TonyE

Cannot reproduce the issue in 2009.049, assume fixed

I assume it is still unfixed but haven't tested this specific issue since then. Feel free to give it a go and post your results. Thanks.

You may be getting the report as a result of being in SAM range or some other platform you are missing. I only meant it in regards to comparing relative speed of missile and target to make sure the target won't exhaust the missile's range. I'm not with you on this business... what is that in reference to? You've been going on about the AI supposedly being neutered in capabilities and suggested the AI wasn't doing its avoidance trick, I'm saying it (the little jink) is still there when the situation merits but that the improvement in the radar model has reduced the number of situations where it is merited. Hmmm.... Here, VBA never did flee - well, except momentarily in one case - and always seemed to be in pursuit of my nearest air group. Anyway, I did close and fire the last two AIM-120s from just outside the range of the F-16's AIM-9P missiles - but with no effect. Was this too close? All of the other salvos were fired from about 75%-80% of the 40 nm range of the AIM-120A/Bs - or about 30-35 miles out. This is as close as I can get and still have a chance to bug out and escape the F-16s' AIM-120s. Um, trying different tactics is one of the reasons for playing the game, try it yourself. As I've said before, use logging (radar logging in this case) and you can go back and prove to yourself when the AI gets a detect. For the millionth time, it isn't magic and the AI isn't cheating on detects. Regarding the rest, yes, like the paper rules most events are resolved with a roll of the die and if you load a saved game, everything from that point on gets different rolls, they are not predetermined at game start. So you can load a generic save with missiles in the air and get hits 0 to number of missiles times each iteration but with enough iterations you'll see a trend towards an average that takes into account weapon PH and all other factors in the engagement.

I personally know three programmer types, two of which are currently unemployed (this area sucks for tech employment), but only one who is into Harpoon - as far as I'm aware, anyway. Unfortunately, the 'Pooner is the one who I mentioned before as already having attempted to get involved... I don't know the details of what happened with him, but I think it's safe to say that his offer to help is no longer on the table after apparently having been given the "bum's rush" in response to his interest in getting involved. Of the other guys, I can't say whether they have any interest in the game, but they might be interested in doing some code development... I can ask when I see them again. I don't know what language(s) are used for the game, but I believe the one guy does some version(s) of C, and the guy I used to work with I know did VB.net, and perhaps others. I know his resume said that he once worked as a developer/tester with Microsoft. If any of these folks might be of help, let me know and I'll broach the possibility. Maybe you should ask the one who is into Harpoon what went wrong, if it was with us or someone else, and carry on from there. Point of order as well, a Pooner is someone who has won the Pooner award (http://www.harpoonpages.com/poonervote/pooner-Intro.php), a Harpooner is someone who plays Harpoon. As for the other two, if they have interest then cerrtainly broach the subject with the understanding that it is purely a hobby endeavour, the reward being a name in the credits and maybe some feel good reward for helping players if they do that too. Hit, area defense, etc. animations. That's what I'm saying, the precedent has been set for multiple levels of control, it can't be removed now. Take the scenario of all scenarios, Gauntlet, small group engagement that defined the computer game. That is how some people view(ed) the game from day 1. I view it as a venue for huge engagements. The two cannot be reconciled by a single level of command. Outside of an annoying 'feature' or two added by programmers other than me I don't agree that micromanagement has been increased. The nature of many of the newer scenarios has changed to dictate more micromanagement (also a factor of how the scenario writers are choosing to confound the player) but again I don't agree that the game has regressed as you suggest in these matters. So we'll just have to disagree there. I don't think I can answer that safely so I'll just re-point to Brains' little mantra about how to make this all go more smoothly.

