IssueMigrator1

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000184 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2017.007 ⦁ Fixed in 2017.009 Impossible to launch ASW torpedo from helicopterPosted by broncepulido on 15 May 2017 - 01:31 PM A new bug? Essaying a new scenario, in the last 6 test or so, when a Russia 636.3 conventional submarine is very near or just below ("0" nm), the ASW torpedo (Stingray Mod 1 torpedo, refused to be launched, and I get this staff message: "Sir, the effective attack range for these aircraft is 4 NM. Target range is 0 NM. Should we close and attack?" In the attached file the Merlin is just over the Russian Kilo. Is GIUK 2003 Battleset, and latest DB. Issue-184-Impossible-to-launch-ASW-torpedo-from-helicopter.pdf MERLIN TORPEDO ERROR.zip MERLIN TORPEDO ERROR 2.zip MERLIN TORPEDO ERROR 3.zip SOMERSET KRASNODAR 2017-5-5.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000185 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2017.007 ⦁ Fixed in 2017.009 Failure editing Airfield SecretPosted by broncepulido on 27 May 2017 - 01:26 AM When building a new scenario, I put an "Aifield Secret" on the map, but it's impossible to edit it to add any aircraft (Probably because its classification as "Air Defence" but not "Base"). See attached file, Airfield Secret is in the red side. Middle East Battleset. Issue-185-Failure-editing-Airfield-Secret.pdf TEST AIRFIELD SECRET FAILURE.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000187 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 - Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2017.009 ⦁ Fixed in 2017.011 Game "frozen" after 40 seconds gameplayPosted by broncepulido on 04 July 2017 - 01:12 PM Tested a few probed scenarios, apparently with 2017.009 game frozens after 40 seconds of game play. Same when later is also installed 2017.010 after 2017.009. Someone gets the same outcome? Issue-187-Game-frozen-after-40-seconds-gameplay.pdf

