1\ In PE the exported database file having a name other than the std database name, or better the ability to name the database file or place it in a selected folder.

just to make it easier (?) import and export from the same folder as the executed PFBuild file.

2/ In scenario Editor an indication of the lat and long of a selected unit or lat and long of a mouse click position in the group or unit window.

DONE

3/ Be able to instruct an ASW aircraft with asw sensors but no weapons to attack a sub contact (F1) so that it will attempt to get a fix on a soft contact.

4/ (new) Have some way associating an air group to a IFR tanker similar to the home base association so that the air unit is happy to fly around while in range of the tanker without requesting to RTB.

5/ If a surface group (or sub group) detect an incoming torpedo and decide to activate sonar all group units activate sonar but often only one unit is in short range of the incoming torpedo and the enemy then have a higher chance of detecting all units.

I would like only the unit at risk by the incoming torpedo activate sonar. This is mostly for benefit of AI side.

6/ When an aircraft has expended its loadout and refuels in air it's range will be it's naked (so to speak) range not the range normally associated with its loadout.

7/ When getting staff message regards the range of an ac group that has been assigned to conduct an intercept, I'd wish the 'select' option selected your assigned intercept group instead of the target enemy group. (see below comment with screen shot)

MAYBE this will now be available thru export.dll management of Message Assistant.

8/ in PE, when looking at a weapon be able to get a list of mounts (and loadouts?) that use the weapon, and in mounts get a list of classes that use the mount etc.

You can do this long handed via the CSV files in the commondb subdirectory, but it is rather clumsy.

9/ Having mounts on aircraft, or some way of having aircraft gun turrets (eg B-17) operate outside of the aircraft's gun arc.

9/ An aircraft 'size' (maybe) that is in line with the size of modern small drones so that an eg ship with aircraft capacity of one can carry 2 or 3 or what ever drones instead of one helo.

10/ Ability to instigate air intercept (F1 Attack) an enemy unit selected in the unit window. It can be the standard F1 attack (of the group) but currently you need to guess the group of an approx fix unit.

Now available to a useful degree thru export.dll  eg Toolbox.

11/ A fine movement of the unit and group window focus, eg a shift arrow that moves the window focus a fraction of the movement of an arrow key.

12/ In SE, when setting the probability of a unit or group occurring, be able to link it to another unit or group so as to be able to set conditional occurrence, eg mutually exclusive.

13/ In SE be able to assign a course (including attacks) to aircraft launch (patrols and attacks).

14/ Orders writer to have a 'Save As' option (OK this is just being incredibly lazy to avoid doing three texts saves and remembering how to use windows clip board)

15/ when ai turns on 'enemy' radar it turns on instantly but periodic, not continuous. Maybe it turns off after some event eg the platforms performs an attack or the triggering threat is no longer detected.

16/ BOL torpedo. Two things I'd use it for, firing down a bearing of a suspected sub and creating (with luck) a mine that could be laid by vessels (a kind of slow torpedo).

I have a bit more time on my hands (and keyboard) these days than when I engaged with Harpoon oh so many years ago. Starting off by trying to digest HCE database contents and structure and how to use the scenario editor. Based on Tony's recommendation, kicking off this wish list to capture what I come across. Oh - just downloaded and installed the 2024.001 beta. Best I can tell took care of the reload problem I was having with DPRK missile bases. Thanks!! 👍

Okay.  Wishing away....

- (1/2025) (SE) Provide a method for viewing and editing opords/attack orders for bases in the scenario editor. At present, you can revise targets for existing orders but you cannot view and change the entire order (e.g., time to initiate).

- 2/2025 (GE) Provide a means for including over the horizon surface search radar in fixed facilities and mobile systems.  Current system limits surface search radar distance to line of sight.

- 2/2025 (SE) When adding a new base, the dropdown list is searchable on "Base" name.  Would prefer the dropdown list to be searchable on "Country" e.g., like aircraft/ships.   

- 2/2025 (GE) Include aircraft cruise speed with maximum speed on unit display pop-up. Would help out quite a bit in mission planning. 

I think that 10% Ph modificator that applies at Harpoon 4 paper rules is not so high.

Well, I was trying H3ANW but it is too complex for me.

There could be a limit to the number of radar guided missiles an aircraft can manage.

The limit could be adjusted to 1, 2, 3... or whatever you like.

This is like the targets a ships can manage.

When a radar guided missiles activates its terminal guide then the aircraft can launch another missile again.

