Mgellis

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions. Even though Gunny won't have time to add new platforms for a while, I think this information will eventually be very helpful. And, as I said earlier, I simply don't know in some cases if it is even worth adding extra platforms...if the difference between two helicopters is just that they changed the engine so it's easier to maintain, it doesn't really affect gameplay. Some things are probably below the "horizon of granularity"--the differences are so subtle that you can't even really model them. I suppose you could still add those platforms for the sake of clarity, so people aren't wondering if they've got the wrong helicopter, etc. because the model is different. But maybe it would be easier to just have one database entry and add a note in the text for the database entry that says something like "In game terms, the RF-5A, RF-5B, RF-5EN, and RF-5S are effectively identical, so the RF-5A may be used to represent all four platforms."

I know my daughter probably would not approve of this.

While I'm sorry there will be no new platforms for a while, it sounds like this will make the database overall even better than it is, so I'm looking forward to the revised version when you finish it. In the meanwhile, I'll focus on writing new scenarios--with only 2,000 platforms to choose from, how will I manage? I'll keep posting suggestions when I see something that could be added--even if you can't get to it for a few months, having the whole "wish list" in one place is probably the easiest way to keep everything organized.

I know the Greeks had some Fletchers...were there any differences between these and others in service with other countries that need to be considered for the database? Or is it just one class and the ships got transferred "as is" to several different navies?

Cannon class destroyer escort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_class_destroyer_escort "The Cannon class destroyer escorts were built primarily for ocean anti-submarine warfare escort service during World War II.....After the end of World War II the United States Navy transferred many ships of the Cannon class to other navies." --Wikipedia Some Cannons are already in the database (as the Philippine PF-78), but I was not sure if the Greek and Uruguayan ones (which served until about 1990) needed to be added, too, or if they are all the same (same sensors, same weapons, etc.). ANW HUD 4 v1.11

File Name: Passage to Brunei (2015) File Submitter: Mgellis File Submitted: 15 Jan 2013 File Category: Scenarios Tensions have increased between Singapore and Indonesia. A convoy from Singapore must make its way to Brunei. Image: RSS Victory (P 88) fires its 76mm gun during a 2009 exercise. (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Ed Early/Released.) Click here to download this file

Okay, I didn't know how well known the list was. I figured I should let people know, in case anything in it might be helpful. Back to scenario design...

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I figure people should know about it. A detailed discussion of possible game engine issues for the mostly recently released version of H3 ANW appears at... http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95217 These may or may not affect the HUD-4 database, and may or may not be accurate, but I figured it made sense to alert Gunny and others to what a certain person claims to have observed. If nothing else, it may help identify whether certain issues are game engine issues or related specifically to the HUD-4.

Same here. It seems to be fine now. Thanks, Gunny! Thanks, Tony!

Yes, but the Sunday update is the archive people are having trouble with. Even if you sent the right files, something went wrong, and people are only getting the old files when they download the .zip file. Please upload them again (and you may want to download them too so you can open up the .zip file and make sure what is getting saved on the website is what you actually sent). Sometimes, it's like re-starting a computer when it freezes up--you never do quite figure out what went wrong, but the only thing that works is doing it over and maybe whatever went wrong the first time you did it will sort itself out. The important thing is that right now it does not look like anyone can download the new HUD-4. So please try uploading it again. I confess I'm not so worried about why it is happening...I just want the new version of the database. Another possibility...e-mail Tony or Brad the new HUD-4 .zip file and they can check it to make sure it has the right files and then they can add it the downloads page.

I'm assuming Gunny is trying to figure out what went wrong. Any idea when the new update (i.e., the Jan. 2013 files) will be posted?

Okay, I was about to ask if that had happened to anyone else. So, good, I'm not crazy. (Okay, maybe I am crazy, but that's a different issue.) This has happened before. It seems unlikely that Gunny sent the wrong .zip file (although I suppose it is possible), but I don't know why the website software would restore the older version of the file that way. Perhaps uploading the revised database as an entirely new download file will fix the problem?