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000193 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 21 – Fix Coded ⦁ Version 2017.011 ⦁ Fixed in 2017.013 RefuelingPosted by eeustice on 03 October 2017 - 07:17 PM Tony, In GE 2017.012 just after the start of refueling the F/A-18’s go to 0% fuel. Tankers still have 93% fuel. Almost looks like the F/A-18’s refueled the tankers. A copy of the db and 3 saved games. I think 10 is where it happens. The last 3 files are saved 1 game second apart. Good luck. Thanks Eric Issue-193-Refueling.pdf After Manual Refueling Started (ALT-R).zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000019 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2009.076 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.076 Standoff jamming does not modify missile PhPosted by Grumble on 21 May 2013 - 04:12 PM I was thinking whether to post this as a question for the General or open an Issue. Common sense says that escort and standoff jamming both should influence radar guided missile hit probability, I finally decided "Issue" after I found this post of Tony http://harpgamer.com...e-notes/?p=6008 Test scenario is in HDS1. Two flight of bombers are loitering just NE of Kinloss. ZXA 4 x Tu-16 Bmbr + 1 x Tu-16 J EW ZYA 4 x Tu-16 Bmbr The two groups are on top of each other, ZXA at High, ZYA at Medium 4 F-14s are ready to assist with the test just 3nm S of them. (savegame: EW) Firing 4 x AIM120 at ZXA000 (the escorted Badgers) yields PH 45 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 38 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 98 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 89 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 29 101455 effect4.c:5176 - CheckAirMissileHits 4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM against RED 4 x Tu-16 Badger G, 2 hits As far as I can tell that is 40 DPh for AMRAAM + 30 - 20 for escort Tu-16 ECM - 5 for Tu-16 Bmbr DATA Firing 4 x AIM120 at ZYA000 (the "standoffed" Badgers) yields PH 65 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 27 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 3 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 57 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 58 101462 effect4.c:5176 - CheckAirMissileHits 4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM against RED 4 x Tu-16 Badger G, 4 hits E.g. no standoff jamming bonus of -20 PH for the Badgers Just to crosscheck kill of the EW bird, with AIM9 of course, confirms nicely that IR AAM is unaffected by EW and attack again remainder of ZXA, now without EW escort gives same PH 65 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 0 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 35 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 39 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 20 101529 effect4.c:5176 - CheckAirMissileHits 4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM against RED 4 x Tu-16 Badger G, 4 hits I expected and posts suggest too that ZYA should have also received the PH bonus against AAMs. Issue-019-Standoff-jamming-does-not-modify-missile-Ph.pdf EW.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000030 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2009.083 ⦁ Fixed in Radar LOS calculation errorPosted by Grumble on 21 July 2013 - 01:33 PM Radar LOS is not calculated correctly, radars detect targets over the horizon and LOS. Most recently I observed this in HDS3 9.0, I hoped to be able to "sneak out" my Tel Aviv Hawkeye from under the Damascus SAM umbrella by pairing it with a ground attack a/c. (Otherwise the Hawkeye is spawned at high altitude immediately at take off, which I guess is a compromise for AEW, but a painful one.) The trick works, the Hawkeye-Skyhawk twosome starts at low but Damascus is still detecting them and launches SAMs. The test scenario demonstrates this by launching the pair from Nevatim, load the scenarios as RED, Damascus immediately detects the E-2C at 149nm, well beyond true LOS. The -l radar log confirms the wrong LOS. 100001 search.c:881 - Radar Emitter=Damascus Target=E-2C Hawkeye, TargetRange=149, Radar LOS = (BaseLOS x weather_mod + 128)/256 100001 search.c:882 - Radar LOS of 246nm = (246nm x 256 + 128)/256 --> Radar LOS=60644/256 100001 search.c:888 - A RCS=164 TName=E-2C Hawkeye AName=Damascus Range=149 Die=37 aPD=70 100001 search.c:961 - B RCS=164 ARng=300 Arng=300 SRng=60 Srng=60 100001 search.c:1020 - Detected E-2C Hawkeye with Air Radar of range 300 with PD 70, Roll=37 100001 search.c:1040 - Type and Height of target known Tested with 2009.050,076 and 083, I have not yet installed 086 but I guess the radar model was not changed. Issue-030-Radar-LOS-calculation-error.pdf LOS.zip LOS 1.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000076 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2014.020 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.020 Mk1 Eagle Eye - 50nm visual detection?Posted by Grumble on 13 July 2014 - 05:28 AM Background: Playing EC2003 Bear Baiting user scenario, red AI is consuming my Rafales fast. The F2 and F3 versions have only the 27nm Mica AAM vs. +40nm Alamos and Adders, but theoretically this should be manageable with the help of the Rafale's low RCS, the Su-27S 65nm radar detects it at max 12nm and even the Su-27SM's 135nm radar has max 25nm range on it (don't mess with the Su-35 though ). But in practice the Sukhois either pre-launch me or immediately return fire even if I use IR Mica from the rear, e.g. they have already fix on me when I approach. How? I turncoated my iterated save files to witness the detection event myself and it was that red Fighters on low altitude detect blue, high Rafales as they come closer than 50nm, even if the Rafale approaches outside of the front 60o arc. This is both for military and cruise throttle (I avoided AB). Is this working as intended? 50nm visual detection on a Rafale feels extreme. Attached save file, it is turncoated to Blue AI, Red Human. DQA is attacking ZJA on medium. Set DQA to high and ZJA will visually detect DQA come the next cycle. Issue-076-Mk1-Eagle-Eye-50nm-visual-detection.pdf bda.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000097 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2014.020 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.020 SE32 Enter Time Delta for EventPosted by broncepulido on 06 November 2014 - 10:39 AM I think is the first time I essay to configure an air patrol to launch in the new SE32 (the rest did go fine in my first complete scenario designed 100% with SE32)and surprise, the "enter time variation" in % option is in grey in the dialog and not operative, as showed in the attached file image. Issue-097-SE32-Enter-Time-Delta-for-Event.pdf HARPOON ERROR ENTER TIME DELTA FOR EVENT.doc Harpoon LR repeat patrol dialog 2.doc

