Rescue 193

Hello! 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.

Hello! When making air-launched harpoon saturation strike against multiple targets in a Red surface group, I find that if the weapons 'pointed' a large ship manage to score a hit then the other weapons, aimed at other units in the group, tend to forget about what they were told to aim for and make a beeline for the ship that's already been hit. I'm guessing that this mimics what the weapons do "in real-life" (so to speak). So, I was wondering if there's a 'tactical/operational' trick to avoid wasting a lot of pricey-gee-wizardry kit from blasting an already stricken target into ever smaller bits? Any and all hints and tips, greatly appreciated!

LOL LOL! I'm sure that Donaldseadog (probably) doesn't scare quite so easily! But if, "... by helping others in the future... ", you mean idiots like me ought read the instructions first, then you have a point. However, if I might make so bold (not that matters because I'm going to anyway 🤪 ). It would help us mere mortals if the cognoscenti did a little more staff work and kept the rubric up to date. When one reads the dll.txt that comes with the Toolbox V1.7.0 download I think one has the right to assume it applies to that download rather than its forerunners (I've checked the refuelling text and it is identical). True, the new text behind the settings tab in V1.7.0 does it explain things more clearly and even I was able to sort things out... but honestly... it could have been done a little better don't you think? Okay. Maybe I'm being churlish... amend that... I am being churlish... Toolbox is a superb tool... and I've said so elsewhere on this forum so thank you Donaldseadog... and having just used Lazarus Turncoat for the first time, thanks to you too TonyE... its definitely worth its own Bravo Zulu! However it did take me a couple of 'goes' to establish that the Lazarus Turncoat window doesn't open within the Harpoon window but as a separate window (in my case it opened behind it so it wasn't too easy to find) and a little confusion ensued. I'm an ignoramus and have no mandate to speak for those players who are like me. But, for the record, I appreciate what you all do. I marvel at you dedication and brilliance. I enjoy the improvements that you make, and bring, to the game along with the database builders, the scenario designers and everybody else involved. Clearly, you're all eccentric/borderline barmy but, where I come from, that's necessarily seen as a "bad thing" and I thank you all for your efforts. My plea would be for you to remember there's at least one fool out there struggling with all this so, please, try to keep it simple (not so easy) and make it obvious (much simpler 'cause you know WTH is happening!). Thank you. R193

Remarkably enough I've managed to solve the problem myself! The instructions behind the settings tab in Toolbox has a more complete description of "how to do it" than the dll.txt file. I hadn't thought to check in there before. As I suspected I was running the process incorrectly but now I know how to do it properly. As the only saying goes: "You can't make the system foolproof because we fools are just to ingenious." My apologies for troubling you.

When one selects a unit or base A and then clicks on a random point B in the Group window (it works in the Unit window too) the 'information bar' at the bottom of the main window presents the range and bearing [with 'from and to' latitude and longitude info] of B with respect to A. It also works with if one selects two random points in the middle of an empty ocean. 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?

Gosh! Apologies for the tardy response: I had to think about this and, for me, that's something that can't be rushed. The question is, of course, beyond both my pay grade and my IQ but since you ask, and assuming you'll be polite enough to only snigger at me behind my back, here goes. Blue's Asset + Red's Juicy Target = A/JT Analysis: As I understand it, Blue accrues no benefit by deploying the A/JT, let alone putting in harms way. Similarly, as I understand it, Red would accrue no benefit from risking its own assets in prosecuting the A/JT. Conclusion: Why bother (other than for reasons of verisimilitude) to put the A/JT in the order of battle in the first place? Outcome: Unsatisfactory. Solution: Place a benefit on Blue’s deployment, and Red's destruction of, the A/JT. At this point my lack of knowledge and understanding of the game's mechanics takes me into the realm of pure speculation. I've really no idea about what might be possible, improbable or absolutely impossible to achieve within the parameters of the game’s capabilities so the following 'ideas' make no allowance for feasibility or practicality. Blue’s use, or Red’s destruction, of the A/JT accrues ‘victory points’ in terms of howsoever such things are calculated by the game. (Maybe, say, by damage points accrued against “off map” bases (or bases beyond the reach of of units in the scenario). Deployment of the A/JT enhances Blue's ECM capacity and/or degrades Red's ability to detect/intercept/engage Blue's assets (In effect the making the A/JT 'a jammer' which gives Blue a reason to use it while giving Red a reason to hunt it down and kill it). Blue’s use, or Red’s destruction, of the A/JT accrues tangible benefits through the release of ‘reinforcements’ (basically new assets entering the game) for either side as appropriate. Incorporating some sort of “deus ex machina” into the scenario. Perhaps a condition which makes it significantly more difficult or, maybe, even impossible for Blue to achieve its victory conditions if it doesn’t place the A/JT within, say, a given range of and active Red installation for (or by) a specific time or keep it on-station XYZ for a defined period. As I said, these are just ideas, I’m totally ignorant about the internal mechanics of the way the game works. Personally, I tend to deploy the A/JTs because I like the sense of realism engendered and “having one more thing to worry about” appeals to my masochistic streak!

