you have a red contact. For many weapons, it tends to go way down when you do not.

 

I did, however, notice a couple things: * The AA units had no trouble downing my planes - whatever color the AA units were ;-}

 

The colors are only an indication of your own sensor performance. It does not mean the enemy does not see you just fine.

 

In a somewhat related question, does setting a group's radar(s) to intermittant make them as detectable as setting their radar(s) to On? Observation seems to indicate that groups are very easily detected when using intermittant settings - even with long cycle periods.

 

Whether intermittent or continuous, every time you turn on a sensor, any enemy asset within range that has ESM capability is going to get a sniff. Like a bloodhound, whether the trail is constant or only intermittent, he can still track you down. In any situation where you have a well equipped foe, I have found the intermittent setting to be largely self-defeating.

 

HCE is a considerably different beast than HC2002 or HC Gold. The radar models, for example, have been significantly revamped and improved. No longer are you going to be able to rely on tried and true HC simplicities.

[TonyE]

Before it gets totally lost in the discussion, yes, at times the player has to manually fly around to plink targets in an enemy installation's formation. The data structures of the game just don't allow for nice automated treatment of some of the situations that arise (fighting it in the betas right now). Sometimes you have to fly your planes manually to a position where they can fire missiles against an embedded mobile SAM or other unit before you can fire (i.e. no prompt to close and attack).

[Joe K]

Coming from HCG/WesPac directly to the HCE Demo, a few things jumped right out at me in short order:

...

 

Now that I've found my way back onto the forum after a long hiatus, I just wanted to update this sub-topic:

 

Although I still have "issues" with the relative ability of the AI and the player's forces to detect each other, I have been able to adapt tactics my sufficiently that I can actually play - and even occasionally win - some of the HCE demo scenarios.

 

The things that I still find very puzzling (and annoying) are:

 

1. The AI's astounding ability to detect, target, and destroy my units while remaining totally undetected. This includes my puzzlement over how AI aircraft having radar-quided missiles can destroy my aircraft without their missile guidance radar revealing their presence. (If I try leaving the guidance radar off when I attack AI air groups, not only don't my missiles work, but launching them almost always elicits a return volley - which presumably means that the AI has detected my missiles).

 

2. How is it that the AI "knows" where to search out my groups - especially those that are "out in the middle of nowhere", far away from any AI detection platforms, and that are being as stealthy as possible (for example, small air groups operating only at Low or VLow altitude with radars off)... and how do the AI groups then vector and "fix" and destroy my air groups without the AI planes or their missiles ever being detected in any way whatsoever? This is especially puzzling when there are all kinds of friendly AWACs and/or other AEW or EW platforms monitoring the area where the AI air groups are operating. If the AI groups can remain invisible to these platforms, how can they possibly detect and attack my air groups when they have absolutely no AEW or other platforms anywhere within at least several hundred miles of my "victim" groups? And to do so on a regular basis? It just doesn't make sense.

 

3. Why is it that the AI groups (air or surface) often can remain completely concealed unless my units manage to get close enough to get visuals on them? It's as though the player's radar and passive EW systems are totally ineffective - unless the AI group(s) turn their radars on.

 

4. Why is it that it is so difficult for the player's units to get "fixes" on detected AI units, even when I have multiple platforms "triangulating" on the AI groups, yet the AIs can easily blow away any of the player's groups that try to sneak up on them, under the vigilance of separate AEW assets?

 

Anyway, either I'm really missing something here, or else there's a inexplicable and considerable inconsistency between the effectiveness of the AI and the player's systems - when speaking of systems and conditions that I'd expect to be roughly equivalent. Any ideas?

