Building Irans aim points!

[KCB]

Roger that makes sense to me, can scenarios made in 3.9.4 be used in later versions like 3.10? if not, perhaps I should wait until a more rounded version of 3.10. I certainly have plenty to do in the meantime before actually building and adding the info to the editor, including learning how to use the DB editor. There is a growing number of new weapons needed, Shahab-3, Ashoura and Sajjil for example and the Arrow II and Jericho III, Pop eye Turbo SLCM etc.. enough to keep us busy in the mean time.

The new mission editing abilities in 3.10 appear to be a well needed leap forward for complicated large scenarios. One of the reasons I have been encouraged to push on with this scenario project.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: KCB

can scenarios made in 3.9.4 be used in later versions like 3.10?

[snip]

The new mission editing abilities in 3.10 appear to be a well needed leap forward for complicated large scenarios. One of the reasons I have been encouraged to push on with this scenario project.

Most definitely. You can always open scenarios made with earlier versions of Harpoon with the latest version released. However, you are correct that you will not have any of the new mission editing capabilities supposedly added with the 3.10 beta/experimental release.

Just because AGSI posts that the new functions have been added does not mean that they actually work in the slightest. For example, AGSI claimed that the logistics system and Underway Replenishment [UnRep] worked when released in the 3.8.0 patch in 2007. Unfortunately, that simply was not true. It only barely works at this time (and does not work at all in MP).

[KCB]

Creeping along slowly, im looking at implementing 5 independent networks for Iran (not including communication networks). These are 1) IRGC Military network, for Iran’s Ballistic missile deterrent, SSM, including anti shipping missiles. Subunits will be bases with firing units sided with those bases. 2) Air Defense net work , from a National command to sud-sectors command to regional command. Sensors, Airfields, SAM Unit HQ and firing units will be sided with regional commands clustered around that regional command facility and local priority assets. 3)Navy, national command to district command to Base, fleet and ship sided with bases. 4) IRGCN command to bases and units. 5) Intelligence network. This will link a lot of the other independent networks with Ministry of Defense, also brining other INTEL gathering sources into the picture.

Each military branch/network will have its own dedicated communications network up and down its chain as well as the national grid. The national grid, representing the Microwave radio network in Iran links everything to some degree. The dedicated network will end or start at Ministry of Defense and National Intelligence HQ. giving you a military network and a general national comms network.

National HQs, District and regional commands are their own sides made friendly to communication hubs. Firing units sensors and airfields are sided with their regional commands in the usual fashion using data links.

For example; Banda e Abbas has both Naval Command and a District Naval command situated in the same area or town. They are both their own sides. Also the two communications hubs, their own sides, orientated friendly to the commands so they can talk. Sensors and bases in the vicinity are sided with the regional command.

These are working networks that can be used practically in the game play made up of fighting units and sensors. Other classes of targets can be grouped into infrastructure, government and commercial in towns cities and friendly to local comms hub, but serve no real practical use other than perhaps for victory conditions etc. there are 67 sides so far making up Iran and its networks representing real world aim points.

[FreekS]

Sounds impressive!

For my Katyusha Hunt scenario, which modeled an Israeli deep strike on a number if Irans nuclear and missile facilities I had all of Irans radars, SAMs and airbases on the same side. However the Israeli planes had to cross Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian, Iraqi american and/or Syrian airspace, and all of these had their own AI controlled air defense networks and air forces, sometimes linked through C3I nodes.

Depending on what side the player selects (Israel or Iran) the opposition/postures of these states is tailored to make life hardest on the player, not the AI.

In your case, with Iran divided up into various 'commands' presumably you could also think about how to have the player play one or more of these commands, and the AI-controlled other commands maybe NOT help the player.
A bit unclear I'm afraid but I don;t know how to explain better.

Freek

[hermanhum]

Just remember, Professor Schepers, KCB is new to the game.  You sound like you are trying to teach him quantum physics while he is still studying basic courses in algebra.  [:)]

[KCB]

Its true I am indeed a newbee, and find im learning the game all over again, having been away some time and barely grasping the basics first time round. I have long lists of questions and problems I have to cycle through to understand the mechanics and game play. I really got on board with ANW more interested in the sim side than the gaming. At the moment the scenario im working on is not perhaps with playing various sides in mind. However, im sure that can be corrected in time. Im really interested in what we can make the AI do? And how to work around those limitations that will inevitably create road blocks.

