First, the big question: Are P-3 Update II Orions used in the WestPac demo scenarios supposed to be refuelable?

 

Either way, I've been seeing some puzzling behavior, and am curious why:

 

When attempting to launch the P-3s, it generally seems to indicate that they are not refuelable (i.e. - If I attempt to send them beyond their own (unrefueled) range it will just give an error beep and do nothing, or else it will allow the destination, but then a popup will report that they are not capable of refueling. I'm unsure what causes the two different behaviors here, though).

 

In any case, if a tanker is joined to the P-3 group (either a single or multiple P-3s), and manually ordered to start refueling (Alt-R), it reports that refueling has begun, but almost immediately reports that refueling is complete and asks about separating the tanker. After separation, the P-3's fuel is unchanged from what it was before the "refueling", but the tanker now shows NO REFUEL.

 

Similarly, if a tanker is accompanying a P-3 group, the P-3s will go well beyond BINGO (as indicated by the range circles) without ever reporting BINGO fuel state, and eventually the refueling will start of its own accord (i.e. - no manual refueling command issued), at which point, the behavior will be as described in the paragraph above.

 

So, all this leads to two secondary questions:

 

1. If the P-3s are supposed to be refuelable, howcum they aren't taking fuel?

 

2. If the P-3's are not supposed to be refuelable, why are they involved in bogus refueling operations that only drain the tankers, but give no fuel to the P-3s... and why does the presence of a tanker suppress the normal BINGO fuel actions and cause the other weirdness?

 

 

Thanks.

My reaction without pulling open any scenarios...

 

I'm thinking the P-3s are not refuellable but the tankers are refuellable. The tanker(s) probably think they are refueling each other. The game just doesn't do checks all that deeply in some cases. It sees tankable assets in the group so lets the fuel fly.

 

Same deal with the fuel range when tankers are included and probably not a situation where you would want to transit them together exactly for the reasons you've laid out.

The P-3 Orion is not capable of in-flight refueling (IFR).

My reaction without pulling open any scenarios...

 

I'm thinking the P-3s are not refuellable but the tankers are refuellable. The tanker(s) probably think they are refueling each other. The game just doesn't do checks all that deeply in some cases. It sees tankable assets in the group so lets the fuel fly.

 

Same deal with the fuel range when tankers are included and probably not a situation where you would want to transit them together exactly for the reasons you've laid out.

 

Hmmm... That raises a few more questions and comments:

 

1. Is there any way of pre-determining whether a type is refuelable (from within the game play), so as to avoid these mistakes?

 

2. In the cases that I ran into when playing the HCE demo scenarios, all situations involved one KC-135 and one or more P-3s or EP-3; so does the tanker think that it's refuelling itself? And if so, would the tanker's own range be extended by doing this?

 

3. If the P-3s are indeed incapable of refueling, I'm a bit puzzled why they are even included in the BACKYARD/II and OUBLIETTE scenarios in the WestPac demo set, because their eligible bases are pretty much out of range of the action. In particular, the OUBLIETTE scenario includes several P-3s, EP-3 and several KC-135s at bases where they are well out of un-refueled range of the action area - yet that fact, plus the fact that these are the only Blue a/c types included in the scenario, sort of implies that the P-3s were intended to be refueled in this scenario. (The only altenative use of the P-3s would be on single suicide missions, and the tankers would be moot). So, particularly in this scenario, it's very puzzling why the P-3s and tankers were even provided.

 

Although I can't easily go back and check, IIRC, P-3s were refuelable in HCG... so perhaps the scenario was built under that presumption, thus explaining the situation above?

 

4. Would it be practical to put in a check that would prevent the refueling operation when it's bogus like this - so as to avoid dumping the tanker's refuel load in such cases of "mistaken capability"?

1. Is there any way of pre-determining whether a type is refuelable (from within the game play), so as to avoid these mistakes?

 

2. In the cases that I ran into when playing the HCE demo scenarios, all situations involved one KC-135 and one or more P-3s or EP-3; so does the tanker think that it's refuelling itself? And if so, would the tanker's own range be extended by doing this?

