First, you should locate the air defences. There are techniques that keep your aircraft alive. Then you should analyze the defences. Then you should pick off whatever you can safely. ...

 

Yes, safely locating certain of the attached enemy units is the only issue that I have trouble with (and possibly that detectability problem is related to the "selective" detection issues that I run into with air and missile groups, who knows - point being, that perhaps it's an anomaly that affects only my installation of the game and therefore is irrelevent beyond that scope).

 

In any case, I'd love to hear the techniques of keeping my attacking air groups alive! (I'm sure those pilots would be particularly interested, because I'm starting to see signs of mutiny when I order attacks on defended bases! )

 

Joe, one thing you could try doing is running through the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario along the lines of my AAR:

 

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2104380

 

If you do the same things I did, then you should get close to the same results.

 

As I stated repeatedly in that report, my main priority was keeping my guys alive.

 

 

Wow! That was quite a report! An entertaining story on its own, even if actual game play wasn't involved!

 

I have played that scenario once, and as I recall, I had considerably more difficulty in getting detections, as well as getting AAM hits. Anyway, I had considerably more losses of friendly aircraft. The thing that puzzles me in your report is that you were able to use rockets as "stand-off" weapons (that is, being longer-ranged than the short-ranged AAA or SAMs); I didn't find that to be the case, for some reason.

 

Anyway, my battle plan and tactics were generally similar ... but my losses weren't.

I have played that scenario once, and as I recall, I had considerably more difficulty in getting detections, as well as getting AAM hits. Anyway, I had considerably more losses of friendly aircraft. The thing that puzzles me in your report is that you were able to use rockets as "stand-off" weapons (that is, being longer-ranged than the short-ranged AAA or SAMs); I didn't find that to be the case, for some reason.

 

Anyway, my battle plan and tactics were generally similar ... but my losses weren't.

 

I extracted some comments from my Thanh Hoa Bridge report:

______________________________________________________

 

2 Hawkeyes and 2 Vigilantes at the front …

A Vigilante will be used to locate the Vietnamese ground defences. Vigilantes are fast enough to escape from most threats, and these planes appear to locate ground units very well.

We launch an RA-5C, and what a difference that makes! 16 immediate contacts: 4 air, the rest on the ground.

About 45 min into the scenario, we have been able to refine the locations of most of the enemy ground defences.The Vigilantes are pushed forward. Within 10 minutes, we start to acquire new targets by infrared. The first contacts are obtained at somewhat less than 15 nm. Loitering the Vigilantes at that distance to increase the scan time does not help. They need to approach to about 10 nm before any detailed information is available about these new enemy units. They are non-radiating,

_______________________________________________________

 

Loss of contact on the enemy fighters … seems to be happening a lot. When this happens, our planes need to run away to avoid bad accidents.

_______________________________________________________

 

Only 6 of our attack aircraft have “stand-off” weapons …

Only the KS-19 (AAA) has a range that is equivalent to the rockets on the Corsairs. rockets: 4.3 nm; KS-19 (100 mm): 4.5 nm; KS-12 (85 mm): 3.5 nm; Grail missile: 2.3 nm; ZU-23 guns: 1.4 nm.

Iron bombs will only be used against targets that can’t shoot back. Rockets will only be used against targets that can’t shoot back or against the 100 mm AAA.

3 KS-19s will be avoided. They can’t do anything outside of 5 nm range. Two KS-19 batteries are waiting near Thanh Hoa Bridge. KS-19 hit probability: 10%

________________________________________________________

 

The first section shows how to locate ground defences. Typically, you will need something like an RA-5C, which performs MUCH better in this role than any other aircraft. I am guessing that HCE labels such units as "recon" or perhaps "EW". I don't think that the unit reports tell you which units are good at this. Lacking such units, perhaps the only way you can locate ground units will be when they shoot at you.

 

It takes a long time to properly locate ground units, and you may need to get very close. Put plenty of eyeballs to work.

 

The second section tells you: if you lose contact on a mobile enemy unit, run away!