[CV32]

Now that I've found my way back onto the forum after a long hiatus, I just wanted to update this sub-topic: Although I still have "issues" with the relative ability of the AI and the player's forces to detect each other, I have been able to adapt tactics my sufficiently that I can actually play - and even occasionally win - some of the HCE demo scenarios. The things that I still find very puzzling (and annoying) are:

 

1. The AI's astounding ability to detect, target, and destroy my units while remaining totally undetected. This includes my puzzlement over how AI aircraft having radar-quided missiles can destroy my aircraft without their missile guidance radar revealing their presence. (If I try leaving the guidance radar off when I attack AI air groups, not only don't my missiles work, but launching them almost always elicits a return volley - which presumably means that the AI has detected my missiles).

 

Firstly, let me say that HCE does not model detection of active radar seekers, so neither you nor the AI will ever detect a missile because its own onboard seeker is actively emitting. You can, however, detect the launching platform's radar (assuming it is active). Just so we are clear about we're talking about.

 

2. How is it that the AI "knows" where to search out my groups - especially those that are "out in the middle of nowhere", far away from any AI detection platforms, and that are being as stealthy as possible (for example, small air groups operating only at Low or VLow altitude with radars off)... and how do the AI groups then vector and "fix" and destroy my air groups without the AI planes or their missiles ever being detected in any way whatsoever? This is especially puzzling when there are all kinds of friendly AWACs and/or other AEW or EW platforms monitoring the area where the AI air groups are operating. If the AI groups can remain invisible to these platforms, how can they possibly detect and attack my air groups when they have absolutely no AEW or other platforms anywhere within at least several hundred miles of my "victim" groups? And to do so on a regular basis? It just doesn't make sense.

3. Why is it that the AI groups (air or surface) often can remain completely concealed unless my units manage to get close enough to get visuals on them? It's as though the player's radar and passive EW systems are totally ineffective - unless the AI group(s) turn their radars on.

 

Your own passive EW is never going to detect any AI groups unless they are actively emitting. Its a prerequisite.

 

4. Why is it that it is so difficult for the player's units to get "fixes" on detected AI units, even when I have multiple platforms "triangulating" on the AI groups, yet the AIs can easily blow away any of the player's groups that try to sneak up on them, under the vigilance of separate AEW assets?

Anyway, either I'm really missing something here, or else there's a inexplicable and considerable inconsistency between the effectiveness of the AI and the player's systems - when speaking of systems and conditions that I'd expect to be roughly equivalent. Any ideas?

 

I don't see any of these 'problems' (if that is what they are .. I'm reserving personal judgment on that) when I play HCE.

 

Your experience is so hugely different than my own that I have to say the only way I could possibly help get to the bottom of this (and I venture to say, anyone else) would be for you to provide more specific examples.

 

Are there particular scenarios (saved game files might be very useful here) that give you trouble? I am honestly interested in figuring this out, so let's get down to the details.

[Joe K]

Well, my first reaction is that something bizarre is going on, and judging from some preceeding comments and off-line discussion, it seems that the behavior is abnormal, so it's possible that the effect is unique to my specific situation - for whatever reason(s).

 

So, the first question is to confirm whether these behaviors really are abnormal - or if there is some set(s) of normal circumstances where they can occur on a regular basis. (I'll emphasize that these have occurred pretty much consistently at all times since I first started with the HCE Demo programs (currently running 2009.020). Obviously, I've run only the included scenarios, but the effect seems to be consistent across all of those scenarios that I've run so far).

 

Firstly, let me say that HCE does not model detection of active radar seekers, so neither you nor the AI will ever detect a missile because its own onboard seeker is actively emitting. You can, however, detect the launching platform's radar (assuming it is active). Just so we are clear about we're talking about.

 

Yes, I was referring to the plane's targeting radar, which is required for many of the older radar-guided missiles - like the Sparrow and several of the Soviet types. I can't quess how many times I've had flights of pairs Tomcats or Hornets, etc. simply blow up, due to undetected adversaries... and later determine the culprits to be MiG-23s or MiG-21s - whose missiles supposedly require the launch aircraft to "paint" the targets. However, in these cases, no such radar activity is ever detected, either by the targeted group, any nearby groups, nor by the AWACS that are covering the victims.

 

 

 

Your own passive EW is never going to detect any AI groups unless they are actively emitting. Its a prerequisite.

