Leaderboard

Below is an installer that should bring any copy of the game purchased from Matrix Games up to the current build. https://www.harpgamer.com/downloads/HC2025.025_ComprehensivePatch.zip When you get to selecting an installation directory and Start Menu group, please double-check that they are correct before proceeding.

The official Harpoon 5 Jumpstart is released. This is a preview of the H5 rules in the form of a scenario playthrough. The Jumpstart is a free download. It can be downloaded here, and will be available soon at the Wargame Vault (http://wargamevault.com) or at The Admiralty Trilogy (http://www.admiraltytrilogy.com/). For your behind-the-scenes information, the Jumpstart scenario was run by me using SimPlot. There were actually three scenarios executed, with each one resulting in tweaks to the rules, data annexes, or the scenario graphics. The Guardian scenario contained therein is the third and final version. Some changes to SimPlot were also implemented to facilitate making data changes to the scenario. Some of these changes will find there way into the next SP update. Larry Bond has given permission to freely copy and distribute the Jumpstart. The H5 rules, data annexes, and Player's Handbook are awaiting final print proofing. We are almost there! HpnV Jumpstart 10 Jul 20.pdf

An item to keep in mind, if you already own Harpoon Ultimate, you have Harpoon 97 already (and a lot of other versions) via the 20th Anniversary launcher pictured below.

In hopes of being allowed to get an official patch distributed by Matrix Games, I threw together this overview list of improvements since the 2015.027 patch and thought you might enjoy: Staff Assistant – Added additional player dials to increase/decrease prompts to radiate. DB Structure – Increased magazine limit per platform from 127 to 32,767. DB Structure – Increased countries limit from ~127 to 1023, country width from 16 to 32 characters. DB Structure – Increased to 255 Aircraft, Ship Types. DB Structure – Increased to 128 runway sizes, 32 characters each. Scenario Editor – Show the same expanded set of loadout data the Game Engine (GE) shows. Game Engine – More improvements to allowing 255 units per group, up from 127 (continued bug fixing). Game Engine – Air to Air refueling improvements splitting tankers to RTB when their range is less than refueled planes. Game Engine – Added RWR sensor model. Game Engine – Increased number of formation zones from 4 to 64 (6 available in UI), max formation radius from 255nm to 32767nm. Game Engine – Formation-keeping works better than ever Game Engine – Started adding UUIDs to game structures (unit, group, …) to be able to globally track them. Game Engine – Scenario and Saved game lineage added to be able to track the history of a scenario or saved game. Most useful for troubleshooting but also other benefits. Game Engine – Saved games now store the orders, previously the user would lose access to the orders when loading a saved game. Game Engine – Added setting to force the AI to stay on plotted paths or if they can run off on their own volition. Game Engine – Torpedo noise level logic that was making torpedoes way too quiet fixed. Too short torpedo acquisition range logic fixed. Game Engine – Expanded maximum groups possible from 676 Red & Blue total to move than 1,300 groups for each of those sides. Game Engine – Nuclear detonations game crash fixed and more accurate/thorough destruction of units as a result of the detonation(s). Game Engine – User can change speed & altitude/depth of some individual units in groups. Game Engine – Dialog window sizing and position improvements. Game Engine – Revamped victory condition evaluation. Also record more meta information for AARs, etc. General – Tons of bug fixes. Game Engine - ExportDLL interface expansion. Every non-UI aspect of the game can be overridden as a result. This has been utilized to great effect. Don Thomas in Australia has written add-ons to automate aerial refueling, most of submarine prosecution, AAR generation, and more.

AAR for this scenario, I hope it's in the right place. Thanks for this, it was very fun. I got Minvic with 60 A/C shot down, and 5 ships sunk. After that, it seemed like I was just making the rubble jump, so I moved on. What I found out is that the F-35 is almost invincible, even with the shorter range C7 AMRAAM.