I'll certainly do that for you. However, its not the game or toolbox that's at fault, but more a case of my ineptitude when it comes to using toolbox. The description/instructions in the dll.txt file assume a degree of understanding/competence that I clearly lack - to put it more bluntly I haven't a b@@@dy clue as to what I'm doing!

Apologies for bothering you again with another trivial question. This time I have a "how to do it" query about Toolbox IFR procedure to which, I hope, someone can give me a step-by-step "idiot's guide" I'm using Toolbox V171-3 in build 2021.006. The problem (well, for me its a problem!) is this: I have an air group which is returning to a base which is 950nm away. The group comprises: 000: 1-KC-135R (endurance: 942mins/7222nm) with 5799nm fuel available 001: 5-F-16-C/D Blk30/32 (endurance 101mins/774nm) 002: 1-F-16-C/D Blk30/32 (endurance 11mins/90nm) Obviously, I need to pass fuel from 000: to 002 as a priority and then have 000: top-up 001:. I know there's a way to do this (there is isn't there?) but I'm damned if I can get the sequence right. I manage to either: a) Pass fuel from 000: to 002: but exhaust the tanker's capacity in so doing or; b) Replenish 001: but have nothing left for 002:. So, please tell me (and assume zero knowledge, intelligence and understanding on my part) 'exactly' how I should sequence things, what instructions should I use in in Toolbox, to get both 001: and 002: back to base without hearing that horrible "whoosh-kerbang" sound effect? Thanks in advance for your patience and help.

I sort of suspected that they might really be just another juicy target - but I wanted to be sure that there wasn't some devious benefit they conferred. Thank you.

I understand the principle, function, purpose of Command and Control in a real operation. However, what I don't understand is what, if any, benefits accrue to using them - and here I thinking specifically of EC-135K Head Dancer - within an Harpoon scenario?

Tony, 2021.006 works perfectly. Many, many, thanks. Lockdown is now considerably less tedious that it was. Bravo Zulu! R193

Since I installed 2021.005 every time I open the game I have to resize all the windows to my own idiosyncratic settings. Its hardly the end of the world but I feel that: a) I'm probably doing, or have done, something wrong or, b) I've failed to spot a 'fix' that's already been posted in the forum. Any help, advice, guidance would be appreciated. On an unrelated matter - just sheer curiosity on my part - why is it that, in the older Battlesets, the standard loadout for ASW Seahawk and Oceanhawk helos was generally "ASW" (i.e. 2 torpedoes) whereas in the later Battlesets the loadout is generally "ASW-LR" (i.e. 1 torpedo)?

LOL! Typing it out is the easy bit, its the thinking about what I want to write that makes my brain ache! I'm pleased you liked the runway thing (why is it I feel like I've just submitted an essay to the Headmaster?). it's sort of bugged me ever since I started playing the game back in the last century. The few 'crabs' (chaps in light blue uniforms that belonged to a flying club called the RAF - if that means anything to you?) of my acquaintance used to set great store by their ability to make holes in long narrow strips of concrete and I felt I owed it to them to try to mimic, albeit digitally, their efforts until I 'learned' that, in Harpoon, it was easier to flatten the whole airfield rather than trying to crater the long straight bit that ran alongside it. In terms of verisimilitude my personal favourite would be 'fixing' the "Aircraft maintenance/serviceability/availability" thing. Flying machines are notoriously fickle, temperamental and moody beasts and tend to respond poorly to rough treatment. They also misbehave and become surly and uncooperative when the most is expected of them. BUT... yes... that's a big but... ...If I were to be granted just one wish, it would be be the addition of the post-attack "Return to Base" and "Gun Attack" buttons stuff on the Staff Assistant pop-ups (okay...that's really its two things... but in fixing one, surely it wouldn't be too difficult to tweak the other would it?). I can't tell you how crazy it drives me when I have to hunt down an air group to send it home when its work is done or, even worse, scroll through the OOB to find, and stop, the guys intent on committing suicide by pressing home a gun attack against hopeless odds in particularly unfriendly environment. Having said all that I'm a no "boffin" and I really have absolutely no idea how difficult such a task might be - although I'm pretty damned certain I'm underestimating its scale and complexity by a minimum of several orders of magnitude. Regards, 193

I've posted my wish list. I hope it doesn't leave you tearing your hair out or sobbing into you hands!

