CV32

I do think forums are the way to go when trying to manage a wargame like this.

Interested.

From RIA Novosti Iran's ability to build own S-300 air-defense systems queried Dmitry Korobeinikov 14:5925/11/2009 A Russian military expert questioned on Wednesday Tehran's claims that it could build its own S-300 surface-to-air missile systems. With the delivery of Russian-made S-300 systems to Iran long overdue, Tehran has said it is capable of producing clones in the near future. Speaking to Mehr News Agency on November 14, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of Iran's parliamentary Foreign Policy and National Security Commission said "the Islamic Republic will be able to mass produce the system in the near future." Vladimir Yevseyev, a senior research fellow at the Russian Academy of Sciences World Economics and International Relations Institute, dismissed the claims as "misleading information." "Iran is unable to build these complexes due to its serious technological lag. Nor is it likely to acquire such capability in the next five years," he said. He also said Iran was unable to copy S-300s. "There are suspicions that China made [s-300s], but China has an altogether different resource base, and China has had S-300 systems delivered [from Russia] in the first place." Yevseyev said Iran's air-defense system as a whole was obsolete while the S-300 was key to protecting the country's entire territory. Iran said on Tuesday it still hoped Russia would fulfill its contract for the supply of S-300 systems. Russia signed a contract with Iran on the supply of S-300 air defense systems in December 2005. However, there have been no official reports on the start of the contract's implementation. A senior Iranian military official also said Tuesday Iran could sue Russia in an international court if Moscow refused to fulfill its commitments on the delivery of S-300s to Tehran. Tehran suspects Moscow has refused so far to honor the S-300 contract due to pressure from Washington and Tel Aviv. Both the U.S. and Israel have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program and have expressed concern over S-300 deliveries, which would significantly strengthen Iran's air defenses. The latest version of the S-300 series is the S-300PMU2 Favorit, which has a range of up to 195 kilometers (about 120 miles) and can intercept aircraft and ballistic missiles at altitudes from 10 meters to 27 kilometers. It is considered one of the world's most effective all-altitude regional air defense systems, comparable in performance to the U.S. MIM-104 Patriot system. ** CV32: Yes, of course, they can. Apparently China can also build submarines that sound exactly like the Macy's Parade.

It was, but I do not delete entries because this would screw up older scenarios that use the platform.

Thanks for posting the savegames and descriptions. I took a very quick look at your first 'impervious F-16s' savegame, and managed to shoot down 6x F-16s with 6x AIM-120A/B AMRAAMs in a couple of minutes play.

A new version of the Harpoon Commander's Edition World Wars Database (HCWW-091120) is now available. Get it in the Downloads section of the HarpGamer website. Ships/MLUs: Allen (1941) DD - USA Asheville (1942) PG - USA Bagley (1941) DD - USA Bagley (1942) DD - USA Bagley (1943) DD - USA Benham (1939) DD - USA Benham (Dec 41) DD - USA Benham (1942) DD - USA Benham (May 42/1) DD - USA Benham (May 42/2) DD - USA Benham (1943/1) DD - USA Benham (1945) DD - USA Buckley (1943) DE - USA Buckley (1944) DE - USA Cannon (1943) DE - USA Cannon (1944) DE - USA Clemson (1941) DD - USA Craven (mid 42) DD - USA Edsall (1943) DE - USA Edsall (1944) DE - USA Elco 77 (1941) PT - USA Elco 77 (1942) PT - USA Elco 77 (Oct 43) PG - USA Evarts (1943) DE - USA Evarts (1944) DE - USA Farragut (1941) DD - USA Farragut (1942/1) DD - USA Farragut (1942/2) DD - USA Gridley (1941) DD - USA Gridley (mid 43) DD - USA Higgins 78 (1942) PT - USA Higgins 78 (1943) PT - USA Higgins 78 (1944) PT - USA Higgins 78 (1945) PT - USA Huckins 78 PT - USA John C. Butler (44/1) DE - USA John C. Butler (44/2) DE - USA Kane (1941) DD - USA Mahan (1941) DD - USA Mahan (1942) DD - USA Mahan (1943) DD - USA Mahan (1944) DD - USA Monadnock (1941) CM - USA PCE-842 PC - USA Porter (1941) DD - USA Porter (1943) DD - USA Porter (1944/1) DD - USA Porter (1944/2) DD - USA Porter (1945) DD - USA PT-103/Elco 80 (1942) PT - USA PT-103/Elco 80 (43/1) PT - USA PT-103/Elco 80 (43/2) PT - USA PT-103/Elco 80 (1944) PT - USA Rudderow (1944/1) DE - USA Rudderow (1944/2) DE - USA Sampson (1941) DD - USA Sampson (1942) DD - USA Sampson (1943) DD - USA Somers (1941) DD - USA Somers (1942) DD - USA Somers (1943) DD - USA Tank Ptn Hvy (GE/42) - Germany Tank Ptn Hvy (SU/44) - Soviet Union Tank Ptn Lt (GE/39) - Germany Tank Ptn Lt (IT/40) - Italy Tank Ptn Lt (SU/41) - Soviet Union Tank Ptn Lt (US/41) - USA Tank Ptn Med (GB/41) - Great Britain Tank Ptn Med (GB/42) - Great Britain Tank Ptn Med (GE/39) - Germany Tank Ptn Med (GE/43) - Germany Tank Ptn Med (IT/39) - Italy Tank Ptn Med (JA/42) - Japan Tank Ptn Med (SU/40) - Soviet Union Tank Ptn Med (US/41) - USA Tank Ptn Med (US/44) - USA Terror (1942) CM - USA Terror (May 43) CM - USA Wickes (DM) DM - USA Wickes (DMS) DMS - USA Installations: La Senia - Algeria Marseilles - France Mers El Kebir - Algeria Oran - Algeria Toulon - France Enjoy.

