Herman

That's what it appears to be. Larry used the incorrect technique and won't be trying that, again. I think that this one is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Can we get a "group hug" post icon?

Another situation is that of the Su-24 Fencer. In many of the old loadouts, it carried both ARMs for defense suppression and AShMs for the strike. The ARMs were only meant for suppression of any active radar while the AShMs were the primary weapons. The problem arises when the primary AShMs are fired and the ARMs remain. The computer continues to close to try and expend them even if the target isn't radiating. They will hang over the target until they are shot down or the weapons find an eligible target. I am playing some scenarios with Backfire going after bases and finding that when the Weapons Allocation window appears, not all of the weapons are allocated to the base if there are large numbers of bombers. Hopefully, this remains the case after the patch. That way, a bomber could actually close and try to take out the HVUs with the remaining instead of wasting all their weapons on the escort screen. To have them all fire off at the first instant an eligible target appears does not seem to be any good, either.

I think that it is a bad idea for Neutrals to engage the AI. It's just another impediment towards an unthinking machine. The player, of course, can simply avoid it. Unfortunately, AI just keeps getting mauled. I don't like anything that further hinders the AI without any effect on the Human player.

Yes, the submarines are both in the TF. It's the only surface group there is for Blue.

I did some additional testing by removing the submarines and replacing them with EC2003 units and the problem did not recur. This issue can be closed.

Defect Name: Cannon fire only Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-071223 Scenario used: saved game Cannon fire only.hpi Long Description: When ordered to intercept with Sidewinders and Phoenix, Tomcats show the "Should we attack with only cannon fire?" message. The targets are well within Phoenix range. Even if target is inside the minimum range of Phoenix and _outside_ maximum range of Sidewinder, Staff Assistance should ask to engage and use the shorter-ranged Sidewinder as the basis and display a message like, "Effective range is 10nm. Target range is 15nm. Shall we close to intercept?" Sequence to reproduce: 1. Immediately order air group AFA to intercept ZLA. 2. Message will appear 3. If airgroup is left alone and checked once in range of Sidewinders, the Weapons allocation window appears Expected behaviour: Proper intercept window should appear calculated with range of shorter-ranged weapon. Observed behaviour: Incorrect message appears asking to engage with only Cannon fire. Cannon_fire_only.zip

Defect Name: AS-4 attacking submarines Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-071223 Scenario used: saved game AS-4 attacking submarines.hpi Long Description: AS-4 anti-ship missiles have been fired at submarines and attempt to engage them. SSNs were never eligible targets in the first place and were never on the surface. Sequence to reproduce: 1. Run scen and watch as AS-4s attempt to intercept SSNs Expected behaviour: AS-4 missiles should not attack submarines Observed behaviour: AS-4 missiles try to attack submarines AS_4_attacking_submarines.zip

Defect Name: Double request for target type Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-071223 Scenario used: saved game Double request for target type.hpi Long Description: When attempting to launch an air strike against an enemy surface group, the game will ask for the target type twice. Sequence to reproduce: 1. Order AAC to launch an air strike of 2 Corsair vs. ZXC 2. Double request for target type 1.gif appears right away 3. After Corsairs have been allocated and strike begins to launch, the second request appears 4. Double request for target type 2.gif appears Expected behaviour: Game should remember strike mission target Observed behaviour: Game forgets the target and asks player to re-enter Double_request_for_target_type.zip

Is this behaviour going to cause any problems when the a/c have more than one type of weapon? i.e. a plane with both ARMs and bombs/AShMs? Will the release of one type cause the a/c to return to base? Conversely, will the non-release of one type (i.e. ARMs) cause the plane to continue even though it should probably RTB once the AShMs are fired?

There are also file archives hosted at: ScenShare Files of ScenShare GameSquad I don't know their file maximum sizes, but I think that some of them will take the 10mB files. Yahoo has 100mB allowed for its sites even though I've never tried to post one that big.

Defect Name: Extraordinary sonar range Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-071223 Scenario used: User scen - ROURKE.SCm Long Description: Extraordinary sonar range from DDG Burke and other vessels; sometimes in excess of 200nm CZs for even fairly quiet subs like Oscar and Victor III. This scenario was originally built for EC2000. For the re-building process, the editor changed the suffix from SCi to SCm and then ensured that all the units were proper. No idea if this is a contributing factor for this behaviour. Sequence to reproduce: 1. Run scen at high compression from Blue side 2. Sub contacts will just materialize at incredible ranges Expected behaviour: Sonar should not have CZ contacts from 200nm+ range Observed behaviour: Sonar contacts made at 200nm+ range Extraordinary_sonar_range.zip

