A Mine Sweeping question

[aotino]

Ok I get all that. I missed the Magazines, and the Loadouts all make sense. I went back and tried to back into what might have happened in my test scenario but for the life of me, I can't get the darn things on target. I also recreated a test scenario with the Player's dB to go back and recreate what would have been conditions before I made changes to my dB, since the anti-mine profile was the same in both dB's before I edited the Caso dB. I couldn't get them to hit the target there either. In fact, my weapons disappeared someplace along the way. I've included my dB and a scenario called Mine Warefare Test is within it. I also attached a scenario called Mine Test to be played with the Players dB - if you have some time and would like to help figure out why mine sweeping is such a mystery that would be great. No time issues - I've indefinitely suspended my scenarios until I resolve this one way or another. If not, no problem either. I'm getting frustrated with this situation, and may need to step away for awhile if I can't resolve this. Thanks.

[Herman Hum]

The mine work-around solution was originally set up in H3 version and works. A designer would insert a mine that automatically appeared at -100m depth (even if the water depth was only -40m). He would then be able to move the mine, set a different depth, and assign it to a mission. When the scenario started, the mine would respond to these orders and changes.

The mines were given special Propulsion units with no speed to prevent them from coming to the surface as shown in the attached image from the Reimer Editor for CasoDB.

Mine propulsion.gif (38.38 KiB) Viewed 21395 times

The MCM/RPVs were able to dive to a depth of -50m. Mines are shallow water instruments and none were expected to be below this depth.

When ANW was released, it was yet another case of changing/fixing something that was never broken, like the aforementioned Signature.bin file fiasco. Now, when using the ANW scenario editor to insert the mine weapon as you have done in your Test Mine.SCN file, the mine is inserted and shows a ludicrous depth of -1797693134860000000 and you cannot change this depth. When you select the mine and hit F2 Speed / Depth hotkey, you see values that cannot be changed the way they could in the previous H3.

Mine Depth.gif (22.27 KiB) Viewed 21396 times

If you start the scenario in the game, pause it, save it, and then re-open it with the Scenario Editor and turn on the Show All function to examine the mine, you will see that the mine is at a depth of -3140m, the maximum depth of the water at that point. This is far outside the reach of the MCM/RPV devices. This is why you are seemingly unable to hit any of the mines in ANW with CasoDB.

Mine actual depth.gif (22.28 KiB) Viewed 21395 times

There is no easy database work-around solution for this ANW problem. The "Insane Insertion Depth" problem can be fixed by entering a Creep and a Cruise speed for the mine propulsion entry. However, mines are not supposed to move. Also, even if a speed of 1kt is assigned for the mines, the MCM speed is currently set for 1kt thus the mine will outrun any MCM/RPV weapon sent to destroy it.

There is an easier work-around solution available for the user. The designer must exercise extreme care in selecting a location for the mine. Ensure that the water depth is no greater than -50m prior to insertion of a mine. After insertion, double-check by running the game, saving it, and then examining it with the Scenario Editor and the Show All function enabled to verify that all mines are no deeper than -50m depth.

This is another textbook example of AGSI stupidity in fixing/making changes to things that were never broken in the first place and, in the process, breaking things that actually worked (a.k.a. "Pulling a Guerin".)

[aotino]

Well that would explain my problems with getting the mine-sweeping weapons to work. I thought I was going crazy but I feel better about it now, I guess.....
It doesn't solve my big problem about designing scenarios where a depth of -50 or less is not available. I'll have to figure out a different story for the scenario I'm working on now - probably make it a surface vs. sub conflict. However, I'll keep your info in my back pocket and work it in on another scenario somewhere. I'll also finish re-editing my Magazines and Loadouts so it fits the rest of my newly edited dB. I do like the fact that the mine-sweeping operations can work more quickly for the player even though it may not be as realistic. Thanks again for your help and input. Best, Alan

[Herman Hum]

It doesn't solve my big problem about designing scenarios where a depth of -50 or less is not available.

There is another potential work-around solution, but it is a God-foresaken mess to accomplish by using multiple versions of CasoDB and going back and forth with the re-build function. I would not recommend it unless the desire is great.

[aotino]

Yikes, that sounds incredibly painful. I think i'll stick to working around the limitations of the ANW. I'm going to redo the test with -50 or less depth to get familiar with mine sweeping where it will work. Thatll give me a good sense on how to restructure this scenario I'm working on. I'll keep you posted. Thanks, Alan

It doesn't solve my big problem about designing scenarios where a depth of -50 or less is not available.

There is another potential work-around solution, but it is a God-foresaken mess to accomplish by using multiple versions of CasoDB and going back and forth with the re-build function. I would not recommend it unless the desire is great.