 

3. If the P-3s are indeed incapable of refueling, I'm a bit puzzled why they are even included in the BACKYARD/II and OUBLIETTE scenarios in the WestPac demo set, because their eligible bases are pretty much out of range of the action. In particular, the OUBLIETTE scenario includes several P-3s, EP-3 and several KC-135s at bases where they are well out of un-refueled range of the action area - yet that fact, plus the fact that these are the only Blue a/c types included in the scenario, sort of implies that the P-3s were intended to be refueled in this scenario. (The only altenative use of the P-3s would be on single suicide missions, and the tankers would be moot). So, particularly in this scenario, it's very puzzling why the P-3s and tankers were even provided.

 

Although I can't easily go back and check, IIRC, P-3s were refuelable in HCG... so perhaps the scenario was built under that presumption, thus explaining the situation above?

 

4. Would it be practical to put in a check that would prevent the refueling operation when it's bogus like this - so as to avoid dumping the tanker's refuel load in such cases of "mistaken capability"?

 

1. Without the platform editor or extensive knowledge of platforms, no.

 

2. The tanker probably thinks it it refueling itself, no I don't think it gets any fuel, I expect it just dumps it.

 

3. Brad said they aren't refuel capable. Having played the scenario a few times the P-3s can be useful and can make the difference in the scenario, being shot down proves to be much more of a concern than running out of fuel in my experience. This scenario (also made by Brad, like the DB) was made with and for HCE knowing full well the P-3s are not refuellable.

 

4. I see no great need, many things are practical, few actually see their way to fruition.

1. Is there any way of pre-determining whether a type is refuelable (from within the game play), so as to avoid these mistakes?

 

No, and I think this is where the display function could perhaps use some improvement, by displaying IFR capability (or lack thereof). Unfortunately, this is no method currently to link the DB flag to the in-game display.

 

2. In the cases that I ran into when playing the HCE demo scenarios, all situations involved one KC-135 and one or more P-3s or EP-3; so does the tanker think that it's refuelling itself? And if so, would the tanker's own range be extended by doing this?

 

Pretty sure that's what Tony was intimating above.

 

3. If the P-3s are indeed incapable of refueling ...

 

They're not. See my comment to that effect earlier in this thread.

 

... I'm a bit puzzled why they are even included in the BACKYARD/II and OUBLIETTE scenarios in the WestPac demo set, because their eligible bases are pretty much out of range of the action. In particular, the OUBLIETTE scenario includes several P-3s, EP-3 and several KC-135s at bases where they are well out of un-refueled range of the action area - yet that fact, plus the fact that these are the only Blue a/c types included in the scenario, sort of implies that the P-3s were intended to be refueled in this scenario. (The only altenative use of the P-3s would be on single suicide missions, and the tankers would be moot). So, particularly in this scenario, it's very puzzling why the P-3s and tankers were even provided.

 

I can only speak for Oubliette, since I wrote it. I can see why the presence of the KC-135 would perhaps confuse you. I included them when I had some other aircraft (other than P-3s) in the scenario. I removed them but not the tankers. The P-3s are capable of reaching the Kuriles, but only when operating out of Naha, and even then they are near the limit of their endurance. This is intentional. They do have a very good radar and also ESM capability, so they are useful even if they cannot stay on station long. To offer more than that would be to compromise the scenario. It is, after all, about submarines.

 

Although I can't easily go back and check, IIRC, P-3s were refuelable in HCG... so perhaps the scenario was built under that presumption, thus explaining the situation above?

 

I could be wrong, but I do not think the P-3 was capable of IFR in HCG, and if it was, it was a mistake. These scenarios were not built with HCG in any event, so the point is moot.

Thanks for the clarifications, guys!

 

2. In the cases that I ran into when playing the HCE demo scenarios, all situations involved one KC-135 and one or more P-3s or EP-3; so does the tanker think that it's refuelling itself? And if so, would the tanker's own range be extended by doing this?

 

Pretty sure that's what Tony was intimating above.

I still can't quite figure whether the KC-135s are giving themselves any fuel in these cases. (Are real KC-135's capable of tapping their own refuel stores?)