Mine Countermeasures Face Setbacks Warfighters The U.S. Navy's first destroyer fitted for modern mine countermeasure operations has begun searching for mines in the Mediterranean Sea. The USS Bainbridge (DDG 96) is forward deployed and has begun using the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System (RMS). Mines are a major concern for U.S. warships operating in forward littoral waters, such as the Persian Gulf. Beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1961, three U.S. Navy ships have been severely damaged by mines in the Gulf-a helicopter carrier, an Aegis missile cruiser, and a guided missile frigates. Mine are cheap, readily available, and can be clandestinely emplaced. The RMS is a self-propelled, remote-controlled, torpedo-like object that seeks out bottom and bottom-moored mines. The vehicle has a small, 370-horsepower diesel engine for propulsion, The vehicle's sensors forward-looking sonar and obstacle-avoiding video camera. The images from these sensors is sent by data link to the destroyer's combat center. The craft can be programmed to perform autonomously or can be controlled via data link, even when beyond the horizon from the mothership, which recovers the RMS after the "mission." The RMS can detect and map the location of mines, but neither it nor the destroyer can sweep or destroy the mines. The Navy plans to outfit six Aegis missile destroyers with the RMS. But, the RMS is intended to support naval forces operating in relatively shallow, littoral areas where the threats include mines as well as small submarines and small surface craft. The Aegis destroyers are primarily anti-air warfare ships, intended for deep-water operation, primarily in support of carrier battle groups. Indeed, the Navy's trouble-plagued Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program was developed in part to provide a littoral mine countermeasures capability. The RMS is a key component of the LCS mine countermeasures suite, which will include the means of destroying as well as detecting mines. Further, aboard the Aegis destroyers the RMS will be rarely employed, thus the specially trained crewmen will have little "stick" time. And, of course, they will be employed in other duties much or most of the time, duties for which they may or may not be properly rated. One must then ask that with the LCS program underway and the Navy operating 14 mine countermeasures ship of the Avenger (MCM 1) class, why the six missile destroyers are being fitted with the RMS. Meanwhile, the Navy has recently taken out of service the last of its relatively new Osprey (MHC 51)-class coastal minehunters. These 12 ships-ideal for littoral operations-were commissioned between 1993 and 1999. The Navy began decommissioning them in June 2006. Some have been transferred to Greece and Egypt, with the remainder being kept in storage at Beaumont, Texas, until they can be disposed of. Lee Hunt, vice president for academic affairs for the Mine Warfare Association, said that the departure of the last coastal minehunters robs the service of the ability to survey domestic harbors for mines. The threat of mines or Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in U.S. harbors is of growing concern of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. Still another sign of the confusion and lack of interest with respect to mine countermeasures is the current Navy move to replace the large MH-53E Sea Dragon mine countermeasures helicopters with the smaller MH-60S Sea Hawk. The latter has considerably less endurance and equipment lift capacity than the MH-53E, and also lacks the big bird's night-flying capability. The U.S. Navy has long employed minesweeping helicopters, which can be rapidly flown to forward areas with their support gear and put to sea in a variety of ships, especially amphibious helicopter carriers (LPH/LHA/LHD). They have bene used in several areas over the years, including North Vietnam waters at the end of the Vietnam War. While the U.S. Navy has long shown a lack of interest in mine warfare, the situation was recently exacerbated by the merger of what had been a separate Mine Warfare Command with the recently established anti-submarine training command to form the Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command with headquarters in San Diego. Despite official Navy statements to the contrary, the merger in reality subordinates mine warfare interests to the larger, broader, and more-visible ASW community. This is particularly true as the Navy sounds the alarm about the increasing Chinese submarine capabilities with hardly a mention of that nation's mine warfare activities. -- Norman Polmar