 

Understood. But not what I was meaning; I'm assuming that in a realistic scenario, the attacking groups would need to emit at some point in order to locate and target my groups, and that my EW-capable assets would at least detect the presence of the attackers when they do emit. It totally puzzles me that these attackers can conduct successful stealthy attacks without ever emitting anything.

 

I don't see any of these 'problems' (if that is what they are .. I'm reserving personal judgment on that) when I play HCE.

 

Your experience is so hugely different than my own that I have to say the only way I could possibly help get to the bottom of this (and I venture to say, anyone else) would be for you to provide more specific examples.

 

If this is correct, then it goes back to my comments about abnormalities, at the beginning of this post.

 

Are there particular scenarios (saved game files might be very useful here) that give you trouble? I am honestly interested in figuring this out, so let's get down to the details

 

Not really. As I said, it's been pretty much across the board since I started using the HCE Demo, and obviously involves the included scenarios. I will try to save some files around the points where this sort of thing occurs, but considering that it is so prevalent here, if it's not happening to the "general population", then it may well be some "local issue" - which I suspect might not show up if the saved game is re-played on some other platform. On the other hand, if this isn't something that's isolated to the local system, or due to some unusual tactic that's unique to my play, then I have to think that it would present for most anyone at any time; I mean, it's rate of occurrence here must be at least 80%, so it's hard for me to believe that it wouldn't show up regularly in normal play, barring any "unique circumstances" that might exist.

 

In any case, I can snag some actual incidents, to see what happens when they're played elsewhere.

[Joe K]

I don't see any of these 'problems' (if that is what they are .. I'm reserving personal judgment on that) when I play HCE.

 

Your experience is so hugely different than my own that I have to say the only way I could possibly help get to the bottom of this (and I venture to say, anyone else) would be for you to provide more specific examples.

 

If this is correct, then it goes back to my comments about abnormalities, at the beginning of this post.

 

Are there particular scenarios (saved game files might be very useful here) that give you trouble? I am honestly interested in figuring this out, so let's get down to the details

 

Not really. As I said, it's been pretty much across the board since I started using the HCE Demo, and obviously involves the included scenarios. I will try to save some files around the points where this sort of thing occurs, but considering that it is so prevalent here, if it's not happening to the "general population", then it may well be some "local issue" - which I suspect might not show up if the saved game is re-played on some other platform. On the other hand, if this isn't something that's isolated to the local system, or due to some unusual tactic that's unique to my play, then I have to think that it would present for most anyone at any time; I mean, it's rate of occurrence here must be at least 80%, so it's hard for me to believe that it wouldn't show up regularly in normal play, barring any "unique circumstances" that might exist.

 

In any case, I can snag some actual incidents, to see what happens when they're played elsewhere.

 

Well, it looks like I just shot myself in the foot:

 

I had an autosave of a tanker not being offered its home base as an option in the return-to-base popup (and it was even one that involved F/A-18s instead of EA-6Bs ), and another where one group (B-52s with GP loadout) could not be ordered to attack a land target, while another group (A-6Es with Precis-LR) nearby could attack that same target. (These autosaves were both from the "Backyard" scenario in Demo 2009.020, WestPac Battleset).

 

The problem came in when I proceeded to install Demo 2009.042, so that I could run these autosaves in that version, in order to compare results. However, after installing the 042 version, I can no longer find the autosave files, so I'm assuming the install wiped them out (although it seems to have saved my preference settings and so forth, which applied in the new version). Anyway, unless anyone knows where those files may have been squirreled away across the re-install, I guess they're lost; if so, I can only see if any new instances turn up when playing under 042.