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000134 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2015.025 ⦁ Fixed in Problem naming individual shipsPosted by broncepulido on 23 November 2015 - 10:11 AM After installing 2015.25 and 2015.26 the individual ship names are changed without clear pattern, both in SE and GE. As example: - I did modify scenario Prelude to Desert Storm 1990 (the attached scenario is the same version in the downloads section at 23 November 2015), to "recovery" the actual historical shipnames. - I didn't modify scenario Clash of DDGs: Spratly Islands 2015, to verify the differences between a modified and an unmodified scenario after 2015.25-2015.26 (the attached scenario is the same version in the downloads section at 23 November 2015). In the previously to the modification employing 2015.25 and 2015.26, in the Prelude to Desert Storm 1990 scenario both in GE and SEwere present these shipnames alterations: - FF Knox-class Downes was called erroneously Meyerkord (and is not a near name in the scroll). - FFG Halyburton-class Rentz was called erroneously Klakring (and is not a near name in the scroll). - FFG Underwood-class Vandergrift was erroneously called Kauffman (and is not a near name in the scroll). - CG Leahy-class England was erroneously called Leahy (and is not a near name in the scroll).​ - The neutral ship names are also all altered, I think (I choosed for them "Arabic" names from the scroll list, and now are not present, i.e. they should be showed if we load the scenario with 2015.24, or perhaps not?). In the unmodified DDG clash 2015 Spratly Islands WestPac scenario (I think was designed with 2015.24 SE) both in GE and SE are present these shipnames alterations - The starring DDG Arleigh Burke IIA-class named Lassen is now called Donald Cook (and is not a near name in the scroll) - The Red/Chinese ship names are also all translocated: - DDG Kunming Type 052D-class "Kunming 172" is now called "119" (and is not a near name in the scroll). - DDG Luyang Type 052C-class "Lanzhou 170" is now called "Xian 153" (and is not a near name in the scroll). - FF Jianghu II Type 053/1-class "Taizhou 533" is now called correctly "Taizhou 533" (but I changed this name 31 October, some days after the scenario release in 27 October). Only this last Chinese ship name is not changed, and perhaps because it was modified after. Issue-134-Problem-naming-individual-ships.pdf DDG CLASH 10 2015.zip DESERT SHIELD 1990.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000143 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2015.027 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.027 Platform EditorPosted by cdnice on 18 January 2016 - 06:12 PM Hello, Long time player of Harpoon and just getting back into it. I have a Windows 7 Pro system with a fresh install of Harpoon Ultimate patched to the latest version and I have installed the game on a secondary hard drive (d:). My issue is that I can not get the Platform Editor to access the DB at all. When it loads up I see the menu form fine but the data file line and db name is blank. If I try to import a new database it does nothing. I typed the location of the data file in manually and when I click enter or browse I get the message in the attached capture. Looking for some assistance as I would love to see what has been added in the latest db. Thank you, Dale Issue-143-Platform-Editor.pdf

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000144 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 2 – Fair ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2015.025 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.025 Platform Annex, Mount AnnexPosted by gkm on 22 January 2016 - 06:57 PM DB editor balks on adding data. I can not attach files, your site says that I am not allowed to attach certain types of files MSWord (with screenshots), MS Access. Issue-144-Platform-Annex-Mount-Annex.pdf Official HC db Screen Shots.zip pfData2005.zip This is a description of what I have been running into on the Platform Editor.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000159 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2016.017 ⦁ Fixed in 2016.017 Fox-3, but activating radar!Posted by broncepulido on 23 August 2016 - 11:14 AM Testing the F-35A Learning Curve scenario I see when a F-35A flight (or Portuguese Air Force F-16) is ordered to intercept Russian warplanes, even within or beyond AIM-120 AMRAAM missile range, the F-35A (or F-16) radar is activated, delating our presence to the opossite side. One of the main ideas of active radar homing missiles is to not reveal the launcher plane position, but with those actiones their position is revealed. I comment this basically because I'm almost sure in previous builts (for years?) when a fighter launch Fox-2 (passive IR guidance) or Fox-3 (active radar homing missile) the launcher radar is not activated, only in the cases of Fox-1 (semi-active radar homing missile) lauch. I'm not sure if my description is real, or simply my memory fail. Can it be changed/corrected? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia...Fox_(code_word) Issue-159-Fox-3-but-activating-radar.pdf

