2 many planes going for a swim

[unlistedmoniker]

Hi to all. Nice forum! I'm an old Harpoon Classic fan (on a mac)that hasn't played in a few years. I just picked up L.B.H.-Commander's Edition (PC) and then the available update for it. Naturally, being an old salt, I promptly bit off more than I could chew, launched a scenario and discovered the numerous differences in the versions the hard way. I just finished running IOPG EC2000-Gulf of Oman for the 4th time, and found a consistent problem that I could not find reference for, nor solve with research in the manual. Don't know if I'm fouling up or if I've got a bug. There are a lot of aircraft range difficulties to overcome in this one, and I finally figured out how to add tankers before choosing the patrol/attack craft, the alt-r command, sending tankers separately, etc. BUT, I'm still splashing planes left and right! I've lost the scenario each time in what I'd consider the very early stages because I've splashed enough planes to give the enemy victory. This has happened after successful refueling messages, and when planes are on their way back to the battlegroup with adequate fuel (by my calculations), and even a couple times on the way to a strike.....unfortunately, I didn't get the stats on which planes with which tankers, etc. I'm running on XP-sp3 with a 3.2 gig processor and 3.5 gigs of ram. Anybody got suggestions?[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[TonyE]

One suggestion that probably won't solve all of the ills you are having is to grab the update at http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2049
 
It takes care of an issue or three you may be facing, most importantly a situation where planes that cruise faster at low altitude than higher altitudes liked to run out of fuel and crash. 
 
 

[Warhorse64]

You might also want to try running the same scenario(s) in the EC2003 battlesets. The EC2003 battlesets are the same as the EC2000 ones, except that in EC2003 the Blue forces don't get completely hosed on aircraft ranges. (Note: the ranges specified for US aircraft in EC2000 may actually be reasonable, I don't know. It seems rather odd, though, that the Soviet aircraft didn't require similar corrections ... [&:])

[unlistedmoniker]

Thanks Tony! That did reduce the number of planes turning into submarines. Much obliged.

[unlistedmoniker]

Thanks for the reply. First I've been able to get back to the game since posting, but the 2003 scenario did seem a touch more reasonable.

[unlistedmoniker]

[X(]Well,taking on all advice, I've been finding info and control better. I've been running the game at high speed just to test a couple refueling scenarios such as a parrellel flight by tankers so I could control fueling to better maximize range, joining, refueling, then splitting, etc. But having switched over to the EC2003 IOPG Wrath scenario, having upgraded with the .044 patch, I proceeded to launch an attack with all six F117A nighthawks. I refueled them and checked their range, and I found them registering fuel for over a thousand miles while only about 600 NM from target. About 550 miles later, all six Nighthawks simultaneously take the big plunge, "OUT OF FUEL!" They were running a BAI loadout which gives them about 1600 miles. Coincidently, they crashed into the sea just about 1600 miles from Diego Garcia, which makes me wonder if the AI did not get the successful refuel info despite the readout in the unit window and refuel messages?

I had similar problems yesterday with a strike group that ditched about 200 miles short of their limit just after the strike, just as they were about to link up with a stationed refueling group. Does anyone know if the AI assigns a much higher rate of consumption over target perhaps, simulating speed and maneuvering losses?

Also, is there an indicator somewhere that I'm missing that tells how many of "X" planes a stratotanker or other tanker configs can refuel from bingo to full, or something similar? I know the AI gauges things to some extent because it won't allow inclusion in a launch for a plane(s) unless there are adequate numbers of tankers/gals to provide fuel resources for the mission. However, that doesn't help me guaging for a tanker mission launched (i.e. from the carrier)to intercept a strike force for refueling. Does the stratotanker deplete the fuel available for other aircraft as it loiters on station, or are the refuel stores dedicated?

Lastly, how many times per mission can a plane be refueled? Any limits or increased chance of mishap, engine failure, or fueling failure as the number increases?

Thanks for the all the help. Until I can get a handle on these fueling/range problems, I'm wasting my time planning strategies...

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: unlistedmoniker

Does anyone know if the AI assigns a much higher rate of consumption over target perhaps, simulating speed and maneuvering losses?