 

 

... I'm a bit puzzled why they are even included in the BACKYARD/II and OUBLIETTE scenarios in the WestPac demo set, because their eligible bases are pretty much out of range of the action. In particular, the OUBLIETTE scenario includes several P-3s, EP-3 and several KC-135s at bases where they are well out of un-refueled range of the action area - yet that fact, plus the fact that these are the only Blue a/c types included in the scenario, sort of implies that the P-3s were intended to be refueled in this scenario. (The only altenative use of the P-3s would be on single suicide missions, and the tankers would be moot). So, particularly in this scenario, it's very puzzling why the P-3s and tankers were even provided.

 

I can only speak for Oubliette, since I wrote it. I can see why the presence of the KC-135 would perhaps confuse you. I included them when I had some other aircraft (other than P-3s) in the scenario. I removed them but not the tankers. The P-3s are capable of reaching the Kuriles, but only when operating out of Naha, and even then they are near the limit of their endurance. This is intentional. They do have a very good radar and also ESM capability, so they are useful even if they cannot stay on station long. To offer more than that would be to compromise the scenario. It is, after all, about submarines.

 

Well, it's probably obvious that I'm easily confused...

Yeah, the reason for the presence of the tankers in that scenario, coupled with the P-3s essentially being out-of-range, left me scratching my head - thinking that I was missing something. Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Now then, the P-3s with ASW loadout are marginally capable of engaging in some parts of the battle zone... I was in fact able to use one against a sub... albeit, by pushing it beyond BINGO (but was still able to save it by using one of the "tricks" in the game). On the other hand I'm still puzzled whether there was any use for the P-3 in ASuW loadout, as that definitely cannot reach the battle area without going well beyond its range. Granted, a P-3 could go on an ASuW suicide mission, which could be of some use in certain situations - but only if the player has extraordinary powers of anticipation, because the extensive travel distance really wouldn't give adequate reaction time to counter a known surface threat, and the distance wouldn't allow it to stand-by on-station while awaiting potential threats. I ended up just switching that one to ASW, in order to give it adequate range for recon.

Now then, the P-3s with ASW loadout are marginally capable of engaging in some parts of the battle zone... I was in fact able to use one against a sub... albeit, by pushing it beyond BINGO (but was still able to save it by using one of the "tricks" in the game). On the other hand I'm still puzzled whether there was any use for the P-3 in ASuW loadout, as that definitely cannot reach the battle area without going well beyond its range. Granted, a P-3 could go on an ASuW suicide mission, which could be of some use in certain situations - but only if the player has extraordinary powers of anticipation, because the extensive travel distance really wouldn't give adequate reaction time to counter a known surface threat, and the distance wouldn't allow it to stand-by on-station while awaiting potential threats. I ended up just switching that one to ASW, in order to give it adequate range for recon.

 

Choice of appropriate loadout is entirely yours. Sometimes you will find a scenario author give directions as to what loadouts not to use, so as to impose some limitations on what you can do, but I think on the whole you will find it very rare for a scenario author to tell you what you must use.

 

IIRC, the orders in Oubliette tell you that the P-3s are available for maritime reconnaissance. Whether that means hunting and killing submarines or surface ships, or just snooping about, is your call.

Choice of appropriate loadout is entirely yours. Sometimes you will find a scenario author give directions as to what loadouts not to use, so as to impose some limitations on what you can do, but I think on the whole you will find it very rare for a scenario author to tell you what you must use.

 

IIRC, the orders in Oubliette tell you that the P-3s are available for maritime reconnaissance. Whether that means hunting and killing submarines or surface ships, or just snooping about, is your call.

 

 

Understood... My only point was about the fact that one of the P-3s was initially set up as ASuW (while the others were set up as ASW) which led me to think there was some scenario-related reason where the ASuW would be needed; I was just curious whether that was the case, since there wasn't any "obvious" use for the ASuW loadout.

Understood... My only point was about the fact that one of the P-3s was initially set up as ASuW (while the others were set up as ASW) which led me to think there was some scenario-related reason where the ASuW would be needed; I was just curious whether that was the case, since there wasn't any "obvious" use for the ASuW loadout.

 

Nope, no relationship. I have a reputation for not 'holding hands' with the player, as far as my scenarios go.

Understood... My only point was about the fact that one of the P-3s was initially set up as ASuW (while the others were set up as ASW) which led me to think there was some scenario-related reason where the ASuW would be needed; I was just curious whether that was the case, since there wasn't any "obvious" use for the ASuW loadout.

