[FIXED B543] Sea of Fire--observations, questions, frustrations

[ExMachina]

This is a tough scenario. I'm at a total loss as to how to win.

I've tried both skimming my bombers along the ocean straight at the Brit ships and I tried masking my planes with the island. Skimming directly doesn't work because I cannot go below 50m and the Sea Darts can engage targets that are 33m or higher. The land masking didn't do much either because once I finally cleared the land, having the land right behind me didn't seem to impair Brit targeting radars (I used in editor mode and from the Brit side and the planes showed up strong and clear against the land mass).

Then there's also the missiles. The Coventry's Sea Darts seem to have a very high ROF and I counted 8 Sea Darts being fired in under one minute from the Coventry's single, dual rail launcher [X(]).

So basically, the Brit ships have the radar resolution and the firepower to take out all of my bombers even if I can sneak them all into a 4nm radius.

Any thoughts? Is the radar model too forgiving when it comes to background clutter? Is the ROF of the Sea Darts too high?--(I've read that 6 Sea Darts in 2 minutes was a realistic maximum)

[bvoid]

I sent in the exocets at the same time as the bombers and got 2 hits The bombers got 1 hit which was a dud, and then died horribly.

[ExMachina]

Ok. This is a bug.

Just saw the HMS Coventry fire 4 Sea Darts in 4 seconds. That's not possible even under the most optimistic appraisal of the Sea Dart launcher's ability.

[ExMachina]

Seems like tactics-wise (in light of the high ROF of the Brits' defenses) the best solution is to come in high to minimize Sea Dart exposure, then dive in when under 5nm to ~6000m (no lower or the Sea Wolfs will get you) to release bombs. Still not getting many bomb hits but at least all my planes aren't dying anymore.

[Dimitris]

Bomb accuracy sharply decreases as altitude increases. If you really want to hurt the Brit ships you have to get down there and take your chances with Sea Wolf and gunfire.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Bomb accuracy sharply decreases as altitude increases. If you really want to hurt the Brit ships you have to get down there and take your chances with Sea Wolf and gunfire.

A sinking ship is worth a lot more than lost planes.

[ComDev]

Have been testing it repeatedly, the Exocets are usually shot down by Sea Wolfs or decoyed but helps empty the ready-fire rounds on the Type 22 which opens the way for the A-4s.

Thing is you need to manually control your Skyhawks here. At least for now, until the new strike mission functionality is in place.

Remove RTB when Winchester flag from the group so that they don't get any ideas, MARK the Ignore Plotted Path When Attacking (yes, gonna use this later on) then plot a course low towards the ships. No missions! When within Sea Dart range increase speed to full Military power and go as low as possible. When 5nm out, and your Skyhawks have (hopefully) dodged a couple of Sea Dart waves, select the groups and order an automatic attack (F1 hotkey). The planes will adjust altitude and drop their bombs on the selected target. Then get outa there, low and fast!

Doing it this way I usually end up with 2 aircraft losses and one Brit ship heavily damaged or sunk.

BTW have registered a RoF note in the bug database and will look into. Would be great if you also have a save!

Thanks [8D]

[goodwoodrw]

I have won this scenario after 4 or 5 tries. Try flying your S/hawks up through the sound just above sea level and hugging the coast line. Well killing one ship is a win. I managed to land 2 bombs on the single ship, but no exocet hits as yet.

[ExMachina]

Thanks for the tactical tips. They're what I've been doing, but obviously there are some finer points.

If the screen cap comes through, you'll see that my attack appears to be set up perfectly--the Exocets are inbound, the Brit AI is obsessed with shooting Sea Dart after Sea Dart at the Super Etndards (my bombers never caught a singel Sea Dart) and I've turned on the Ignore Course when attacking. My Skyhawks are at max speed and @ 50m.

Well, the rest didn't play out so well [:)]...the Exocets got shot down (no surprise) and the UK Sea Wolf missiles decimated my Skyhawks and only 2 were left for the final attack. Then the Skyhawks didn't attack [&:]--they never adjusted their altitude, stayed @ 50m and kept circling the UK ships (b/c they were still auto "attacking"). So that was pretty much the end...so maybe another bug?

[ExMachina]

And FYI, here's the save file for the Skyhawk's failed altitude adjustment on the auto attack...

[Dimitris]

If you have used manual override for the altitude (to force the Skyhawks to remain at 50m during the ingress), then you have to remove this override just prior to the actual attack run, to allow them to rise/dive into the proper bomb-release altitude. You can do this in two ways:
1) Uncheck the "Manual" checkbox next to the altitude readout int he unit status window.
2) Bring up the Speed/Altitude window (F2) and uncheck the "Manual Override" checkbox next to the altitude slider.

