Grumble

Yes, something along these lines. I would look at an even stronger (overlarge) thermocline effect. Give the subs distinct advantage when they hide below it (like no passive detection with hull mounted sonars and sonubuoys) but use the current easy going detection when above it. Then twist engagement rules a little more, for example force subs to have to raise above the thermocline for surface attacks and commanders will need to take heavy tactical decisions on both sides. Nowhere near the real thing but could stir up the pot of submarine warfare.

Thanks, got it. This has brought back childhood reading memories. The Graf Spee, Bismarck and the Tirpitz episodes. And the scenario is good, I remember how the book was about that the superior British radars put the Scharnhorst at disadvantage.

Pardon my ignorance, would you please point me at the part of the FAQ describing how can I load this (a) scenario properly? Just downloading Mavgaz's WWII BS intuitively did not cut it, guess I'll need a WWII DB too and perhaps there is more to it. Better do my homework, but where shall I start? The BattleSets FAQ topic is overview only. Thanks!

Yes, this is understood. Putting back in context I wrote those lines as a consolation to accept the poor AI and torpedo handling as a tradeoff for the easier than real submarine detection model. But thanks for pointing me in the direction of your 101 series, I've my reading for the next few hours. Btw. is there a pipe-dream like discussion about ASW somewhere? E.g. how could submarine operations be made more challenging, accepting the limitations of the model available in Harpoon (or in any other strategic simulation confined to a PC).

Yes, the AI does a suboptimal job of the airborne ASW attacks, seems to be content to launch soon after the target is "in range", which works ok for AAW and ASuW, but for an effective air launched ASW attack you just want to be on top of your target. (Until a SUBROC SAM is commissioned, that is.) But let me put a spin on this before going on to my tactics. I understand that Submarine Warfare is more of an art form than a profession. A mind game. Though sonar and torpedo models were improved a lot in Harpoon, meaning more realistic and advantageous for subs, I think it's still too easy to kill subs with airborne ASW. Once a sub is detected it's just the matter of the number of sorties and torpedoes you need to spend until it is sink. That does not feel right. Why would navies spend billions on something that's so easy to kill and can't run away? I do like the book Scorpion in the Sea from Deutermann. Good reading and the description of the shallow water ASW operation feels like the real thing. The low frequency sonars of the Spruances are useless in shallow water and they need an older frigate with active sonar to hunt a diesel-electric over the continental shelf. It all comes down (naturally) to the two commanders trying to out think the other. After reading the book (and when I can afford it ), it is easier to let the AI do a lame job and think, hmm, subs are hard to kill. When I can't afford it I prefer the Mk50 Barracudas for their speed and good PH and the S-3 Viking and P-3 Orion as platform, for speed, range and large load of sonubuoys. (Need to add here that I'm still playing with the classic battlesets, having just rediscovered Harpoon recently, so have not put my hands on Ospreys or Impact yet.) I try to avoid micromanagement whenever possible, for ASW I often use a compromise that I interfere with the speed of the a/c but let the AI handle the heading. This keeps the a/c tagged for intercept and I don't need to draw micro-course after micro-course at least. First, I manually lay a box pattern of sonubuoys to find the sub order a/c to attack when I have a close or exact fix if the AI stops short of the target and prompts to launch I deallocate the torpedo and press execute (to avoid the Cancel > RTB prompt), then manually set the a/c to cruise (it loiters after an attack) until it's on top of the sub and loiter it and attack manually. if the a/c heading is not right (misses the sub) I let it cruise out of torpedo range (only 6nm) and loiter it there. The intercept AI will take over in 1 (or 2?) minutes and vectors it directly to the sub (no ATA delay here) and I'm back at point 3. I launch torpedoes one by one on diesels, in pairs for SSNs, torpedoes are expensive after all. An Orion is good for two subs usually. As for Oscars, well, I send Vikings in pairs.