HCE - 2009.048 - 2009/11/21 =========================== - Chg:B141 GE Unit detail display would crash if aircraft's home unit was destroyed. Fixed (thanks Don Thomas) HCE - 2009.047 - 2009/11/02 =========================== - Chg:0000 GE When using formation editor from Group window, the masking of the unit icons was going haywire (since oh, 2005 or so). Finally tracked it down and fixed it, the masking should now work (i.e. no black or white unit/group icon backgrounds in all situations. (thanks DonG, and many others over years) file will be uploaded in a few minutes, kind of backwards today

HCE - 2009.048 - 2009/11/21 =========================== - Chg:B141 GE Unit detail display would crash if aircraft's home unit was destroyed. Fixed (thanks Don Thomas) HCE - 2009.047 - 2009/11/02 =========================== - Chg:0000 GE When using formation editor from Group window, the masking of the unit icons was going haywire (since oh, 2005 or so). Finally tracked it down and fixed it, the masking should now work (i.e. no black or white unit/group icon backgrounds in all situations. (thanks DonG, and many others over years)

Looking at some of your saves: AutoSave - Invisible AI missiles.USNI-hp2 The fired AMRAAMs are only auto-detected upon launch if you had detected the attacking F-16s with Radar or Visual sensors before the F-16s fired. I expect you detected the F-16s after the fact and as a result the F-15s had to do the hard work of detecting the missiles. AutoSave - Invisible AI missiles2.USNI-hp2 Same deal, the F-16s are pretty stealthy. Without the auto-detect your F-15's radar can detect the AMRAAM at a max range of 28nm. That is further docked by realizing radar only sweeps once every 30 seconds. Then the kicker is that your F-15s are running away so the radars are pointed in the opposite direction of the missiles so won't detect them anyway (hence the Visual detection just before they hit). AutoSave - Invisible AI missiles3.USNI-hp2 I expect ditto on the F-15s not seeing the incoming AMRAAMs (again from the F-16s). Under ideal conditions your F-15 can detect the KF-16 at 47nm and life is rarely ideal. I'm coming up with range numbers using http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showfile=28 in combination with the PE. In theory you could do the same but finding the RCS numbers will be tougher for you. You'd have to ask some kind soul to provide them or turn on radar logging and dig them out of there. Your planes probably didn't outrun the missiles as a result of the F-16s firing them before you were out of the no escape zone. As for the AI not doing the little missile avoidance maneuver... What I do know from the code is that the little jink only happens if the missile is already detected and that is likely to be true only if the launching plane was exactly detected. It also only happens if the planes aren't already doing the jinking thing. Ah, and there more key, the jink will only happen if the target aircraft (in this case the AI F-16s) are not intercepting the firing player planes. So strike aircraft would jink but the F-16s with your F-15s as a target will not, to them attacking is more important. AutoSave - Invisible AI missiles3.USNI-hp2 Missile spoof... The F-16 probably maneuvered and was not in the expected position when the AMRAAMs got to their activation point. The AMRAAMs didn't have an easy time re-acquiring the F-16s and for the most part went stupid (sometimes it is interesting/hilarious to see Phoenix and AMRAAMs dance all over, unrealistically, looking for the target). The 80% only applies to the final hit determination, not any disasters caused by non-ideal shots and tricky targets changing course/speed. AutoSave - impervious F-16s.USNI-hp2 When I run the save, the blue missiles do reach CWM first. The AI missiles crashed and burned due to lack of range before they got to CHA. The blue missiles also got three hits. You can load your saved games in a second copy of the game to check your results. Sometimes you do just get crappy rolls of the die. The F-16 does also have countermeasures that right off the bat cut the PH by 15%. It is also pretty nimble decreasing the PH more. AutoSave - impervious F-16s2.USNI-hp2 So I do a rough calculation that says I can probably fire my AMRAAM once I get within 30nm of the fleeing F-16. For a little buffer I don't fire until 25nm separates my F-15s from the F-16s. Fired 3 x AIM-120 and waited. VBA goes down in flames. So lessons might be to make sure you are really close enough to the enemy for him not to escape, for a better hit chance fire at least two AAMs per target (there is a bonus for firing 2+ per target), and if you can manage it have your firing platform not detected by the target platform to deny the AI the auto-detect of your missiles. Them's my 2 cents as such.