We're the development team and don't deal with serial numbers and sales and such, but if you can't get anywhere with the Matrix Games help desk, I would suggest sending an email directly to Erik Rutins, Director of Product Development and Business Relations, at Matrix. You can email him through the Matrix Forums after you log in there. If you still aren't getting anywhere with that, please let us know and we will try and dig deeper. In the interim, does the serial work with any of the patches or the latest beta release 2009.046 posted here at HarpGamer?

Correct .. the sensor (radar or sonar, and not a sonobuoy or jammer) has to be added to the actual loadout of the aircraft (like a weapon). You're probably quite right to observe that no aircraft in the HCDB (I assume that's what you tried to use) has such a loadout just yet. I don't think I've added any. I don't think either of those has a suitable sensor in their loadouts. I had planned on creating the appropriate loadout(s) this weekend, and testing the code myself, if no enterprising beta tester beats me to it.

I have no reason whatsoever to believe that doing so would cause odd behaviors in the AI like invincible air groups, utterly dysfunctional player weaponry, or ultra sophisticated enemy reconnaissance. And I expect any corruption of the scenario would result in a crash rather than changes in AI behavior. The 'how so' is due to the fact that we don't hear anyone else making complaints about it. I say 'dubious' because I am hearing anecdotal accounts of bizarre game play behaviors (like those mentioned above) from you only, and talk of 'mystery friends' and a lack of savegame files doesn't help us get to the bottom of it. Hence the complaints are dubious at best. Actually, until I see some concrete proof of these things actually happening, I feel like I am just wasting my time trying to chase down these complaints. I'm sorry about that, because I think we have a very good track record here of responding to bug reports and dealing with them best we can. If a reported bug is real, and can be verified, we can at least try to attack it. But until then, there is nothing being done here that is helpful at all.

Yes, it is. The evolution generally goes something like this: Harpoon Classic (HC) --> Harpoon Classic 97 (HC97) --> Harpoon Classic 2002 (HC2002) --> HC Gold (HCG) --> Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE)

Playing at too high a time compression can lead to rather obvious and unfortunate results. Beyond that, it simply sounds to me like you're not having much fun with HCE and should probably stick to HC Gold or some other game. Since I don't agree that many of these behaviors are actually happening, then yeah, smells like a conspiracy theory to me. Or, at least, a theory without much proof of existence. I wouldn't agree with that being true at all. And I don't hear any other people complaining about it either. I'd like to help you with your numerous HCE issues, JoeK, but frankly, you seem to have so many, and respectfully, rather dubious complaints that I doubt that the HCE dev team could ever satisfy your concerns. In the meantime, I really do hope you enjoy HC Gold. A lot of folks worked very hard on that project.

I'd like to see a savegame that shows this.

You can reduce time compression to '0', check your formations and things, and then bring TC back to '1:1' or higher. I can dispel that rumour (though I am not sure its a 'rumour', since this is the first I've heard of it) here and now. I have been involved in Harpoon Classic development since HC97 was first cracked open, so I can tell you that efforts at enhancing AI (and I use that term loosely) have never moved backwards.

