miller7219

I didn't try. I was afraid it was going to make a big mess! No big deal. I uninstalled HCE and then unzipped the behemoth Harpoon Ultimate Edition and installed the HCUE version.

Tony...Is there a way to update HCE 2009.050 to HCUE's 2009.097 standard?

Tony...I don't know how you feel about question relating to the "Ultimate Edition" here. If you are opposed just say. The version is 2009.050. Can you give any insight as to how that compares to your most current 2010.10 beta? Essentially, how "current" is the 2010.10 Ultimate version?

Tony...what types of enagagements are arc limited currently with .005?

Any chance you changed screen resolution or number of monitors? If so the window is just in a now invisible spot. After killing of the processes you can skip the whole uninstall/reinstall cycle and just reset the game options via http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=228 You know, I did change monitor resolution last week. I dropped down to 1024x768 to play Battleground Gettysburg (old Talonsoft game, available in a full set through Matrix, by the way) and those old Battleground games don't like any resolution higher. I didn't resolution-up after. That was probably it. I'll download the option rest from the link for future use. Thanks, Tony.

Patience, folks. We made some progress with the SAM engagement altitudes, arcs and point defense all at once last evening. The new GE just came out today, and we'll work on it as time allows. Sorry, Brad. I think we're finally on the verge of getting Harpoon to what we've all wanted to be for a long, long time! We're finally getting into the guts of the simulation and the core of traditional Harpoon values. Keep going, please. I'll be patient.

The window still pops up here the same way it always has. Buddha Don't know what caused that, but after I saw your post I assumed not everyone was having this problem. One thing I noticed is I unzipped .002 back into my HCE folder and it wouldn't overwrite .003...said file was in use. Tried to delete the .003 WINHARP.EXE manually and same thing...it's in use. HCE wasn't running, but according to Windows Task Manager I had 3 sessions of WINHARP.EXE running (that's what was locking the .exe file from deletion/overwrite)! I manually killed the 3 WINHARP.EXE session in Task Manager, uninstalled, rebooted, and reinstalled entire program from scratch and all is good now. That was wierd!

Tony....is there a coming solution for this? No easy way to get the weapon allocation window to display "out of arc" or something similar?...Like if a target is out of range, or not capable vs the target it will display that fact to the right of the weapon during weapon allocation (and not allow any weapons to be allocated, but I'be be happy with just displaying out of arc if that's all there could be) I played around with this and the program killing allocations out of arc seems to work well and intelligently. It's just a bit annoying to not know what weapons bear and which don't during weapon allocation.

I'm listing this here because I'm not sure if this behavior is on purpose, but when you click the "course" button to lay in new path for a group, no longer does the course window pop up. You know, the one with the new leg check box and the prev/next buttons so you can edit specific legs of the route? When you click the course button now you get nothing, but you can click on the group window and lay in new legs...one catch, I can't figure out how to end the legs. There's no finsih, or exit or done anywhere I can find. Load up any scenario, select a surface group and then click the course button. If it's a bug then we can move to the Issue Tracker.

See the issue tracker. We got a problem with port mounts engaging in point defense. Will someone else test out if they can get a gun mount with a port arc to engage point defense?

My vote is that the number of pops in point defense should be capped at 15. Pops=ROF/4 rounded down, with 1 being minimum and 15 being max.

