Gopher

Ciao Francesco Concerning ... ... there are other issues were Tony work with higher priority. Please feel free to add it on http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showforum=35 , so far you haven't it posted already in an other forum. Ciao Gottardo

Interesting, good idea.

Yes, seems fixed. It seems this solve an other issue at .017: After cancel a formation AEW-patrol, save the game and reopen; it relauched the AEW-patrol. I do not recognize a difference to .017. For the blue side all range circles of all groups are visible on all group windows all time.

Yes, there is a cretain chance to win.

I've only downloaded the scen and analized it. Is someone able to win as blue side player?

Hope Tony will not be offended by my posting ... Yes, I confirm. This happen basically by splitting a/c, ships, subs and land units from airfields, bases and ports. An other issue in .017 is the screen-update in window 2 with every 30 seconds: With the window factor 1x is will be fine (depending on the map size of the scenario/battleset), for the scenarion FLEE.scm with a window factor of 16x is a screen-update of 30 seconds deathly. In the unit window with 16x it seems it work fine with a window update of every second. The minimum and the total victory conditions work fine for me in a modified flee.scm scenario for a/c vistory conditions. Now the "You have no more units! Since RED met their total victory conditions first, they win!" are the challange. Independet if the blue (human) or the red (AI) get total victory: Every time the game provide this message after the total victory message and so the game ends (but shouldn't). As Tony noted "still very experimental". This leads to the open question: Which issues work as known "designed" and which issues not and so are finally worth to post here.

- Chg:0000 GE Formation editor should show the correct size now. Yes. Unfortunately only so long I don't use the zoom-in/-out buttons in window 2.

I would be careful about this point. In an old version of HII a red a/c had only to launch a missile and the blue a/c turned back home even the blue a/c is not in range of the red missile. Maybe as an option by the game start, or as individual option for a/c yes, but please not for all scenarios and all players. If a user could program the behavior individual via AI and Staff logic, then yes.

In a scenario exist the blue airbase Aa (human player) and the red airbase Za (AI). From the red airbase Za shall takeoff air groups to attack the blue airbase Aa from south, east, west and north and this automatic repeatable every four hours. Now the simple question: How is this scenario to generate with the scenario editor? It seems in the scenario editor are only direct bearing attacks possible.

Great step forward! How to generate a scenarion with the scenarioneditor were green units attack by it self (AI) red units? And how to attack as NEUTRAL-player a blue base? More tricky: How to attack as NEUTRAL-player a red base?

And why is it small? From my point of view, the following happen: With the step from H1 to HII: A lot of im provements were done. Unfortunately, HII was buggy. With the step from HII to H3 and ANW more and more the game fun went in the background and the simulation went in the front. This means, ANW is an excelent simulation, while it is a game fun killer. Instead the gamer select what shall be automatised and what manually controlled by the gamer; the game define what is how automatised and what is controlled manually. This leads by some player to the step backward to HC. The target group of MP by HC is different then by ANW. I'm open for facts which shows that this is wrong.

Why a storyline? If it is a game like civilisation were a decision has diplomatic effect, the has a storyline sense from my point of view. "Potential players choose the player controlled Blue OOB and its disposition/posture from a list of available options. Scenario author completes the scenario based on their choices." I would prefere to automatise this, so far we could clone Tony.

The behavior of the aircraft is a result of tactics. The tactic is the result of the strategy. The strategy is the result of the assessment of threats and resources. And they are not in any real scenario the same. In a normal PC game players can select between different levels of difficulty. Someone who is very good in one area (eg, submarine hunting) is not as good in another enriches (eg ground war) and vice versa. RECON missions would need to differentiate between IMINT (image intelligence), RADINT (radar intelligence), SIGINT, etc. In the case here I would prefer with reservations the solution 2. In the event that an AEW aircraft without SS capabilities is in the air, it would be nice to give nearby a Bear D with radar switched on the whole route.

Strange, the Eurofighter has by Fontanarossa the status AEW! What are ASBM?

Is it possible to add in the HCDB and HCDA the K-100 and the IDAS? Further, the AIM-120A/B shall have a shorter range while the AIM-120D shall have a bigger range, so that it will combatant to the R-27ER and R-77. Since F2 Standard, the Rafale carry usually two Scalp EG, and it could be extended up to five.

Was here someone able to win the scenarion without cheat mode and without analysing the red side in the scenario editor? Further, we have a 30 Su-35 with 4xAA-12 (Range 94 nm), 16 MiG-31 with 6xAA-X-13 (Range 53.3 nm), 8 Su-34 with 4xAS-17 (Range 75 nm) and 17 EF with 6xMeteor (Range 54 nm) vs. 33 F-18 with 6xAIM-120 (Range 44 nm). Was here someone able to down a Su-35?

So in total there will be +20 BSL when the ship/sub sink. I have no idea how realistic the linear aproach is and I don't have HC right in front of my. I would rather propose to create one relation (formula), which use the native BSL (smaller ships will have a smaller BSL delta), the percentage of damage, the current ship/sub speed and the current number of actions (sub with more actions will generate more noise?). From my point of view there shall be one rule, which is modified with by factor. Before to do this modifications, I rather propose to make active sonar detectable and the usage of sonar controllable in formation patrol.

It depends. On one hand it will be good on functional bugs (example refuelling) when the behaviour is public, so that every one have a chance to admit his comments to the proposed solution (while it will never be possible to have a solution which satisfy all, but the people have on this way at least a fair chance to state their point of view). On the other hand, it is no need to publish the bugs which are discovered inside of the beta group and then solved from Tony. Further, there is the question how many beta tester exist? It there are a lot the beta testers, than it is not worth to have two list of bugs. Also if the output of the beta group is for Tony to small, than I rather propose to have one public tracking system. Basically it is good to have a single bug tracking platform to keep the overview.

Why don't they push to have the quicker the F-35?

Is it possible to do the following updates: The swiss Hawks are sold to Finnland. On the base list are some modifications to do: The airfields Dübendorf and Sion have only one runway. Further for Dübendorf; it will be closed by 2014. And Zürich has three runways.

Maybe it is programmed like this and a bigger bug just destroy it. I don't know. HC is no OC-software and so we will never get (actual) NSD's, or activity diagrams. Has someone an idea in which language HC is programmed? The last point could be pointed as: HCE simulate a network based warfare. At the first point I recognized with the leates version, that AC shot down ASM's when they attack a base. It this is resulting of an attack on a high value target or a new standart behavior, I don't know.

With the GE.023.2008 installation, the game did not crash on my PC. But the sub get sunk and I received the message "nuke allowed", while I play basically without any allowed nuke's. As compensation for the game crash, I have now more often AC which circle around a waypoint instead going further, and AC which launch from a ship to an assigned formation patrol and then run out of fuel (? beacuse they have the same waypoint problem?).

What's about pressing "F2"?

May you explain why your "clumsy fingers slipped and clicked "cascade" for the umpteenth time"?

A benefit of a group is, that several units act together. A patrolling unit cares about the treat from the patrolling sector with a high priority. And so the peripheral units of a group have to support/protect the units of the center ring of the group. Further the units of the group can be used for a group tactic instead of individual single tactic and this can provide some benefit. Unfortunately I have no idea about the programming architecture.