Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChickenSim

I'd like to see better FARP operations. Right now, there is no way to avoid a 6-hr ready surge timer for aircraft stopping at a non-home airfield for fuel (but not rearming), or for both fuel and ordnance. These should have their own timers and exceptions.

Max number of turnarounds for FARP operations ought to be tied to pilot crew day (say, 10-12 hour "vul" windows) or some similar metric. The U.S. Marine Corps can and does have aircraft refueled and rearmed in <30 minutes. These can vary depending on whether the aircraft are undergoing "hot pit" or "cold pit" operations, the former meaning the engine never turns off, counting as another sortie for the books but not requiring any additional mission planning, rebriefing, or maintenance on the aircraft.

Not having an adequate FARP mechanic limits our ability to use helicopters and VSTOL aircraft to their expeditionary advantages, both extending range and offering the capability to "Yo-Yo" back and forth between the target and a well-staged forward site to truck more bombs and missiles in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
2. More discrete weather systems. Allow the scenario designer to set weather systems with highs and lows and central conditions for both then let the weather conditions extrapolate between the two. For longer scenarios give the weather system a path and speed like a unit. So over a two day scenario you can have a Hurricane sneak between the CONUS and Bermuda with clear skies in both locations! The one size fits all weather is a major limitation for large scenarios. Seems like Harpoon had something like this but I don't remember how well it worked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChickenSim

Apache,

If that's the case then great! I had posed the question in the discord whether this had been possible/fixed and was directed here. I remember trying to do the same thing you tested in another scenario and found myself hitting 4-6 hour turnarounds for landing at airfields that weren't their homeplate, despite quick turnaround being selected. I will give it another test.

Another aspect of the problem could be that I had also separately tried to ground laager aircraft at forward refueling sites to preposition them for strikes, and also tried making those forward sites their new homeplates, and was also hitting mandatory timers as a result.

Chicken

quote:

For longer scenarios give the weather system a path and speed like a unit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: conradcolon
AIR STATIONS
The ability to add air stations relative to the position of the launching platform. A great feature that was found on Janes Fleet Command. Quick and easy way to assign a patrol area from a platform without having to assign Reference Points to a fixed area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rory Noonan

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
2. More discrete weather systems. Allow the scenario designer to set weather systems with highs and lows and central conditions for both then let the weather conditions extrapolate between the two. For longer scenarios give the weather system a path and speed like a unit. So over a two day scenario you can have a Hurricane sneak between the CONUS and Bermuda with clear skies in both locations! The one size fits all weather is a major limitation for large scenarios. Seems like Harpoon had something like this but I don't remember how well it worked.

Harpoon did have a system like that, however weather actually had no in game effect.

quote:

...The relative movement of these pressure cells also generates wind speeds, which affect the sea state for that area.

One of the most important things about weather in H3ANW is its effect on sensor performance. Radar and other electromagnetic sensors (including eyes) are affected appropriately by precipitation and visibility levels. Sea State is another example; it has a terrific effect on sonar performance, both passive and active.

quote:

If this is the case then Matrix is putting out some seriously misleading info on their manuals (effectively telling us the game they are selling is something that it actually is not). Page 114 of the H3 ANW manual states the following:

quote:

... Any manual information was created by the original Harpoon developers and, as you point out, may contain errors and can not be extrapolated to CMO operations.
...

quote:

Manual content is (C) Advanced Gaming Systems Inc with extensive value-add provided by Matrix Games.

quote:

Ok, I was letting this one pass because quite honestly, it's hardly worth the trouble for any of us, but what the heck, might just as well say my piece and then go away. I'm sorry to say, but that's hardly excuse to put out erroneous information on the manuals of games that are published by Matrix. Either the manual is correct, or it's not. If it's not, then Matrix should strive to remove from it the portions that are (effectively) false advertisement. Also, the claim that the manual is solely by the original developers is incorrect as the manual states (page 2, emphasis mine):

quote:

Manual content is (C) Advanced Gaming Systems Inc with extensive value-add provided by Matrix Games.

Which means that Matrix had some level of involvement with the manual. Well, I cannot argue with that other than to say that the "value-add" likely had more to do with game play and the documentation did not get an extensive review.

As an aside, I would ask, what else is wrong with the manual then? I do not know the answer to that but believe that at that time the CMANO/CMO concept was being designed and the Matrix staff was focused on that rather than expending update effort on an eight year old game/simulation from a defunct publisher. What else is in there that is supposed to be functional but actually does bugger all or does not even exist in the code? And is this a common occurrence on Matrix's games? My own observation is that current WarfareSims/Matrix development staff is very concerned about having correct CMO product documentation and has quickly responded to notifications of problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blast33

Would it be a nice one to make a distinction between doctrine and proficiency of Air, ground and naval forces?
In most scenario's it is wise for fighters to use their radar and attack targets of opportunity, but ships want to keep quiet.. If you select it now, all the ships will start to fire their Tomahawks and that is not what you want.

Also the proficency of an, lets say a navy force, can be very different from the countries airforce. To select all Air, than Navy and then Ground units by hand is quite a boring and lengthy work.

Therefore a selection button for doctrine and proficency per force would get my kudos!

quote:

local typeOfUnit = 'Aircraft'
local side = VP_GetSide({side='Spain'})
for k,v in ipairs(side.units) do
local unit = ScenEdit_GetUnit({guid=v.guid})
if unit.type == typeOfUnit then
ScenEdit_SetUnit({guid=unit.guid, proficiency=3}) --0 Novice | 1 Cadet | 2 Regular | 3 Veteran | 4 Ace
print(unit.name)
end
end

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Could we have air launched drones?

quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Could we have air launched drones?

There are already some. I'm playing Beirutdude's Fiery Cross Reef and it features MALD-Js, ITALDs and Perdixes, so it may just be a case of adding more to the database & loadouts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
I know ITALDS but Perdixes don't seem to be an available loadout despite being in aircraft names. Do you have a version where perdix work?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes

quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Could we have air launched drones?

There are already some. I'm playing Beirutdude's Fiery Cross Reef and it features MALD-Js, ITALDs and Perdixes, so it may just be a case of adding more to the database & loadouts.

I know ITALDS but Perdixes don't seem to be an available loadout despite being in aircraft names. Do you have a version where perdix work?

Thank