 

The third section gives some attack details. If you are short of true stand-off weapons, be creative! Line up your units against the enemy units so as to maximize your range advantage (you do have the mobility advantage). In this scenario, although the Vietnamese had well over 100 units, they had a maximum of 2 cases where they even got to try a shot, which would have been less if the LGBs had hit. But 2 chances at 10% isn't very much, and it may well be that the Corsairs spent so little time in the critical 4.5-4.3 nm range bracket that, in fact, the KS-19s never did get a try.

 

In situations like this, it may be crucial to manually keep trying to shoot (hit F1 with your unit selected) as you drive forward.

I extracted some comments from my Thanh Hoa Bridge report:

______________________________________________________

 

2 Hawkeyes and 2 Vigilantes at the front …

A Vigilante will be used to locate the Vietnamese ground defences. Vigilantes are fast enough to escape from most threats, and these planes appear to locate ground units very well.

We launch an RA-5C, and what a difference that makes! 16 immediate contacts: 4 air, the rest on the ground.

About 45 min into the scenario, we have been able to refine the locations of most of the enemy ground defences.The Vigilantes are pushed forward. Within 10 minutes, we start to acquire new targets by infrared. The first contacts are obtained at somewhat less than 15 nm. Loitering the Vigilantes at that distance to increase the scan time does not help. They need to approach to about 10 nm before any detailed information is available about these new enemy units. They are non-radiating,

_______________________________________________________

 

Loss of contact on the enemy fighters … seems to be happening a lot. When this happens, our planes need to run away to avoid bad accidents.

_______________________________________________________

 

Only 6 of our attack aircraft have “stand-off” weapons …

Only the KS-19 (AAA) has a range that is equivalent to the rockets on the Corsairs. rockets: 4.3 nm; KS-19 (100 mm): 4.5 nm; KS-12 (85 mm): 3.5 nm; Grail missile: 2.3 nm; ZU-23 guns: 1.4 nm.

Iron bombs will only be used against targets that can’t shoot back. Rockets will only be used against targets that can’t shoot back or against the 100 mm AAA.

3 KS-19s will be avoided. They can’t do anything outside of 5 nm range. Two KS-19 batteries are waiting near Thanh Hoa Bridge. KS-19 hit probability: 10%

________________________________________________________

 

The first section shows how to locate ground defences. Typically, you will need something like an RA-5C, which performs MUCH better in this role than any other aircraft. I am guessing that HCE labels such units as "recon" or perhaps "EW". I don't think that the unit reports tell you which units are good at this. Lacking such units, perhaps the only way you can locate ground units will be when they shoot at you.

 

Yes, the Vigilante seems to be noticably better at detecting things than is the "average bear"... unfortunately, that Bridge scenario is the only one that included the RA-5C, as far as I recall. AEWs like the Hawkeyes seem to be unable to detect mobile "attachments", and even EW platforms like the EP-3 seem unable to do so. So far, the only way I've found is to observe where my air groups "self-destruct", and then go poking around there visually.

 

 

It takes a long time to properly locate ground units, and you may need to get very close. Put plenty of eyeballs to work.

 

In the scenarios that I've been playing, that technique seems to be the only option... and a costly one at that.

 

 

The second section tells you: if you lose contact on a mobile enemy unit, run away!

 

My problem seems to be more in the nature of not getting the contact in the first place. In cases where I do have a contact, it's already knocking my aircraft down!

 

 

The third section gives some attack details. If you are short of true stand-off weapons, be creative! Line up your units against the enemy units so as to maximize your range advantage (you do have the mobility advantage). In this scenario, although the Vietnamese had well over 100 units, they had a maximum of 2 cases where they even got to try a shot, which would have been less if the LGBs had hit. But 2 chances at 10% isn't very much, and it may well be that the Corsairs spent so little time in the critical 4.5-4.3 nm range bracket that, in fact, the KS-19s never did get a try.

 

In one scenario, the longest-ranged ground attack weapon available is a 4nm precision bomb... which puts my aircraft well within the SAM range long before my weapons are in range... but it doesn't really matter anyway, because I can't get detections, let alone fixes, until I'm within 1nm or less anyway. But, meanwhile the unseen platforms have been picking off my planes for over 50nm before I even have a chance to get a contact. The only "successful" tactic that I've found is to mass my attackers and race in, so that even when they shoot down the dozen or so planes, there are still a few left to hit the target. Pretty costly... but it beats the alternative of smaller attacks, where all of my planes get shot down for naught.