[Herman Hum]

It is also possible to modify the CasoDB so that the MCM/RPV can reach the ridiculous depths set by ANW. Giving the EOD frogmen and RPV the ability to dive down -6000m after a mine is silly, but will work. I would not recommend this course of action since it means deliberately changing something that was logical and proven to work just to accommodate a scenario editor bug. AGSI may just as likely implement another worthless change that would easily nullify the work-around solution. As AGSI is capable of an infinite number of such bugs, continuously working around them can be an endless exercise in pointless futility. Only you can decide if playing Whack-A-Bug with AGSI is worth the time and effort.

[aotino]

No, I agree with you. I'll push the reality envelop a little, such as making the anti-mine weapons travel at 10kts rather than 1kt, and reloads in 5 minutes rather than 30+, but having EOD teams and RPV's diving 6000+ is ridiculous. I'll work with the restrictions I have and be content. I'm starting to see why these bugs were driving you crazy all this time. I'm going to post my Caso dB Spreadsheet on HarPLONK here to see if anyone has use for it. Thanks. Alan

It is also possible to modify the CasoDB so that the MCM/RPV can reach the ridiculous depths set by ANW. Giving the EOD frogmen and RPV the ability to dive down -6000m after a mine is silly, but will work. I would not recommend this course of action since it means deliberately changing something that was logical and proven to work just to accommodate a scenario editor bug. AGSI may just as likely implement another worthless change that would easily nullify the work-around solution. As AGSI is capable of an infinite number of such bugs, continuously working around them can be an endless exercise in pointless futility. Only you can decide if playing Whack-A-Bug with AGSI is worth the time and effort.

[Herman Hum]

If you are already set upon making changes, you might wish to consider making a small one to cover all exigencies. Change the Climb rate for all the RPV/ROV/PAP/EOD/MCM weapons from 50m/s to 500m/s. You have a solid procedure and technique for laying mines in shallow water. Making this modification would ensure that if you accidentally lay a mine in slightly deeper water, the MCM device will still be able to attack and destroy it. You know better than to employ mines in deep water, but this covers the possibility that others do not.

[aotino]

You know, that's probably a good idea. I'd rather be safe than sorry, and if it were done, it would be one thing less to think about. I'm already amending the scenario that brought this all about, and it would be infinitely easier if I have that safety net. Good call. Thanks. Alan

If you are already set upon making changes, you might wish to consider making a small one to cover all exigencies. Change the Climb rate for all the RPV/ROV/PAP/EOD/MCM weapons from 50m/s to 500m/s. You have a solid procedure and technique for laying mines in shallow water. Making this modification would ensure that if you accidentally lay a mine in slightly deeper water, the MCM device will still be able to attack and destroy it. You know better than to employ mines in deep water, but this covers the possibility that others do not.

[aotino]

Hey Herman,
Maybe you can shed some light on this. I've built a test play scenario for mine sweeping. I've added a Harper's Ferry, which in the Caso dB has "Munitions - General" as part of it's loadout. I am testing the aerial mine-sweeping capability of the game, so I've added some MH-53E Sea Dragons with MCM Mine Clearance [Mechanical] loadouts. In the ship's magazine I have added 400 as the number for the MCM Mine Clearance [Mechanical]. Both the Sea Dragon and the Ship's Magazine have the [RPV Sea-Fox] and the weapon listed under the MCM Mine Clearance loadout. In test, after the Sea Dragons have flown their missions, and expended their weapons they land, but will not accept weapons from the Munitions - General store. Secondly, the Sea -Foxes did not score one hit, regardless of what angle they deployed to attack the target. Targets were in 30m of water (I'm sure that's a seperate issue). All weapons were adjusted to 500m climb rate as per your suggestion from our last conversation. Any thoughts?

[Herman Hum]

I've added some MH-53E Sea Dragons with MCM Mine Clearance [Mechanical] loadouts. In the ship's magazine I have added 400 as the number for the MCM Mine Clearance [Mechanical]. Both the Sea Dragon and the Ship's Magazine have the [RPV Sea-Fox] and the weapon listed under the MCM Mine Clearance loadout. In test, after the Sea Dragons have flown their missions, and expended their weapons they land, but will not accept weapons from the Munitions - General store.

There are a couple of things going wrongly here. Firstly, I think that there is an error in the loadout. The name of the loadout is "MCM Mine Clearance [Mechanical]" yet the Sea Fox RPV is the weapon loaded. This is probably an error and you should switch the WeaponRec for the loadout to use the "Mechanical" device instead of the Sea Fox device. The name of the loadout is just a name and does not affect anything. The WeaponRec is the determinant of which weapons are actually carried.

The Sea Dragons are firing off their Sea Foxes. When they land and try to re-load, they are looking for more Sea Foxes and none are in the magazine.