Right now im learning the game again, from the very basics, learning the new 3.10 beta features focusing on air strike and SSM capabilities. And lots of research on the net, when I can get on the net.
thanks for every ones help!

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Howdy KCB,

I think you have found some good resources already. This forum has proven to be helpful from time to time as has the AGSI wiki. Of course, you have the majority of the content of the wiki in the provided manuals but by its nature the wiki will always be more up to date.

computerharpoon.com/wiki/main

As to the AI and its limitations I would describe the AI as a collection of missions and postures. To deal with the limitations we have implemented the mission profile feature to move towards programmable missions. It is an advanced feature for advanced users but we are trying to get the documentation in place so many can use it. If you find any gaps or unanswered questions, please ask them here. I'll answer as best as I can.

Thanks,

[KCB]

Why aircraft ready times are 360 min in the Players DB, is that a realistic timing? If not, what is a realistic ready time for returning aircraft in an air campaign?

I see I have to alter the Players DB to make changes here, problem been when I try to open Players DB with RE DB editor I get a message telling me it cannot use ANW pro content with the commercial game, whats that all about? Is the problem with the new editor or 3.10 or DB?

[KCB]

thanks rsharp
first, Is it possible to automate complex strike missions with out the micro management? i.e can you set up a strike package to hit one target set, then meet a tanker to refuel, then go on to hit a second target, finally RTB? I see you can now link missions, but is it possible to refuel without having to intrude on events and command each aircraft to refuel?

On the subject, possible bug, I found 3 of 4x refueling F-15s would RTB once refueled from a KC-135 but leave one stuck with the tanker. The remaining aircraft could not be moved or the tanker until the remaining F-15 ran out of fuel and crashed. Will run this again and see if it’s a recurring issue.

thanks

edit- this was 3.10.29

[KCB]

will have to find this Scenario thanks mate

[hermanhum]

Most ready times for strike aircraft loadouts are 6 hrs.  This is an attempt to approximate 3 missions / day (6 hours to re-arm, , re-fuel, maintenance, rest, plan, 1 hour to fly out and 1 to fly back).  It isn't perfect by any means, but many databases use Customized Ready Times [CRTs] to slow the pace of scenarios and try to simulate real life.  Otherwise, you get entire wars fought and won in the period of a few hours as planes fly back-to-back-to-back missions.

If you want to make your own version of the PlayersDB and have only 30 minute generic ready times, that is certainly possible.  I did it as a special request for another user.  However, it is not a normal thing and it creates many problems for you as the end user.  see: fb.asp?m=2275020

The reason why you receive the "commercial game" error message when trying to load the PlayersDB is because I still use the old H3 version to maintain the PlayersDB.  The H3 version is much more stable than the current 3.10 version, IMO.  If you want to import the PlayersDB into the Beta 3.10 Access Editor, it is relatively simple:

1) Start up the H3Editor.exe (It doesn't matter if it is the 3.94 version or v3.10)
2) Under the Database pull-down menu, select the Save Annexes command to re-save all 17 *.DAT files in the new 3.94 or 3.10 database format
3) Issue "Generate Signature" command under the same menu
4) The 17 *.DAT files can now be re-imported into the Access 3.10 Beta editor

Warning: the current release version of the PlayersDB is 3.94  If you use the 3.10 editor, you will probably be unable to open that database with the currently released version (3.94) of the game.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

KCB:

I see I have to alter the Players DB to make changes here, problem been when I try to open Players DB with RE DB editor I get a message telling me it cannot use ANW pro content with the commercial game, whats that all about? Is the problem with the new editor or 3.10 or DB?

This is most likely an issue with the editor. I'll look into it.

KCB:

first, Is it possible to automate complex strike missions with out the micro management?

Yes, but it will require precise timing to have aircraft from different facilities meet their Time on Target in a coordinated fashion. Players use the delayed timing for missions to accomplish that.