I think we comprehend your argument. Just to clarify on point defense I don't see how any changes to surface gunnery have impacted point defense. The only crossover is if the mount is already too busy firing at surface targets, it won't re-task to intercept ASMs. Changes made to PointDefense under my watch: Corrected crossing modifier to be true if a missile does a terminal dive (aka SNAP_UP_DOWN). The original crossing qualifier used the TermTraj field which is unused and hence useless. Added limiting of point defense guns to altitude limits listed in DB, previous the guns could engage target at any altitude. As far as I can tell before me the next prior change was made in 1996 for Harpoon Classic 97. Tony from what I've observed, whatever gunnery changes were made (I think in occurred in 2008.024) changed gunnery behavior a great deal. Prior to, guns engaged a surface target 1 time every 30 seconds regardless of the number of tubes in database. That is they fired 1 point of ammo per mount (not per tube). I'm not sure that if a mount had 2 barrells if it actually got 2 chances to hit target with the listed PH and DP values, all I can tell you is it only reduced ammo by 1 regardless of tubes listed in database. Now, it fires (at least reduces ammo) by number in tubes field. The ROF field is per minute, but you have to times it by the number of tubes. For example: You want a mount with 2 tubes to fire every 30 seconds, you have to make the ROF 4. (60 sec / 30 sec = 2 x number of tubes (2) = 4. You want a mount with 3 tubes to fire every 20 seconds , you have to make ROF 9. (60 sec / 20 sec = 3 x number of tubes (3) = 9. At least all of the above seems to be true from all my tinkering! I actually like the formula described above, and I propose eo keep it. In my personal database I have all the ROF fields for gun mounts set to 2 x # of tubes....I like the guns engaging 1 time per 30 seconds, becuase the Harpoon Annexes PH and DP values for guns are based on a 30 second engagement. But, someone else may want to go more literal and set each mount to fire as it would in real life and adjust the PH and DP values in Harpoon Annexes proportioanlly. I think the current model gives a high degree of flexibilty and attention to user personal preference, which I know is something you and I have discussed is important. However, I think it broke point defense. Let's keep the "new" gunnery model, but fix point defense. I think the easy solution is to simpley hard code point defense gunnery to 1 pop per resolution, period. Ideally, though a new field could be added to database to allow the creator to tell the program how many pops per point defense resolution for the mount. Someone else raised the idea of multiple pops on other thread concerning point defense. We would just need a way to control how many in the database. Can anyone else share thier findings of how gunnery (surface and point defense) worked vs. how now works? Ideas??

To be clear, the reference to a 'kamikaze' issue has to do with changes to permit aircraft to effectively engage with their guns, and really nothing to do with trying to model the 'kamikazes' of WWII. They are not the same. I Understand, but wasn't code for kamikaze and "human guided" missiles added several patches ago? I would also think the changes to standard gunnery (that has effectivley broken point defense gunnery as is it was originally intened to be) was driven to a healthy degree by support for naval gun duels (unecessary for modern naval combat)? This discussion would be moot if we had out 2 seperate courses with Harpoon development. I;m just not happy that basic things are still broken or being broken by developement that is so far from the traditional roots of Harpoon. I'm all for a World Wars Harpoon, just not at the expense of Classic Harpoon!

Yeah, that's exactly why I prefer HCCE and not Harpoon ANW. I'm more intersted in modeling the Harpoon miniture paper game. I just want HCCE to finally work like it was intended. I'm not an advocate of adding new features when the simple basics (like point defense) need work. Nice GUI additions and new modeling (communications, ECM, etc) can wait until the basic parts are all covered as well as they were in the miniture game. Simple, but effective!

Let me be clear as to why I'm suggesting this. First, I'm a Harpoon traditionalist. I want nothing that is not Harpoon minutures-oriented in my Harpoon game! Now, I'm a team player and have accepted that over the years the code has passed through many, many companies and programmers that don't share my purist views. The reason I'm suggesting dual (amd seperate) projects is I'm quity frankly tired of reading about "kamikaze" code being broken on the forum of "Harpoon", while I'm staring at a picture at the top of the forum's window of a warship lobbing a Harpoon missile down range! Kamakaze whatever in the same breath of Harpon just just seems wrong to me and sacreligious (in a Harpoon-game kind of way of course!), sorry. I don't want to be a trouble-maker, but I suggest this only so we who want a pure Harpoon experience can get back to seriuos Harpoon classic de-bugging and development without offending the Harpoon "liberals" out there. That's exactly what I think has paralized the Harpoon communinty for so many years. We all think we got to play in the same sandbox. I think we can all have what we want, but it's just aint going to happen together in the same code and with the same people. There's a reason why the Democrats and Republicans don't hold their conventions in the same hall on the same day...