Following a suggestion from someone else on the Steam forum, I was able to find an almost 30 year old fix! Dr. Who's Harpoon Pages https://www.harpoonpages.com/harpoon1.htm The 4/04/97 update can be downloaded and imported into the Harpoon Classic 97 folder to replace the NAVC.res file (I created a backup of the original file just in case). When I ran the scenarios using that updated file, the ships all appeared correclty as Okean class instead of Kalinin class. The website also includes an update for the EC2000 scenarios. Were there any old bugs you can remember from those scenarios - anything I should look out for before deciding whether to apply that update as well?

There aren't many sims that can claim the longevity of Harpoon. As TonyE has said, the community has been the key factor to both its success and long life.

It's been a long time dream by many of us to be able to limit the number of munitions available to aircraft. Recent additions to the game by TonyE just migh have us there. This is a screen shot of an early use of the new Stores Consumed feature that tracks most munitions as they are fired. They can be filtered by firing unit class, home base and side (amongst other). The listing is circled in the lower right of the screen. The information can also be exported to a text file for later perusal. An extension of this could be assigning $ values to munitions giving another dimension to 'scoring'.

HCE - 2025.011 - 2025-02-28 =========================== - Chg:32850 GE Non-air groups could have up to 30 minute delays in turning to an intercept course. Fixed by checking if a group has an intercept event during path navigation and if it does, recalculate the course much more often. (thanks donaldseadog) https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/32850-delayed-turn-of-destroyer-to-engage-enemy/ - Chg:33573 GE Player was previously allowed to fire AAMs not capable of orbital altitude at enemy missiles at orbital altitude. CheckGroupWeapons now does an altitude check but only for missiles fired against missiles. Also applied these for Satellites. (thanks Enrique) https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/33573-harriers-launching-aams-to-orbit/ - Chg:33224 SE Position dialog DIALOG316 when changing a group's position always showed East and North. Corrected. (thanks donaldseadog) https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/33224-se-incorrect-label-for-west-longitudes/ - Chg:00000 SE Made the left mouse click Range and Bearing text at the bottom of the window show just like the GE by adding coordinates and water depth to the readout.

Ok, this was fun! Second run was better, the big enemy surface group was a bit further off. Sadly, it spawned in the vicinity of my smaller surface group, enveloping it with its SAMs, thus making it impossible to safeguard the smaller surface group from missile attack. The few aircraft in Cyprus were also not able to stop air attacks against the islands installations and I could not get my carrier aircraft over the island in time, since I had to manuever around the SAM envelope of the big enemy surface group. RED thus managed to pull of a minimum victory after annihilating my smaller surface group, sinking 3 of my ships. I did not give up and launched an all-out counterstrike. Repeated air strikes killed the enemy surface group and then one by one the enemy bases and supporting units died. Total victory was inevitable.