The rate of consumption is determined solely by the throttle setting. AFAIK, altitude is not a factor, either.

ORIGINAL: unlistedmoniker

Lastly, how many times per mission can a plane be refueled? Any limits or increased chance of mishap, engine failure, or fueling failure as the number increases?

A plane can be refueled an infinite number of times. This isn't done in real life, but it can be done in the game. So long as tankers arrive to transfer fuel to a plane, it can fly forever. No calculation for mishaps due to engine or other mechanical failure is calculated in the game. There is a setting for "Normal Maintenance Failures" when you start a scenario, but they pertain to ships and sub units.

[VictorInThePacific]

Refueling can be a really important issue, depending on the situation, so it should not be surprising that there has been a lot of discussion of the issue.

Here is another current thread which will provide some useful information:

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.ph ... entry13985

You may need to register to get in there.

Some general comments:

Each aircraft has a public (i.e. you can see it) fuel counter, which runs down as time advances. This information is available by clicking on the plane in the group or unit window. So you should at all times know whether the plane is OK or not. As long as it has more than 0% bingo fuel, it is OK. In fact, even at 0% bingo, you still have quite a big fuel reserve.

As the counter approaches 0% bingo from above, you should get a warning message. When the plane is at somewhat more than 0% bingo, the AI will attempt to return it to base. When the plane is "low" on fuel (i.e. well before it's actually at risk), the icon will start blinking. You have not mentioned any warning message. Did you get them?

I proceeded to launch an attack with all six F117A nighthawks. I refueled them and checked their range, and I found them registering fuel for over a thousand miles while only about 600 NM from target. About 550 miles later, all six Nighthawks simultaneously take the big plunge, "OUT OF FUEL!" They were running a BAI loadout which gives them about 1600 miles. Coincidently, they crashed into the sea just about 1600 miles from Diego Garcia, which makes me wonder if the AI did not get the successful refuel info despite the readout in the unit window and refuel messages?

A minor point: "over a thousand miles while only about 600 NM from target" will not be enough, unless your weapons have a 100 nm range and you don't need to take evasive action. But having over a thousand miles and running out of fuel 550 miles later suggests that the planes are flying at military throttle setting, which uses up the fuel about twice as fast as cruising.

Crashing after refueling at a distance from the base equal to the plane's nominal range is most likely just a coincidence, because the refueling process does not restore the plane to its maximum fuel capacity. See the harpgamer thread mentioned above for the details.

Does anyone know if the AI assigns a much higher rate of consumption over target perhaps, simulating speed and maneuvering losses?

In addition to what Herman said, this could conceivably depend on what you are doing near the target. Do you loiter the planes? Do you fly around looking for weak points? Obviously, this would increase fuel use. But I expect that you have already considered this. What should work in your favor, on the other hand, is that (I think) your weapons range is not considered in the plane range considerations, so that if, for example, you are using a missile with an effective range of 60 nm, then your plane actually has 120 nm worth of fuel MORE for traveling purposes.

However, Herman did mention the throttle setting. I presume that your planes are flying on cruise setting? As mentioned above, using military throttle setting uses up the fuel about twice as fast. Afterburner wastes an enormous amount of fuel.

Also, is there an indicator somewhere that I'm missing that tells how many of "X" planes a stratotanker or other tanker configs can refuel from bingo to full, or something similar? I know the AI gauges things to some extent because it won't allow inclusion in a launch for a plane(s) unless there are adequate numbers of tankers/gals to provide fuel resources for the mission. However, that doesn't help me guaging for a tanker mission launched (i.e. from the carrier)to intercept a strike force for refueling. Does the stratotanker deplete the fuel available for other aircraft as it loiters on station, or are the refuel stores dedicated?

These questions are answered in the harpgamer thread mentioned above. Let us know if you can't access that info, and someone will make arrangements.

Lastly, how many times per mission can a plane be refueled? Any limits or increased chance of mishap, engine failure, or fueling failure as the number increases?