Not bad at all. I confess my own interest in a regular schedule is simply that I want to know when the next update is coming out. If I know there is not going to be one until, say, March, I can plan around that. I would also like to see a new official update soon, simply because you seem to have found a solution to the ASROC issue, and that's important enough that it really should be out there as soon as it is feasible to publish it. I'm waiting on that before I upload any new scenarios. But obviously real life concerns like work have to come first. Or, as I like to say, "Being a responsible husband, father, and professional is playing havoc with my gaming."

Gunny had mentioned the possibility of putting out an update to the HUD-4 every month or so. Would it make sense to simply use a regular schedule? Maybe every other month? Basically, whatever gets done during that period, whether it is a lot or a little, major fixes or just a couple of new platforms, is what goes into the update. So we might see releases in, say, February, April, June, August, October, and December of each year. Some would be big ones and some would be not so big, but they would come on a regular basis, and everyone would know when the next one was coming. Ultimately, this is Gunny's decision, but I would encourage him to do something like this...my experience as a teacher, a scholar, and a writer is that scheduled deadlines like this help you get the work done, and help you figure out how to fit a particular project into the rest of your schedule. It can actually make things easier. Anyway, it is just a thought. Mark

Yes, I would at least fix the displacement, simply because it looks odd, even if it does not actually affect gameplay. (Especially because another ship is described as being smaller than the Fort Victoria but has a displacement that is currently much larger.) Thanks.

Point class sealift ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_class_sealift_ship "The Point class is a class of six roll-on/roll-off sealift ships procured under a Private Finance Initiative and available for use as naval auxiliaries to the British armed forces. They were the result of the Strategic Defence Review and are designed for the strategic transport of military cargoes and vehicles in times of need. The UK Ministry of Defence has purchased a 22-year charter from Foreland Shipping (previously named "AWSR Shipping"), who own, operate and crew the ships, utilising them as merchantmen when they are not required for military service. The small British crews are provided by Foreland Shipping and are required to be sponsored reserves as a condition of service, which means they can be called up to become part of the Armed Forces in times of crisis. The benefits of this is that it guarantees crews in times of crisis, it means crew members can be expected to work under the Armed Forces Act 2006 rather than the Merchant Navy Code of Conduct, and that they would be classed as combatants and be afforded the rights granted under the Geneva Convention." --Wikipedia ANW HUD-4 v1.11

The text provided for the ADS 1 Cape Cod is actually the text for the French A 769 Dupuy de Lome. Since the ADS 1 is a fictional platform, I'm not sure WHAT she is supposed to be or what the descriptive text should be. It has room for 12 aircraft, up to V/STOL aircraft, but no magazines for supporting them by providing weapons. (This can be solved, by the way, by giving the aircraft a loadout when it is added using the Edit/Units/Edit Aircraft command.) Is she a light carrier or a support ship? The only thing I can be sure of is that she is NOT a French spy ship.

The information for the A 387 Fort Victoria includes an error...her displacement is not 13,000 tons but more like 31,000 tons. (In fact, it looks like a simple typo, with the 1 and the 3 having gotten switched). This should be corrected. Also, the damage points should probably be corrected, too...it's probably more like 450 or 500 points instead of the 265 listed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Fort_Victoria_%28A387%29 for details.

Minor database issue...the text for the HMAS 215 Stalwart is a bit off. First, the ship is listed as the A 215 A 215 HMAS Stalwart, which looks a bit odd...one of the two "A 215"s should be taken out. Also, the ship was not a cargo vessel. Replacement text might be... "Australian support and command vessel that served as the flagship of the RAN during the 1980s."