aviator, here is a list of Soviet nuclear powered submarines that were commissioned by 1990 and which were serving with the Northern Fleet at the time: Project 627 (NATO November) SSN: K-3, K-5 (decommissioned in January 1990), K-11, K-21, K-50; decommissioned in April 1990: K-11, K-21, K-50 Pr 658 (Hotel) SSBN: K-16, K-19 (in reserve since 1979, decommissioned April 1990), K-33, K-40, K-145, K-149 (went into reserve fleet in March 1990) Pr 667A (Yankee) SSBN: K-32 (did not deploy after 1986 due to reactor accident), K-137 Leninets (on missile patrol in the North Atlantic from 19 October to 31 December 1990), K-140 (out of service by 17 December 1990), K-214, K-228, K-241, K-245, K-249, K-253 (Yankee Notch conversion), K-395 (in drydock for Yankee Notch conversion), K-403 (sea trials of towed array pod), K-411 (completed Yankee Stretch conversion in 1990), K-418 (removed from active service in 1989), K-420 (Yankee Sidecar SSGN conversion, but torpedoes only by 1989), K-423, K-426, K-444; decommissioned in April 1990: K-32, K-140, K-426 [Note: In 1988 the director of US naval intelligence Adm Studeman told Congress that Yankee class SSBNs had ceased patrols off the US coast in late 1987 and were instead conducting "combat service patrols against theater targets" (i.e. staying close to home), presumably to compensate for the loss of the SS-20 under the INF Treaty.] Pr 667B (Delta I) SSBN: K-279, K-385, K-447, K-450, K-457, K-460, K-465, K-472, K-475 Pr 667BD (Delta II) SSBN: K-92, K-182, K-193, K-421 Pr 667BDR (Delta III) SSBN: K-44 (in post drydock sea trials), K-129 (had powerplant failure in June 1989, may not have been available), K-424, K-449 (went to Pacific Fleet in November 1990), K-487, K-496 Pr 667BDRM (Delta IV) SSBN: K-18, -51, -64, -84, -114, -117, -407 (not commissioned until late November 1990) Pr 670M (Charlie II) SSGN: K-209, -452, -458, -479, -503, -508 Pr 671 (Victor I) SSN: K-38, -53, -69, -147, -306, -323, -367 (did not deploy again after a reactor accident in 1985), -370 (may not have been available for deployment), -398, -438, -462, -481 Pr 671RT (Victor II) SSN: K-371, -387, -467, -488 (never returned to sea after 1988 drydock), -495, -513, -517 Pr 671RTM (Victor III) SSN: K-218, -244, -254, -298, -299, -358, -502, -524, -527 Pr 671RTMK (Improved Victor III) SSN: K-292, K-388, K-138 (operational from January 1990), K-414 (not commissioned until 30 December 1990) Pr 675 (Echo II) SSGN: К-1 (may not have deployed after 1989), K-22, K-28, K-35 (final deployment in 1989), K-47 (in refuel and overhaul, did not return until 1992), K-74, K-104, K-125, K-128 (not in active service after 1989), K-131 (did not deploy after 1984), K-170 (may not have been operational after turbine accident in 1988), K-172 (stayed in port after reactor leak in June 1989); decommissioned in 1990: K-28, K-74, K-128, K-172 (in April) Pr 705 (Alfa) SSN: K-123 (received a new reactor in 1990, probably not operational until 1992), K-316, K-373, K-432, K-463, K-493 (all but K-123 decommissioned in April 1990) Pr 941 (Typhoon) SSBN: TK-12, TK-13, TK-17, TK-20, TK-202, TK-208 Pr 945 (Sierra I) SSN: K-239, K-276 Pr 945A (Sierra II) SSN: K-534 (not commissioned until 26 December 1990) Pr 949 (Oscar I) SSGN: K-206 Minsky Komsomolets, K-525 Pr 949A (Oscar II) SSGN: K-119, K-132 (transferred to Pacific Fleet in late October 1990), K-148, K-410 (not commissioned until 22 December 1990), K-442 (not commissioned until 28 December 1990) Pr 971 (Akula) SSN: K-154 (commissioned but reportedly not operational until December 1993), K-157 (commissioned but reportedly not operational until November 1995), K-317 Pantera (not commissioned until 27 December 1990), K-328 (commissioned but reportedly not operational until December 1992), K-461 (commissioned but reportedly not operational until December 1991), K-480 I will further update this list with information about which boats might have actually been available for service.

As far as missiles are concerned I have notice some missiles rated as surf capable will hit the targeted ship. Some of the are Slam-er a land attack also variant of the harpoon and the Scalp EG of French design. If it has a surf attack flag it usually will attack the designated target assigned to it despite other ships. If it has sea attack flag it will attack the first detected after activation. These are my findings.

I like that the Discord link is more visible but to your point, Downloads are less visible. I see them in a Browse menu.

Thanks for the idea, but the possibility of a Russian convoy clearing the Kattegat against even light opposition is zero. However, how about a Russian convoy to reinforce Kaliningrad from St Petersburg while NATO (with no USA) is distracted elsewhere? I could cook up something like that pretty soon.

"And this brings on an even bigger question, how many people still want to play this game? " That's something I sometimes wonder. Certainly the download of new scenarios isn't what it used to be but there is still obvious interest. Also time will tell but the Steam addition to the equation might well bring a new surge. I think HC is still a unique simulation, where the new programs are more a game. Taking into account current limits to database size when pondering this question I've wondered whether there's now a need to start a new (series 3?) DB from a more recent start date - an issue is that many nations still use quite old platforms. The main issue to my mind is the sheer size of the job of starting from scratch.