I would like to propose that Harpoon CE create 2 programming/design teams: The Harpoon Classic Team - Dedicated to preserving the heritage of the Harpoon legacy and furthing its development as it was intened, as a modern naval combat simulation. Modern naval combat is defined as the post 1955 era where missiles emerged and changed naval tactics forever. The focus is on the missile as the primary naval weapon, not gunnery. The Harpoon Dreadnought Team - Dedication to re-working Harpoon as a World Wars naval combat simulation. World Wars naval combat is defined as pre-1955 where gunnery/torpedoes were the primary naval weapon, with naval air power emerging in the 1930's. Each team has it's own programming person(s) to support it's own design team. Each team goes in it's own direction with it's starting code. I believe that continuing to support both types of naval combat concurrently within the same program is preventing Harpoon from evolving down it's original path, while at the same time providing a World Wars simulation that has very little degree in reality. I believe both camps can have thier "masterpieces", but that can't be realized within the same project/program. I'm a modern naval enthusiast, but also an avid lover of traditional gunnery/torpedo duels of the World Wars era and dive bombers, etc. I think greatness to fulfill both lies within the Harpoon engine, just not together! Opinions on this matter?

It just dawned on me that the test scenario I attached was made with a battleset I created with the builder, so I guess no one will be able to run my test scenario! If anyone is interested in playing with this issue, heres the .hcbs file needed. See the database and scenario file in the first post in this thread. I can live with regular gunnery not adhering to firing arcs, but I think point defense firing arcs would be important to nail down. I also think it should fire 1 time only per mount regardless of the ROF field with the ATA PH listed in database. If a compromise is needed I can live with per tube. Maybe while solving the point defence firing arc/# times fire issue regular gunnery firing arcs can be solved too as a result. I think that would probably make very happy those WWII Harpoonists out there! I hope others will chime in and get involved. I think this is an important issue that can be solved with enough support from the community spuring Tony to justify the time to find a programming solution. GIUK.zip

I'm use 2010.001 GE. Attached is a test scenario and database necessary to run the scenario. Scenario: Blue (Bainbridge) will launch 8 SSM's (Harpoon IC) at a Red test platform armed with 2x127mm/38 Mk28 mounts (1 bearing Port and 1 bearing Starboard). We're testing: 1. How many shots will Red's mounts fire 2. Which of Red's mounts (if not all) will engage *** Note: I purposely changed the min/max altitude for the Harpoon IC's to LOW/LOW to put them in the engagement envelope of the 127mm/38's. Setup and Run: 1. Select the RED side to play 2. Blue (Bainbridge) will immediately get a visual and fire off all 8 of it's Harpoon IC weapons 3. Speed up the game a bit 4. After the Harpoons impact select Red's Test A ship from the unit window, "FULL" from detail window, and then "WEAPONS" 5. Select the 127mm/38 Mk28 mounts and then "UNGROUP" 6. Check each mount (Port and Starboard) Which mount engaged in point defense and how many shots fired (ammo reduced)? Results: I have the 127mm mounts set in the database with a ROF = 4. The mount has 2 barrells and I want the mount to fire every 30 seconds (twice per minute, per barrell). I happen to like the old Harpoon gunnery system of 30 minute engagement cycles, that's why I have it set that way. I've run this test many times and the 127mm mounts always fires 4 times in point defense (or so the ammo is reduced by 4 rounds at least). Additionally, I've seen that only the Starboard 127mm mount will engage. Questions: I'm assuming the program is firing 4 times and not just reducing the ammo by 4. I conclude the ROF field controls the number of times a gun mount will fire in point defense? Is the mount getting 4 chances (at 20% each time) to kill the missile? Maybe the mount firing arcs are the reason why only the Starboard mounts will engage? I've changed heading of the Test platform so that the Port mount bears, but still seems only the Starboard mount engages. Is there a "glitch" in the firing arc code? I seem to recall older versions of Harpoon did not really adhere to firing arcs much (if at all) and they were essentially information only. Please play around with this test scenario and see if your findings are the same as mine and offer feedback. Maybe all above is by willful design, but I would think each mount should engage 1 time (or per barrel would be acceptable) and either the firing arc code needs shored up or removed entirely. Gun_Test_MJC.zip

