Jump to content

Rescue 193

Members
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Rescue 193 last won the day on August 23 2021

Rescue 193 had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

1,612 profile views

Rescue 193's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Week One Done Rare

Recent Badges

7

Reputation

  1. Welcome back. About half-a-dozen messages from you came pinging in on my phone at round about 0300hrs the other night - my wife thought it was an alien invasion! Anyhow, I've been through the offending game 3 or four times since the original error occurred (I'd save the name under a different name at some point, so I was only a game-time hour or so away from the glitch) but it never happened again. I reckon I'll have to put it down to random twitch in my set-up.
  2. Ah! I fear I might have unwittingly mislead you. I was merely musing on the errant behaviour of your pair of ADCAP torpedoes and, leading on from that, how blue-on-blue occurrences are (in the game) a rarity these days. When I mentioned "Bug" in my previous message I was actually referring to the F/A-18 Hornet rather than a glitch in the game play. Apologies for the misunderstanding!
  3. The game wouldn't be the same without a little weirdness. Volleys of air-launched harpoons have a tedious predilection to head for targets that have already been blasted to matchwood. However, Donaldseadog's latest iteration of Tool Box has a neat feature that, if you catch them in time, allows you to reassign errant missiles back to their intended (or even a completely different) target. I've only used it once to redirect a torpedo and it worked. I'm not sure how that would pan out for an unintentional blue-on-blue engagement though. As I'm sure you know, back in the day, there was an iteration of the game where air-to-air missiles (phoenix was a particular villain for obvious reasons) had a tendency to go for the 'next target down range'. That rather spoiled the fun if the Tomcats fired a volley at a fighter escort to a bomber formation while the Bugs went ahead going after the bombers which would be minus the escort after the Tomcats had done their work. However, If the Bug went in on the same, or similar axis of approach, as the Phoenix volley it was not good news. I suppose it was a 'realistic' feature but I wasn't too sad when it vanished from the following iterations of the game. Which IOPG battleset/sceanario were you playing when the ADCAPs went rogue?
  4. Rescue 193

    Question...

