October 22, 200916 yr Since everyone is screwing Tony, I figured I could too. Why do AI planes head north when their base is destroyed instead of looking for alternate airfields? BTW, is there a way to make a base more resilient?
October 22, 200916 yr Since everyone is screwing Tony, I figured I could too. I know you're kidding , but I have to take the opportunity to lay some accolades at the altar of Tony. Harpoon Classic has come light years beyond what it used to be. Truth is, working with the code we have, this simulation really has no business being as good as it is. Just a day or so ago, the man tweaked the code so that we can now put standoff ASW missiles on aircraft (bring on the Longshot High Altitude ASW Weapons (HAAWC)! woohoo!) as well as making sensors work in loadouts (need to carry a radar pod on that aircraft?). Many thanks to our exalted programmer. Why do AI planes head north when their base is destroyed instead of looking for alternate airfields? I am not sure why they do that, JMS, but I have noticed it and it is obviously something that needs tweaking if possible. BTW, is there a way to make a base more resilient? Can you be more specific? Giving damaged bases the ability to repair themselves is a wish list item (its certainly on my wish list).
October 22, 200916 yr Just a day or so ago, the man tweaked the code so that we can now put standoff ASW missiles on aircraft (bring on the Longshot High Altitude ASW Weapons (HAAWC)! woohoo!) as well as making sensors work in loadouts (need to carry a radar pod on that aircraft?). Very good news. Why do AI planes head north when their base is destroyed instead of looking for alternate airfields? For years I observe the same actuation when a helicopter porter ship is sunk (the same thing observed for carrier based planes, when the carrier is sunk). The helicopter leaves the ship group and the previous formation, and flight 0º northwards. The helicopter from the sunked ship should stay in the formation, and look for a alternate unsunked ship as base.
October 22, 200916 yr Author I know you're kidding , but I have to take the opportunity to lay some accolades at the altar of Tony. Harpoon Classic has come light years beyond what it used to be. Truth is, working with the code we have, this simulation really has no business being as good as it is. Just a day or so ago, the man tweaked the code so that we can now put standoff ASW missiles on aircraft (bring on the Longshot High Altitude ASW Weapons (HAAWC)! woohoo!) as well as making sensors work in loadouts (need to carry a radar pod on that aircraft?). Many thanks to our exalted programmer. Indeed I am, and you are very right. This must be the only game born in the early 90s that still stands in the XXI century and that's thanks to Tony and you guys supporting the databases, but there's no such thing as a satisified wargamer. BTW, is there a way to make a base more resilient? Can you be more specific? Giving damaged bases the ability to repair themselves is a wish list item (its certainly on my wish list). Not only that, but many bases are killed by the sheer number of ordnance dumped on them, yet reality shows airfileds are usually very tough cookies to kill. In many scenarios is enough to have a squadron of Backfires fire off a volley of AS-4s to kill an airfield and its aircraft forever, yet by the time the Tu-22M came around nearly all airfields sported a goodly number of HAS, which would have protected the aircraft from anything short of a direct hit, plus at least 2 runways, hardened or easily repairable, so the missiles would do some damage to unprotected structures but the airbase would remain operational.
