Tony, et al:

 

I was reading an article regarding “bunker buster bombs” and the specific uses for them. It led me to wondering how the “specific use” concept could be adapted to HCE. Currently most target defense is based on a numeric value, for example; a large airbase may be valued at 9500 defense points or a tank unit at 10. Deliver enough damage points in your attack and the target is destroyed.

 

When attacking a target it doesn’t matter what type of weapon you use as long as that weapon can attack that type of target. For example, when attacking an airfield you can use any anti-surface weapon. The effectiveness of the weapon is based on accuracy and damage points. It doesn’t matter if you use a SLAM missile or an anti-runway weapon. Thus, when attacking an airfield, the requirement for anti-runway missions vs. long-range precision missions is moot. If you need to destroy an “underground command facility” you don’t need bunker busters, anything that can hit the target will work. The exception is SEAD missions as the ARMs track radar emissions.

 

What if?

 

There has been talk of creating ECM categories. Each ECM system would have a rating level that represented its state of the art. What if targets had a similar rating reflecting the types of weapons that would be effective vs. weapons that would be ineffective. Thus when attacking an airfield you would need to use anti-runway weapons rather than anti-tank weapons. When attacking bridges, PGMs with large warheads would be required in order to get sufficient damage. Tanks and armored vehicles would not be attacked by SLAMs. Attacking a bunker complex would require bunker-busting bombs, not JSOWs. The list goes on……

 

Just a what if?

Tony, et al:

 

I was reading an article regarding “bunker buster bombs” and the specific uses for them. It led me to wondering how the “specific use” concept could be adapted to HCE. Currently most target defense is based on a numeric value, for example; a large airbase may be valued at 9500 defense points or a tank unit at 10. Deliver enough damage points in your attack and the target is destroyed.

 

When attacking a target it doesn’t matter what type of weapon you use as long as that weapon can attack that type of target. For example, when attacking an airfield you can use any anti-surface weapon. The effectiveness of the weapon is based on accuracy and damage points. It doesn’t matter if you use a SLAM missile or an anti-runway weapon. Thus, when attacking an airfield, the requirement for anti-runway missions vs. long-range precision missions is moot. If you need to destroy an “underground command facility” you don’t need bunker busters, anything that can hit the target will work. The exception is SEAD missions as the ARMs track radar emissions.

 

What if?

 

There has been talk of creating ECM categories. Each ECM system would have a rating level that represented its state of the art. What if targets had a similar rating reflecting the types of weapons that would be effective vs. weapons that would be ineffective. Thus when attacking an airfield you would need to use anti-runway weapons rather than anti-tank weapons. When attacking bridges, PGMs with large warheads would be required in order to get sufficient damage. Tanks and armored vehicles would not be attacked by SLAMs. Attacking a bunker complex would require bunker-busting bombs, not JSOWs. The list goes on……

 

Just a what if?

 

I like the idea BUT killing an airfield is more than destroying a runway, and hitting the runway may not be enough, because it can be repaired in relatively short time.

Tony, et al:

I was reading an article regarding “bunker buster bombs” and the specific uses for them. It led me to wondering how the “specific use” concept could be adapted to HCE. Currently most target defense is based on a numeric value, for example; a large airbase may be valued at 9500 defense points or a tank unit at 10. Deliver enough damage points in your attack and the target is destroyed.

 

I suspect that much of what you're looking for could be achieved by giving 'Ordnance' weapons in the DB (i.e. bombs, cluster bombs, rockets) an 'Armor penetration' value much like that which is currently afforded to only Missiles.

 

(See my wish list item # 24. I am advised by Col Mandrake .. er, Tony .. that this would not be easily achieved under the current structure).

 

When attacking a target it doesn’t matter what type of weapon you use as long as that weapon can attack that type of target. For example, when attacking an airfield you can use any anti-surface weapon. The effectiveness of the weapon is based on accuracy and damage points. It doesn’t matter if you use a SLAM missile or an anti-runway weapon. Thus, when attacking an airfield, the requirement for anti-runway missions vs. long-range precision missions is moot.

 

'Anti-runway' weapons are present and work relatively well.

 

It should probably be noted that most air forces have, in recent years, moved away from dedicated anti-runway weapons and instead often employ guided bombs (e.g. JDAM or Paveway) against runways.

 

Another approach, then, might be to introduce the ability to target specific 'components' of an airfield (e.g. the runway, ATC tower, HAS, fuel facilities, etc), rather than just smack the airfield generally with whatever weapons you have and hope to stack enough DP.