[ExMachina]

If you have used manual override for the altitude (to force the Skyhawks to remain at 50m during the ingress), then you have to remove this override just prior to the actual attack run, to allow them to rise/dive into the proper bomb-release altitude. You can do this in two ways:
1) Uncheck the "Manual" checkbox next to the altitude readout int he unit status window.
2) Bring up the Speed/Altitude window (F2) and uncheck the "Manual Override" checkbox next to the altitude slider

Ok, so proper game behavior? If so, I'd say that that is not obvious or intuitive--an "auto attack" that fails to put the launch platform into correct parameters is essentially a failed mission from the outset. But I'll rerun just for fun and remember to uncheck that box [:D]

[ExMachina]

Is the random number generator flawed or did both of my Skyhawks just experience a really crappy 17 seconds? [X(]

5/25/1982 6:23:45 PM: Gun (40mm/70 Mk9 Single Bofors Burst [4 rnds]) is attacking A-4P Skyhawk [A-4B Caza] with a base-Ph of 4%. Base-Ph adjusted for distance: 10.2%. A-4P Skyhawk [A-4B Caza] is maneuvering with agility: 3 (-30%). Sea-skimmer modifier: -16.67%. Final Ph: 1%. Die Roll: 1 - HIT

5/25/1982 6:23:28 PM: Gun (40mm/70 Mk9 Single Bofors Burst [4 rnds]) is attacking A-4P Skyhawk [A-4B Caza] with a base-Ph of 4%. Base-Ph adjusted for distance: -1.5%. A-4P Skyhawk [A-4B Caza] is maneuvering with agility: 3 (-30%). Sea-skimmer modifier: -16.67%. Final Ph: 1%. Die Roll: 1 - HIT

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: ExMachina
Ok, so proper game behavior? If so, I'd say that that is not obvious or intuitive--an "auto attack" that fails to put the launch platform into correct parameters is essentially a failed mission from the outset. But I'll rerun just for fun and remember to uncheck that box [:D]

One of the core principles of the UI is that manual orders issued by the player should always take precedence over what ideas the AI crews come up with in the course of executing their orders/mission - even if the player is wrong or the AI "knows better". Users expect their commands to be followed predictably regardless of their merit (see Joel's old article on usability for an explanation of this).

There are exceptions of course, that generally prove the rule.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

Is the random number generator flawed or did both of my Skyhawks just experience a really crappy 17 seconds? [X(]

5/25/1982 6:23:45 PM: Gun (40mm/70 Mk9 Single Bofors Burst [4 rnds]) is attacking A-4P Skyhawk [A-4B Caza] with a base-Ph of 4%. Base-Ph adjusted for distance: 10.2%. A-4P Skyhawk [A-4B Caza] is maneuvering with agility: 3 (-30%). Sea-skimmer modifier: -16.67%. Final Ph: 1%. Die Roll: 1 - HIT

5/25/1982 6:23:28 PM: Gun (40mm/70 Mk9 Single Bofors Burst [4 rnds]) is attacking A-4P Skyhawk [A-4B Caza] with a base-Ph of 4%. Base-Ph adjusted for distance: -1.5%. A-4P Skyhawk [A-4B Caza] is maneuvering with agility: 3 (-30%). Sea-skimmer modifier: -16.67%. Final Ph: 1%. Die Roll: 1 - HIT

Wow. The Brit chap manning that Bofors should go out and buy a lottery ticket [:)]

Yes, two lucky hits in a row. Happens.

[ExMachina]

One of the core principles of the UI is that manual orders issued by the player should always take precedence over what ideas the AI crews come up with in the course of executing their orders/mission - even if the player is wrong or the AI "knows better".

I love that philosophy and don't have a problem with it...I just said that it wasn't intuitive that when I ordered an auto attack that that order wouldn't be enough for the AI to put the weapons into proper parameters. A nice alternative button to have (in addition to "Ignore Course" when auto attacking) would be an additional "Ignore Throttle/Altitude" when auto attacking.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

One of the core principles of the UI is that manual orders issued by the player should always take precedence over what ideas the AI crews come up with in the course of executing their orders/mission - even if the player is wrong or the AI "knows better".

I love that philosophy and don't have a problem with it...I just said that it wasn't intuitive that when I ordered an auto attack that that order wouldn't be enough for the AI to put the weapons into proper parameters. A nice alternative button to have (in addition to "Ignore Course" when auto attacking) would be an additional "Ignore Throttle/Altitude" when auto attacking.

This is an excellent suggestion, and in fact we have been frequently tempted to implement it....

... and stopped at the last minute as we envisioned a torrent of "why is my #$%#@% airplane going to a different speed/altitude than the one I _explictly_ ordered it to ?!?!?!?!?" bug submissions.

Nobody ever said UI dev is easy...

[Agathosdaimon]

What is the new strike functionality that is to be put in place?, sounds promising!

[ExMachina]

... and stopped at the last minute as we envisioned a torrent of "why is my #$%#@% airplane going to a different speed/altitude than the one I _explicitly_ ordered it to ?!?!?!?!?" bug submissions.

Nobody ever said UI dev is easy...

Come on! You guys must be used to these by now [;)]

Honestly, if you implement a feature (like the Ignore Plotted Course when attacking) so that the only way for a player to take advantage of it is by using it in the first place (actively ticking a box; never an automatic/default state) then you probably wouldn't get (as) many complaints [:D]

The biggest source of confusion for players so far (it seems to me) is in not examining and understanding the scenario default settings (RoE and EMCON) and how they propagate downward.

[jpkoester1]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: ExMachina
Ok, so proper game behavior? If so, I'd say that that is not obvious or intuitive--an "auto attack" that fails to put the launch platform into correct parameters is essentially a failed mission from the outset. But I'll rerun just for fun and remember to uncheck that box [:D]

One of the core principles of the UI is that manual orders issued by the player should always take precedence over what ideas the AI crews come up with in the course of executing their orders/mission - even if the player is wrong or the AI "knows better". Users expect their commands to be followed predictably regardless of their merit (see Joel's old article on usability for an explanation of this).

There are exceptions of course, that generally prove the rule.

In my opinion the "newer" auto-attack order by the player should override the previous manual override. Or add a popup "cancel manual override" to the auto attack.

Just my 2c,
JP