Page 2 of 8
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:47 pm
by AndrewJ
Well, we're a little over six hours into operations, and I can categorically state that the Intel estimate of 5 Oscars is wrong. There are now only three... [:D]
Checking the rumour mill back on the Mount Whitney, has there been any hint that high command wants us to recapture the Globus station on Svalbard intact? Or am I free to break it?
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Sun May 24, 2020 1:53 am
by KnightHawk75
@Gunner98
In the briefing
Maintain a CG/CGN or DDG as well as LCC 20 in Patrol Zone DELTA (10 points (ea) every 12 hours
The triggers for those are each set for 1day, not 12 hours. IDK if that a briefing typo or trigger setting typo. I changed the 4 triggers to 12hr though for my run assuming it was intended. I might reword that line to 'Maintain any CG/CGN/DDG/LCC in ...', the 'as well as' made me think no points if LCC wasn't present which isn't the case. I moved that -72ft radar to a near-by hill at 653ft 0% slope (76.40.50N, 25.23.487E), figured it was as good as any near-by that was high and actually flat.
Haven't seen Phase line Charlie issue yet, but I did move back PAPA's northern end by a couple nm to make sure there wasn't overlap and I de-grouped the starting carrier group there to make sure nobody gets out of line
without me easily seeing it. My guess is that's the issue, people not looking in unit view or setting to 'show ghosted units' in a group. Then again maybe I just haven't run into the real problem yet (only a few minutes into actually playing). The reason I moved it ever so slightly south'ish by a few nm is when I first looked from a zoomed out level it looked to overlap with charlie even though upon very close zoom it wasn't, doubt 3-4nm makes any difference though.
Man this is intense, and made me bust out the pen and paper for keeping track of things,spent 4 hours just looking around,evaluating options and planning before even hitting play button. Will pass on more if needed as things progress.
ORIGINAL: AndrewJ
...
Checking the rumour mill back on the Mount Whitney, has there been any hint that high command wants us to recapture the Globus station on Svalbard intact? Or am I free to break it?
Just don't harm the seeds in the process! [:)]
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Sun May 24, 2020 5:21 am
by Gunner98
ORIGINAL: AndrewJ ... Checking the rumour mill back on the Mount Whitney, has there been any hint that high command wants us to recapture the Globus station on Svalbard intact? Or am I free to break it?
Just don't harm the seeds in the process!
I think I need to beef up the info on Svalbard a bit. The Globus is fair game but there are some no-strike targets up there as well - like the 'Seed vault'
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Sun May 24, 2020 6:58 am
by KnightHawk75
Tanker and release special actions. All the a=ScenEdit_GetScore("NATO") should probably be local a = , so that 'a' isn't hanging around as a global after they are executed.
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Sun May 24, 2020 12:05 pm
by AndrewJ
Has anyone had trouble getting the carriers to replenish from certain ships?
For example, I'm trying to get the Vinson to replenish from TG Seattle. The Vinson can replenish from all the ships in the TG (AFS 6 USS San Diego, AO 178 USS Monongahela, AS 21 USS Suribachi), except for AOR 2 USS Milwaukee. If I try it to replenish from the Milwaukee (where the Phoenixes are) I get the following error message.
All the other ships in the Vinson TG can refuel and resupply from the Milwaukee. It's only the specific combination of the Vinson and the Milwaukee that doesn't work
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Sun May 24, 2020 2:00 pm
by Excroat3
ORIGINAL: Gunner98
I think I need to beef up the info on Svalbard a bit. The Globus is fair game but there are some no-strike targets up there as well - like the 'Seed vault'
Just FYI, the seed vault began construction in 2006, so pretty far ahead of the Northern Fury timeline. However, starting in 1984, there was a "Nordic Gene Bank" which kept some local seeds and genetic data in an abandoned coal mine in the same area.
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Sun May 24, 2020 3:16 pm
by Gunner98
"Nordic Gene Bank"
OK, I'll fix that thanks.
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Mon May 25, 2020 6:51 am
by KnightHawk75
"3/18/1994 8:33:30 AM - [WP] K-408 is withdrawing (Reason: Primary attack weapon (SS-N-21a Sampson [S-10 Granat, 200kT Nuclear]) now exhausted). "
Assuming this is not intentional, you may want to set an override on the k-408 itself to not withdraw when primary is exhausted, or just remove the weapon record for the 21a's on the 533 single mt mount and also in the mag (both need to be gone to stop it from happening), i did the latter.
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Mon May 25, 2020 7:12 am
by Gunner98
Ok that's an interesting one, great catch!. Tx
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 6:41 am
by VileBeggar
Is there any tutorial/smaller NF scenarios where one could test doing a smaller UNREP mission before tackling this monstrosity? I've never replenished a SAG before, let alone a CVBG..
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 7:12 am
by Gunner98
There are several
Ike moves North for sure, a couple in the IO Fury series. Med Fury 4 I think, and the next one in the hopper Med Fury 6. There are a few others.
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 9:35 am
by VileBeggar
ORIGINAL: Gunner98
There are several
Ike moves North for sure, a couple in the IO Fury series. Med Fury 4 I think, and the next one in the hopper Med Fury 6. There are a few others.