That's a good point, Warhorse. The Group Map will show your submarine as being in the centre of its formation, but the Unit Map will show where it actually is, in terms of what sector of its own formation it has been assigned to patrol. If you're anywhere near land, this could prove a critical factor. I can only wish that something as simple as that would solve JoeK's particular problem.

From Aviation Week China Close To Testing Next-Gen Fighter Nov 16, 2009 Bradley Perrett/Beijing A Chinese fighter of nominally the same technology generation as the Lockheed Martin F-22 will soon enter flight testing, while a jet airlifter larger than the Airbus A400M should be unveiled by year-end. Beijing’s fighter announcement suggests a serious failing in U.S. intelligence assessments, mocking a July 16 statement of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that China would have no fifth-generation fighters by 2020. Industrial competition looks more remote than strategic competition, however, since China will want to fill domestic requirements before offering the aircraft abroad, even if it judges export sales to be a wise policy. The new fighter “is currently under development,” says Gen. He Weirong, deputy air force chief. “[it] may soon undertake its first flight, quickly enter flight testing and then quickly equip the forces. “According to the current situation, [the entry into service] may take another eight to 10 years,” he adds. No details of the aircraft were given, but it is almost certainly designed for supersonic cruise without afterburning. In April, Adm. Wu Shengli, the navy chief, listed supercruising fighters among equipment that his service needed. Notably, all the other equipment on his wish list looked quite achievable by the end of the next decade, matching the timing that the air force now suggests for the fighter. China classifies aircraft of the F-22’s technology level as fourth-generation fighters, although they are called fifth-generation aircraft in the West. China’s current advanced fighter, the J-10, is locally called a third-generation aircraft, which in Chinese terms means that it is comparable with the Lockheed Martin F-16. Work on “the fourth-generation aircraft is now proceeding intensely,” He says. Whether the upcoming fighter is really comparable with the F-22 remains to be seen. Low radar reflectivity would not be surprising, since aircraft and missiles with stealthy shapes are now popping up in many countries, including South Korea as recently as last month (AW&ST Oct. 26-Nov. 2, p. 42). But sensor performance, information fusion and maximum supercruise speed would also be assessed critically in measuring a claim to have caught up with technology levels that the U.S. did not deploy until 2005. The existence of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter, usually tagged J-XX, has been rumored for years without official confirmation. If the aircraft does go into service before 2020, then at that time China may well have jumped past Britain, France and other Western European countries in terms of deployed, domestically developed combat-aircraft technology. That will depend on how quickly those countries move to field combat drones to replace current strike aircraft, says Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Brookes takes seriously the Chinese objective of technology equivalent to the F-22, and he sees no reason to doubt that the F-22 would be the standard against which they would judge their design. The know-how can be imported. “The Russians have the technology and the Chinese have the money,” he says. “If they really set that as a target, then I think they can do it.” The aircraft may not bother Western manufacturers in export markets, Brookes suggests, simply because an equivalent of the F-22 would be a destabilizing export that China would be prefer to keep to itself. Even if China decides that it wants to export the fighter, Lockheed Martin should by then be well entrenched with the F-35, which should be mature and reliable at that point. Other manufactures may not be so well placed, however. Gen. He made his remarks during an interview on China Central Television as part of the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the air force of the People’s Republic of China. (The general’s surname is pronounced as “her” but without the “r.”) China is probably working on two fifth-generation concepts, says Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center. One of those concepts, appearing most commonly in bits and pieces of evidence that have turned up from time to time, would be a heavy twin-engine fighter probably of about the same size as the F-22. The other is a single-engine aircraft probably closer to the Lockheed Martin F-35. Gen. He could be referring to either of the aircraft when predicting an entry into service during the next decade. Fisher’s bet is that he is talking about the twin-engine concept. Like Brookes, Fisher believes China is realistically aiming at the F-22’s technology level. “One has to assume that the People’s Liberation Army is confident in its projections, as it almost never makes such comments about future military programs, especially one that has been as closely held as its next-generation fighter. “As such, one has to be asking very hard questions: How did the U.S. intelligence community get this one wrong? And inasmuch as no one expects the F-35 to replace the F-22 in the air superiority role, is it time to acknowledge that F-22 production termination is premature and that a much higher number is needed to sustain deterrence in Asia?” In his July 16 speech, Gates said that even in 2025 China would have but a handful of fifth-generation aircraft. The new Chinese fighter could come from the Chengdu or Shenyang plants of Avic Defense. Gen. He says the Chinese air force plans to emphasize development of four capabilities: reconnaissance and early warning, air strike, strategic supply, and air and missile defense. The J-10 began large-scale service entry in 2006, state media say. When Wu raised the prospect of a supercruising fighter, an easy answer seemed to be an advanced version of the J-10. That looks less likely now that He describes the future concept as a full generation ahead of the J-10. “I believe the Chinese have a difficult road if their design is tied to the J-10,” says a U.S. Air Force officer involved in the development of the F-35. “Significantly reduced signature requires more than coatings. It requires an integrated design philosophy with the right shaping, the right structure and the right surface coatings.” Fisher assumes that China is developing improved fourth-generation fighters in parallel with the fifth generation. The existence of the airlifter has been known for several years, if only because pictures of it have appeared fleetingly in presentations by the Chinese aviation conglomerate Avic. As expected, it turns out to be a product of Avic’s large-airplane subsidiary, Avic Aircraft and, more specifically, of the subsidiary’s core plant, Xi’an Aircraft. Avic Aircraft General Manager Hu Xiaofeng says the airlifter is in the 200-metric-ton class and will be unveiled at the end of this year. In fact, its design has already unveiled in pictures shown by state media. The four-engine aircraft adopts the universal high-wing, T-tail configuration. The wing is mounted on top of the circular body, rather than passing through a deep segment of it and cutting out much of the usable cross-section. In that respect it is like the A400M, Ilyushin Il-76 and Kawasaki C-X but unlike the C-17, whose embedded wing presents less frontal area. The main gear of the Chinese aircraft is housed in very protuberant sponsons, like those of the C-17. A photograph of the cockpit shows five electronic displays of moderate size and conventional transport-style control columns. Engines are not revealed but would presumably be imported from Russia. A wind-tunnel model shows the engines are enclosed in long nacelles, like those of the Perm PS-90 from Russia. The PS-90 has a standard maximum thrust of 35,300 lb. in its latest version. The C-17, with a gross weight of 265 tons, is powered by four Pratt & Whitney F117 engines of 40,400 lb. thrust. The airlifter’s fuselage appears to be of conventional metal construction. The aircraft will be significantly larger than the A400M, which has a 141-metric-ton gross weight. Hu says it has been independently developed in China. However, his parent company, Avic, has a long history of cooperation with Ukrainian airlifter specialist Antonov. With David A. Fulghum in Washington.