Progress is slow. The yanks must be running low on TLAMs, they've lost important surveillance, fighter and bomber AC and we're getting our bases stocked. But it still looks dodgy. Having lots of fun!

Yes, the publishing agreement allows for updates and upgrades.

Thanks broncepulido, Merry Christmas all!

I don't for certain but does the steam hc97 have a scenario editor that would let you edit the battleset scenario and replace the units with something more suitable. It sounds like a clerical error in putting the database together. In these old games the database is built into the game,so fixing it is a major item that I'd guess isn't likely to happen, but who knows. Someone else might very well have better ideas.

Yes, MicroProse is a small operation at present. You also hit upon an important additional consideration, they are not as intimately knowledgeable about Computer Harpoon as many of their consumers. The next six months or so should be informative, how they handle the growth in their catalog, communication with players about roadmap, etc. but in my dealings so far there has been positive intent and a desire to learn.

This released on the weekend. It's H97 version 1.60.

Well, al least it all means Harpoon still has some future.

Since this is in theory the last build of the game related to the Matrix Games publishing of the game, we will list some workarounds here for serious issues that arise. Errata: 1. 2025-07-02 The Scenario Editor (SE) has multiple issues in the release build. Rather than using Wscenedt32.exe, please use Wscenedt32dbg.exe which does not show the same issues. An even better idea may be to rename Wscenedt32.exe to Wscenedt32rel.exe then copy Wscenedt32dbg.exe to Wscenedt32.exe so that you don't accidentally use the more troublesome build. a. This is resolved in the HC2025.025_ComprehensivePatch.zip installer. 2. 2025-07-02 The BattleSet Builder makes very washed out maps so we need to go back to an older version 2015.027. a. This is resolved in the HC2025.025_ComprehensivePatch.zip installer. 3. 2025-08-23 The HDSR.RSR file (for Malacca Straits BattleSet) was not included in the installer. a. This is resolved in the HC2025.025_ComprehensivePatch.zip installer.

I think as a sign of appreciation I'll start writing some Nukem scenarios

HCE - 2025.010 - 2025-02-27 =========================== - Chg:00000 GE Incremented DLL interface version to 41. - Chg:00000 SE ExportDLL SaveScen function added to tell the ExportDLL when the scenario has been saved in the SE. - Chg:00000 GE Both the GE and SE will load ExportDLLs in the \ExportDLLs sub-directory of HC. The GE will then load any ExportDLLs in \ExportDLLs\GE. The SE will then load any ExportDLLs in \ExportDLLs\SE - Chg:00000 SE ExportDLL interface enabled: ScenLoad StartGroup (much improved) UnitTop (much improved) - Chg:00000 SE ExportDLL made as many functions as applicable to the SE available to ExportDLLs to call (funcRefs). They haven't been checked for functionality: NewPtr DispPtr del_HarpoonEvent_list QueueHarpoonEvent CreateVictoryCondition CreateGroup disk_id_to_annex_id GetLoadoutIndex dllCheckLatLonDepth annex_id_to_disk_id ResetGroupCenter SetCourseUnit_Raw SetCourseGroup_Raw free_Unit free_Group ChangeActGroupPtr ChangeActUnitPtr