October 22, 200916 yr ... there's no such thing as a satisified wargamer. Ain't that the truth. Not only that, but many bases are killed by the sheer number of ordnance dumped on them, yet reality shows airfileds are usually very tough cookies to kill. In many scenarios is enough to have a squadron of Backfires fire off a volley of AS-4s to kill an airfield and its aircraft forever, yet by the time the Tu-22M came around nearly all airfields sported a goodly number of HAS, which would have protected the aircraft from anything short of a direct hit, plus at least 2 runways, hardened or easily repairable, so the missiles would do some damage to unprotected structures but the airbase would remain operational. Okay, then the answer to your original question is 'Yes'. Installation damage point (DP) values are capable of being edited in the database, so yes, we can change em. The question that arises, of course, is whether we should. Most VLarge airfields in the DB currently have DP values in the range of 7,500 to 9,000. (Compare that to the 52 DP value of a 2,000 lb Mk 84 iron bomb). Most would probably agree that 173 bombs of that size would have a pretty devastating effect on most any airfield, especially since the hit probability (pH) of those bombs already takes into account that every successful hit actually struck something of value (i.e. a runway, a taxiway or a parking apron, for example, instead of out in the greenbelt or the nearby golf course). As you know, there are a myriad of scenarios that have been written on the basis (if only indirectly) of a certain expectation of how much punishment a particular installation can take. If we were to significantly alter the DP value of the installations, then we might very well frustrate not only the intentions of that scenario author but also the efforts of a player who had expected his sortie(s) to inflict a certain amount of damage. So, I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I do wonder whether it is wise. If there are particular installations in the DB that you think are too fragile, please identify them and I will certainly take a look at it. (You should do so in the 'HCDB requests' thread (or the thread for other relevant DB) rather than here).
October 23, 200916 yr Since everyone is screwing Tony, I figured I could too. Why do AI planes head north when their base is destroyed instead of looking for alternate airfields? Hehe, thanks for the kind words guys. As you recognized, I don't, couldn't, and wouldn't do it alone. Now if someone would just provide me a smart, rich, attractive (real) woman to marry we could really build a nifty wargame. Planes heading north after a base is destroyed is somewhat of a philosophical topic for me. Perhaps part of the reason I've never done anything about it is my enjoyment of seeing the AI reel at the loss. You also state a partial answer. You'll note when they hit a low fuel state they look for the nearest base within range at which they can land and then RTB. A solution of sorts would be to add some housekeeping that rounds up all of the homeless aircraft every few game seconds and assigns a new home if one exists, otherwise let em fly North .
October 23, 200916 yr Since everyone is screwing Tony, I figured I could too. Why do AI planes head north when their base is destroyed instead of looking for alternate airfields? Hehe, thanks for the kind words guys. As you recognized, I don't, couldn't, and wouldn't do it alone. Now if someone would just provide me a smart, rich, attractive (real) woman to marry we could really build a nifty wargame. ............ So if we get you a smart attractive rich woman,....... I don't think you'll be spending more time on this harpoon game, my friend!!! Don.
October 23, 200916 yr Author Okay, then the answer to your original question is 'Yes'. Installation damage point (DP) values are capable of being edited in the database, so yes, we can change em. The question that arises, of course, is whether we should. Most VLarge airfields in the DB currently have DP values in the range of 7,500 to 9,000. (Compare that to the 52 DP value of a 2,000 lb Mk 84 iron bomb). Most would probably agree that 173 bombs of that size would have a pretty devastating effect on most any airfield, especially since the hit probability (pH) of those bombs already takes into account that every successful hit actually struck something of value (i.e. a runway, a taxiway or a parking apron, for example, instead of out in the greenbelt or the nearby golf course). As you know, there are a myriad of scenarios that have been written on the basis (if only indirectly) of a certain expectation of how much punishment a particular installation can take. If we were to significantly alter the DP value of the installations, then we might very well frustrate not only the intentions of that scenario author but also the efforts of a player who had expected his sortie(s) to inflict a certain amount of damage. So, I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I do wonder whether it is wise. If there are particular installations in the DB that you think are too fragile, please identify them and I will certainly take a look at it. (You should do so in the 'HCDB requests' thread (or the thread for other relevant DB) rather than here). No, I really don't think the DB should be altered as it's going to screw up every scenario out there, my question was more on the vein of modding the way installations work so the "vanilla" base could be spiced with the addition of HAS, bunkers and such, without changing the DB
October 23, 200916 yr No, I really don't think the DB should be altered as it's going to screw up every scenario out there, my question was more on the vein of modding the way installations work so the "vanilla" base could be spiced with the addition of HAS, bunkers and such, without changing the DB Okay, guess I totally missed the point of what you said. You certainly can build whole airfields in the matter you mention, and I have added the components for doing so in the HCDB. In the DB you will find separately modeled 'installations' such as hardened aircraft shelters (HAS), air traffic control towers, large structures and small structures, surface bunkers and underground bunkers, radars, air defense sites, ammo dumps, etc. The foundation would start with the basic 'airfield' (which, in effect, comprises the runways, taxiways and parking aprons) and then add the above components that you need, arranging them in their desired locations around the facility by using the Formation Editor. There are some limitations to this approach. For example, the smallest possible airfield built in this way would have a radius of 4 nm (1 nm if you only use the Main Body portion of the formation). Placements of individual units (the HAS, structures, etc) can also be cumbersome at times. And, bombing those individual components will in reality do nothing to affect the airfield's host aircraft (e.g. no aircraft actually sit inside the HAS). But in a very focused scenario, e.g. Alpha Strike or airfield attack mission, I think it could work.