Okay, gonna try some of those first. Thanks for answering

RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 10:32 pm
by AndrewJ
Hmmm. I just had the 'PL Alpha - USNS Oiler crosses' event trigger, although my closest oiler is 60 nm away from the line. So it's not just the PL Charlie event which is having problems.
Edit: Drat, the Delta line for subs is doing it too.
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 2:10 am
by KnightHawk75
ORIGINAL: AndrewJ
Hmmm. I just had the 'PL Alpha - USNS Oiler crosses' event trigger, although my closest oiler is 60 nm away from the line. So it's not just the PL Charlie event which is having problems.
Edit: Drat, the Delta line for subs is doing it too.
wierd. I wonder, do you play in editor or normal game mode, I'm sort of disappointed I haven't had this happen yet (so I can try and find the cause) but I play 95% of time in the editor.
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 2:18 pm
by Gunner98
I experienced this in Editor mode.
I reset all the RPs in the events and made sure there were no spillovers, but I think the next thing to do is to delete the events, and triggers and start over again. Not a biggie but it is very curious.
B
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 5:45 pm
by AndrewJ
I play in editor mode also.
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 11:36 pm
by AndrewJ
Alpha strike on Bodo! Alpha strike on Andoya!
I see by "economy of force" you actually mean "prosecute a series of violent assaults"! [:D]
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 12:19 am
by KnightHawk75
ORIGINAL: AndrewJ
Alpha strike on Bodo! Alpha strike on Andoya!
I see by "economy of force" you actually mean "prosecute a series of violent assaults"! [:D]
I know right... I'm guessing it's to encourage us to blow the rest of our stores before heading to replenishment. Thing is staying on station doing nothing gets me more points than following that task i think, and I'm so negative it doesn't even seem worth it. Anyway I'm rolling with it anyway just to see if a single munition even gets though. [:)]
By the way I'm still on build 1142.2 (once I find a pretty stable version I don't update til I've completed all the runs I started on said build), and play in windowed mode. Are you guys on newer 1143 or 1146.2? Maybe there is a new problem that's gone unreported? Just throwing it out there thinking of differences between us.
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 6:25 am
by Gunner98
I do believe that those tasks have an 'if feasible' qualifier on them [;)]
I am running Version 1.01.11431
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 2:28 pm
by KnightHawk75
eh.. I finally got one for a sub and PL Delta, yet none crossed or came close. Aircraft crossed but definitely not a sub.
querying .areatriggersfired on all units showed "S 300 HMNoS Ula" as the sub and trigger guid:KKF85M-0HLUQF470RAAS, yet that definitely didn't happen. I happen to have a save 10min before it happened, replayed 3 times touching nothing. 12:52:23 ..like clock work which is great for finding out why...
Lat:70.838712531599 Lon:18.565805313617
Code: Select all
checking unit: S 300 HMNoS Ula AreaTriggers
{ 1 = 'KKF85M-0HLUQF470RAAS' }
---
Cross checking trigger for Phase Line DELTA':
{ [1] = { UnitEntersArea = { Area = { RPoint3 = { Name = 'Phase Line DELTA-4', Lat = '79.535888671875', ID =
'kkf85m-0hlujdoah1fh1', Lon = '-19.546318054199219' }, RPoint2 = { Name = 'Phase Line DELTA-3', Lat =
'79.4698715209961', ID = 'kkf85m-0hlujdoah1fh4', Lon = '-19.687124252319336' }, RPoint1 = { Name = 'Phase Line
DELTA-2', Lat = '70.2254638671875', ID = 'kkf85m-0hlujdoah1fh3', Lon = '21.283405303955078' }, RPoint = { Name =
'Phase Line DELTA-1', Lat = '70.2540054321289', ID = 'kkf85m-0hlujdoah1fh2', Lon = '21.416824340820312' } }, LTOA =
'629311104000000000', ID = '[b]KKF85M-0HLUQF470RAAS[/b]', TargetFilter = { TargetSubType = '0', TargetType = '3',
TargetSide = 'kkf85m-0hlu85agia384', ID = 'KKF85M-0HLUQF470RAAT' }, Description = 'Phase Line D', ETOA =
'628995744000000000' } } }
Everything looks fine right?
So I run it past my own inPolygon lua stuff, sure enough it too says the unit is inside by a hair.
Opened up g-earth... plotted the polygon and my sub.
Noticed there is an option to sort of make it absolute to a height or clamped to ground\sea floor.
When up high like 50-80-120k meters it matches the display in the game.
When clamped with the curves of the earth on ground or seafloor, well yup I'm a hair inside the polygon. So the the game engine is correct it seems to do the math based on the ground\globe, the way it shades\displays may be off though using a certain height as it guide for drawing? idk, probably a question for one of the devs.
See attached pics, my game, then the 2 different plotted types in g-earth.
Not sure what work around there is, maybe split the lines into 3 each, maybe smaller sections of only a few hundred miles help offset the difference? Maybe more points in the poly? idk... I'll screw around with it some more now that I have a idea what the problem is.
Good news is nothing is really wrong with the scenario.