Thanks for following up on this, JMS. Mixed groups are not 'programmed' to behave this way, so we're aware of that behavior.

You can disagree all you want but I am relating to you my own experience and I expect you will have a hard time convincing me otherwise. I have never struck a 'sea mount' in HCE, but I have never been aboard the USS San Francisco either. I have to question why you seem to insist on putting your submarines into such shallow waters. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, HCE manages water depth as a function of distance from land. Its really quite simple. With all due respect, I don't hear anyone else clamoring about they are constantly beaching submarines. Unless I am ignoring my ships and submarines and leaving them to their own devices, I just don't have this problem. And since we added the ability to 'pause' the action, and sort out such things, its easier now than it has ever been. Maybe you should be sticking to the simple, linear scenarios, then? If I was finding myself frustrated and overwhelmed by too many things going on, I'd probably want to pick another scenario to play. To each his own, and all that. Sounds like 'wish list' material to me. If you've seen the Wish List subforum, you'll note that there are many things that we'd each like to have. An enhanced AI is certainly one. Whether its reasonably within our grasp to introduce such code without breaking something else is quite another.

Why don't you just provide a savegame of a scenario in progress where you are being walloped by invincible air groups?

I guess I use a hybrid of the two approaches you mention, as I usually set courses that are fairly short. To be honest, setting a course for a submarine and then making sure it doesn't broach or hit the bottom is hardly ever an issue of concern. If my submarine is navigating in the open ocean, then worrying about striking bottom is a non-issue and I am far more concerned about sonar conditions, best speed, and my ultimate destination. If my submarine is navigating in restricted waters, then I (if need be) determine the water depth in the area of my intended path, and set my course accordingly. Most often, this is going to be Intermediate or Shallow, because the nature of the restricted waterway is going to dictate that my foes will be fairly close at hand when I do detect them. In neither case do I set a course and then forget about the sub for long periods of time. I am constantly monitoring its progress, its position, its heading, its sensor performance, etc. So beaching it or running headlong into the shallows is just not a concern. I am a micro manager when it comes to HCE. What you might find 'tedious' or 'burdensome', I relish. Our method of game play seems to be so fundamentally different that we are just not on the same page.