IR missiles like Sidewinder or Alamo B/C can be launched the number you want up to the limit.

There would be no limit to AGM missiles a plane can manage.

• Useable entire world map, including the ability to seemlessly move 'across the back of the Earth'.
• Multiplayer!
• Allow units to carry other units, i.e. LCACs in LSDs, Marines in LCACs
• Make ASW LR Patrols more customizable, buoy patterns, MAD runs in a defined area, etc.
• Increase the levels of zoom in the SE (Accomplished in build 2007.017 added 16x, 32x, 64x zoom)
• Allow greater number of items per annex in the database (Accomplished in build 2015.021, from 2047 to 4096 items per annex)
• (Smitty) Allow for damaged bases to be repaired.
• (Smitty) Allow for the capture and use of enemy bases.
• (Smitty) Allow refueling groups to be assigned to intercept the groups they will refuel and join up and refuel automatically. Note that refueling aircraft are often slower that the aircraft that will be re-fueled. Often they will start out, while the aircraft to be refueled are on the outgoing leg. The logic will have to allow them to deal with that fact in this situation. In other words they will never intercept until their target flight starts back.
• SE - Allow the scenario designer to specify courses for AI plane groups, for instance fast passes by reconnaissance planes, more capable multi-vector attacks, etc.
• (Smitty) Allow one or more additional range bands in the formation editor and increase the maximum range in the formation editor from the current 255 nm. (Accomplished HCE - 2018.002)
• (Smitty) Allow the time of day for the scenario to start, to be set either at start up or in the scenario editor. (Accomplished in build 2015.008) It would also be nice to have some sort of progress bar to show the current day night situation.
• (SteveF2006) Have formation patrols pull from similar type of aircraft if designated type is exhausted. So if I had a 2 x F-14A patrol, the GE would happily send out 2 x F-14D on that patrol if no F-14A were available at launch time. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1621972
• Allow renaming of units in the SE with arbitrary names (for battlesets with Scenario File Format that permits it). (Accomplished in 2008 sometime, improved in 2013)
• When the AI decides to create an airstrike, make it smart enough to consider using the existing loadout of the planes if the loadout has a proper loadout type for the target. Currently it will reload with the preferred loadout type and waste the time.
• Be smarter about saving window size and position.  For non-sizeable windows, only save position, letting the size be auto calculated.  This would reduce the need to run the clear registry options 'script' to get missing windows or portions of windows back.

6. Increase the amount for air groups flying 26X26 is just not enough for me. [/size]

New Addition 6/2/16

10. Current magazine count to limited to 13,108 magazines causing db to crash when imported. If possible could the magazine count be increase.

8/19/20

11. A count of the amount of ammo left in magazines at the completion of a Scenario.

6/8/2025

12. Create an Export dll where you can launch a pattern of Sonobuoy's from ASW AC.

13. In the legacy scenarios some way to automatically set the AC speed to low instead of medium. Currently all patrol launches go directly to medium altitude after launch which sets the speed to an F-14 to 450kts. At Low altitude the speed of the F-14 is 650kts.

14. Add CODAG and CODLOG to the Propulsion Annex.

Byron

Like the message that allows an intercepting unit to increase speed to military speed when intercepting an enemy objetive.

Why? Missiles has an improved ATA of 30% when targeting targets with a speed lower than 1000 knots. So if the objetive has an speed of 1000 knots or more the enemy missiles hasn't got the 30% bonus.

For example, playing blue side, I have 24 norwegian F-16AM detached at Orland airbase. I have a pair of AAW patrols composed by 4 fighters each, 1/3 of the total air wing placed in Orland. 8 fighters at AAW duty, 16 fighters at reserve duty. Then, some planes (24 Su-27, 36 Su-24) approaches to attack Orland airbase. The 8 fighters set at AAW patrol duty are few to intercept and shoot down all of the russian planes. So, if there would be an scramble icon we can order the 16 fighters at reserve duty to take off and scramble the enemy air wing of 24 fighters and 36 attack planes. It is like launch air icon so you can do it manually.

Why do we want another icon of scramble duty? Playing with the red side, fighters shoot down every fighters (8) at AAW patrol but there isn´t another patrol launched from Orland airbase because I AI didn´t perform the intercept duty. The blue AI doesn´t launch any fighter group to intercept the attacking group. Although you can do it manually but the AI can´t do it.

The problem is that it is too easy to attack an enemy group or base with overwhelming air stack. So the AI side needs an scramble/launch air option more than human side.