 

 

In situations like this, it may be crucial to manually keep trying to shoot (hit F1 with your unit selected) as you drive forward.

 

Wasn't even aware of this feature.

If a region is defended by modern SAMs, and all you have is iron bombs, perhaps the correct solution to the problem is to not enter that region. That region could be considered a "no-fly" zone.

 

Patton said that a soldier's duty is not to die for his country - it is to make enemy soldiers die for their country. A brute force suicide charge is not an intelligent solution to a military problem. If that's the only option available in the scenario, I won't play that scenario. I've got better things to do with my time.

 

Having said that, there are advanced techniques available in Harpoon that simulate techniques from the early Iron Hand or Wild Weasel missions. I have experimented with some of these techniques, and reported on them here and there in the Harpoon forums.

 

Bear in mind that Harpoon does not model such processes very well. Harpoon simply does not function at that scale. So any attempt to put these processes in will require a lot of extra micromanagement.

Having said that, there are advanced techniques available in Harpoon that simulate techniques from the early Iron Hand or Wild Weasel missions. I have experimented with some of these techniques, and reported on them here and there in the Harpoon forums. Bear in mind that Harpoon does not model such processes very well. Harpoon simply does not function at that scale. So any attempt to put these processes in will require a lot of extra micromanagement.

 

Actually, I'd have to disagree and say that Harpoon does a pretty decent job of modeling the early Iron Hand or Wild Weasel missions. This was, for the most part, 'reactive' SEAD. In other words, you go out on a mission actually looking to get shot at, and when the enemy exposes himself by shooting, you respond in kind. The SAMs were fairly simple, and so were the ARMs and bombs.

 

Since those days, SEAD has become a lot more complex. Nowadays an air defence gun or missile crew might simply refuse to engage, or else decide to engage only when they have an excellent chance of success (or survival). Distributed sensor nets and command posts make it a much more multi-layered affair, and often no longer just a matter of smacking the local SAM site with a cluster bomb and/or its nearby radar with a Shrike. In fact, its often no longer just a kinetic exchange (ie. putting iron on target) or brute force jamming, but a real electronic dance.

 

Micro management - even extra micro management on occasion - is simply a fact of life in HC/HCE. If this troubles a player, there's always Fleet Command.

Having said that, there are advanced techniques available in Harpoon that simulate techniques from the early Iron Hand or Wild Weasel missions. I have experimented with some of these techniques, and reported on them here and there in the Harpoon forums. Bear in mind that Harpoon does not model such processes very well. Harpoon simply does not function at that scale. So any attempt to put these processes in will require a lot of extra micromanagement.

 

Actually, I'd have to disagree and say that Harpoon does a pretty decent job of modeling the early Iron Hand or Wild Weasel missions. This was, for the most part, 'reactive' SEAD. In other words, you go out on a mission actually looking to get shot at, and when the enemy exposes himself by shooting, you respond in kind. The SAMs were fairly simple, and so were the ARMs and bombs.

Let me clarify my previous statement. As I understand it, what used to happen in real life is a plane would fly over the SAM site, hoping to provoke a SAM launch. This implied that the ground radar (there might be several categories of radar) would have to be on. Then a plane (might be the same one) would launch an ARM at the ground radar. The ARM would typically have shorter range than the SAM, the point being that some plane was always at risk while the SAM site was being attacked. It might be possible for the ARM to be defeated by turning the ground radar off, but that would imply loss of the SAM. So the idea was to provoke the launch of enough SAMs to inhibit the turning off of the ground radar. In the meantime, how does the "bait" plane survive? Apparently, it can outmaneuver the SAM by turning, particularly in the vertical direction (diving), which starts to become problematic if there are too many SAMs in flight.