I don't know how to say it any more clearly: I do not find navigating and determining water depth to be a chore in any way.

Yeah, painfully easy in my experience.

Nope, you maneuver with your environment.

Having never experienced anything like this, I'm afraid I cannot help. I've been outnumbered, outranged, and outclassed by enemy aircraft in HCE, but I have never seen an 'invincible' or even a 'near invincible' enemy AI air group.

A new version of the Harpoon Commander's Edition World Wars Database (HCWW-091113) is now available. Get it in the Downloads section of the HarpGamer website. Ships/MLUs: Allen M. Sumner (1944) DD - USA Allen M. Sumner (1945) DD - USA Atlanta (1942) CL - USA Benson (1941) DD - USA Benson (1942) DD - USA Benson (1943) DD - USA Bristol (1941) DD - USA Bristol (1942) DD - USA Bristol (1943) DD - USA Brooklyn (1941) CL - USA Brooklyn (Mar 43) CL - USA Cleveland (Grp 1) CL - USA Cleveland (Grp 2) CL - USA Cleveland (Grp 3) CL - USA Cleveland (Grp 4) CL - USA Fletcher (1942/1) DD - USA Fletcher (1942/2) DD - USA Fletcher (1942/3) DD - USA Fletcher (1943/1) DD - USA Fletcher (1943/2) DD - USA Fletcher (1944) DD - USA Fletcher (1945/1) DD - USA Fletcher (1945/2) DD - USA Gearing (1945/1) DD - USA Gearing (1945/2) DD - USA Gearing DDR (45/1) DD - USA Gearing DDR (45/2) DD - USA Gleaves (1941) DD - USA Gleaves (1942) DD - USA Gleaves (1943) DD - USA Indianapolis (May 42) CA - USA Indianapolis (May 43) CA - USA Indianapolis (Oct 44) CA - USA Juneau (1942) CL - USA Marblehead (1941) CL - USA New Orleans (1939) CA - USA New Orleans (1941) CA - USA New Orleans (Apr 42) CA - USA New Orleans (1944) CA - USA Northampton (1941) CA - USA Northampton (1942) CA - USA Northampton (Dec 43) CA - USA Oakland (Grp 1) CL - USA Omaha (1941/1) CL - USA Omaha (1941/2) CL - USA Omaha (1942) CL - USA Omaha (1943/1) CL - USA Omaha (1943/2) CL - USA Pensacola (1941) CA - USA Pensacola (1942) CA - USA Portland (1939) CA - USA Portland (1941) CA - USA Portland (late 44) CA - USA San Diego (1942) CL - USA San Diego (1944) CL - USA San Juan (1942) CL - USA San Juan (1944) CL - USA Savannah (Sep 44) CL - USA Sims (1941/1) DD - USA Sims (1941/2) DD - USA Sims (1942) DD - USA Sims (1943) DD - USA St Louis (1941) CL - USA St Louis (Oct 43) CL - USA Installations: Casablanca - French Morocco Fort de France (Martinique) - France Enjoy.

This has been rumored for a while ... From Jane's Russia plans reactivation of two Kirov-class cruisers By Vladimir Petrov 11 November 2009 The Russian Federation Navy (RFN) is to reactivate two laid-up Kirov-class (Project 1144) battle cruisers, according to statements attributed by Russian media to the country's deputy defence minister. Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin reportedly said that the Ministry of Defence has decided to renovate and modernise its heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser (tiazhyeliy atomniy raketniy kreiser/TARK) units Admiral Lazarev (ex- Frunze ) and Admiral Nakhimov (ex- Kalinin ). The 24,300-ton ships were commissioned into the Soviet Navy in 1984 and 1988, the second and third vessels in a class that eventually numbered four. Col Gen Popovkin made no mention of the lead ship, Admiral Ushakov (ex- Kirov ), which entered service in 1980 and was decommissioned in 2004, appearing to confirm earlier reports that it is to be scrapped. The RFN currently has one ship of the class in service, Pyotr Velikiy (ex- Yuri Andropov , ex- Kuibishev ), which was launched in St Petersburg in 1989 and commissioned in 1998.