    It maybe (well, it is) a oneway trip for the paratroops but, on the plus side, there's an inexhaustible supply of the blighters. RTB, load the next batch of digital volunteers and Tally Ho!
  5. The Earth tilts on its axis? Nonsense! Next you'll be telling me the Earth's not flat, that it orbits the sun and that the moon isn't made of green cheese. 😂
  6. Many thanks for your reply. I was aware of the general times-of-day parameters you mentioned and I sort of assumed that they applied generally. But I was just a bit hazy about whether some sort of "seasonal/latitude" adjustment applied to the high northern latitudes so I thought I'd check in the hope of hearing from "them wot noes" about such things. I guess the rules work well enough between, say, the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and for, say, 20 or 30 degrees, north and south. So they're fine as a general rule of thumb. But at 50 North (where I am) its daylight at 2100hrs GMT through May to August but dark at by about 1600hrs from November through January and can't be denied that Midnight off the coast of Northern Norway (or Murmansk) in June is a fair bit brighter than it is in December and that daylight hours that time of year are a whole lot shorter than they are in June! The same goes for the 'low' southern latitudes of course but its not quite as relevant when fighting penguins and whales I suppose! Maybe I should add it to my wish list but there are probably more pressing, and more important, things to deal with eh? Anyhow, thanks for clarifying the matter for me, I appreciate it. Regards, R193
  7. Eric, "Parallels" enables me run Windows 10, in a window as it were, on the Mac OS, so TonyE's Launcher works absolutely perfectly - it doesn't know its running on a Mac. That's the way I run Harpoon too, I use the Windows (although I still think of it as Dos) not the Mac version of the game. I hope TonyE doesn't faint at the thought of having to produce a Mac version of the launcher! Now, as to the Launcher itself, I think I can make reasonable guesses to what the various Command Line check boxes are for (which is not the same as knowing what they actually do of course) but I can see the "-S Iterative Saving" line is the one I need to tweak to sort out the business of saving the game so that I can look back to the moment just before a crash and I've copied your recommendation in the settings. I assume the Logging Options panel does what it says but I suspect that it produces lines of code that would be meaningless to me but if you you could suggest which boxes to tick to that in the event of another crash I'd have the right log to show what happened that would be good. A couple of things do intrigue me "-x Disable sub AI" is one the other being "-e Enable old eff115 (emcon_ai). What are they all about? Regards, Martin
  8. Eric, Many thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, I don't recall the how far into the game I was when it went TU - maybe about 3 or 4 hours but that's just a guesstimate. The utility you mention, and show as a screen shot, looks jolly interesting and sounds very useful. However, the only reference to "Tool Box" that I can see Downloads section in the Harpoon Classic/HC/HCE/HUCE Tools/Mods/Docs section is Donaldseadog's excellent DLL utility called Tool Box, but I don't think that's the one you mean (is it?). However, I have found a file by TonyE called "HC Launcher 2017.001". Anyhow, I've downloaded the beast and flashed it up and it appears to match the image you've shown in your message, so I think I'm in the right place. As I mentioned in my original message I live in the world of Apple and most (virtually all) of the mysterious "Windows C\:*" stuff scares the willies out of me but everything operates as advertised when using Parallels. All of which is a roundabout way of saying, if I run into the sand I shall certainly impose upon your generous offer of help with the set-up. Regards, Martin.
  9. When playing the user scenario EC Tom1_1.scn, in EC2003 Battle for the Atlantic Ocean running Build 2021.006 in Win 10 (via Parallels on a Mac - its complicate but things usually work just fine!) the game crashed without warning and produced the following message: At the time of the crash my machine had roughly 1.24 GB of memory available The having re-opened Harpoon the "saved game" would not reload and produced the following message: Is this just a "thing" or can the "saved game" be rescued (because, damn it, I was winning!)? Any and all suggestions, help, advice, guidance welcomed. Regards, R193
  10. Does the game allow for the seasonal variation in daylight and darkness in the high northern latitudes? I ask because I'm about to launch an attack on some bad guys in Iceland using some sneaky B-2s. Obviously, I'm sending them in at night but then I paused for thought (Yeah! unusual for me I know) because it doesn't get too dark for too long around Keflavik during August and, no matter how stealthy the aircraft may be, all that cool high tech wizardry doesn't count for much if my billion dollar bombers can be detected by a chap using MKI eyeballs! So, is 'nighttime darkness' a set parameter in the game or does it vary as it does in the real world? And, while I'm on the do the hours of daylight/nighttime vary with respect to eastings and westings in scenarios, and here I'm thinking of the larger ones like the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans? Regards, R193
  11. One enthusiast across the road on the TOAW IV forum produced a new opening splash for the game that I thought, with a little adaptation, might appeal to Harpooners. The link is http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=5058931 if you'd like to see it.
  12. Me again. But now I’ve read the thread. Thus, as the old saying has it, I’m none the wiser but much better informed. As always my normal caviar applies to all that follows below: I’m not a programmer, I know nothing of what lies beneath the interface and the game engine that lurks beneath so I hope that those that do will treat me gently. In any simulation-based game the key to its success, by which I mean its longevity and capacity to involve and entertain its players rather than the copies sold, is to absorb, involve and entertain its players. To do that the game must strike a fine balance between verisimilitude and playability and getting that right is the proverbial trick. The thing that I enjoy most about Harpoon (apart from shooting stuff down, sinking stuff and blowing-up stuff) is that it is not a game of ‘turns’. Both Red and Blue act and react, initiate and respond in a continuum of action. Both sides seek to gain, and hold the tempo but, generally speaking neither side can be certain that they actually do hold the advantage at any given moment in the game. However, there are things that could make it better and which would make it more realistic without compromising its playability and replenishment of ships’ magazines is, to my way of thinking, probably the most important. I’ll happily swallow the wholly unrealistic premise that a frigate/destroyer/Cruiser can steam around the oceans at maximum speed