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000091 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 11 – Cannot Reproduce ⦁ Version 2014.018 ⦁ Fixed in Get Annex ErrorPosted by eeustice on 12 October 2014 - 10:24 AM Upon opening Saved game WP Backyard 936-4 from last night received a Get Annex Error. Loaded last game save file WP Backyard 936-3.0013 and game loaded. I looked for item 13617 but I could not fine item. I don't know which annex is 13. After saving my game upon exiting the game last night I received a Debug Assertion Fault. Pondering if they are related? Attached are the 2 saved game files a copy of the screen shot and the GE log. The db is the same as my last 3 issues. If you guys have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Eric Issue-091-Get-Annex-Error.pdf Get Annex Error 10-12-14.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000083 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 11 – Cannot Reproduce ⦁ Version 2014.015 ⦁ Fixed in Debug Assertion FaultPosted by eeustice on 06 September 2014 - 10:39 PM Upon exiting the game received a Debug Assertion Fault (see attached word doc for the screen shot). Game was saved before GE was closed. I have seen this a couple of times in the past upon closing the GE. Attached is a copy of the latest db, saved game, screen shot and for your viewing pleasure in the new SE a copy of the scenario. If you have any questions please let me know, Thanks, Eric Issue-083-Debug-Assertion-Fault.pdf DAF 9-7-14.zip GetMemAnnex Error.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000119 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 11 – Cannot Reproduce ⦁ Version 2015.017 ⦁ Fixed in Errour building group or base.Posted by broncepulido on 10 October 2015 - 10:59 AM Build 2005.017, Middle East Map, latest HCDB. I'm keep working in a current times Latakia scenario. How I want a pair more of coastal Syrian ports I duplicted two times more Tartus to simulate Latakia Port and Baniyas. The second time I choosed to create Tartus (third time if we exclude the original Tartus placement), it was open as usual the menu to include some ships in the group, and added by the SE the first Albanian vessel in the ships' list with the name " !!!!!!!!!!!!! " . Later the group appears apparently beyond the map south border. I traslated it West to Palmachim (Israel), and is name group " ZH ", with an unclassified ship named !!!!!!!!!!! and no Tartus base! See attached file (I included two archives because I'm not sure what is the correct savefile, I think the bigger of 32 Kb). Issue-119-Errour-building-group-or-base.pdf LATAKIA 2015.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000122 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 11 – Cannot Reproduce ⦁ Version 2015.020 ⦁ Fixed in Run-time Error '94'Posted by eeustice on 19 October 2015 - 10:07 AM When importing my db for editing received a Run-time Error '94'. Unable to load db. I worked on the db Sat and my db was fine. I should have never had the need to import it. Attached is a copy of my db and screen shots of the Access debug window and the screen shot of the msg received when I selected Import. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Eric Issue-122-Run-time-Error-'94'.pdf HCEEFDB-151017.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000176 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 11 – Cannot Reproduce ⦁ Version 2016.003 ⦁ Fixed in SE Run-Time Check Failure 3Posted by eeustice on 18 January 2017 - 06:06 PM When trying to open Scenario with SE received a Run-Time Check Failure 3 and was unable to open scenario for editing. Included is a screen shot of the message receive from the SE, Complete scenario SP4 that was my last release and a copy of my fictional db. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Eric Issue-176-SE-Run-Time-Check-Failure-3.pdf Run-Time Check Failure 3.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000164 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 11 – Cannot Reproduce ⦁ Version 2016.010 ⦁ Fixed in "Phantom" groups splitting groups in SEPosted by broncepulido on 05 November 2016 - 01:21 AM For sake of accelerate scenario building, many times I build a group with many units (Iranian MANPADS in this example), and later split it to place the diverse units on the map. Now, in SC 2016.10 (and probably in previous versions), if you split the group, the new group is not showed on the map at first instance. But you can select it alternatively with the space bar and delete keys, and after selected you can "change group position", and the new group is showed. Is a little molest when you're building scenarios, thanks. (attached very simple example, with only a Red side group with Iranian MANPADS, split it, select with the mouse the "mother" group (with 5 remaining MANPADS), change his position in the map, and you shouldn't see the "son" group (with only 1 MANPADS), select the "ghost/invisible" group with "space bar" or "delete" keys, change his "group position" in the map, and you should see now the "son" group, previously a invisible "ghost" group). Issue-164-Phantom-groups-splitting-groups-in-SE.pdf TEST GROUP SPLIT.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000166 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 4 – High ⦁ Status 11 – Cannot Reproduce ⦁ Version 2016.010 ⦁ Fixed in AI controlled air running out of fuel?Posted by CV32 on 12 November 2016 - 12:37 PM Noticed that AI controlled aircraft seem to be dropping out of the sky without my involvement. Also noticed (may or may not be related) that player controlled aircraft were not reporting low fuel until <10% remaining. Savegame attached is from Backyard I, Westpac. Stock HCDB 150928. Issue-166-AI-controlled-air-running-out-of-fuel.pdf redcrash.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000024 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 91 – Duplicate Version 2009.076 Fixed in Dead fish in the water - Red subs do not navigatePosted by Grumble on 16 June 2013 - 09:33 AM Playing HDS2 3.0, Convoy Ho!, red submarines were painfully hard to detect, yet they were themselves very passive. I checked what are they up to with Show All. Looks like there is a some problem, either with the scenario or with the AI navigation, SE shows red groups would need to do creep speed on their patrol routes, except perhaps ZKU, starting from further North at 25kts, but ZKU would also slow down to 5kts after reaching the expected path of the convoys. Red group routes at the start, Show All, playing Blue. The Red subs stop navigating after just a few miles, they either stop completely or do roundabouts on the spot at 5kts speed. Red group routes at the end of the game, 10 days gametime has passed, showing they did go nowhere. I tripped over ZJU V3023 at the end of the game, taking a closer look, it is laying in place, going nowhere, speed at 5kts, it's course alternates between 77 and 249 degrees and sometime it also does instantaneous depth changes between deep and shallow. It can not move, even after Show All, clearing it's path and plotting a new one, it does not obey move orders. While laying in wait could be a good ASW tactics it's not what the AI was scripted to do here. I only attached an end game save, the issue is very easy to reproduce, restarting the scenario playing blue, red subs behave the same way every time. ++ Just checked HSD2 4.0, same symptoms. ++ HDS2 5.0 too. Issue-024-Dead-fish-in-the-water-Red-subs-do-not-navigate.pdf CrazyIvan.zip HDS2-3.zip hds230stop (1).zip hds230stop.zip hds250stop.zip SUB.zip