Colors have shifted a bit over time, yes. The game is semi-stuck in 256-color land with a custom 256-color pallette that I do something to mess with once in a great while. I've been a programmer of HC for over 20 years now and what working on it looks like continually changes. When I converted from tester to programmer there were four of us programmers, one working on the platform editor and the rest of us on everything else. At the time my real job was running my own IT contracting firm but to be taken under the wings of a genius Harpoon programmer was an amazing gift. There were a ton of surrounding people, I don't say supporting because I was no more important than the people creating platforms in the database. Anyone can learn to sling code but to sift through mountains of articles to derive platform data, that is a special skill! The collaboration was efficient and rarely were there insurmountable agreements. You ask about the to-do list and being infinitely long, there is always something of particular personal interest to build or improve when a break is needed from the drudgery of maintaining a 36 year old piece of software. A fraction of the to-do list is illustrated in the Issue Tracker here and the Wishlist forums. For the last decade or so I've put I'd say around 1/3 of my effort into the ExportDLL interface that allows those without the game source code to write addons. That has brought fresh life to the game as you see from donaldseadog's addons and will allow it to live on when the rights holders (Bond & Carlson) pull the plug on the publishing of the game. Maintaining a semblance of backwards compatibility is a huge but rewarding burden. Many times in those early years we nearly dropped all legacy BattleSets to reduce that burden but we always left them in and accepted the burden. I went even further sometime after 2007 and started writing saved game format converters. Between 2002 and then we would periodically enhance/break the saved game format (not the scenario format) meaning we didn't commit to saved games from a previous build being able to be opened in the current build. These days I'm the only one programming the package that you get from Matrix games; one other pops in every few years and does something amazing. Most of the administrative tasks fall to me as well, it is a tiny group compared to what we had. You've seen some passionate testers here and amazing scenario authors but they are few in number. There are interesting times ahead with much opportunity for someone to come along and re-build a strong community that can get the best out of each of us. Much more help is needed to make efficient use of myself, donaldseadog, and when we provide the tools for them, the database editors.

Greetings All, 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.

The Russians have been using almost exclusively gun fire to attack naval drones generally, including machine guns from helicopters and deck mounted aboard ship.

***SPOILER ALERT*** After Action Report Enrique has provided a double barrel effort here, two similar scenario for us to delve into... I started playing blue side the version 1988-05 JFK USSR N BARCAP.sco There was sufficient hint that things would be hot from the start so I opened the game in zero time compression, started the process of arming the many 'dormant' aircraft and allocating those ready to fly with patrol locations or sectors within their group formation. This included a few fighters, a couple of ASW and very handy AEW from the carrier group. Once the ball started rolling it was on for young and old ... we got a contact close in of a Kashin unit and visual of a number of incoming missile. Radars went hot and four ships opened fire with their bug guns, the Kashin went down quick and our SAM units were put into heavy defense mode but still JFK took a few hits, enough to markedly reduce her efficiency and slow down the aircraft armaments that we obviously would need. The Kashin had apparently been assisted by an Okean class unit sailing beyond our guns, but not our Harpoon, she soon joined the denizens of the deep. But in these first minutes the near continuous rain of missiles came at us. Our first airborne fighters put their metal in to play getting right down to cannon fire on the incoming missiles, many probably form undetected submarines but form the incoming bearings we at least had vectors to search on. Getting the ASW patrols out early and with an idea of direction was showing it's virtue with an Alpha class SSN detected within the first half hour, but it would take some time before she was sunk. An hour in, coming up on our screens to the north were numbers of large air contacts, some identified as various EW, recce and bombers, Backfires, Blinders and Badgers. Armed fighters started to roll out of the hangers and into the air heading out to hopefully intercept now expected incoming bombers before they let loose their belly loads of mischief. To a large degree we succeeded but some got thru and our fighters exhausted their AAM on the incoming onslaught but as evidence of the pilot skills only a few made it thru to need interception by ships SAM batteries. In the meantime a large surface group came under the radar of the AEW, it had been expected, or at least made allowance for, and our strikers were half way thru taking on predominantly ARM munitions and some harpoon for good measure. 40 minutes after the sighting of the first attacking missiles and our own boys were returning the compliment with Standard ARM damaging two escorts. We now had a significant, and busy, ASW guard around the carrier group, and also our smaller surface group comprising our valuable auxiliaries and escorts which were trying for a safest route. Also our own EW units were operating and extra surveillance from land based ASW units based to our west. By the three hour mark our fighter screen had downed significant numbers of bombers and large auxiliary air units, the numbers of incoming missiles from the north had greatly reduced allowing them to move to provide addition defense against the inevitable missile attacks from the surface group approaching from the west which had by now suffered significant damage from our Standard ARM greatly reducing their ability to defend. And so we continued, both fixed and rotary wing ASW units scouring for the submarines we new were their following their surprise missile launches, then over four hours in as a sign they were getting in closer we had torpedo contacts. Evasive action standoff ASW ship defense and heavy air unit ASW work saw results with what would be the next of many subs sunk, but also the loss of one of our valuable escort. Holding of our own SSM until we were close enough to launch a significant attack of the SAG we sank most of the group including Slava, Sovremennyy and Krivak class ships. This got us a heart warming message of Minimum Victory, but with the Reds now offering much less aggression we knew we could finish the job and 40 minutes later with the sinking of a further Okean class vessel we succeeded. Another epic Enrique, thanks for your time and skilled effort.