Pilot fatigue ... this is you. If there is a non-zero chance per refuel instance that you (the pilot) fail to call in a tanker, then more refuel instances increase the total probability of crashing. [>:] [:D]

Thanks for the all the help. Until I can get a handle on these fueling/range problems, I'm wasting my time planning strategies...

Some final comments.

You may be looking at one or more bugs, which could be in the game engine, database, or scenario. And yet, all of those would appear to be inconsistent with all the other null information. That is to say, most people don't report refueling problems, which means that the system generally works properly. So the explanation is either simpler or more complex than a simple bug.

One additional suggestion I have is that you monitor the fuel status of your planes on an ongoing basis (i.e. the pilots are reading their fuel gauges in real time, instead of relying on some higher-up telling them that they have enough fuel at the beginning of the mission). That way, you will see the problem before it arises, instead of when the planes crash. If the scenario is small enough, this should be possible.

[unlistedmoniker]

Yes, I had noticed that the refuel process did not "top off" the tanks, but I checked the projected "public" range figure and then let the nighthawks go while I attended to a follow- up strike group. At that point they showed adequate fuel to do the 'hit and run,' and still come back out for another refueling for the planned egress. HOWEVER, you may have hit the key with the throttle setting. I had tinkered with it a couple times to adjust the time/distance between the nighthawks and the follow up group to compensate for cruise speed differences and refueling delays, etc. I'll have to run the same strike parameters a couple times watching the throttle settings and fuel level responses. I knew afterburner really sucks up the fuel, but I had not been thinking about the 'military speed' setting being such a fuel eater. That may just be where I fouled up....

Thanks for the help. I'll chase down the suggested thread and then get back to giving my nighthawks their swimming lessons! [8|]

[hermanhum]

If problems persist, you might want to activate either the "Total Airborne Range" circle or the "Airborne Mission Range Radius" circle from the Range Circle menu.  They give you a pretty fair idea of what your planes can do.  It doesn't work so well if you have a whole bunch of planes in the air, though.  [;)]

[VictorInThePacific]

One more comment about fuel ranges.

I tend to ignore the "bingo" info and fly my planes to the very limit of their endurance. And, after completing a strike, I tend to fly the planes back as fast as possible i.e using military throttle instead of cruise. In this situation, it is important to recognize that once your planes have been given RTB orders, you will NOT be given any further "low fuel" warnings. So if you have just enough fuel to RTB on cruise, and you then tell them to go faster, they WILL crash without warning. SIR ! YES, SIR ! I have done this (to) myself.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific

And, after completing a strike, I tend to fly the planes back as fast as possible i.e using military throttle instead of cruise. In this situation, it is important to recognize that once your planes have been given RTB orders, you will NOT be given any further "low fuel" warnings.

One technique I use to take maximum advantage of the fuel available is to do the same as mentioned by ViTP. However, once the plane has started home, I delete the path and the plane just follows on it's last course. When it really does reach BINGO, then I order it to land and it goes to cruise speed. This maximizes the fuel to the very last drop.

There is one slight problem, though. Sometimes, the planes can get all the way home while running at Full Throttle. If planes have 50% or more fuel when you order them to turn back, I find that they can usually do it all the way at Full Military Speed. I only recommend the technique posted by ViTP when the fuel remaining is <50%. Otherwise, you have to be careful that your planes don't fly past the base and then have to come back to land from the other direction. (At least they don't run out of gas.) [;)]

[unlistedmoniker]

Just got back from the suggested thread, and it did answer a number of questions, and like a really good explanation should, it raised a few more. I'll take all that and get on with some more experiments in refueling and see what it brings.

By the way, I do get the warnings and the flashing icons. In the scenario noted, I'm trying to squeak resources to the max for the refueling duties, and pretty much running things on manual rather than letting fueling take place on the AI's time table. As a result, I'm at least 3/4 of total range before I'll even think about refueling unless it's a large group, and I'm worried that everybody won't have time to squeeze into the pumps before they run out of gas. Haven't had any trouble yet with the refueling itself as a result of this game, but I'm sure I'll push it too far eventually and splash a couple while refueling is underway. But heck, they're only pixel's - not pilots, and ya really can't tell your limits until you exceed them, can ya?[:D] [>:]