A wish list 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 wish list eh? Actually, there are a couple of things lurking at the back of my mind, although I don't know how practical or feasible they might be. Nevertheless, Sir, I shall post as bidden.

Brilliant! Thank you so much, it worked like a charm... erm... that is to say... it worked like clever a bit of software is meant to work (but we all know its magic dust really!). I shall now endeavour to leave you in peace for the rest of the lockdown, not that I can actually promise to do that of course. R193

Tony, Many thanks for the information about tanking - now I know what to look for I can see what's happening - and I'm getting used to it! I have, as you suggested, installed the 2018.002 and then the 2020.003 patches over the 2017.011 but clearly I've done something wrong. When I ran 2018.002 version (before I installed 2020.003) and before I'd actually done anything the Message Log went berserk , pumping out a torrent of (screenshot attached) what I think might be group reports which look like they have (or had) something to do with with the beta testing. Anyhow, the rate at which they were streaming into the log slowed the game down to a halting nonsense. I guess that there's probably a way of switching off these reports but I don't know what it is. Installing the 2020.003 patch did (thankfully) cure the Message Log diarrhoea problem but it threw up another glitch concerning the group Formation Editor. I do recall that some additional 'rings' had been added way back when but the real problem is that, as I hope you can see from the screen shot, the control box lacks any of the buttons to set the range circles, allocate assets etc. Is there something I'm missing or have failed to do in the set up tp cause this? For the moment I'm content to chug along using the 2015.27 version of the game but if there is any advice you (or any other Harpoon Sage) can give me as to how I can make 2020.003 work properly it would be much appreciated. Finally, as long as I'm being an annoying pain in the a**e, cold you point me in the right direction to find the latest 'general purpose' database that fits the standard set of scenarios that come with the game.? Thanks again for all your help.

Thanks to the help of the Matrix/Slitherine Help Desk I managed to retrieve my account thingummy and reloaded my Harpoon ( "Larry Bond's HARPOON Ultimate Edition Build 2015.027"). So after a long hiatus I am, as they say, back in the in the game. However, I have one general questions and a couple about air-to-air refuelling that I'm hoping that somebody kind and knowledgable soul can answer for me. First, and most obvious, are there any updates, patches or what-have-you that I should add to my present version of the game and, if so, where might I find them? I have an update of sorts named HC2017.011GESEDBDUBSBB.exe which, I seem to recall, worked fine back in the day. But, when I re-installed it this time it killed the game and advised me that it was an expired beta and that I should refer to AGSI for later versions, so that was a bit of a dead end. Second, air -to-air refuelling, doesn't appear to work quite as I recall it used to. The tanker a/c in a serial replenishes its receiving a/c as it should (when the receiving a/c are at 20% or thereabouts or when refuelling is forced) and the 'report window' message tells me that refuelling is taking place. However, when the evolution is complete (and the tanker is dry) the 'report window' continues to indicate that refuelling continues. Its possible to check that refuelling is complete in the 'unit window' by clicking on the tanker in the serial and getting the message 'No More Refuels' but it is a bit fiddly especially when things are busy. Even after the tanker is split from the serial to RTB the 'report window' for the now tanker-less serial continues to indicate refuelling is in progress. It is possible to 'clear' the errant message by, say, directing the serial to land and then immediately returning it to its original mission (but simply altering course, speed or altitude doesn't). I'm pretty sure it didn't used to work like this (and I seem to think the defunct HC2017.011 patch fixed it) but I might be wrong. Finally, in the various Harpoon Designer's Series scenarios air-to-air refuelling wasn't an option although, when the capability was introduce it was introduced in updates to the game (with the EC2000 scenarios as I recall) it was added to the original suite of Harpoon scenarios but it never made it to the HDS series. So, my question is is there some sort of database update (or other fix?) that adds an air-to-air refuelling capability to the HDS scenarios? Many thanks for any help you can provide.