 

Nope, no relationship. I have a reputation for not 'holding hands' with the player, as far as my scenarios go.

 

Hehe, and often Brad ties hands by starting the scenario with planes carrying useless loadouts, giving the opposition a chance to pressure the player early on. It can instill a bit of panic!

Understood... My only point was about the fact that one of the P-3s was initially set up as ASuW (while the others were set up as ASW) which led me to think there was some scenario-related reason where the ASuW would be needed; I was just curious whether that was the case, since there wasn't any "obvious" use for the ASuW loadout.

 

Nope, no relationship. I have a reputation for not 'holding hands' with the player, as far as my scenarios go.

 

Hehe, and often Brad ties hands by starting the scenario with planes carrying useless loadouts, giving the opposition a chance to pressure the player early on. It can instill a bit of panic!

 

Yeah, it reminds me of the first time that I tried to play one of the first couple of scenarios in the USNI set (Blue side) under the HCE demo: I had just started the game, and was still checking the loadouts of my aircraft when numerous groups of long-range bombers were detected... and moments later wave after wave of Kingfish and so forth rained down on the surface group, eventually overwhelming the defenses and obliterating the entire carrier group and giving the Reds total victory - only about 20 minutes of game time into the scenario! Astonished, I checked the reports for the Red airfields and found there were a total of several hundred bombers still parked at the fields - in addition to the airborne masses that had just released armageddon upon my carrier group, right out of the gate!

 

My reaction was, "How in the h___ can it be possible to play this scenario, let alone win it, when there isn't even time to re-arm my aircraft with any significant air-to-air weapons before the reign of terror begins???"

 

Well, it turns out that game was some sort of aberration, because (thankfully ) a re-play of the scenario presented a much more managable number of Red bombers - plus I knew to expect the immediate attacks, so right away I put an "alpha strike" of air patrols with whatever starting AA loads they had, and was able to fend off enough of the Red missiles to survive that initial onslaught! I never did find out how the Reds were able to detect and target the carrier group, though... never found any subs nearby, nor detected any patrol aircraft or surface stuff. Oh, well...

1. Is there any way of pre-determining whether a type is refuelable (from within the game play), so as to avoid these mistakes?

 

...

 

When attempting to launch the P-3s, it generally seems to indicate that they are not refuelable (i.e. - If I attempt to send them beyond their own (unrefueled) range it will just give an error beep and do nothing, or else it will allow the destination, but then a popup will report that they are not capable of refueling. I'm unsure what causes the two different behaviors here, though).

 

This is the only "easily" available method: Try to launch a plane beyond its normal range. If it is not capable of IFR refueling, you will be informed (message: too far; can't IFR). If it is capable of IFR refueling, you will also be informed (message: too far).

 

The specific response may depend on the version of Harpoon?

First, the big question: Are P-3 Update II Orions used in the WestPac demo scenarios supposed to be refuelable?

 

In any case, if a tanker is joined to the P-3 group (either a single or multiple P-3s), and manually ordered to start refueling (Alt-R), it reports that refueling has begun, but almost immediately reports that refueling is complete and asks about separating the tanker. After separation, the P-3's fuel is unchanged from what it was before the "refueling", but the tanker now shows NO REFUEL.

 

Senior officer to tanker pilot: Refuel that Orion!

 

Tanker pilot to senior officer: Sir! The Orion does not have a refueling probe!

 

Senior officer: Refuel that Orion!

 

Tanker pilot: Sir! Yes, sir!

 

 

And the environmentalists were not pleased.

 

Similarly, if a tanker is accompanying a P-3 group, the P-3s will go well beyond BINGO (as indicated by the range circles) without ever reporting BINGO fuel state, and eventually the refueling will start of its own accord (i.e. - no manual refueling command issued), at which point, the behavior will be as described in the paragraph above.

 

2. If the P-3's are not supposed to be refuelable, why are they involved in bogus refueling operations that only drain the tankers, but give no fuel to the P-3s... and why does the presence of a tanker suppress the normal BINGO fuel actions and cause the other weirdness?

 

That would have to be considered a game bug. If you knew about this behaviour, you could avoid it, but if you didn't know that the normal warnings were incorrectly suppressed, you could wind up losing units, losing the game, getting angry, etc.