However, in the launch Aircraft window the 'home carrier' for aircraft is not identified.

This lack of identification isn't import in a surface group that only holds one or two carriers but in some of the "mega-war" user-designed scenarios one finds three or more flattops steaming in company and, frankly, I find it more than a little confusing when it comes to keeping track of which carrier is launching which aircraft. 

So, my wish would be to have the name of the launching carrier displayed in the Launch Aircraft window.

I've skimmed through some of the wish lists and but not stumbled across (or, at least, recognised) these items elsewhere. But, please accept my apologies if I'm covering old ground.

Wish 1

Having detected an and then localised a hostile submarine contact the "Message log" tells me I've detected a submarine contact 00U by Sonobuoy - and because its in a bit of a hurry  -its identified as an Akula. All of which is fair enough. However, the Unit window tells me its ZT002 which implies there are at least two other 'bad guys' (ZT000 and ZT001) down there that I ought to be looking for even though I've no other contacts on screen. Were it not for the 'clue' provided I'd have no reason to believe (although I might suspect it because Red subs seldom hunt on their own) that this Akula wasn't the proverbial  'lone shark' on the prowl.

My point is that the game is telling me stuff that I can't possibly know, which gives me and edge which I ought not to have. (This also prompts the question: Does the AI get a similar clue when its attacked by the human player?) 

So - and here's the wish - would it be possible to somehow withhold the info on the size of the hostile sub group until additional contacts have been detected?

Wish 2

When attacking a Red sub group containing multiple subs the game default is that all the ASW assets allocated go after ZX000, ZX001 ZX002 and so on. While I understand that ZX000 might be, say, an Oscar and thus pose the greatest threat to Blue, but given the Zone sizes available in a submarine group formation, there might be an equally dangerous threat posed by a Red SSN that's a darn sight closer! 

Thus my second wish is: When a hostile Red sub group has been detected would it be possible to select the order in which the ASW assets attack the subs or, indeed, attack two or more subs concurrently?  It would allow the, say, the helos to go after the target close to the friendly formation while the faster fixed-wing assets legged-it out to the more distant threat.    

However when one selects "Base A", "Launch Air", "Patrol" and then selects a point for the "Patrol Destination" on the map the "range and bearing [lat and long]" info is NOT displayed.

So, my wish would be for that useful snippet of info to be included on the information bar when setting-up a patrol point. 

Might that be possible?

I can’t remember how long I’ve been playing Harpoon, but if I tell you the first version I bought came on 3.5 inch disks (remember those?), you’ll appreciate that its been quite sometime. I’ve continued to dabble (and buy at least 2 or 3 more versions  - on those new-fangled CDs -over the years). So, I’m not a newbie but I am a techno-peasant and I'm woefully out of touch with the way the game has been developed.

I have memories of things that appear to have “come and gone” through various generations of the game. I’m sure, for instance that there used to be a ‘hot key’ to jettison weapons before making a carrier landing (not that it had any bearing on the success of the subsequent trap). Plus, when IFR was first added to the game, there were a whole series of of scenarios (now lost in the mists of time I fear) where the PO used the capability to spring a whole bunch of unwelcome surprises.

Most of my “wishes” duplicate Donaldseadog’s “condensed wish list” but, I hope, one or two have a spark of originality. In an effort to avoid confusion when referring to, and trying to distinguishing between, the Human Player (HP), the Programmed Opponent (PO) and the role of the artificial intelligence (AI) plays in handling functions for both  HP and PO I’ve used these abbreviations throughout.

I’ve no idea if some, or any, of the things listed below might be possible within the parameters of the game. However, I think some might be reasonably ‘doable’… but… it is a wish list so here goes:

Setting Aircraft course from take-off:

The ability to set a multi-leg course, more complex than straight line from A to B, for an air group from take-off to a patrol point, or the initial point for launching a strike, would be handy feature to have.

It would be particularly useful for PO assets operating from airfields, enabling them to pop up in interesting and unpredictable places and for PO combat aircraft to make attacks using off-axis lines of approach fixed targets. It would pose more of a challenge for the HP in terms of placing a CAP because the ‘obvious’ tracks to and from PO bases wouldn’t necessarily be the direction from which the threat was coming.