 

Since there are many autosave files from previous versions of HCG (and HCE?) still floating around on my hard drive, I was not anticipating that these autosave files would get blown away (or I would have copied them elsewhere);

 

Anyway, when contemplating my observations, a couple things came to mind that may explain the carrier group being missing from the list in the return-to-base popup, specifically with those EA-6B/KA-6 combinations:

 

- In that scenario, there are two carriers in the group, and I believe the KA-6 tankers were based on one of the carriers, while some of the EA-6Bs were on one carrier, and some were on the other. Perhaps this situation is confusing the popup dialog as far as what is the home base of a group that contains a mix of a/c from the two different carriers. (This could also explain why other tanking combinations of a/c from the carrier group, and those from land groups, apparently don't have the problem).

 

- The EA-6Bs default to high altitude cruise, while most other groups default to medium cruise altitude (or low cruise altitude when launched in attack mode); perhaps there is some issue with this "altitude contention" that ends up confusing the return-to-base popup. (Yeah, it seems like there is no connection, but it is something that differs in the groups that showed the problem versus those that did not... so, I figured it was worth mentioning).

 

In any case, unless I can figure out where those files went, it looks like I'm back to Square One as far as capturing the symptoms. <Sigh!>

[VictorInThePacific]

This is my first Harpoon activity since mid-September. Perhaps I was burned out. (Naval/air warfare isn't my main area of interest.) And I certainly was putting my time elsewhere.

 

So when I got back, I went back and checked the forums on Matrix (hardly any activity; at least, nothing that I felt the need to respond to) and here (plenty of activity, and I think that I can contribute something to this thread).

 

Joe had raised certain issues almost a year ago. At the time, I think I could have explained probably most of them, but I was probably not participating at Harpgamer then, and when I did start here, this thread had been dormant for some time, so I didn't pick up on it.

 

I did spend a fair bit of time with USNI 1, as well as with several WestPac scenarios. These are the only 2 Battlesets that come with the demo. My assessment is that at least some of the WestPac scenarios are reasonably easy and/or straightforward, and that all the USNI scenarios look insanely hard. The rest of this post is mostly about USNI 1.

 

I would rate USNI 1 as impossible, playing as NATO, and virtually impossible as the USSR. Brad mentioned my AAR in the Matrix forum. I have put a lot of detail into that, and a fair bit of that detail is relevant to this thread. For starters, regardless of which side you play, you can expect to be heavily outnumbered. I do not include surface forces in this statement, because you need to dominate the air before you can do anything else. You cannot avoid this rule when the enemy dominates the air. If you play as NATO, you get from 16-24 airplanes, while the USSR gets 90. Even though the Soviet planes are mostly low quality, you don't have a chance. I have explained this in some detail in the AAR. I suppose it's barely possible that you could set things up in such a way that the AI will suicide its planes, but I haven't tried. If you play as the USSR, you get from 20-44 planes, and NATO gets from 32-56. However, many of the Soviet planes are not very useful, so you can consider their maximum useful force to be 24. When I played the scenario (as the USSR), I was very lucky to get the maximum useful force, while the AI got less than average. I eventually massacred the AI, but much of the battle was sort of like an unarmored guy with a rapier trying to beat a guy in full plate and a broadsword. Of course, after I established air superiority, the enemy ships just died. Playing against a human opponent, the force imbalance would be too severe.

 

The next point that needs to be considered is that neither side has any AEW aircraft. This means that, while there are many things that you can do that will expose your forces (which is usually suicidal), you will often have great difficulty in locating the enemy forces. For example, if you pretend that any of your aircraft are AEW aircraft and use them like that, most likely they will locate nothing (inadequate radars), but the enemy will see them. And soon thereafter, invisible enemy units will wipe out your pretend-AEW aircraft. Another common example is that, at some point, you will need to move your aircraft to where enemy base radars will detect them. Again, all you will see is the base, but invisible enemy aircraft will be potting your planes. This is a serious problem (for either side) in this scenario, and needs to be dealt with.

 

The third point that needs to be considered is EW. I don't understand this well enough to give a complete explanation, but I do have some empirical results that should be useful. Neither side has any proper EW aircraft in this scenario. I believe that both sides have at least one capable ECM ship, so if your aircraft are close to the AI ships, the ships will turn their radars on, which means they see your planes, but you don't see them. This is true whether your planes have their radars on or not. Before your planes get close enough to penetrate the jamming, they have most likely been shot down. Of course, if your planes are far from the AI ships, the ships are invisible, but your planes may still be seen. Bear in mind that the EW stuff is very or completely different compared to earlier versions of Harpoon.