 

In Harpoon, the first thing you need to do is to get the SAM radar to turn on. This appears to happen automatically if you just paint the ground radar with your own radar. This is a significant deviation between Harpoon and real life, but please don't ask me to write an AI that can play that radar on/off guessing game. At this point, you shoot an ARM at the ground radar. Admittedly, my experience with this type of situation would have to be rather limited. However, I have rather detailed experience with several scenarios. For example, in the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario, the ARMs outrange the SAMs, so all the SAMs (at least, their radars) can be wiped out without ever risking an airplane. This is a significant deviation between Harpoon and real life. In the USNI 1 (RED) scenario, the Soviet planes are so crappy that there can be situations where the SAMs outrange the ARMs.

 

While it is possible to micromanage some sort of horizontal maneuvering (turning) in Harpoon, there is no possibility for vertical maneuvering. When I wrote "Harpoon does not model such processes very well", that is what I was referring to, and that is the crucial point. However, in the USNI scenario, I was able to provoke a radar on / SAM launch with my "bait" plane in SAM range. My plane escaped by flight (as in fleeing), but not by maneuver. So you can see that you can get some similarity with real life in the game, but if you examine the specific details, they don't match.

 

Not that I am complaining, mind you. As far as I know, Harpoon was never intended to function at the scale of tactical maneuvers by individual airplanes, and it would be meaningless to expect this of the simulation.

 

Micro management - even extra micro management on occasion - is simply a fact of life in HC/HCE. If this troubles a player, there's always Fleet Command.

True, and true.

 

The obvious restriction is that it limits the types of scenarios that you can play effectively, because you can only personally control one group at a time. (The new "pause" function might render this statement invalid.)

 

It is obvious that you can increase the performance of your force by micromanagement. What is interesting is that there are some situations where you can increase the level of realism by micromanagement. For example, airplane maneuvering in Harpoon tends to be one-dimensional, where you move in a straight line from one point to another. There is a certain amount of two-dimensionality in the horizontal direction, where the flight path might direct an airplane around a major obstacle, such as a SAM site. There is a certain amount of two-dimensionality in the vertical direction, where you can change levels. But as I mentioned in my previous post, there are some useful and interesting things you can do if you investigate the three-dimensional space around an individual unit. Of course, if you consider the entire theater of operations, it is certainly three-dimensional on that scale.

For example, in the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario, the ARMs outrange the SAMs, so all the SAMs (at least, their radars) can be wiped out without ever risking an airplane. This is a significant deviation between Harpoon and real life.

 

Quite the opposite. The Standard ARM which appears in the Thanh Hoa scenario was developed precisely because the Shrike suffered from a short range. So, in fact, rather than deviating from it, Harpoon seeks to model real life.

 

In the USNI 1 (RED) scenario, the Soviet planes are so crappy that there can be situations where the SAMs outrange the ARMs.

 

Again, just a fact of life.

For example, in the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario, the ARMs outrange the SAMs, so all the SAMs (at least, their radars) can be wiped out without ever risking an airplane. This is a significant deviation between Harpoon and real life.

 

Quite the opposite. The Standard ARM which appears in the Thanh Hoa scenario was developed precisely because the Shrike suffered from a short range. So, in fact, rather than deviating from it, Harpoon seeks to model real life.

I stand corrected. I was mixing up 2 different time periods in my head.

 

In that scenario, if you allocate your precious and rare Standard missiles parsimoniously (which I did), you can "safely" knock out the SAMs or their radars. Then, by matching up your second-rate weapons against their second-rate weapons, and so forth, you can pretty much retain the range advantage, and thus safety, all the way down the line, and there is only one exception to this process in the scenario.

In that scenario, if you allocate your precious and rare Standard missiles parsimoniously (which I did), you can "safely" knock out the SAMs or their radars. Then, by matching up your second-rate weapons against their second-rate weapons, and so forth, you can pretty much retain the range advantage, and thus safety, all the way down the line, and there is only one exception to this process in the scenario.

 

The biggest failing of the Harpoon Classic line, imho, is that it does not model logistics. And therefore the player has an unlimited number of weapons at his disposal, and if he does not exercise restraint, he can almost always win by a simple war of attrition. (Assuming that the scenario author did not introduce controlling factors like: asking the player not to do that, giving a time limit, giving the AI an advantage, etc).