I knew it's only usual once I know the "contact" is the sub, but until then there were some tense moments with the Staff Assistant ... WTF as in: "Where??? How the hell could a bogey sneak up on our helo under full radar cover? Were you asleep? What?? It's the sub? You should have told that right away!! Don't "contact at 2nm" me you stonefaced ba****rd! I swear you did it on purpose!!"

Now I learned something, thanks! I was looking high and low for the runtime in HUCE, for some reason I was convinced that the hce_art.exe must be a component of the DigMilArt features and never started it. So this is the Access 97 runtime installer actually ... you live and learn. Anyway, back to you, so until someone tells you how to remedy the error you get, you might try the 2007 runtime from MS. This would be a read-only workaround. Read-only because the 2007 runtime converts the database to the Access 2007 format, probably not useable for Harpoon then on. Do make a copy of the db files before opening it first with 2007, the format will be modified already when opening, even if you don't change data in it. I had to rerun the installer to get back an original format copy of the files.

Which version runtime did you try? I had problems opening the db (not sure if it was the same error) with Access 2010 runtime, but it works ok with the Access 2007 runtime. download link: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=4438 This is on Vista. On Windows7 I have an Office 2007 installed, the Access of that also opens the db without problems. PE Guide from Tony: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/topic/1330-platform-editor-users-guide/

If you are desperate for the Scenario Editor, "Windows-XP-Mode in Windows7" might be of help. This is a useful tool on 64 bit machine anyway. Unfortunately the Microsoft addon is only available free of charge to users of Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate. Installation guide: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/install-and-use-windows-xp-mode-in-windows-7 Once you get XP-Mode running, either install a copy of HCE under the XP virtual machine or copy the HUCE directory to the Virtual machine C drive and start SE from there.

Currently jettison is not implemented in HCE, it was in the DOS versions from v1.32 to v1.54A but then it was disabled for some reason. This topic turned out to be a discussion on how to reintroduce it when Tony asked for inputs. Yes, aborting a mission is a decision the theater commander=player has to make. Jettisoning is the pilot's decision and happens independently from the player, those who want jettisoning back are convinced that this improves realism and reduces need for micro management of a/c-s. This has become a long topic, who decides about jettisoning were discussed in some more details in posts #6,#7,#8. The current proposal is to grant a DATA (defensive ATA) bonus to planes after jettisoning, like allow them to use the best DATA of the plane. This would improve their chance to evade missiles and (with modification of the ATA enforced turn delay) to turn faster. See also post #17, "After Jettisoning".

Thanks, yep, should have looked for "surfaced" instead of "surrender".

This is IOPG 13.0. Two Alfa class subs had a bad day, they crossed paths with the Invincible battle group. One Alfa was sunk by two Stingrays, the second Alfa however, when hit by the first torpedo, surfaces and turns to 0 degrees at creep speed. (Staff assistant warned that helo group should turn radars on because contacts are within visual range at 2nm. WTF??) Has it just surrendered?? Can the AI do that? And would it count towards victory conditions? Or is this just coincidence? It's 83% damaged, rudder and engineering. OK, they get 15 minutes to get into those zodiacs then we wrap this up.

Is this the one? http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/project-2-hce/

The Issue Tracker link in the Defect Tracking forum is broken. http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?autocom=bugtracker&showproject=6 Brings you to the Sorry page. Is there a way to report Defects currently? thanks!

Hi Tsume, welcome to the club! ( see my first post in: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/topic/20675-classic-versions-jettison-ordenance.) Now that Tony confirmed the bad news, let me add some "consolation". I think sprint-drift is not effective enough to use in Harpoon, I tend to post only air units into the ASW ring, my ships sprint-drifting tend to end up at the bottom with torpedo sticking out of them,. It seems to me that the risk they take while sprinting outweigh the detection benefits of the drift phase especially in GIUK and NACV where even the common bass seems to swim around armed with a Type65. If I can help I only sail fast if I have at least one sub scout up ahead or ASW a/c-s out to 80nm. I would be interested in to hear an experts view on sprint-drift in an all out war (like GIUK).