without refuelling because, in that particular case playability trumps verisimilitude. In the same heartbeat I’ll happily accept that that combat aircraft can’t fly forever without refuelling because verisimilitude trumps, yet perversely enhances, playability (and, anyhow, particularly with Donaldseadog’s wonderful widget IFR isn’t the dark art it used to be). All of which begs the question: Why do I have such a bug up my derriere about replenishing ships’ magazines? My answer the question is simple. Because, unless the player uses a self-imposed limit on himself or herself, carrier-launched aircraft will never runout of ordnance with which to attack the opposition and can launch endless attacks, erode the defender’s capacity to defeat them and, ultimately, pick-off the defenders with virtual impunity because the defender simply can’t shoot back. At that point verisimilitude fly’s out of the window and playability becomes either sadism if your attacking or masochism if your defending. I’m loathe to highlight a problem without proffering a solution, albeit without knowing if the solution is practical or even possible (see my caveat above) but here’s what I’d suggest: Ships’ magazines should be capable of being replenished by A% every X hours (depending on the scenario if possible). Carriers (or Carrier Air Groups embarked) should have magazines which could also be capable of being replenished by B% every Y hours. Bases/Airfields/SAM sites, likewise, C% every Z hours (that goes for aircraft ordnance magazines on Bases/Airfields too). I guess some random variable could applied to the P% replenishment and the H hour timing and maybe and absolute limit applied to total P% ordnance available to add to the ‘fog of war’ aspect. Anyhow that’s my tuppence-worth on the subject.
  13. Blush blush! Whoa! Wait a minute there. That could be done... really? Gimme... Gimme... Gimme. Please, pretty please. I promise I'll be good. I'll do the dishes and feed the cat... no... really I will! But never mind rearming the submariners... nasty devious types... let them go home to get more torpedoes and whatnot... but let me top-up the magazines of an Arleigh Burke or Bunker Hill (of whatever flavour) or a Type 42 (HMS Gloucester did take down that silkworm with an over-the-shoulder shot as I recall) let reloads and let a Slava, Kara and Russian CVH reload too! Gird your loins you programmer types (you munificent, magnificent, multi-talented magical manipulators of binary bits) and do it! ... hmmm... Okay. I've calmed down a little now and go and read the thread. Suffice it to say, if my vote counts, I vote DO IT!.
  14. Welcome indeed. The whole replenishment at sea (RAS, pronounced Razz, as in Jazz, in the Royal Navy) or underway replenishment (or Unrep as the USN has it) is a bit of a vexed issue, at least it is as far as I'm concerned. Ships' magazines are finite as far as their organic weaponry is concerned but this caveat doesn't extend to fixed or rotary wing aircraft embarked. So, a carrier air group can use an unlimited number of, say, HARM and Harpoons missiles to pound a hostile surface group until the target simply runs out of ammo to shoot back which is all very unfair unless you happen to be an aviator I suppose! The same goes for ASW aircraft prosecuting submarine contacts. A Helo flying of the back of a frigate can attack a contact any number of times but the ship itself can only fire its allotted load of torpedoes. Why the ship should be limited in this way while its Helo isn't has always struck me as odd. Some scenario designers try to militate this obvious advantage by suggesting (specifying?) that the player uses only the type of payload that any particular aircraft, or aircraft type, is carrying at the start of the scenario. Another trick is for the player to limit hisself (or herself?) to only using the number/type of ordnance that the carrier would typically carry in its magazines. I guess that putting an a freighter (for the beans and bullets) and an oiler (for the gas) allows the for the possibility of 'imaginary or implied replenishment' to take place so that the flyboys can keep shooting but it doesn't overcome the problem of the escorts protecting the group running out of stuff that goes bang! The other drawback to this pretence of an assumed replenishment capability is that, if the freighter and oiler (which would count as high value targets) are sunk the capability of the surface group would remain undiminished. Bunkerage is also a bit of a problem. Sure, A nuclear powered carrier can steam on forever (well, not quite for ever but I'm sure you know what I mean) 30 knots but it won't be able to maintain high intensity air ops for long because the planes need gas rather than uranium to keep going. All the non-nuke escorts need refuelling too of course - except they don't - their magazines maybe finite but their bunkers are limitless. There are probably a million good reasons (probably, mostly, due to the man-hours involved) why the code that works the speed/endurance/range equations for aircraft can't be applied to ships. However, having said all that, Harpoon is a damned fine simulation and I'd hate it if the logistics stuff (as important as it is) overwhelmed the enjoyment that I get (and I think a lot of others get) from playing the game. The game isn't perfect but, since I can't afford my own private navy I reckon it passes muster as the being the next best thing and I'm extraordinarily grateful to the real aficionados out there in the ether who keep its going.
  15. Tony, Thanks for your reply. I hadn't looked, or thought of looking, at sources outside Harpoon to see if anyone else had made a game/scenario out of Operation Pedestal and I'm slightly surprised it hasn't been done. As for what I had in mind, WWII or something more modern, my initial thought was tending to WWII. I'm sure a good designer could have had, indeed could still have, lots of fiendish fun versus we hapless players with the historical events. Land-based aircraft, submarines and fast-attack boats (and I didn't realise the Italian boats had wreaked such havoc). Moreover, the potential "what ifs" that Hastings speculated about in the book about the consequences of what might have occurred had the Italians sortied its main battleships while Force Z was still in company or, again, what the impact would have been on the outcome if Italian 7th Cruiser Sqn had not turned back when it did. I confess I did toy with idea of a later, 1970s-1980s World War III-esque type of thing, going a bit further than Malta (I had Cyprus in mind). But, my imagination running amok, I saw it involving, say, hostile Arab nations beefed-up with Russian equipment and advisors, Russia itself committing its Black Sea fleet and relevant air assets, Turkey abandoning Nato to throw its lot in with the Russians (on the promise of getting the whole of Cyprus perhaps?) while the EU remained supine in the face of Russian threats. The size and complexity of such a project would require the brains and brawn (in the form of Harpoon expertise I mean) that I simply don't possess. But if anybody fancies the challenge...!
×
×
  • Create New...