Akula

Since I've already got a moster scenario in the works, don't see any reason why I can't get it finished up in time. So I'll work on one of the westpac scenarios.

Basically as it sits now, subs have nothing to stop them from firing all their weapons and reloads in a single 1 second attack. They are immune to ROF or reload limitations. The fix to this is of course to code in Magazines so that all the Torpedos are not located on the mount. The mounts also need to be made to adhere to the ROF restrictions assigned in PE. From that point, it will need to be decided what constitutes a ready round for the sub, that is does it keep Harpoons ready to fire in the torpedo room or would it take a few minutes to load one up? How long would it take to move a torpedo from the storage rack in the torpedo room to the point it is ready to be loaded into the tube and fire? These are things I do not know, but that others might. This topic will require discussion.

First off....and it should go without saying...make a copy of your original CommonDB and CommonRES files and store them in a directory outside of your harpoon directory as a back up. Next, I would make a separate folder in the Harpoon directory with the name of each DB you want to use on it. For example if I want to use the Original, one I made, and one Tony made I would make 3 folders naming 1 OriginalDB, 1 AkulaDB and 1 TonyDB. Now make another copy of the Original CommonDB and CommonRES files and put it in the OriginalDB folder. Do the same with the other 2 DBs by putting them in their respective files. Now when you want to change from 1 DB to the other, you can just go into the correct folder, COPY both files, then Paste them in the main Harpoon directory, choosing to overwrite the existing file. To change back to the original, just repeat this step with the corresponding Folders commonDB and CommonRES files. That is the way I do it. Other people might do it differently. Also, when you update to a newer Official DB, be sure to update it in the OriginalDB folder as well. They should just unzip and overwrite existing files. Don't forget to do this or you will end up with an older version of the Official DB the next time you swap back to OriginalDB. The creating part is a little more complicated. You can use the blankDB found here in the downloads section. I would be sure to name the DB in the PE something pertinent. Forexample a Falklands War time period DB I might name Falklands or SA1980s. Do you editing, then export it. Do the same for it as you have already done for your other DBs, that is make a folder with its name on it, copy it into that folder. PE should always read the DB that is active in the main directory. If it isn't, and you are sure you moved the one you want to work on into the main directory, simply use import from the main PE screen and it should reload the PE with the correct DB. I'm not quite as good with the PE as CV32, so he may be able to help explain this part a little better.

Do you need to name it the same as the one being replaced? I would assume yes, but I often assume wrong.

OK, took it for a spin. While I'm not goint to write up a full AAR, I will point out some of the good and bad things I found: First the things that don't seem complete: 1. Surface Group ZMS, the amphibious group is not moving through-out the scenario. Either it has no course and speed entered, or it has run aground and stopped. 2. A severe lack of attacks on my bases from the red forces. I completely ignored the northern red bases for the duration of the scenario. 3. There is a blue SAM unit in the middle of nowhere that seems to be protecting nothing. Placing a TEL anti-shipping unit here would give that SAM group a real reason to exist, and give the player another option to engage the amphibious group. Now the Good: 1. Lots of enemy AAW patrols. These kept me busy. 2. Starting with enemy units in range is good in that it ensures that I will be forced to engage. Although its also bad because you are under fire from the first second and don't even get a chance to look over the map. 3. The AI has plenty of AEW and EW assets, which makes it more agressive by default. When the AI can see as well as it can with this scenario, then it will intercept much more agressively. Comments: 1. In the North, I would utilize those red airfields to base Backfires and Blackjacks to attack blue bases. This will force me to pay attention to it and actively defend my own bases. 2. Red units need coastal TELs just like Blue should have a few. 3. Need to fix it so that AI units do not start too close to a coastline, if they run aground they stop moving.

He's not the only one working on a monster scenario either. Mine is not quite as intensive, though it does have roughly 1000 aircraft per side.

Using mouse to choose attack target for attack order issued in course editor causes broken waypoint chain. Repeatable: Yes Step by Step: 1. Create new scenario with blue base and red group. 2. Activate the red group and choose to enter a course. 3. Enter 1 or 2 legs then F1 to attack menu. 4. Mouse click on the blue base. 5. At this point your next leg will use the blue base and the next click wp to form a new course, rather than using the last wp and new wp. Build: 2008.026

First of 2 bugs found in SE. This one causes the orders menus to become disabled in SE if you clear a course in course editor after issuing attack commands. Repeatable: Always 1. Create a new scenario with a blue base and a red surface or sub group. 2. Activate the group and choose orders > enter course. 3. Enter 1 or 2 legs of the course, then click F1 to bring up the attack menu. 4. Order the group to attack the blue base. 5. Clear the course and close the course order editor, at this point all orders menus will be greyed out and unselectable, even with hot keys. Build 2008.026 Additionally, it seems to disable the menus even if you accept the orders and do not clear the course.

