Threat Axis Mechanics

[MikeSinn]

While I understand the underlying principal and theory behind the threat axis used in Harpoon 3, I am struggling with understanding how they actually impact gameplay. I would be very interested in hearing others thoughts/experiences on proper use of threat axis and what, if any, underlying game mechanics come into play.

For example:

Does the defending ships/aircraft have a reduced chance of detecting and responding to attacks that originate outside of the primary threat axis?
Are ship defenses more effective in engaging attacks that fall within an existing axis?
Is a more narrow threat axis more effective at identifying and countering threats than a broader one?The manual provides great details on how & why threat axises should be used but it provides next to no information on how they are used within the game.

[Sunburn]

While I understand the underlying principal and theory behind the threat axis used in Harpoon 3, I am struggling with understanding how they actually impact gameplay. I would be very interested in hearing others thoughts/experiences on proper use of threat axis and what, if any, underlying game mechanics come into play.

In simplified terms, threat axes increase the probability that, when an enemy presents itself through either simple detection or actually attacking you, your assets more suited to each threat type will be better positioned to deal with it. When engaging the enemy, the placement geometry of friendly assets is super-critical because it affects what they can and cannot detect, and what they can and cannot engage. Making good use of the threat axes increases the chance that your assets (mostly the screeners/escorts) will be at the right place at the right time.

For example:
[LIST=1]
Does the defending ships/aircraft have a reduced chance of detecting and responding to attacks that originate outside of the primary threat axis?

Yes. Say, for example, that you have set the AAW threat axis westward and positioned your AAW-optimised ships accordingly. Now if the enemy pops up from the east, your AAW screeners will be much further away from the flashpoint than they would be if the threat axis was east. If the divergence between your assigned threat axis and the actual bearing of the enemy attack is too great, your AAW escorts may never get the chance to protect the covered HVU at all (this will depend on how far away they are from the action, their sensor & weapon capabilities, their mobility etc.). This also means that "guessing wrong" with your ship escorts is much more damaging than when dealing with aircraft, because aircraft can be repositioned fairly rapidly to compensate for the enemy surprise; ships take considerably more time to move around.


Are ship defenses more effective in engaging attacks that fall within an existing axis?

Yes. All other factors being equal, they will detect the enemy further out and engage enemy forces at the maximum stand-off range before they can close in and become a threat to own assets. Even, say, an extra 30 seconds of warning time (as a result of the picket ship(s) being down the correct axis) can mean the difference between an enemy attack that is succesfully repulsed and one that manages to break through.


Is a more narrow threat axis more effective at identifying and countering threats than a broader one?
This will depend greatly on how the enemy attacks. If he funnels his assets down a narrow bearing, and you happen to have your escorts/screeners/patrols bunched-up down the very same axis, your shooters are going to have a field day. More likely though, the enemy (particularly if he's a human adversary) would try to spread his assets around and come to you from as many directions as possible. His expectation will be that you will get disorganised running from one enagegement to another, and you will have to split up your defences inefficiently in order to deal with the multiple attacks. There is really no one-fits-all solution to this question.

External factors are likely to dictate the enemy's approach and hense your own reaction; for example, if enemy anti-ship aircraft are short-ranged and lack extensive air-refuelling capability, they cannot make extensive dogleg courses to try and surround you - hence they are likely to attack you on a relatively narrow front from a given direction. Thus, knowing your enemy's technical strengths and limitations is critical to understanding how he's likely to threaten you and hence how you should position your assets in response.

[Herman Hum]

Does the defending ships/aircraft have a reduced chance of detecting and responding to attacks that originate outside of the primary threat axis?
Are ship defenses more effective in engaging attacks that fall within an existing axis?
Is a more narrow threat axis more effective at identifying and countering threats than a broader one?
I had the same questions regarding the usage of Threat Axes. This is only my experience, but IMO, the various Threat Axes function primarily as an organizational tool for positioning ships within the formation.

For example, I do not believe that:

1) if you have two identical ships and
2) one is stationed according to the ASuW Threat Axis and,
3) the other on the AAW Threat Axis but,
4) both are at the exact same position on the map,

that the two ships would function in a different manner just because they are positioned according to different threat axes. Empirically, I have not found that the Ship on the AAW axis to fire on aircraft any more quickly or effectively than the ship on the ASuW axis would.

The same applies to the breadth of the Axis selected. I find the size of the axis is irrelevant. However, the size of the individual patrol zones is very relevant, IMO.

Good hunting.