Hmmm... Just curious: What do you see as the major issues that have arisen in this thread? Obviously, I'm not "in the know" about the development efforts on the HCE game, but it sure puzzles me that Matrix is selling the game (well, to some of us, anyway), yet they don't support a development staff? Weird! I know that s/w developers typically have to put in a whole lot more hours than they get paid for... but at least companies keep a few on the staff. What sort of help do you need, anyway? (I happen to know of one programmer who offered to help awhile back, but was summarily "blown off"... so I assume that you're not in need of that form of help?) What is IRC? It may be nitpicking but 'big' and major issues are quite a bit different to me. A major issue in my book would be a game crash or planes flying underwater. A 'big' issue is something like re-doing the Group and Unit displays to show depth curves for your plotting pleasure as well as providing an 'aground' checker and remediation button to further enhance your navigation. We can always use programming help, thusfar nobody has shown enough interest or capability to make it happen. For the person who came closest I even spent time converting example code into a language he understands to aid in determining if he had the skills to join the gang. Sadly I haven't seen any results. In all fairness that gentleman did provide an analysis of needs to work on AI aircraft evasion and I did not follow-thru and write the interface for him but that was in large part due to not seeing him make use of the existing interface to build something, anything, that the players could use. Matrix has made graphic design resources available to us and specifically would like the stick figure animations replaced. Brad, Akula, and I tend not to care about that but should eventually get around to it. They also do some support (though I'd rather they send support cases straight to us as they tend not to know each game enough to quickly help players) and of course bring their name and marketing savvy to the table. They play a role just like we do. Without them the game wouldn't sell as many copies as it sells so that makes them and AGSI happy (I suppose anyway). As for how or why it works, there would have been no continued HCE development without Brad, Akula, and myself. The original plan was for the programmer at the time (Fletcher) to do one maintenance patch after the initial release and then HC would disappear. But we kept pressing AGSI to let us continue with the game and eventually (this literally took years, multiple proposals throwing ourselves under the bus, etc.) AGSI gave the go ahead. We further polished HCE before it was released then pretty much took over the day to day care and feeding of the game and players so AGSI could focus on H3. We got our game, AGSI gets our proceeds to fund H3 development, everyone is happy, except maybe the confused customer when they realize their HC money is paying for H3 development (though in all honesty we receive a royalty, unrequested, that the three of us split and it is larger than we expected). Anyway... IRC is Internet Relay Chat, one of the first methods of meeting up and doing real-time text chatting on the Internet. It is where we get a lot done in terms of exploring the games, strategizing, fixing bugs, and generally ranting about any topic that arises. In terms of what you'd probably get from it: more answers to the "why is it this way" questions, more discussion on the "why isn't it this way" questions, and a better understanding of who we are. I'm sure you've read other threads where I indicate how participation drives me to a large extent and IRC is the single best way to get me moving . Anyway, there are Java applet->IRC links at http://www.harpgamer.com and I wrote a small Windows IRC client you can get from http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=281 . If you try it out and nobody is actively around, schedule a time via PM here on the forum and eventually we'll all get connected. Other 'big' issues you raised in the topic: 1. A desire to choose which command level to inhabit while playing the game. Traditional game design says you aim for one level of command and one level only. Since we've never had that in Harpoon not everyone can easily be made happy. As such, it is a big issue to provide an even remotely capable AI, let alone a multi-tiered AI that would allow you to choose to operate at different levels such as theater commander, strike group commander, jet jockey, or all of the above. 2. Well, pretty much every other issue you raised in this thread besides water depth centers around various functions of the AI be it the opposing side AI or your own helper AIs.

Can you pass on the exact error number? Usually it gives a three or so digit number to indicate the problem more specifically. Any reply from Erik @ Matrix yet? If not I can pressure too on your behalf.

Way to go guys, that was an awesome group effort! Interesting find on the logging and interference. I think I allowed sonars on loadouts just because it was easy to do at the same time as radars. Someday down the road perhaps we'll have to revisit spiffying up the sonar operation in such circumstances.

imho Brains states it well. What I'll add is... * We'll deal with whatever level of detail can be given. You don't have the SE (well, you have your HC Gold SE and could make test scens there and run them in HCE) so we do what we can with your saved games. * Sometimes saved games don't reproduce a problem but if you don't try, you won't know. Saved games after the fact are better than no saved game at all but there is little excuse not to have one before the fact with the iterative saving options (see beta tester manual in beta tester general forum). * While it isn't neccessarily fair, reports with the proper backing, focused saved games/scenarios are going to tend to be addressed before reports without such collateral. Occasionally I chase down random reports but it is a huge time-sink, generally not as fun for me, and takes time away from reports that are well-formed and quickly addressable. * Many of the things you mention are 'big' issues better addressed in a re-write of the game. I support such a rewrite but there isn't a lineup of people behind me to make it happen. I'm not content with the game we have but cannot craft a new one alone. You could make yourself visible on IRC and become more involved.

