ANW Fighter DATA question?

[TonyE]

Oh, and bring back the battleships, can't have the F-14 discussion without battleships.

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: TonyE
Oh, and bring back the battleships, can't have the F-14 discussion without battleships.

Tony,

Already taken care of mate. Harold Hutchison (of Strike Group Reagan fame) provided a very updated version of the Iowa Class.

She keeps the three triple 16" mounts, loses the twin 5" for Mk45 single 5" and gains Mk41 VLS, ESSM & RAM. Hypothetical of course although I think I've covered your request with Harold's assistance.

I was just thinking of a possible scenario/discussion idea, based on the BB 61 Iowa [VLS 21+] from the HUD3 running the strait of Hormuz and performing NGFS in the form of clearing the defences on the Northern shore of the Strait. Assume it's pre-emptive, so the Iranians haven't been able to mine the Strait and rather than Seahawks she's carrying Firescouts to provide aerial spotting for the 16" guns. Standing 15 - 20nm off shore, anything within 5nm/9.26km of the waterline's in trouble... Add the banks of T'hawks and a reasonable AAW self-defence capability in the form of 256 x ESSM & 84 RAM and say a couple of the latest Burke DDGs as escorts and you have to wonder if they could run the gauntlet? [:)]

[mikmykWS]

Harold's book was pretty good. Lots of great fights and thought the Tunisian background story was great. Goes to show there are lot of talented people involved in Harpoon that have gone on to do some great things outside of it.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: CV32

ORIGINAL: Bucks
The AIM-120D is starting to give the AMRAAM the range capability of the AIM-54.

Careful, Darren. (While I agree with you) You just might turn this into a "Long Live the F-14" thread. Some of those folks lurk around here. [:D]

Ha! Very clever. They do but in a position to not have to talk trash on a web forum. Its a good spot to be in[:)]

[Little Beavers]

Whether it's about the F-14 or the Arsenal Ship, the nice thing about it is that people usually move on.  I haven't seen a BB or F-14 thread in ages and the world is better off without them.

[Bucks]

I'm not sure the thread was in danger of degenerating into a Usenet flame war anytime soon, Hmmmm....

Surely looking at the "what if?" is part of the versatility of ANW and the database structure. Economic necessities mean Classic platforms are retired when some people can see a way of keeping them in service, "just in case".

I remember my first chance to look through a copy of Jane's in the early 1980's. I remember seeing the USN's Reserve Fleet listings from the 1976 Jane's Annual. It read like a history of WW2 as if, "just in case we need them - Cold War" the US was hanging on to large numbers of ships produced between 1940 & 1945. They were all scrapped eventually, although the USN must have spent an incredible amount of money keeping then in various states of readiness for in some cases 30 years or more.

I don't think anyone's here to stir things up and I'll apologise if this is stirring something up. I'd rather we attempt to build an atmosphere here that's conductive to everyone's enjoyment, interest in naval warfare and support with understanding the game. That IMHO extends from the "Newbie" who's just bought the game to the long term players who can help explain what might take a new player weeks or months to discover on his own. Let's not go down a path to anything but what we can do with ANW. If you don't like the fact a hypothetical Iowa class Battleship is in my DB, don't use that platform. Like Harold's Novel, it's a work of fiction, then again so are our scenarios.

Cheers

Darren

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: TonyE
Oh, and bring back the battleships, can't have the F-14 discussion without battleships.

There he is! Give him a Phoenix or two and he'll jump right to the battleships. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Bucks
Surely looking at the "what if?" is part of the versatility of ANW and the database structure. Economic necessities mean Classic platforms are retired when some people can see a way of keeping them in service, "just in case" ... I don't think anyone's here to stir things up and I'll apologies if this is stirring something up. I'd rather we attempt to build an atmosphere here that's conductive to everyone's enjoyment, interest in naval warfare and support with understanding the game. That IMHO extends from the "Newbie" who's just bought the game to the long term players who can help explain what might take a new player weeks or months to discover on his own. Let's not go down a path to anything but what we can do with ANW. If you don't like the fact a hypothetical Iowa class Battleship is in my DB, don't use that platform. Like Harold's Novel, it's a work of fiction, then again so are our scenarios.

There will be always be room in Harpoon for the hypothetical, even the outlandishly hypothetical scenario. Its part of the better enjoyment of the game. Folks who insist on absolute rabid realism for its own sake usually disappear down a rabbit hole of their own making, as time goes on. Those who still have an appreciation for enjoyment of the sim in all its forms will remain.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: CV32
There will be always be room in Harpoon for the hypothetical, even the outlandishly hypothetical scenario. Its part of the better enjoyment of the game. Folks who insist on absolute rabid realism for its own sake usually disappear down a rabbit hole of their own making, as time goes on. Those who still have an appreciation for enjoyment of the sim in all its forms will remain.

For Harpoon I absolutely agree. +1 on all aspects[:'(]

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Little Beavers

Whether it's about the F-14 or the Arsenal Ship, the nice thing about it is that people usually move on.  I haven't seen a BB or F-14 thread in ages and the world is better off without them.

So why not have 100 posts about it? Lots going on huh guys?

Like alot of projects of the era Dale..they never really panned out.

[TonyE]

Yep Mike, literally thousands of code changes in the last month, special projects, the very limited Harpoon time is packed.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: TonyE

Yep Mike, literally thousands of code changes in the last month, special projects, the very limited Harpoon time is packed.

Which is probably a smart move on your part considering whats coming. I think you know that though and have faith you'll keep driving Harpoon forward. You're a pretty talented cat and Don is very lucky to have you.

Things are moving forward here to so might be seeing you at a convention or wargaming thing soon. First one's on me!

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: Amono

Thanks Bucks. Very informative posts! I still have so much to learn(more manual reading[8|]) Keep up the great work!

-Anssi

Amono,

Actually I owe you after I've dug a little deeper into the Tomcat's performance. I'd mentioned the ability to jettison drop tanks and yesterday I was suddenly wondering why we'd need to jettison the F-14's drop tanks, when they are "supersonic" rated and don't impose a penalty on the Tomcat's DATA value.

I took a look in the HUD3 and unfortunately we missed including a weapon flag in the Reimer Editor. The flag is called, "Aircraft Load Override" and allows Database Editors to circumvent the DATA penalty drop tanks (or any other weapon) impose on an aircraft's DATA value.

The flag can still be set using the H3ANW Editor (Database), and I'm making a list of final edits I'll need to make using H3CD before I release the next HUD3 update. I've listed the missing flag on AGSI's bug tracker so a fix is pending.

Thanks again for raising this issue, it's cleared two minor problems up - Explanation of the Jettison feature and the missing Weapon Flag. Feel free to fire anything else you find my way, hope your enjoying Harpoon.

Cheers

Darren

[Amono]

My fiancée can tell you how much I'm enjoying Harpoon(both ANW & HCE)[:)]

Untill the DB update the jettison drop tanks is very usefull command as my Tomcats(and other planes) are doing much better evading incoming missiles.

Thanks again

-Anssi

[Bucks]

I have to apologise and add a correction.

The flag is available in both Database Editors. Although it is named differently in the game editor and Reimer Editor.

The naming conventions are as follows:

H3CD (game editor) - Aircraft Load Override.

H3RE (Reimer Editor) - Reverse Load Logic.

Although named differently, the flags serve the same purpose.

Cheers

Darren