I'm against it mostly because the minute you start letting the general player base comment on what's wrong and how to fix it, you end up with a 6 alarm wild fire. Want to see what happens when you do release your publish and bug fix plans? Go read the forums for any MMORPG...you'll understand why I'm against it then.

Fixed. Rather than asking to engage with cannons, it simply gives me a message in the message box that it is closing to AAW range and shows nothing in a pop-up. The planes will then close and allow you to fire when they are in range of either missile type.

Why don't they push to have the quicker the F-35? Because given the latest track record of US equipment that has been released in the last few years, pushing up the schedule only gives you a half finished airplane that doesn't work and has to be fixed 'in the field'. Really better off to go with something that has been in the stable for years and you know is reliable.

So I DL'ed a little 3d program a while back, been playing with it some. While its a very easy to use program, you can still do some pretty amazing stuff with it. Like this.

And it's happening in the newest build with planes armed with sidewinders only. Wasn't able to get a savegame of it, but it's done it to me 3 times in this scenario.

Thank you for playing it so intensively - you´re really welcome. When I wrote it, the main objective indeed was to set a full matrix of traps which remain dangerous until the end. Since an experienced human is superior to the AI I tried to make this one especially hard. The "algorithm" IMO is to combine the follwoing issues: 1. Numbers: The AI needs at least 3:1 I think. 2. Eyes: The AI needs an advantage here approx. 5:1 or even 10:1 (relation Mainstays to E-3 etc.) 3. Communication: The AI needs a lot of "hot spots" which can maintain an info network even if the human has destroyed a lot of assets. These network should be a combination of well placed subs (shadowing the human´s fleet), AEW aircraft and land based radar. 4. Independent "core installations": Bases should be fully independent of other bases, thus killing one doesn´t break the resistance. I usually give each base a full set of radar, SAMs and all kinds of aircraft. Some lessons learnt from 15+ years of playing a magnificient game.... Ralf You can also take the route I took with Operation Island Wind and severely restrict the players assets and options to up the challenge level. In that case, the main strike assets were planes without SEAD or Standoff capabilities, meaning the SAM and AAA network actually presented a formidable foe because you had no choice but to engage from within their effective ranges. Add that to your combination above and one could create a very challenging scenario where the AI could actually win, not just present the player with a good fight.

Sure that the 100Dp are for a single ZSU-23? And not for a battery? Regards René I'm pretty sure the SAMs are treated as batteries while the tanks are treated as single units. Would be interesting if the tanks were treated as platoons.

Whole world isn't really possible yet as it is just too large.

Try ro remove a scen from a saved battlset and resave the settings under the same file name.... B) I must be missing something, cause I don't understand what you mean.

Been putting the BattleSet Builder through the paces in the last few days (as well as my abillity to build a DB) and came up with this: So far the BSB is working well, haven't found anymore bugs. And I just wanted to share and show what you can do... Noticed the textured water in BSB maps, nice touch.

I have sound. Yay!

And what's bad about that is that any normal person would come to the same conclusion just by watching the news. I don't think anyone who's up to date with modern world affiars doubts there is something 'not right' about him.

For me, that sound issue is a must fix. I think a lot of other players will feel the same way...sure the game is playable without sound, but the silence is deafening.

Seems we lose all sounds after they play once in this version. IE you get to here the incoming missile warning klaxon once, then it will not play again the entire scenario. This is true for ALL sounds in this build. You here it once, and never again.

The new westpac scenarios didn't make it into .004.

On refueling, I had to vote no. It's still not as consistant as I would like, based on the examples you gave above. However, I voted yes on the patch. Refueling issues are not enough to stop the go ahead on the current patch IMO. I would like to see it addressed again in the future, to work out the inconsistantcies, but I do not think holding back our first patch due to the flaky refueling is justified.

Curious if you manage to come to the end Think this one is REALLY large. Have problems even on my new high-end rig while playing it. Who said ANW was slow? Ralf I've made it about half way through. Real Life keeps intervening on me getting stuff done. So far, it is slow running, and very very busy. Seems the more planes I swat, the more that launch. With any luck I finish this weekend.