A recent article in Global Research at... http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-vig...rth-korea/4730 ...included a detailed account of the scenario behind Vigilant Shield 07. I would be very interested in reading the background scenarios (i.e., the "history" leading up to the "war" in the exercise) for similar military exercises. Quite apart from them being a gold mine for scenario design, I just think they are very interesting. But where do you find them? I imagine there is probably some archive of them somewhere, and if Vigilant Shield 07 can be discussed in this much detail, I imagine they get declassified after only a couple of years. (Or perhaps the basic scenario is never classified.) But where are they? How do I find them? Can I just e-mail the Department of Defense and ask for pdf copies? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Playing around with ideas... This is a revision of a World War III concept I was playing around with a few months ago. I've tried to trim it back a bit, maybe make it a bit more realistic. I'd be grateful for feedback on this one as a background for wargame scenarios... How plausible is this? What else might happen (or what might happen instead)? What am I missing? Here goes... What would happen if, in 1985, the Soviet Union joined forces with Iraq and Syria (and some help from India, which had a military pact with the Soviets at the time) and invaded Iran? The Soviet Alliance is able to seize control of most of Iran, including its ports and oil fields, in a few months. Not surprisingly, the West is pretty concerned about this. The Soviets could take control of the entire Persian Gulf. Even a best case scenario is to accept sharing dominance of the Gulf with the Soviets. Rather than use nukes, the West informs the Soviets they will initiate a global blockade of their shipping until the Soviets withdraw from the Gulf. Half the reason the Soviets wanted Iran was the warm water port, which greatly improves their ability to trade with places like India, Vietnam, and Angola. The Soviets refuse to budge. They say any attack on Soviet shipping will result in attacks on Western shipping. War erupts on two fronts. There is a shipping war, with the Soviets and the West both trying to destroy the other's navies and merchant fleets. This is global. Ports and shipping around the world are attacked. There is also a war of air raids in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan (which sides with the West), and India. Each side (US, EU, and their allies, including South Africa, Morocco, Pakistan, etc. vs. the Soviet-Iraq-Syria bloc and allies like India and Vietnam) try to knock out the ability of the other side to fight. But they're not trying to invade, simply make the other side weaker and weaker. It is a curious kind of World War III, with virtually no action in Europe (except the Norwegian Sea and the North Atlantic), a war of relatively small skirmishes and convoy actions, and some medium-sized battles meant to cripple rather than seize cities that have strategic value. Basically, neither side is trying to take territory (aside from the Soviets, who have already taken Iran and are not trying to take more, although Iraq is hungrily eying Kuwait). Rather, both sides are trying to wear the other down until either the Soviets give up and withdraw, the West having made Iran too expensive to keep, or the West gives up because it just can't fight anymore (or at least won't risk more ships and planes on top of the ones it has lost), and accepts the new world order. What do you think? Thanks. I look forward to your comments.

Gunny, is it really a good idea to wait with an update so long when such a major flaw was detected? I´m no db guy thus I can´t say how much time this costs. But no-functioning weapons, be them Mavericks or ASROCs are a real show stopper. IMO those should be corrected with an own small release. The logical number for that would be 1.12; the next large update 1.20. These are the usual conventions when it comes to versions IIRC. Just my 2c but why should anybody write an ASW scenario with ASROC armed US destroyers knowing they don´t work? The biggest problem is when it is a surprise. Most ships with ASROC actually have other ASW weapons, so the failure of the ASROC usually does not render the destroyer helpless, although those extra 6 torpedoes are often a welcome addition to your firepower, especially if you are otherwise limited to four or six boxed torpedoes with no reloads. If you know the ASROC isn't available, though, you just plan around it, the way I imagine a real captain would plan around it if he knew he had a mechanical failure on his ship but had to go into action anyway. I had actually been planning on just side-stepping the ASROCs by unloading them with the logistics control and adding a note in the scenario orders explaining that they were not available. That way people would have known they had to plan around that limitation. Now that the error looks like it has been resolved, I won't have to do that. Personally, I think we should have a "call for database testers." It is a simple matter to set up a "test platforms" scenario and just run through the various weapons, etc. to see which ones work and which ones have issues. But there are a huge number of platforms and most of them are fine so it is easy to miss the ones that need corrections. Gunny will still have to make the corrections, as I think he is the only one who can actually edit the database, but if we had a group of people working through the platforms in a coordinated way, we'd be able to get more information to Gunny more quickly and more efficiently.

One minor quibble...I would recommend that whenever a change is made to the database that a new version number is created rather than simply updating the file. My concern is that simply updating the file could cause confusion as there will now be a couple of different versions of the database with the same number--scenarios might not get updated because people think they already have the right database and then will not be able to play the scenario. It isn't that hard to figure out what's wrong, of course, but it might create frustration for some players.

Gunny sent me a couple of rough updates to test and I was finally able to get the ASROCs to fire (at least, on the four or five ships I tested) and this fix should be part of the next update (HUD-4 v1.12?) but I don't know when Gunny is going to release that. He may be trying to incorporate as many fixes, updates, new platforms, etc. as he can before he does that.