KCB:

i.e can you set up a strike package to hit one target set, then meet a tanker to refuel, then go on to hit a second target, finally RTB? I see you can now link missions, but is it possible to refuel without having to intrude on events and command each aircraft to refuel?

No to refueling. There is no way to automate the refueling process. I believe this is a gap in the simulation and the best solution would be to create a new mission type for refueling. Then it could be chained together with the other missions as you mentioned. However, this would be a new feature and we're not ready to implement new features in this stage of the release cycle.

Otherwise, given enough fuel and weapons, multiple strike missions can be chained together.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

KCB:

first, Is it possible to automate complex strike missions with out the micro management?

Yes, but it will require precise timing to have aircraft from different facilities meet their Time on Target in a coordinated fashion. Players use the delayed timing for missions to accomplish that.

This is possible only in some circumstances. When both the target and the base launching the strike are fixed locations, then is this possible.

If the strike is coming in from a mobile location such as an aircraft carrier, this may be a bloody shambles. This is because strike speed is currently decided by fuel availability. Strike aircraft approach the target at the maximum speed possible given the fuel availability. If the target is close before the strike launches, the planes may fly in at Full or Afterburner. If the target is more distant, they would make their ingress at Cruise throttle.

Some scenarios are designed such that reconnaissance is conducted prior to the strike aircraft launching. Therefore, depending upon when the targets are detected and identified, the strike aircraft may be launching from various points on the map and distances from the target.

[KCB]

Roger that, regarding ingress speeds and altitudes etc, is this not now flexible with the new mission parameters that can be loaded with each mission? Roger on the aircraft turnaround timings im good with the 6hrs.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: KCB

Roger that, regarding ingress speeds and altitudes etc, is this not now flexible with the new mission parameters that can be loaded with each mission?

Sorry, I have no idea on that matter. I do not mess around with experimental/Beta releases. Personally, they are too volatile for me to waste any time on. I will take a look at it when it is officially released. However, I suspect a huge number of bugs to be created by it.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Yes, you can modify the cruise speed of a transit mission for different craft type. So you could have planes attempt one throttle setting while surface or subsurface craft attempt another. I say attempt because the throttle settings are still subject to limitations of propulsion and fuel available. You can do the same with intercept throttles but with the addition of target type as a parameter. So you would have a throttle setting for aircraft intercepting aircraft and a separate throttle setting for aircrafting to intercept surface craft.

So for your ingress, create a transit mission with a custom mission profile to have your cruise throttle and altitude set. Chain that to the strike or patrol mission to follow.

Another note, the database sets ready time on a per loadout basis.

Thanks,

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: KCB

Roger that, regarding ingress speeds and altitudes etc, is this not now flexible with the new mission parameters that can be loaded with each mission?

Oh, yeah. Be wary of any claims made by AGSI. Here's a sample of the things claimed to be added to 3.10 that failed outright upon when used by real players:

3.10 Feature: Auto-Defense Optional and Rules of Engagement

3.10 Feature: Database Altitude Limits and Targeting

3.10 Feature: H3RE Available to public
3.10 Feature: Database Encryption

The bottom line is, if you can not see it with your own eyes, do not rely upon an AGSI claim.

That's why every bug on AGSI's List of Known ANW Issues is accompanied by a confirmation or verification file.

[KCB]

So is there a eta for the public release of this version out there on the screens yet?

The different turnaround times for different load outs is applicable to all databases or any specific DBs?

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: KCB

The different turnaround times for different load outs is applicable to all databases or any specific DBs?

Every loadout is a unique entry. For example, there are over 3600 Loadout entries in the PlayersDB. The ready time for each entry can be specifically set.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: KCB

So is there a eta for the public release of this version out there on the screens yet?

I see that AGSI has come and gone without leaving a reply. I guess censorship (and not answering questions) is their forte.

I do not know when the public release will be, but before 3.9.4 was officially released, there were (at least) 10 Beta releases and then 13 "Release Candidates" (as if there were some difference since both Beta and RCs were equally bug-ridden).

Currently, 3.10 is on Beta 31.