I think every target, armoured or not, can be killed with the sufficient amount of ordnance, at least in relation a game rules.

Big and well armoured ships, as BC Seydlitz (22 heavy shells received in Jutland, near sunk) or BB Bismarck (near 28 heavy shells received), can be historically sunked with the sufficient amount of ordnance.

In my own database, I trade amount of armour and armour type for more damage points.

I think a bunker may be modelled in a similar way, with more damage points reflecting his armour, and his level of "undergroundness".

At least, if we can't count with realistic armour and penetration values in the computer game.

I think every target, armoured or not, can be killed with the sufficient amount of ordnance, at least in relation a game rules.

 

Yes.

 

Big and well armoured ships, as BC Seydlitz (22 heavy shells received in Jutland, near sunk) or BB Bismarck (near 28 heavy shells received), can be historically sunked with the sufficient amount of ordnance.

 

Absolutely, any target can be destroyed given enough application of force. With historical examples like the ones you've given, for example, there is a wide range of just how much force is necessary is necessary in any given situation.

 

Consider, for example, HMS Hood, since Bismarck has been mentioned. How does one model that 'golden BB' hit, i.e. a shell that penetrates to the magazines, or the damage inflicted by secondary explosions?

 

Or, for that matter, how that 'bunker buster' manages to penetrate and destroy that buried bunker because it was directed through a ventilation shaft or against a less well armored access door?

 

The game necessarily deals in generalities.

 

In my own database, I trade amount of armour and armour type for more damage points. I think a bunker may be modelled in a similar way, with more damage points reflecting his armour, and his level of "undergroundness".

 

That may work in some situations, but not so well in others. Typical 'bunker busters' or penetrating bombs do not have the explosive content of their general purpose counterparts (because of their thicker case or narrower bomb body). Having a bunker buster with a high DP, therefore, will work well against simulated 'protected' targets but will give artificially inflated results when employed against, say, a soft area target.

Tony, et al:

 

It doesn’t matter if you use a SLAM missile or an anti-runway weapon.

 

Tanks and armored vehicles would not be attacked by SLAMs. Attacking a bunker complex would require bunker-busting bombs, not JSOWs. The list goes on……

 

Just a what if?

 

I snipped a few places in the quote. Not that is changes the discussion but as Brad noted, anti-runway ordnance is 'special' in the game like ARMs are, you just accidentally chose the case that breaks the general rule

 

Your "The list goes on....." is what often sidetracks me when getting into this discussion. The approach generally evolves into a big matrix of weapon types vs target types, the difficult part is deciding upon the size of that table that makes the most people happy. One person (generally database editors ) may like 4 weapon types and a matching 4 target types. That would neccessarily limit the different situations but it keeps the editing bearable. The next person (a detail fanatic) might have 64 target types and 64 weapon types, that matrix is a lot bigger with a whole lot more checkboxes to fill in for every weapon. Which comes back to generalizing to the proper extent. imho what defines proper extent changes from day to day based on the current set of players, database designers, scenario designers, and players. I don't want to spend all day finding the one loadout that can actually attack a target but I also don't want to sink BB-61 Iowa with a 250lb SDB (not often anyway, can't forget the lucky shot).

 

Keep up the discussion, it is certainly pertinent as we craft the next iterations of the game. We'll be watching and absorbing

Tony, Brad, et al:

 

Of course, I would pick the exception to the rule!

 

My thought process, or lack thereof, is to try for more realism within the limits of the programing.

 

I am reminded the book "Thud Ridge", about the air war over Vietnam. In one instance the F-105s were armed with "daisy cutter" bombs, if I remember my terminology correctly. The 500lb bombs had a nose extension on them so they would explode creating shrapnel. Very good against infantry but useless against the dirt road they were sent to bomb. Tomahawk cruise missiles ejecting bomblets are useful against area targets, but not against hardened targets.

 

Currently ARMs don't work against radars/ships that are not radiating, as they should be. Although.... 1st generation vs 2nd etc

 

The thought being that increased target/weapon categorization makes all those loadout options more necessary,useful and enjoyable.

 

Anyways just wondering......

 

Steve M

My thought process, or lack thereof, is to try for more realism within the limits of the programing.

 

Steve M

 

There isn't much possible within the current game structure but we're looking at a major overhaul so many things are possible in the longer term.