it's possible, you can have a forward base without planes, and later in the scenario the AI can opérate formation air patrols and long range air patrols from this base. It's an issue of scenario editing: 1.- In the forward airbase, put the planes you want later in the scenario operating from that airbase. 2.- Edit as usual the formation air patrols and the long range air patrols. 3.- Delete the planes from the forward air base. 4.- Edit one (or many) rearguard air base with the planes do you want later in the scenario based in the forward airbase. 5.- Edit ferry flights (aleatorious in the time) from the rearguard airbase to the forward air base. You can see the effect playing (from any of both sides, the forward airbases are Beira and Pieterburg) my Beira Patrol scenario, hehehe Ok, but in this case it is also not the AI's decision to relocate, it was preprogrammed by the scenario designer. You would need to modify the AI logic if the AI were relocating a/c-s on it's own to other airbases, which, with logistics introduced, might not be able to resupply them. This is not the case I think. Sounds a like a fun scenario though, will have to check it. Pity that I'm now in the know. Cumbersome modifications, you mean the other effects? Hmm. The way I dream it these (smart weapon limit, a/c limit) are not big modifications of the GE rather spin-off effects of a (algorithmically) simple GE logistics modification combined with smartly selected initial airbase stocks. The GE modification algorithmically is this: GE reduces the "airbase stock" for each readied aircraft with the ordinances and fuel of the loadout. Ordinances can be mounted only if available in the airbase stock. Landing aircraft bring-back stock is added to the airbase stock. Duh, I mean I don't expect the ground to shake. But as soon as the GE can "do this" then with an appropriately selected initial stock the player can be forced to ration smart weapons, carefully choose aerial missions and targets and even limit sorties, patrols. (I stress I wrote "algorithmically" simple, does not necessarily mean easy code.) Now as Tony pointed out set up of stock can be a pain in the back for the scenario designer, not to mention backward compatibility of scenarios. To avoid a startup scenario famine when there is no (not enough) "stocked" scenarios available to use with the logistics GE a default stock initialization routine could be added to the GE which it will use for pre-logistics scenarios. That is to fill up airbase stocks abundantly but only for the aircrafts stationed at the airbase at the start. This would give only limited logistics effects, but already it would have a realistic sidekick of limiting a/c-s to airbases operating equal technology. Also GE could check and list weapons consumed total in the status report. And this would be the start. As for ships, these are already limited to their mounts and magazines with a few exceptions which can be reloaded. So here a logistics would rather enhance battle groups capabilities, up to their true potential for long scenarios. An algorithmically simple UNREP routine just allows ships to reload mounts when meeting UNREP requirements, like, UNREP ship and reload ship both in main body, proper speed and no course changes, sea state too, from the stocks of the UNREP ship, reload ship can take no offensive/defensive action. Here the initial stock of the UNREP ship is important to set of course. Ground bases might just be possible to manage with the same UNREP routine with replenishment convoys. A GE with these algorithmically simple modification would already be very interesting to test out.

Well (stretching fingers) lets just open an AI pipe dream, shall we? Ok, we must do that sometime but for the start I don't think you actually need smarter AI for logistics. It is mainly the human player stretching the game beyond the logistically possible. If I think about logistics in an early form I have the following benefits, plus the effect on AI. So logistics would Restrict aircrafts to airbases that can realistically resupply them.The AI does not relocate a/c-s. (I've not seen it at least.) Enforce restrained use of smart weapons (e.g. for high value targets) and compel to use conventional ammunition. If the AI is using weapons voraciously it can deplete it's stock early. Basic level AI modification is to make it to use next best available weapon for missions, e.g. standoff > guided > ironbomb. So it does not just sit there after primary weapon type stock has been depleted. Advanced level modification is to have it match the target's threat level, e.g. use guns only for a P-3 but use an Alamo for fighters. (Thus ration the smart weapons.) Allow ships to operate beyond the capacity of their magazines with the help of UNREP. Of course, this is assuming there is an UNREP. Enable the AI to also benefit from UNREP. This could be a simple trigger for the AI to start UNREP when a ship in the group is low on her magazines. (Possibly even moving the ship to the main body for and then returning it to the patrol zone after UNREP.) Limit offensive potential of a/c-s to realistic levels. This is more or less the same as the smart weapons and the same AI routines could manage them. Except if the scenario is fuel limited, well, then the AI better rolls on it's back and surrender, we can't have everything at once. Long term, for a really smart AI, I'd look at a SWOT analysis point system decision engine combined with some predefined mission templates and a navigation routine capable of plotting routes around threat zones. But this is already for the AI pipe dream.