Please clarify gun mount ROF + PH + DP use. Situation Mount in Database: ROF = 6, Tubes =3, Rounds = 120 Weapon in Database: PH = 50%, DP = 18 Mount will fire once per 30 seconds and expend 3 rounds each time per my testing. Does the mount actually fire 3 times once every 30 secs....each with a 50% to hit and doing 18 DPs per barrel that hits? Ie, this mount could hit 0-3 times with every 30 sec firing cycle and do 0, 18, 36, or 45 points of damage (depending on how many of the 3 tubes hit). I notice that each 30 sec firing with the above mount 3 rounds are deducted from the mount magazine....this is why I ask for clarification. This will make a siginificant difference in the PH and DP values for gun weapons to achieve realistic results. Are we firing 1 "round" every 30 seconds with 50% to hit for 18 DPs or what I describe above? The above applies to surface to surface engagements, but how does all of this transfer to point defense? I noticed in one of the recent builds over the summer that the point defense debug was listing the number of times fired = the value in the ROF field for the gun mount. Do guns get multiple shots at an incoming missile based on the ROF or Tubes or Target fields? Do the numbers in these fields matter or is it simply each mount (regardless of tubes, ROF, etc) gets 1 chance to fire at missile with the AA PH listed for the weapon? Again the answer to this question is vital to achieve realistic point defense kills. Thanks.

Hello. I'm in search of Harpoon v1.2 for the old Three-Sixty Computer Harpoon. My research is indicating it was released by disk directly from Three-Sixty by request of v1.1 game owners and not "released" per say with and add-on products like v1.1 (original release) or v1.3+. Would anyone have any information on how I could obtain the v1.2 Harpoon.exe file? Thank you.

Stoppage happens automatically prior to the Resolution phase to allow reaction fire to be plotted. All platforms/projectiles have moved a full 30 secs of movement. Only weapons that were not plotted to fire in the movement plotting phase (at the start of the turn) may be plotted to fire in the reaction fire phase. If no unplotted weapons, or capable weapons (in bearing/range/capable vs. target) exists then computer could skip reaction fire to speed up play. The purpose of the reaction phase is really to allow point defense weapons to engage. Missiles heading for that fat carrier often start outside of a CIW's range at the beginning of the turn (movement plot), but after 30 secs of movement are ready to impact during the resolution phase. Player could not plot the CIWs to fire in the movement plot phase per being out of range (or bearing), but needs to reaction fire phase to plot their fire prior to the missiles slamming the hull during the subsequent resolution phase after they've moved their 30 secs of movement and now are in range.

Fire first or move first??? The book say move first, but maybe that's not the most practical for PBEM. I'm not a PBEM'er so not sure about how that all works. Tony...I think you got a good feel of the 30-sec tactical turn flow.

Well, I think once orders are entered in the Plotting phase and "Execute" is clicked the next 30 seconds plays out realtime with no stoppage possible to re-enter orders until the end and then back to Plotting for orders for next 30 sec tactical turn. To speed things up the player could string together several 30-second tactical turns...when "Execute" is clicked a window asks how many tactical turns do you wish to simulate. Player could type 4 for example and 4 consecutive 30 second tac turns would process before auto stopping back to plotting....although player could click the mouse say wihle turn 2 of the 4 are playing out and at the end of turn 2 the game would stop and revert to plotting phase.

30-Second Tactital Turn Plotting Phase - Or more appropriately called the "orders phase". Everytime the game shifts from real-time to turn the turn starts in plotting (orders) phase. Speed, course, altitude, sensor management, weapon allocation, reloading mounts, etc are all done here..then click DONE or EXECUTE or something to then kick in the real-time action THEN Movement Phase - Or more appropriately called the "real-time phase" the computer effects non-weapon launch orders per Plotting Phase and moves non-aircraft/missiles targeted at aircraft 15 seconds of movement and all other platforms/missiles 30-seconds of movement THEN Planned Fire Phase - Launches all weapons ordered for fire in the Plotting Phase THEN Detection Check Phase - Sensors are checked for detection/continued detection THEN Second Air Movement Phase - Move aircraft/missiles targeted at aircraft 15 more seconds of movement THEN Reaction Fire Phase - Or more appropriately "mini-orders phase". Weapon systems not given orders in the plotting phase can now be ordered to fire THEN Resolution Phase - Weapons that reached their target in the prior movement phase or 2nd Air Movement Phase now impact and casue damage THEN Next 30-second Tactical Turn begins by stopping and awaiting orders (Plotting phase of new turn).

Yes, Harpoon 3.1 is much simpler. Glad to see we're getting some folks serious about this literal conversion project to the point of going out an buying the 3.1 boxed game!