Air Group Post-Attack RTB:

Currently, post-attack, the Staff Assistant dialogue box reports: “Air group ABC has completed intercept of the target ZYX and is loitering in the area” along with the standard “Show” and “Select” buttons. Could a “Return to Base” button be added to the dialogue box? I realise this would merely save a few clicks of the mouse but when things are “busy” in a large scenario I think it would be a good thing to have.

Air-to-Surface Gun Attacks:

Following on from the above, when an air group has fired/dropped its main ordnance could the Staff Assistant pop-up window to prompt whether the air group (if capable) should proceed with a “gun attack” as part of the intercept? It isn’t always advisable or desirable for, say, a pair of F16s to follow-up a stand-off (SEAD) strike on a SAM site if it happens to be just one site in a whole field of nastiness!

I’m thinking something along the lines of a Staff Assistant box with “Group ABC has completed its intercept of ZYX should it proceed with gun attack?”, with “Proceed”, “RTB” and (maybe) “Loiter” buttons to speed things along? I’m not sure how, or even if, the AI could cope with this option for the PO but I think its still worth having for the HP.

Breaking-off/Avoiding combat:

This AI function would for the PO enabling air and surface groups to break off attacks when a certain threshold is reached. I’m thinking the parameters might include:

• Loss/damage tolerance
• Weapons expenditure (by type, range and/or effectiveness)
• Threat level : probability of success ratio
• Detection : availability and effectiveness of counter-measures ratio

If such a feature could also enable, PO Recon, AEW and other similar aircraft, to make an escape from a detected threat, rather than simply sitting on station awaiting inevitable destruction,. it would make life more interesting and realistic, as it stands the HP has a clear advantage over the PO in this area.

On the same theme it would also be good for the AI to enable PO combat aircraft to manoeuvre at optimum speed and altitude when engaged. Similarly, it could enable a PO air group to make best speed home (depending on fuel and threat state) when returning to base on completion of its mission. I can’t imagine a Backfire strike doing anything other than running for home, at high altitude and military throttle setting, having completed an attack, let alone stooging around in the target area or sauntering home like it was a Sunday afternoon stroll, but this is what the PO air group does at the moment.

Its often possible for the HP air group to climb and sprint on after-burner for a few seconds to persuade the programmed pursuers to break-off but its nearly always possible for human controlled fighters to catch and engage a PO strike package because it just dawdles way at cruising speed no matter what the threat and no matter how much fuel remains.

Conditional Attacks:

A function, other than straightforward detection, that prompts a reaction to hostile forces approaching a designated zone or installation to be defended.

Aircraft working with a Surface Groups:

The ability to add an air group (perhaps a fighter group acting as CAP over an installation that is remote from an airfield, or a land-based ASW asset escorting a convoy?) and then have that group detach and RTB when it reaches bingo fuel. This would work well for bot HP and PO if the AI can hack the problem.

Runway vulnerability:

Separate damage points allocation for runways to make strikes against airfields using dedicated anti-runway munitions worthwhile. Along with this feature a ‘runway repair’ function could be added so that any given runway could be returned to service over a given time unless, say, the damage level reached 100% in which case it would be damaged beyond repair.

Maintenance failures and breakdowns for aircraft:

As far as I can tell, unless they’re refuelling/re-arming, aircraft readiness and availability is maintained at 100%, day and night and in all weathers. None appear to suffer from battle damage or maintenance failures nor are they lost, other than running out of gas or flying at very low level, to attrition through pilot error and/or accidents. These things are hardly uncommon occurrences especially in high-tempo carrier combat operations.

Given that the game ‘understands’ that ships have breakdowns and suffer system failures it ought to be able to cope with the notion that aeroplanes breakdown too! So my suggestion is that some sort of variable and random percentage of “aircraft unserviceability” be incorporated - increasing in probability as the scenario progresses - which would represent the real world a little more accurately. Also some sort of attrition number, say,  X% per 100 sorties could simulate losses from things other than low flying and empty tanks.  

Ship Magazines and Bunkers:

It seems only fair that if the aviators have unlimited supplies of smart bombs and missiles then the sailors ought to have an equally unlimited stock of missiles to shoot the blighters down but they don’t. Is it possible to create - and thus limit the size of -  a carrier air group magazine? With the caveat that, if a surface group or carrier group does have a supply ship in company, it would be possible to replenish both ships’ magazines and air group magazines by, say, X% every 12 or 24 hours.

Another anomaly of the game is that, although ships run out of ammunition they never exhaust their fuel, or the fuel for the fixed and/or rotary wing aircraft embarked. There really ought to be some sort of a range limitation or other restriction, to prevent surface groups from steaming limitless distances at high speeds unless they have a tanker in company.

