Akula

That clarifies things immensely, thanks. Yes, the air defenses (SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery) are "built into" Keflavik in this scenario. To attack those air defenses, you need only to attack the base itself. However, the 'Guided' loadout, which arms your F/A-18 Hornets with the AGM-65B Maverick missile, is not the best choice for dealing with the SAMs/AAA. A better choice here would be the 'Antiradar' or 'LR Antiradar' loadout, which arms your aircraft with the AGM-88 HARM missile, an anti-radar missile designed to home on enemy radar emissions and knock out the radars, thereby 'blinding' the air defenses. I'd suggest using these anti-radar missiles to kill Keflavik's radars, and then move on to weapons that attack the installation itself. Good hunting! To be honest, if you can successfully knock out the radar at the base with the older 'defense attached' bases, you could simply iron bomb it afterwards, though do so from high since the guns can still go optical. A good strategy for it would be to launch the Anti-radar raid first (make it a moderate to large one) then launch a bombing run shortly after to follow it in. Give the AR missiles time to blind the base then your actual attack package is already in position for it's bomb run without you having to wait a long time for it to get there.

Ya know, while just a little more coding intensive, the solution may be something as simple as breaking the ordnance up into 3 different categories... Light (Cannon/gun ammo, Sidewinders, rockets, light bombs) etc. Medium (500lb Iron Bomb, SAMs, Sparrow/AMRAAM) etc Heavy (Guided munitions, ASMs, expensives A2A missiles (like Phoenix or Amos) etc This would allow a lot more control over it without having to track every single munition type. Obviously a carrier would have much more light ordnance storage than heavy etc. Once again I'm trying to find the simplest way to give us the most control.

StalinTC, I'm just wondering how do you plan to keep the AI from scheduling ASW patrols over land? I'm sure there is going to have to be some kind of flagging system that tells the AI 'Hey Stupid, you can't find submarines in a cabbage patch!'. Now then, as far as scenario designers are concerned, simply brining up the interface in the SE at the patrol start point and letting us edit in the patrol zone is easily acceptable. Scenario authoring is a ton of clicking as it is, a few more won't matter. The problem is going to come in to the AI actually having to decide for itself, or for older official scenarios (unless someone is brave enough to redo all of them).

Gotcha, I'll set one up and give it a go this evening.

Tony, I'll get these tested out to the best of my ability over this weekend. Look for results in increments between now and sunday. Any advice on how to set up a scenario that will gaurrantee a chance to torp counterfire though?

You've stumped me here (how easys that), I assume we need an aircraft without built in radar or sonar but having same in one of the load outs. I can't find any such aircraft. So I figured I'd make one in a modified database. I tried but I guess either what I picked as being a radar was something in the radar catagory but not really a radar because in the game engine and scenario writer it didn't show up in the 'display' for that aircraft. I await with held breath to learn what this is all about. Don. Would an A6-E fill that requirement? Either that or a Corsair II possibly.

The only thing I noticed was that I was getting a 1:1 hit ratio with them, but the scenario was small (only 2 subs) and I had the red subs running full out at periscope depth.

Added #11: Strafing ability. The AI will need a system of checks to behave in a sane manner with this, but any aircraft with a cannon should have an option to strafe soft targets. Examples: truck/tank convoys, unarmed merchant ships, troop formations, etc.

I know we have a fix in the newest notes, but is this something we may want to look into adding back in at some point in the future?

For me is enough. In the game scale, the effects of 7,62 or 12,7 mm are negligibles, except against pirate launch or similar soft target. But I remember the use of 20mm guns as tank busters (in He-112) in Spanish Civil War, against the light armour of the times. And today they're a lot of AFV with light armour, also very vulnerable to 20mm guns (and 12,7mm, but by far less vulnerables). I think the low limit of usable guns for ground attack may be 20mm guns = 1DP (but we ever can customize it). 20mm are still quite useful against soft targets, lightly armored vehicles and ships. But most fighters have very limited gun ammo (talking about 600 rounds for a gun firing 2-3000 per minute). I'm not sure if it really is of much value to engage a large target like a ship with a cannon burst from a fighter, a column of trucks or tanks it would be.

The question is 'Can the AI be programmed to behave in a sane manner?' As in, should the AI have an air defence check similar to this: If air defence = not present, then engage with guns; If air defence = present, then do not engage with guns; Very simplified I know, but you get the idea. Player can do what they want to, but at least the AI would err on the side of caution.

The guns vs surface is CONFIRMED. 20mm seems to sink small PTMs well.

Probably because that generation of computers was more reliable! The most reliable system is still the Eyeball Mk I. Funny as it sounds, an old Bofors 40mm with visual guidance is not going to fail you on air defense, even if the computer and radar completely fail. So in some ways, older ships are more dependable, if less survivable.

Here are two things that concern me. 1. The expense. Especially when you are already running a deficit. I don't care how they try to sell it as 'saving money' in my experience you do not get out of debt by piling on more debt. That is just assinine. 2. The mandate, fines and jail time. Sorry, but what we are getting is not UHC. What it will do is line the pocket of the Insurance Companies. And all the analogies to car insurance...there is one key difference, you don't have to own a car or drive, thus you don't have to buy car insurance. There are plenty of people who simply can not afford to buy insurance. Many will slip thruogh the cracks because they make too much to fit the government definition of under-priveledged but live in places where the cost of living is too high to live comfortably on their income. I was one of these people in my 20s, so I fully understand why these people do not have insurance. Overall, I am not against getting the uninsured insured. But there has to be a better way to achieve it that will not put people or the country in economic stress.

Just doing and edit to help me keep up with list status.

BTW, forgot to post this the other day... Command line options are working.

OK, once Tony showed me what I did wrong, I can confirm this switch works.

I tried to confirm this one, but once again I just can't get command lines to work. I can finally get the launcher to work though...celebrate the small victories here. I guess what it comes down to is I need a step by step idiot proof lesson on using the command line switches....I think I am doing it right, but it doesn't work so obviously I am not.

Game limit is confirmed. However, I'm not sure if I can confirm the inertial guidance yet, simply because my PE is still down and I have no idea what ASuW weapon would fall into the 'inertial guidance only' category. If some one can give me one or two of those to try I can test that.

Well, there is one thing about the Clinton trip (which he did a good thing, IMO). The trip now shows that despite the fact that Kim Jong Il is in fact still alive. Granted he looks like he could fall over at any moment, but he is still alive.

I should be able to throw together a quick scenario this weekend to check the default time limit, as well as the inertial guidance.

This is a wishlist item with many of us. The ROF on SAMs is a bit...heavy. I've seen ships empty their magazines shooting at helicoptors instead of saving them for real threats. More control over the SAM engagement routine would be nice.

So if its working for him, I wonder what I've managed to do wrong. It's probably my own fault, as usual.

Are you sure the launcher is in your HCE directory? Yes, I unzipped it to my main HCE folder. When I hit the 'Launch GE' button on the launcher, absolutely nothing happens.

Launcher does not work. When I hit launch GE, nothing happens. Also, typing in the text it provides as the command line keeps giving me the error that 'winharp32.exe' is not a recognizable executable or batch command...etc. In other words, I have yet to get the launcher or using command lines to work.