Secondly, the Sea -Foxes did not score one hit, regardless of what angle they deployed to attack the target. Targets were in 30m of water (I'm sure that's a seperate issue). All weapons were adjusted to 500m climb rate as per your suggestion from our last conversation. Any thoughts?

It is not clear what is causing the devices to miss the mines. I did recently discover that a re-build of the scenario may be required in order for the MCM devices to adopt the new dive rate modification. In the past, a designer could sometimes simply make the dB changes, load the scenario, re-save it, and then re-open it for testing in either the SE or GE. If this does not work, you may have to perform the Scenario Re-build function. Review Lessons 56 and 58 [ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL ... ature=plcp ] before implementation so that your current magazine loadouts are not deleted inadvertently.

If the problem persists, post the revised database and the test scenario as an attachment.

[aotino]

Hi Herman,
Thanks for the explanation. Your reasoning for this problem seems very clear to me and I will make the changes to the dB. In fact, I already scrolled thru the dB Editor to view what you described, and it makes perfect sense. It is so wierd that the [Mechanical] Loadout had [Sea-Foxes] as the Weapon of Record. Oh well, just another one of those things.
After reloading and saving the scenarios, I will retest the Test Scenario to see if everything works. I reviewed the entire Tutorial a couple of weeks back, and the part that was most confusing was the "Re-Build." I will go back and review that one more time, and maybe it will be clearer this time. Hopefully I won't have to use it; but if it is necessary, I must say I'm a bit nervous about it. If I feel I need to resort to it but can't make certain heads or tails out of it, I may attach the amended dB and scenario as you offered. I'll keep you posted. Thanks again. Best, Alan

[aotino]

Well, I'm happy to report that the whole experiment was a smashing success. The conversion of the MCM Mine Clearance [Mechanical] Loadouts from possessing Sea-Foxes to Mechanicals was the right thing. Not only did the MH-53 Sea Dragon USN's reload successfully, but the [Mechanicals] destroyed mines launched both from the MCM Ships and the MH-53 Sea Dragons USN's. There must be something wrong with the Sea-Foxes. It's above my pay grade as to what that is, but everything that is associated with them seemed to have a problem. You could probably figure it out, but I'm staying away from them. I feel that I'm ready to go on with my dB, my Indochine Campaign and my scenarios dealing with mine warefare which was really vexing me all these long days. Thanks for your help, Herman. (BTW, am thoroughly enjoying the Scenario Editor Tutorials - you put in a lot of work; and for a fellow like me, it doesn't hurt to review how the game is played! Getting to the part now where you go over "ReBuilds"! Yikes! A real challange to me. We'll see!)
Cheers, Alan

[aotino]

Hey Herman,
Well I successfully worked my way thru the scenario I built which brought up so many of the issues regarding mine sweeping missions. It is, in the short view a very good exercise in the use of all mine warfare techniques and brings out all the good and bad sides of how well ANW simulates it. In the long view it is a tedious exercise as I suppose is the case with mine sweeping. What I found was that the weapons on the MCM ships were not always faithfully rearmed, but at some point they all had their chance and did so, although without rhyme or reason. Likewise, they would not always release a weapon, even though it would allow to be assigned to the target. Sometimes there would be a delay and then the weapon would release, and sometimes it would never release.
As to the Sea Dragons, they were very accurate in rearming back at the mother ship, but did not always expend their loadout consistantly. If you saved the game, closed and reopened, they usually would not release any more weapons. If they released a weapon, they would not usually release another one until the first one either hit, or ran its course.
Whatever the case, I found there was much cajoling and massaging to get things to happen and to get the desired results. In that, I guess it was a pretty good simulation of the frustratingly real life problems of trying to cut a safe path thru a mine field.
I would like to release the scenario after I make some tweeks to it, but it will require a re-release of the dB and all the previous scenarios (which have been resynched with the re-done dB).
Let me know what you would like me to do - send it here first, or something else.

Thanks Herman,
Alan

[Herman Hum]

Just post your revised DB to your CasoDB thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=464
along with your new scenario. The previous releases will be re-synchronized before they are added to the installer.

The current version of your CasoDB is 12.1.7 Once you post your CasoDB, I will modify it so that the version is 12.10.14 (2012 Oct 14) to reflect the new changes. You can do this modification yourself, if you prefer. A new version number is vital to notify users of the changes. The last time someone tried to make "Unannounced Database changes" and hide that fact, he was crucified by the community of Harpoon players. No one ever trusted him or used that database, again. It would be best to avoid that circumstance at all costs.

I am fairly certain that the oddities you experienced with the mines are due mostly to user inexperience. The game may erroneously tell you that a weapon is ready to fire even when the re-loading process is incomplete, hence the delay before firing. There are many different firing times. Some mine clearance gear was given 20 min intervals while others had 64mins. The game engine follows the rules assigned to it even if the user does not fully understand them.