Issue Information Issue ID #000092 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 91 – Duplicate Version 2014.019 Fixed in Minor graphic column error in SE 32-bitsPosted by broncepulido on 16 October 2014 - 05:25 PM Building a new sub scenario I saw a lack of correlation between weapons values and columns in the Scenario Editor 32-bits. In the game engine all is ok. In short: The quantity of weapons number is showed in the Target type column. The target type is showed in the Range column. The weapon ranges is showed in the Hit% column The weapon PH is showed in the Damage column. See the example in attached Word file. Issue-092-Minor-graphic-column-error-in-SE-32-bits.pdf Harpoon SE32 Window Error.doc

Issue Information Issue ID #000124 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 91 – Duplicate Version 2015.022 Fixed in 2015.023 Weapon expenditure not showedPosted by broncepulido on 28 October 2015 - 04:22 PM I'm not sure if related with this, but playing the Clash of DDGs scenario with Build 2015.022, clicking in one ship in the "Unit Window", and clicking in "Full" and in "Weapons Details", is not showed missile or gun expediture at all, and it's impossible. Previously the notation was with two figures separed with a slash, type "Standard MR2 Block IIIb 40/40", changing to 39/40 just to 0/40 whith all the missile magazine depleted, but now is type "Standard MR2 Block IIIb 40", and that single figure don't change when missiles are fired. Issue-124-Weapon-expenditure-not-showed.pdf

Issue Information Issue ID #000001 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 91 – Duplicate Version 2015.028 Fixed in 2016.002 Undetermined problem finishing scenarioPosted by broncepulido on 13 March 2016 - 02:14 PM Just when I was finishing the building of a great scenario, something is wrong and now the scenario can't start (it only lacks delete some US submarines, add paths and speeds to submarines and add other chinese ships). I was thinking the problem was the Stennis Group (AEC), but I'm not sure (perhaps after change variable start points, but I don't see it clear). Too late in the day to find it now! (see attached file).

Issue Information Issue ID #000006 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 20 – Fix Postponed Version 0000.000 Fixed in Scenario Editor Victory Conditions math problemPosted by broncepulido on 06 January 2013 - 01:56 AM When I put as victory condition in the Scenario Editor (I use the last version of it) 300 planes shot-down, I see after reflected as victory condition in the window only 44 planes shot-down. After a short testing,I think I shaw the same problem as with the missiles and decoys some weeks ago: if I put 255 or less planes shot-down as victory condition everything is OK, if I put 256 the victory condition showed is 1 plane shot-down (i.e., apparently the final values Y are the result of X-256=Y if X>255). Issue-006-Scenario-Editor-Victory-Conditions-math-problem.pdf

Issue Information Issue ID #000058 Issue Type Suggestion Severity 0 – None Assigned Status 30 – Feature Request Version 2009.097 Fixed in GE - Enable player to set initial formation of surface groupsPosted by Grumble on 05 October 2013 - 06:59 AM Allow the player to rearrange formation of surface (&submarine) groups at the start of the scenario, as if in SE. I start most scenarios by rearranging formations of my surface groups. For 2 to 6 hours my ships are just transiting to stations I prefer. During this time my groups are not battle ready as would want them to be. Ships also either transit at flank speed, not good if enemy subs are around, or I have to stop the group completely to make them creep to stations. This is dead time, I could be playing instead. This would be no cheat either. In real life the commander does not pick up command in the middle of Atlantic, his ships are in formation the way he likes them ever since leaving Norfolk. Perhaps there are some scenarios where initial formation is significant for the play, so ideally this would be a feature the scen author can toggle on or off in SE. Issue-058-GE-Enable-player-to-set-initial-formation-of-surface-groups.pdf