Dud frigates are an inherited nightmare: Fitzgibbon By Alexandra Kirk and staff Posted Wed Jan 2, 2008 4:31pm AEDT ABC News A Navy whistleblower says the frigates' anti-missile and anti-torpedo systems could not be integrated. (Department of Defence) Australia's front line guided missile frigates are still not able to be sent into battle, despite a $1.5 billion upgrade. The project to modernise the 1970's ships is running four years late, and according to News Limited papers this morning, sailors are quitting because their ships can not be deployed in the Middle East or any other conflict zone. In the report a Navy whistleblower says the frigates' anti-missile and anti-torpedo systems could not be integrated. The source describes the electronic support measures as a joke. New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says it is another nightmare Labor's inherited from the Coalition that will have to be managed "as best it can". "This is just one of a number of projects which we are now learning in government, are going to be a real problem for the new Government," he said. "We're determined to work sensibly through them, and to deliver the Navy, and indeed all of the services, the level of capability that they need or require to adequately defend the nation." Mr Fitzgibbon says he has very serious concerns about the frigates. "This is just another example of a government trying to create 21st century capability out of old ships and air frames," he said. "You'll recall the Seasprite helicopter, where the government, the former government, was trying to make a 21st century helicopter out of a 1960s airframe. "In the case of the Adelaide class, they were trying to make a 21st century warship out of vessels built in the early 1970s, which were only ever designed to operate between 20 and 25 years." Some commentators have suggested it was the wrong decision to buy the frigates in the first place, and the decision was made in order to save money. They say that the problem stems from a long way back and that taxpayers are now paying for it. Mr Fitzgibbon says the chickens are coming home to roost. "Certainly trying to make a 21st century warship out of such an old vessel always carried very, very significant risk," he said. "I could spend a long time this morning criticising the former Howard government, but I'd much rather talk about the future and how we go forward. "We're trying to assess this project now, trying to determine the level of the problem. "It's very, very complex of course, but again we're just determined to get on with the job, and to deliver to the navy the capability it requires." Issues take 'time' Mr Fitzgibbon says the frigates issue is very complex and will take time to work through. "We've been in government, what, maybe a month now," he said. "I've got a lot of problems coming across my desk, and we're trying to assess them all concurrently, and we'll just take our time to work through it, and to make sure we get this thing right." But Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin has questioned the timing of the criticism, saying problems with the ships are well-documented. "It's been known for quite some time that this particular upgrade of the frigates is running behind schedule - that it's a contract entered into nearly 10 years ago - but that it is running behind schedule," he said. "This is really a bit of a Christmas/New Year beat-up by a Labor Party wanting to play politics with defence." Senator Minchin says it was an incredibly complex project entered into by the Howard government. "Our Navy and every other navy around the world often has some difficulty in integrating new complex technical systems onto existing platforms," he said. "It's not unusual and it's been well-canvassed through Senate estimates committees and other processes, so there's nothing new in the fact that this contract is running behind schedule." Contracts reviewed Mr Fitzgibbon is reviewing all major defence contracts, including the multi-billion dollar Super Hornet deal. He says it is not about cutting spending to ease inflationary pressures in the economy. "We're determined to continue with real growth in defence spending. We believe that will be critical to our national security," he said. "But what we are determined to do, in addition to that value, is to ensure that people are getting value for taxpayers' money, and that each of our services, Navy, Army and Air Force, are being delivered the capability they require to adequately defend the nation. "So it's making sure we get capability right, but making sure also that the taxpayers are getting value for money. "[We are] making sure that the $22-billion we're spending on defence each year is being stretched as far as it possibly can, and not wasted on silly mistakes like we're seeing with respect to the Adelaide class frigates." He says he does not know yet what can be done to speed up the frigate project, which is currently running four years behind. "The important thing is that we're determined to get value for taxpayers' money, and we're determined to deliver the navy, and other services, the capabilities they need," he said. "These are significant nightmares we've inherited, but we're determined to set them right." Sailors 'quitting' Meanwhile, News Limited papers are today reporting one whistleblower saying sailors are quitting because the ships can not be deployed to areas of conflict, such as the Middle East. Mr Fitzgibbon says he is aware that there are high levels of concern among the vessel's crew, but he did not confirm that sailors are quitting. "I'd be very, very reluctant to talk in those [quitting] terms, but I am conscious of very high levels of concern, and of course people leave the services for various reasons, so it's always difficult to determine the real point of the decision," he said. "But the former Howard government managed to portray itself, as a government, to be very confident in the area of national security. "But unfortunately we're learning, in the early months of government, that the reality is something very, very much different."

Defect Name: Dead in the water Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-070524 Scenario used: Test scen - Dead in the water.scm Long Description: TF goes dead in the water when HVU sunk. Sequence to reproduce: 1. Launch all 48 Harpoon from P-3 Orions at ZW00 2. When ship is sunk, TF stops moving and will not move for the remainder of the game Expected behaviour: TF should continue movement after HVU sunk Observed behaviour: TF goes dead in the water after HVU sunk Dead_in_the_water.zip

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I know that I had lots of frustration in trying to get my planes flying at the right angle when I zoomed in far enough to change the Group display to a Unit display. Every click was way the heck off and I had to continuously zoom back out to get the new plotted path in the right general direction. Most times when I zoomed in that far, it was a total nightmare for control.

That's unfortunately what I thought. It could be worse. In previous versions, when you hit the 'cancel' order, the air group still had the mission in the memory. Therefore, when you continued your Ingress, the darned Staff Assistant kept popping up asking if you wanted to attack, over and over, again... Don't know which way is better, but this is a new experience for me, too. Where does one find such option? Thanks Herman. You can find this option under Ctrl+M, IIRC.