 

All of the above is Harpoon acting correctly.

 

If you expose your forces in certain ways, you should expect them to be be wiped out by invisible enemies.

 

There is also an artifact of Harpoon that is likely relevant. Harpoon only does detection checks at 30 s intervals. If a missile is in flight for less than 30 s, you will never know about it. If an enemy plane spends only a short time in your detection range, and you fail one or more detection checks, that plane is "invisible" i.e. it caught you napping.

 

Not strictly relevant to this thread, but I have posted a number of AARs in the Matrix forum. In WestPac 2, Pirate War, you should pwn the pirates. In WestPac 3, Philippines, you have several F-35B Lightning IIs, and that is a beautiful aircraft, and you should pwn the AI. WestPac 7, Thanh Hoa Bridge, among other things, shows how to defeat ground defences (under certain conditions).

[Tellannach]

Having played Harpoon in the original version way back in the day on a Sinclair I thought to take a look at the download for CE. I can sympathise with others, this is not the breeze that the old game was. (I used to only consider a win as complete if hadn't lost a unit).

So far the download has whupped my a** three times.

Before I buy the full version I'd like to know if the download is fully representative of the game or has it been 'tweaked' as a teaser?

[TonyE]

Before I buy the full version I'd like to know if the download is fully representative of the game or has it been 'tweaked' as a teaser?

 

The game mechanics you see in the demo are exactly what you get in the real game (except for the march of builds as new patches are released). However the demo does better take advantage of the current state of the game via the rebuilt USNI scenarios than do most of the 'legacy' scenarios. So I can't honestly say every scenario in the full game is going to stack up to the demo. Plus you'll have quite a few user created scenarios here at HG that do take advantage of the recent advancements.

[donaldseadog]

Before I buy the full version I'd like to know if the download is fully representative of the game or has it been 'tweaked' as a teaser?

 

The game mechanics you see in the demo are exactly what you get in the real game (except for the march of builds as new patches are released). However the demo does better take advantage of the current state of the game via the rebuilt USNI scenarios than do most of the 'legacy' scenarios. So I can't honestly say every scenario in the full game is going to stack up to the demo. Plus you'll have quite a few user created scenarios here at HG that do take advantage of the recent advancements.

Now, my opinion here is very humble but I think the great strength of HCE is in the huge amount of user created scenarios from all parts of the world. I'm curretnly playing some new ones, "Drakes Passage" and the 'easy' version of "Breakout" - "breakout2" I think its called. Quite different from one another and demanding in their own ways.

Whether you like fast action or involved planning there are scenarios for you. Whether you live in Nth America, Europe or Australia (yours truely) you'll find stuff in your back yard.

I can't see anyone who likes the demo not loving the full version and the variety of user scenarios.

GO FOR IT>

Don Thomas

[Matt101]

Im Hoping someone here can help me out i just downloaded the demo for harpoon CE and once i finished installing it, i tried to launch it but immediately said that the demo expired, i was wanting to try this before i buy it, and am wondering how the heck i get past this???

[CV32]

Im Hoping someone here can help me out i just downloaded the demo for harpoon CE and once i finished installing it, i tried to launch it but immediately said that the demo expired, i was wanting to try this before i buy it, and am wondering how the heck i get past this???

 

You need to download the new 2009.064 version mentioned here and available at the top of that thread.

[JMS]

A very stupid question, does marking "snorkeling sub" have any effect, i.e., do diesel electric subs snorkel?

[CV32]

A very stupid question, does marking "snorkeling sub" have any effect, i.e., do diesel electric subs snorkel?

 

No stupid questions ... [well, almost none ... your's isn't one of them]

 

No, diesel-electric submarines do not snorkel in the game. Its a wish list item.