I see. To me the best games are those which create their own "universe", the Game Universe. Harpoon is one of these. When I can immerse myself into the GU I'm Commander of the 5th fleet, if I need to restrict myself from something possible in the GU I'm taken out of it and I'm just playing with a computer. A rule enforced by the Game Universe is more valuable to me than one from outside. But we are down to the metaphysical this is just sharing my view of the game, I don't intend to convert you. Khm that all sounds great, till you realize we have *one* volunteer coder who has other obligations, including a new baby, not a team of well-paid coders working full-time. Now that we have swapped arguments it's safe to say this is a good discussion . I could live with smaller steps, I feel that certain coherent "chunks" of logistics might be possible to introduce without unbalancing the rest of the game. For example a limited a/c logistics.

That all sounds great, till you realize we have *one* volunteer coder who has other obligations, including a new baby, not a team of well-paid coders working full-time. No, my arguments were about the advantages of direct stocking over a point based. Whether and when either of these is going to happen is a different question, but we are here to dream, right? (BTW. I did not realize, I did not know. Any way we can help?) Optional, yes. And yes, you would need a functional UNREP before logistics can be let loose to restrict a carrier to her magazines. But it would be interesting to start, even without UNREP, by just giving each airbase/carrier stock enough for 100 or 1000 (not restricting) sorties for the aircrafts present at the start. It would have effects like, for example F14s could only rearm Phoenixes on the carrier. E.g. no longer winning (cheating ) GIUK by flying F14s from Keflavik. (If you opt to switch logistics On.) Also, you could track usage of armament, as you suggested, by simply checking remaining stocks at the end of the game. Later, when more of the replenishment code are in place, you could allow logistics be more restrictive and have more advanced and realistic effects. No, no, no. I do not dream about logistics for the sake of quartermastering and loadsmanship. I do believe it would add lot of thrill and realism to the game. It would force me to take decisions real commanders have to take. It would add value to currently weightless aspects of the game. What do you use the AOR Wichita for now? Honestly I post her down the ASW threat axis (in the main body) to swallow up torpedos. This would have a completely different taste seeing the UNREP ship go under seriously restricting airops for the rest of the scenario, probably a decisive loss. Do you remember HARM-ing Kirovs to death before Harpoon v1.32a when ARMs were doing impact damage regardless if the target was radiating or not? So much more satisfying having to carefully time the HARM launch with the Harpoon wave so they meet on the target. But before the ARM restriction I was just HARMing them even knowing it's not the real thing. I think those who play Harpoon find pleasure in having to do what real commanders have to do, those who just want to outsmart any game are already playing something else.