October 30, 200916 yr Since everyone is screwing Tony, I figured I could too. Why do AI planes head north when their base is destroyed instead of looking for alternate airfields? Hehe, thanks for the kind words guys. As you recognized, I don't, couldn't, and wouldn't do it alone. Now if someone would just provide me a smart, rich, attractive (real) woman to marry we could really build a nifty wargame. Would she need to be a programmer, too??? But, a word of caution: I hear tell that marrying ain't all that it's cracked up to be... Planes heading north after a base is destroyed is somewhat of a philosophical topic for me. Perhaps part of the reason I've never done anything about it is my enjoyment of seeing the AI reel at the loss. You also state a partial answer. You'll note when they hit a low fuel state they look for the nearest base within range at which they can land and then RTB. A solution of sorts would be to add some housekeeping that rounds up all of the homeless aircraft every few game seconds and assigns a new home if one exists, otherwise let em fly North . What if they just went into loiter mode (until BINGO time)? At least that would keep 'em in the game, so to speak. Just curious, though: Do such "orphaned" a/c retain their normal lethality - like, will they still go after targets of opportunity, etc.? (In the cases that I've seen, it seemed more like they just sort of ambled along aimlessly, waiting for the player to knock 'em off).
October 30, 200916 yr a. What if they just went into loiter mode (until BINGO time)? At least that would keep 'em in the game, so to speak. b. Just curious, though: Do such "orphaned" a/c retain their normal lethality - like, will they still go after targets of opportunity, etc.? (In the cases that I've seen, it seemed more like they just sort of ambled along aimlessly, waiting for the player to knock 'em off). a. I think that would be suboptimal since aircraft may be in enemy territory when their base is destroyed. I'd rather have them try to RTB if not on an active mission than loiter say within enemy anti-aircraft defenses. b. They retain some measure of lethality but they are not on a specific mission and are unlikely to be assigned to a mission so they do seem less focused
October 30, 200916 yr a. What if they just went into loiter mode (until BINGO time)? At least that would keep 'em in the game, so to speak. b. Just curious, though: Do such "orphaned" a/c retain their normal lethality - like, will they still go after targets of opportunity, etc.? (In the cases that I've seen, it seemed more like they just sort of ambled along aimlessly, waiting for the player to knock 'em off). a. I think that would be suboptimal since aircraft may be in enemy territory when their base is destroyed. I'd rather have them try to RTB if not on an active mission than loiter say within enemy anti-aircraft defenses. Good point! Although, I was thinking in terms of Loitering versus "heading north", as opposed to Loitering versus RTB. (Personally, I'd lean towards immediate RTB in such cases, anyway). Actually, the heading north action could put them into enemy territory, too - depending on the circumstances. I recall an instance where some helos from several sunken AI ships did their northward treks - right into one of my SAGs - which promptly dispatched them!
Create an account or sign in to comment