If you decline to attack the escort on your ingress, the strike group goes to "Unassigned" and loiters. What I do is just order it to cruise speed and it continues on the last vector it had before the Staff Assistant appears. (Of course, I have to activate the "Ignore No Movement Orders" option.) It closes for the centre of the formation and I just check a few times with the Attack command until I am able to attack the HVUs.

I think it's Alt+A and Alt+D

I'm not so sure that they change at all. Here are two more sample scenarios. I've moved that ship all over the IOPG and even put it on land, once. The same 6.5nm and 9.5nm ranges show up on the 2 displays every single time. This shouldn't be the case if it was using local water conditions, no? Displays_incongruent_2__2006_.zip

Defect Name: Displays incongruent [2006] Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-070524 Scenario used: Test Scen, Displays incongruent.SCp Long Description: Information displayed in the Unit Window is often inconsistent. Sequence to reproduce: 1. Start scenario from Blue side and select Arleigh Burke destroyer in the Unit window. 2. Hit the [D]isplay hotkey. Sonar range for SQS-53C shows as 6.5 nm. 3. Then hit the [F]ull display hotkey. Sonar range shows as 9.5 nm. Expected behaviour: Same information should appear on both displays. Observed behaviour: Different information appears on both displays. Displays_incongruent__2006_.zip

Defect Name: Launch Limbo [2006] Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-070524 Scenario used: Launch Limbo.SCo Long Description: When aircraft are either launching or landing, if the aircraft in the group are destroyed before the group is fully launched/landed, the aircraft that have not yet launched to / already landed from the group are stranded in limbo either as launching or landing. Sequence to reproduce: 1. Play as Blue 2. Order all 61 Cock transports to ferry to the other base. 3. Watch Red destroy the first few aircraft in the group and the remainder are stranded. Expected behaviour: Aircraft should not be stranded in limbo. Observed behaviour: Aircraft should are stranded in limbo either as launching or landing. Launch_Limbo__2006_.zip

Defect Name: Have Nap malfunction [2006] Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-070524 Scenario used: Have Nap malfunction [2006].SCn Long Description: AGM-142 Have Nap cannot hit the target. This missile has the Command Guidance and Mid-Course Guidance flags. Under manual control, they can hit if the player remains in the area. However, under AI control, the attacking aircraft launch and immediately turn for home base so the missiles always miss. Sequence to reproduce: 1. Play from Red. 2. Set 30 min time compression. 3. Watch Blue aircraft launch, RTB, and then missiles miss. Expected behaviour: Missiles should track to target. Observed behaviour: Missiles never hit. Have_Nap_malfunction__2006_.zip

Defect Name: Cruise at full speed [2005] Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-070524 Scenario used: Love is My Vengeance [EC2003 IOPG] User-built Long Description: Air group BIA is currently cruising at 90kts. This should be Full Speed. Cruise speed should only be 80kts. Sequence to reproduce: 1. Select Air Group BIA. 2. Order BIA to Full Military power at low altitude. Speed remains at 90kts and Throttle setting now shows Military. 3. Now order BIA to Cruise power. Speed drops to 80kts and Throttle setting changes to Cruise. 4. Now order BIA back to Military power. Speed increases to 90kts but Throttle setting remains at cruise speed. 5. Saved game available Expected behaviour: Throttle should show Military when full speed is applied. Observed behaviour: Throttle shows Cruise consumption when unit at full speed. Cruise_at_full_speed__2005_.zip

Defect Name: Shot down during landing [2005] Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-070524 Scenario used: Stage Fright [EC2003 IOPG] User-created Long Description: Air Group BJA consisted of four aircraft. BJA is in the process of landing. Two have already landed. One was shot down. The final aircraft in the group is about to be shot down. When it is shot down, the two aircraft already on the ground will be stranded in limbo and listed as Landing, but they will never move out of that phase and are forever lost to the player/AI. This situation is easily replicable for any DB and is definitely not specific to HCDB. Sequence to reproduce: 1. N/A - saved game available. Expected behaviour: Aircraft already landed should be re-armed and available to player/AI. Observed behaviour: Aircraft, already landed, are stranded in the Landing Pattern [limbo] if the last aircraft in the group is destroyed. Shot_down_during_landing__2005_.zip

Defect Name: SE Count bug [2005] Build: HCE 2007.000 Repeatable: Y Operating System: XP DB used: HCDB-070524 Scenario used: SE_Count [EC2003 MEDC] test scenario Long Description: Test scenario has ViCond set at the destruction of two bases. Victory is granted after just one base is destroyed. Sequence to reproduce: 1. Play as Blue. 2. Launch bombers and kill one enemy base. 3. Victory awarded. 4. Test scen attached. Expected behaviour: Victory after destroying two bases. Observed behaviour: Victory awarded after destroying just one base. SE_Counting_bug__2005_.zip