HCE - 2024.006 - 2024-09-04 =========================== - Chg:33611 GE Let AI submarine groups fire missiles against player ships again. AI should be able to fire missiles at 3/4 max range now instead instead of a range similar to their torpedo range. (thanks Enrique) https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/33611-ia-submarines-dont-launch-anti-ship-missiles/

I couldn't resist giving it a try, looks promising. I should be able to get the build out in the next 24 hours for you to poke holes in it (or a bunch of ships).

It is comforting to see folks still producing scenarios and folks still playing them. In related news, it does look like F-16s in Ukrainian will be receiving both AIM-9X and AIM-120C8.

Probably of great interest, history of the SQS-26 sonar by one of its designers. Thanks Bob Mack. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA538018.pdf

Another idea is to have two modifiers: one for lower speed and another for fast speed: For example, we can have a modifier for speeds above or equal to 500 knots that could be 15% and another modifier for speeds above or equal to 1000 knots that could be 30%. Slow speed: 400-500-600 knots or whatever with a Ph of 5-10-15% or whatever. Fast speed: 800-1000-1200 knots or whatever with a Ph of 10-20-30% or whatever. Logically, at the tool slow speed cannot be higher than fast speed. Another idea is that target speed depends on missile speed: if target speed is equal or higher than half missile speed (+50%) then Ph would be 10-20-30% or whatever, if target speed is equal or higher than a quarter missile speed (+25%) then Ph would be 5-10-15% or whatever. This tool will allow us to play with speed (cruise, reheat and afterburner) and with altitude (low, medium, high). Personally, I prefer the second idea.

When testing with Don's Scenario I have found that the actions of the land missiles seem to depend on the quality of the sensor detection and the condition of the original target. When firing missile from to units at the target but only one target per unit both destroyed the target and no hits on ships occurred. When both attacking units targeted both AD units the first missiles to get there destroyed both targets. When the second unit reach target location it seems to change that location to a BOL activation destination and those missiles would fly on and lock onto the ships and attack them instead. As TonyE said they were quite the little overachievers. In one case the first missile set failed to hit assigned target but the second did kill it. No ships were targeted even though the missile flew by the ships. I also notice that if the lock was not solid the missiles would reach the target area and revert to what seems a BOL activation point and kill ships instead.

Fix confirmed for affected scenarios.

HCE - 2023.004 - 2023-04-04 =========================== - Chg:32897 GE Rather than loosing attacks against submarines from close to a weapon's max range, now prompt to fire them from at most 2nm away. This could negatively affect weapons like CAPTOR mines that might ideally loose their torpedoes from farther away. It would be a good thing to test. https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/32897-stand-off-asw-weapons-failure/ (thanks Enrique)

Heart 3 View File The Heart of the Problem, Part 3 It is October 2022 and the Chinese have invaded Taiwan. The US is on the way to help. This might prove difficult. A larger and challenging scenario that explores the difficulty of reinforcing Taiwan. OOB and situation is pretty close to what's in the theater today. Uses GE ver. 2022.11. Duck. Submitter rainman Submitted 08/25/2022 Category WestPac  

Attached is the last good saved game before air patrols became corrupt. Unit ID Test 1-39.0008.zip

My second scenario dealing with the Ukraininan conflict. I read a lot about possible OOBs and especially the Russian landing force. And included a small surprises, hypothetical, but not impossibly, giving the Ukrainian side more punch. You are outgunned, but not without chances to defend and even to counter-attack. Odessa must not fall!

