ECM too strong?

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

Today I played the "End Run" scenario using ODb, in MP with Frans Koenz. Frans launched an air attack against my battlegroup, centered on the Kirov, covering it with three Prowler using ECM. So far so good. Problem is: the Kirov did *nothing* to stop the incoming missiles. She just sat there, taking HARMs and Harpoons, until it was a wreck. I tried to launch AA missiles manually, too, only to be informed that "the target was not illuminated". All the radars aboard the Kirov were "on", and some enemy missiles were already inside the formation!!

What could cause a "lack of illumination"? If a close Prowler with ECM on, then it is really strong, since a ship cannot even illuminate a closing missile 2nm away. But, if this is realistic and not exagerate, then the scenario is unwinnable from the Russian side, since the BCGN cannot provide any sort of cover to her formation, not even a close AA cover (much less to herself).

Or maybe there is a glitch in the illumination procedures. Yesterday I had a problem at "illuminating" targets with a Kong class DDG in "The Fruit": sometimes they were, sometimes they weren't, even if I didn't touched anything.

[Terminus]

I've seen this "Target not Illuminated" thing too, though not in this particular scenario. It cost me a USN FFG...

[danrhayes]

Well the relative performance of systems is as much a funtion of the database as the game engine itself. Perhaps you investigate your suspicions yourself by trying a different db. The testing team is rather snowed under ATM the trying to determine how many of the multitude of bugs being posted elsewhere are real concerns and which are manufactured or of little signifigance. Any constructive assistance from players in following up on thier own finds would I'm sure be greatly appreciated therefore.

Of course it is always possible that the HARMs actually did thier job correctly first time and took out the FC radars thereby removing the abiltiy of the Kirov to illuminate while still having its search radars intact.

Daniel

[hermanhum]

I'm helping Vincenzo and Frans run down this problem. Can you specify the scenario and situation so that I can take a look? There might be something in common.

[hermanhum]

Vincenzo was kind enough to send me some of his Saved Game files. Here is my opinion on what happened:

1) I ran the *.SAV files in the ScenEdit as the Russian side
2) turned on the Radar (they were previously set at Passive)
3) Detected the Harpoon missiles at about 15nm.
4) Went "Weapons Free"
5) Guns began engaging at 8.3nm
6) SA-N-6 Grumbles began firing automatically at 5nm. 14 launched.
7) Some Harpoons shot down.
8) Other AAW defences opened up, but enough Harpoons got through to kill two ships.

Second test:
4) Maintained "Weapons Tight" - Manual control
5) Allocated 8 Grumble at each Harpoon as it came into range. I think that most of them fired. Two Harpoons missed and were shot down by guns / other SAMs.

Conclusion:

A) I think that the SAMs work. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't appear to want to fire too many. This may be a DB setting. Manual control over SAMs allows for nearly 70 of them to be fired.

B) There is a minimum range for Grumble fire with the ODb. They cannot fire inside of 3.3nm. This means that the Harpoons can only be engaged between 3.3nm and about 5nm. That's not a very large window.

The Harpoons approach at 10m AGL. So, I think that the detection range might be correct.

The Prowler ECM was detected and may have affected the Harpoon detection range. I don't know. I think that the problem was just that the BCGN never went active. Did you guys try something different to the results I am seeing?

[danrhayes]

So basically the problem in his previous run was that the HARMs he used killed the FC radars hence the target not illuminated message? Nothing to do with ECM at all.

Daniel

[hermanhum]

I don't know.  I got the file before any HARMs were fired.  No idea if the HARMs killed the radar or not.  During my tests, I was only looking to see if the SAMs would fire at all.

At least we know that they DO engage.  No other inferences can be made until either Frans or Vincenzo provides additional details.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

Dale, I have the VCR tape of the engagement, where you see three Harms closing on the Kirov from 25 nm away to hitting her without the ship reacting (all sensors on and working). If you wish I can try to sent it to you (via ICQ or MSN). The file size is 13MB. Let me know!

[CapnDarwin]

I'll toss my 2 cents in too. Even in the Dawn Patrol scenario the SAM launches tend to happen after the main guns fire at the inbound missiles. Back in the day (H2/H3 days) you would see the SAMs engage at greater ranges and numbers to counter the threat. Also wondering if the Helo launched in you scenario was helping with the detection ranges on things or am I not remembering something right from way back when? I wish I had more time to play and check these things out.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[danrhayes]

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

Today I played the "End Run" scenario using ODb, in MP with Frans Koenz. Frans launched an air attack against my battlegroup, centered on the Kirov, covering it with three Prowler using ECM. So far so good. Problem is: the Kirov did *nothing* to stop the incoming missiles. She just sat there, taking HARMs and Harpoons, until it was a wreck. I tried to launch AA missiles manually, too, only to be informed that "the target was not illuminated". All the radars aboard the Kirov were "on", and some enemy missiles were already inside the formation!!

What could cause a "lack of illumination"? If a close Prowler with ECM on, then it is really strong, since a ship cannot even illuminate a closing missile 2nm away. But, if this is realistic and not exagerate, then the scenario is unwinnable from the Russian side, since the BCGN cannot provide any sort of cover to her formation, not even a close AA cover (much less to herself).

Or maybe there is a glitch in the illumination procedures. Yesterday I had a problem at "illuminating" targets with a Kong class DDG in "The Fruit": sometimes they were, sometimes they weren't, even if I didn't touched anything.

Just popping back to the original post we have:

1) one Kirov BCGN
2) ECM courtesy of EA-6B
3) Inbound HARMs (that is a small, highspeed missile) and
4) Inbound Harpoons

having read your last post

where you see three Harms closing on the Kirov from 25 nm away to hitting her without the ship reacting (all sensors on and working).

It seems that with the presence of the ECM the Kirov was unbale to engage the HARMs (a small, high speed missile ie a difficult target at the best of times) and those HARMs took out the FC radars thereby rendering the ship one big fat target. Personally I don't think it unreasonable that with ECM in the area the HARMs could avoid engagement but as has been suggested try it it out with various dbs.

Daniel

[tblersch]

ORIGINAL: VCDH

The AI is set to allocate two weapons per incoming target. This is standard doctrine for many navies and decided to set it that way.

Not to diverge too much from the original topic...but being able to set your own doctrine for a scenario would be nice. Just because everyone else takes two shots per incoming, doesn't mean I don't want my CG to take three without babysitting it.

I know...IF you ever get around to doing it, it's probable about #3428 on the priority list. It's just an idle suggestion... [:)]

[hermanhum]

To follow up on the original message, there is a new bug report showing this behaviour. I thought that I would simplify matters with a small test scenario so that folks don't get lost with all the clutter going on in a scenario.

The problem does not seem to affect any targets that have been localized. However, the presence of a single jammer negates any possible use of BOL.