Okay, I realise that at this point I realise that I’m off the reservation and that such a re-write would render many scenarios unplayable… but… it is a wish list isn’t it!

I was also going to suggest a bunch of stuff relating IFR. However, I’ve just stumbled across the excellent ToolBox DLL (not that I know what a ‘DLL’ is) that seems to take much of the pain out of managing multiple IFR sorties in disparate locations and it also goes some of the way to solving the problem of putting a CAP/ASW/AEW in the vicinity of a naval group or land installation.

• A way to set courses without requiring the mouse to click on the map.
• A screen-reader accessible Formation Editor of some sort.
• Information on zones of uncertainty, direction of movement, and other cues which are only provided visually.
• Some kind of textual overview of the map, or at least a way to get required play information from it in an accessible form (probably overlaps with item above.)
• A way to handle ASW accessibly, or at least direct the searches without requiring the mouse.

Must have been discussed here somewhere but search comes up empty, so,

why is the Ready 5 time 30 seconds actually?

I hardly ever use AAW formation air patrols (or ASuW for that matter) these days,

it's manual patrols or nothing. (When there is AEW coverage available.)

All but the most severe popup threats can be dealt with manual patrols that can get airborne in 30 seconds.

I would love the game to be (optionally) realistic in this and "force" me to not ignore formation patrols.

Update the Scenario Editor. Update to use the same dialog box as the game for the file open/save - isn't that a simple reference/ link update in code?

Not s simple - still Scenario Editor - reuse the code for gam for teh group and unit windows- allow user to resize those.

Battlesets - Create a new one - center it map on Levant (the L of ISOL) - have it cover easter Med, Persian Gulf, Black Sea, Aegean, Caspian ?

If I understand Scenario format correctly - a 2003 scenario for for Med or IOPG would perfectly on in new battleset if renamed, AND all unit are within the new Battleset region.

35. Better in-flight refueling/tanker modeling. Even if it is a kludge, maybe something like permitting up to 10 refueling rendezvous before the tanker is empty.

#5. What about Damaged Aircraft? Upon landing a flight of 4, the staff assistant announces that one a/c requires an engine change, estimated time to complete X hours (AI generates random Y hours +- Z minutes until ready, it does NOT have to match the estimate), then in HUCE another 1 hour to reload weapons. Or the staff assistant could mention other system failures like Radar, ECM, Life Support, Structure, or Fuel System, all with random times to fix that add realism to the game, and frustrations to the players.

#8. See GEOCHRON ® © (etc.) Wall Clocks for a potential display concept.

#11. In addition to longer ready times for most weapons loads, how about Integrated Combat Turnarounds with shorter times for a few very simple loads. ie;

F-16A ICT-AtA 6x AIM-9M, internal fuel only, 1x ALQ-119 15 Minutes (I actually saw this done in 14min 57sec)

probably only useful for interceptions close to the airbase, but it can help you out of a desperate situation with too many MiG's - not enough missiles

F-16C ICT-AtG 2x AIM-9M, 2x Mk82 (or Mk84), 2x wing tanks, 1x ALQ-131 30 Minutes (I think the actual AF standard says within 45 min)

great for troops in contact CAS

All depending on the state of repair of the airbase, ICT's may not be possible if the airbase is below 75% (or pick a number) of normal capability.

#35 Can Harpoon make the distinction between Probe - Drogue refueling and Boom - Receptacle refueling?

The KC-135A takes a few hours to unbolt the nozzle at the end of the boom and bolt on a 5ft section of hose with a drogue.

The KC-10A has both a centerline boom and an internal Hose and Drogue almost on the centerline.

The KC-135R has the ability to carry 2 Hose Drum Units in pods near the wingtips while keeping the boom with a nozzle on the centerline, but only the 100th ARW, RAF Mildenhall, carries the HDU's regularly.

It would be more realistic, requiring a little more thought and planning from the player.

Lastly, I would like to see some kind of database entry for F-15C's based in Iceland with the 57th FIS. They routinely carried:

4 Sparrows

4 Sidewinders

2 conformal fuel tanks (type I, not the type IV found on F-15E's)

3 external tanks (1 centerline, 1 under each wing)

Because of geography, they could accept the reduced maneuverability (few or no MiG's could reach that far) in exchange for longer patrols to catch Tu-95's and other long range aircraft.