Thanks TonyE Confirmed fixed.

HCE - 2022.007 - 2022-04-30 =========================== - Chg:00000 GE Minor change to give ExportDLLs the opportunity to process Harpoon Events as part of the scenario loading process. dllexEffect18(); HCE - 2022.008 - 2022-05-21 =========================== - Chg:32297 GE Fixed heap corruption in BOL. The game was trying to come up with a class name for the activation point 'group' which isn't possible. When class name is requested for an invalid annex_id the game now sets it to a null string. (thanks TonyD) https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/32297-bearing-only-launches-crash/

Oops, I'll fix the version required reference, thanks for feedback

View File Nicobar.zip Nicobar Waltz China and India are at war. If the Indians can defend the Andaman and Nicobar islands they can cut off the supply of oil and gas to China. The Chinese have knocked the US out of the fight and are determined to take them. This is intended for show what it would be like for a 2nd world country to take on China these days, and is intended for intermediate to advanced players. Duck. Prepared with Scenario Editor 2015.027, playable with GE 2015.027 or newer. Submitter rainman Submitted 04/22/2021 Category WestPac

I have yet to find a commercially available simulation that can come anywhere close to realistically modeling the real life outcome of any military clash of arms on the kind of scale approached by sims such as Harpoon. That includes Command. These sims are far too mechanical, too regimented, too structured to realistically simulate the swirling multi-factorial chaos that is war. But they rank among the best we have, for the moment.

Update: I am down a deep rabbit hole on VCs at this point and want to document a bit before chasing the rabbit some more. Changes Made: Victory conditions are checked every two game minutes. Previously it was one side per two minutes so every four minutes both sides were checked. This is also a stepping stone toward checking victory conditions for more than two sides. The code checks both minimum and total victory conditions and records the time each level is met for each side. You can now achieve the total victory conditions before minimum victory conditions, HOWEVER you will not be granted total victory until both the minimum and total victory conditions have been met. If a side has no minimum victory conditions defined, only total victory conditions will be examined for that side. In short, you will be able to be granted total victory if your side has only total victory conditions defined.

Well they're much more spectacular Xmas photos than I could provide. While Tony had a white Xmas I sat in humid 35 deg C temps overlooking the western brim of the Pacific Ocean. I hope everyone relaxed a bit and were able to enjoy family and friends. Don

Welcome back broncepulido! The same fix should work for you.

I've been working on this add-on to help promote the non-profit United States Naval Institute (USNI) and may well be able to release this month, the 30th anniversary of Computer Harpoon's release.

There are about eight in-game hours left to chronicle in this final write-up. Don't worry, it will be over soon. In the meantime, to thank you for your patience, here's some potatoes: I discovered some new air contacts and sent F-16s to engage them. They turned out to be MiG-23MLKs and the Flogger-Ks proved to be a very tough customer. In this and the following the fight, I lost eight F-16s for six enemy fighters. Partly down to having some very tough customers, partly for leaving one unit's radar off... I did actually do another standoff attack shortly after this, sending five aircraft armed with Harpoons to attack the Soviet carrier group. I also must have launched some F-15s in a counter-air sweep at some point, because I downed two Flanker-Ds and three helicopters; two of the latter were AEW Helixs, so that was a useful bonus. However, Suffren came under attack by Sunburn missiles. Downing one didn't exactly mitigate the damage of the other four and that vessel sunk. Shortly after, Cassard came under AS-17 attack and it too succumbed. My standoff attack managed to launch 12 Harpoons at the carrier group, but all were downed. I lost an E-3 half an hour later. At 05:52 the strangest engagement of the battle occurred, when an air combat between MiG-25s and F-16s went into gun range, after one of the latter had been downed by AA-6s. The battle ran a grand total of 17 and a half minutes; my notes show an increasing incredulity at the situation. Eventually, the F-16s (who I tried to withdraw) finally down the Foxbats and I was also able to dock some of my ships.... At 0621 I reflected it had gone rather quiet. Guess what happened five minutes later...