I was thinking about my wishlist and logistics is of course part of that so I started to read up on it. So what happened after 2009? No more posts and no logistics either. I (strangely) hope the point system has not progressed too far, because I’m about to weigh in on the side of direct stocking (as Tony put it). Also, I hate to come empty handed, will lay out few ideas how could the computer handle the tedious work of the initial stocking of units, thus not discourage the majority the scenario editors from using such a system while still retain the option to create the grittiest, down to earth scenarios where one fights with what is at hand, which is what War is about. I assume here that the main problem with direct stocking is that it makes scenario building manual intensive as Tony described in his 23 July 2009 - 03:38 PM post. I’m sure someone said that War is about logistics and indeed (google is your friend) they did: “Bitter experience in war has taught the maxim that the art of war is the art of the logistically feasible.” -- Admiral Hyman Rickover, USN “Amateurs think about tactics, but professionals think about logistics.” -- General Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980 “Underway replenishment was the U.S. Navy’s secret weapon of World War II.” -- Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, USN Here is more from some kind soul who has collected them. log_quotes_navsup.pdf The unique strength of computer Harpoon is the minute detail and coherence of the underlying databases that is pretty much unparalleled in non classified systems. If (when) logistics (LOGISTICS!, see above) is introduced it has to be without compromises otherwise it can undo what Harpoon has become. One of the wish list items is a nice intro video to “pump up noobs” about Harpoon I think this video can only be a missile engagement from acquiring contact to kill, showing parallel a real video footage and a visualization of the GE looking up relevant sensor, speed, range, ECM, ECCM data in the DB then calculating intercept geometries and pH (scrolling tables, flashing cells, maps and triangles) . Harpoon is surprisingly accurate, true to life for theatre level and uses abstraction only for the last centimeters and split seconds where most everything can be described with probabilities (at least for the rest of the world). If, when, logistics is introduced it should follow the same principle, be accurate and true to scale. For me, a “point system” logistics is turning away from this philosophy, introduces a logic completely different from reality (as we know it ). Point system feels as if we would add “Mana” to the Cold War or Desert Storm and there are other games for when we feel like using Mana. With a point system we surrender the possibility of ever creating logistically accurate scenarios on the data structure level! So, instead, data structure must retain the potential (at least) for accuracy and the program code should be used to make it humanly enjoyable. For example add simple initializing routines to fill up stocks with generalized quantities for those not interested or not having the time to go into details. Also simple player option to switch logistics on/off can provide easy acess to both worlds. I hope one day we will replay those boring NACV convoy runs biting our nails that if CONT Sealand Economy is sunk then the Keflavik F-15s will be guns only in the next battle (yeah, campaign mode too) and if TANK Anco Challenger is lost then they will be grounded out of JP-5. Or that in Desert Storm sparrows and bombs only will not be a matter of player-self-discipline but a crude fact of logistics. Before going on to suggestions how to address the difficulties here is an important advantage: Obviously, with direct stocking, the code and logic to handle stock and rearmament is very simple, what you get is what you got, the supplies are exactly what is in the stock and there is no need to write code converting points to smart and dumb weapons and fuel and so on. No need for constant tweaking the conversion rules and “point weights” of different type of supplies trying to match reality with the point system. The initialization of supplies could indeed be wearisome task (obvious ... after Tony pointed this out) but the computer should be able to help with the repetitive and boring tasks for general use and then the manual adjustments are for connoisseurs. For example, here are some “templates” (methods) for initializing stocks for units and bases. By no means comprehensive, just demonstration of the idea. I’m thinking that the scenario designer could select from these methods when adding new bases and units. Also, would select a red and blue default for the whole scenario. Blank. For fanatics. Add all supplies, quantities manually starting from scratch. No logistics. Fall back to the old method. No limits on a/c, etc. Loadout x N. For an airbase (or carrier) you specify that there are supplies enough for N sorties. This would be a routine that for each a/c would calculate the “bag”. The “bag” is the minimum set supplies enough to ready the a/c for any of it’s loadouts once. Then the routine would increase the base’s stock with N x a/c_quantity x Bag supplies for each type of a/c present at the base. >> The home base can rearm each of it’s own a/c at least N times, all a/c-s maximum N times. Remote bases can probably refuel but rearm only if the a/c is using compatible systems and only at the price of faster depleting their supplies. National templates. Create a typical list of supplies and the ratio of them for each country, perhaps for each army for large countries, e.g. Navy, Airforce, Marines, Army. The routine would populate the base’s stock according to the selected national template up to the size of available stock space. Here is a raw example for a French template. stockratio-FRA.pdf This is A/Cs only for this example. 40 or 50 national templates could probably cover 90% of the bases and scenarios. Filters Add code to apply filters to these templates Service Year Filter for weapons available in a service year selected by the scenario designer. This would require extending the DB with service years, but that is still only one time DB task and the needed information is available. DB fields Filter based on fields available in the DB, e.g. Type: gun/missile/ordnance/ASW/... or Code:IR/Semi Active/Terminal guidance/.... Logical operations Allow AND/OR/NOT combination of the above. E.g. scenario designer can select H3 airbase to be populated with template (French OR Soviet) AND 1975=Service Year. While these methods certainly require good amount of coding they are not overly complex, need to code them just once, would offload scenario designers and still allow them to create comprehensive stocks with few clicks.

I think that at the root of this is that the DATA value is not just about maneuverability, but incorporates all defensive factors like active and passive countermeasures too. (I think I read this somewhere around here.) The Aircraft annex DATA is for a clean configuration, e.g. no ECM pod, while it has good maneuverability the overall defensive value is only similar to a sluggish a/g loadout which comes with good ECM. The proposal is anyway to use the best DATA of the plane after jettisoning, if we accept that ECM is not jettisoned and self defence armament is retained then that could be about right and the F-16 could get DATA 45 after dumping a/g ordnance. This also prompts a wish that it would be great to consider ATA+DATA for the turn delay.

Like a cinch! Thanks! Could you also edit out the botched table? My finger got tired while I was passing down by that post.

Fully agree, the best sustained turn rates do not exceed 30 degrees per second and usually much less than that. Human pilots additionally impose G restrictions on the planes. Could you dump it into pdf and attach?

No worries, jettisoning is for a/g ordnance only, not for all weapons. You'll still have your trustworthy sidewinder after jettisoning the GBUs, only you'll have a better chance to evade that incoming Amos from the Mig. Actually there is an ordnance flag in the Weapons annex, could be a hint, this is a F/A-18 on a precision run: Would jettison the Mk82 and the drop tank when cornered. Hmm, could be tricky with the tank though, would jettison need to modify the range of the a/c? Or perhaps we may assume that the feed order ensured that the external tank was used fist. Khm, also an AS-4 under the belly of a Tu-95 is not ordnance. Ok, the point is that AAMs are not jettisoned. I actually hope that the usefulness of this maneuver will be cut to size by the GE sometime. Even a fighter does not turn tail at mach 1 at 30 angels, especially not when loaded with bombs. Actually we already have a GE enforced delay of turn based on the plane ATA. Carrying this further could mean that you would need to decide whether you have 30 more seconds in AAW range for a slow turn heavy with the bombs or you dump them and do a turn in 5 secs? Like in real. Yes, though a gun battle I don't mind with them, but BVR is not good indeed. I would expect that the Mig-31 could not get an exact fix on an F22 head-on before outside AMRAMM range. But in my view this is a bug (I plan to file it) that the GE currently allows (player/AI both) to launch AAM on a target without exact fix (SARH and IR included). This could by why the Mig prelaunches your F-22. No worries, we went through this, see posts #4 to #10. Also remember, this is for a/g only.

Guys, honored, really. Yes, Tony's post had a hand in it as follows, this contributing and interaction is something I always would have loved to do, still remember playing Harpoon in the old days, gosh it was almost 20 years ago!, I enjoyed it immensly but also had an ache for the potential what more this game could do, working (studying at that time) in computer sciences I had my hands ithcing terribly to twist the code just that little and/or to discuss it with fellow addicts at least. Finding you guys here doing it and asking, actually bribeing me to take part ... well, lets just say I'll send the PM and thanks for the book but being here carries it's own reward already! I was binding my time (well, living my life) to respond to this topic, to the "bribe" too, but sure, documentation, code, bugs, you name it, I'd love to and hope I can find the time too. My wishlist is also mounting too, as I'm interested in wishes that are within reach of the current GE (as far as I can see) with good effort/reward ratio I'm giving them some "dry runs" before dumping the buffer. So thanks again and keep going on!