What Brad said . Matrix is the publisher, AGSI is the rights holder, then comes us taking care of the game. Call it a loose confederation. Anyway, we're still here coding, editing databases, and providing what support we can muster. Matrix is definitely your primary contact on serial number issues but... One solution has been to uninstall the game, then reinstall. When you reinstall make sure you install the patch(es) to the same location as the original game. We've seen some people install the original game to say C:\Matrix Games\HCE then install 2008.044 to C:\Games\HCE resulting in a SN error since the game is then split between two locations.

That's kind of what I'm thinking. We've over the last 8 years eviscerated the vast majority of the unfair advantages given to the AI (some were accidental, some were required for the game to operate on the systems of the time). My opinion (just that as I'm not seeing the example save games either...) is that most such complaints of phantom planes and such are as a result of the increased width of inputs to the radar and sonar models. Going from 3 or 5 RCS ratings (depending upon how you count them) to over 100 is certainly going to impact the game and make some planes less detectable than others. Similar deal with sonar. The WestPac intro scenario demonstrates both of these quite specifically and obviously. I'm with Brad, if you want a better product take ownership of your gripes and turn them into saved games and something we can use please instead of general complaints with no backing except your word and the anti-evidence of ourselves and others not having similar issues. The game isn't perfect and I think you'll find us incredibly open to constructive complaint but your posts are reading as gripes and nothing more. This is a hobby for us and we'd like you to be a force to move the game forward, not a force driving us to leave the game. I hope your back-woods 'friend' isn't the Herminator

We still need verification that radars and sonars in loadouts really do their thing. Thanks all

I think we just need verification that I put the right new EC2003 scenarios into the game. Thanks

The biggest number that the PE will permit you to input there is 99,999. In most (if not all) other fields in the PE the max permissible is 65,535. I have never had any reason to play with a DP that large so I have no idea if it would the GE/SE would recognise it. Right on Brad, 65,535 is the max damage points for a platform (including installations). However, I would be extremely cautious using any value over 32,767 DP since it appears a number of the auxilliary functions have that as a cutoff (short instead of unsigned short).

I was hoping you wouldn't * Matrix is often a slow moving operation in terms of putting up patches and files so dealing with them to upload the demo would be an additional pita for me. * Matrix isn't a huge fan of demos in the first place, actively discouraging them in general as a poor way to showcase wargames. * The demo is linked as the first item of the FAQ on the Matrix HCE forum, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1633589 so it is quite accessible from Matrix. It isn't a sticky at the forum in and of itself because I detest a half-screen of stickied topics. On the plus side, for a different HCE project I've written a short quick-start guide that will go well with the next release of the demo.

I don't think so, no.

Yes, I'd think so.

Perhaps try double-clicking OrdWrite.exe directly from the game directory and let us know what happens (even if all you see a window flash up and go away). This one mystifies me a bit since I haven't had the orders writer not run.

There is logging to start your analysis, http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3574 You also have the Show All capability at your fingertips (see hotkey sheet downloads). The best way to keep your planes undetected is to not emit, use your AWACs as your eyes. ESM is a highly capable sensor in HC so to game the system you avoid emitting and providing the AI with ESM hits.

For demo releases, I'd say http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3446 and when you do the Track topic use the immediate or digest messages. The default one sometimes won't e-mail you. I can't really speak to whether sometimes the forum skips sending messages. The Issue Tracker doesn't terribly reliably send e-mails but the forum to my knowledge is much better. Dunno about reply and loging prompt either, can't say I've seen that. One situation in which it could happen is if your public IP address changes from the time you login to when you post the message. That would happen if you have a flaky Internet connection.

a. I think that would be suboptimal since aircraft may be in enemy territory when their base is destroyed. I'd rather have them try to RTB if not on an active mission than loiter say within enemy anti-aircraft defenses. b. They retain some measure of lethality but they are not on a specific mission and are unlikely to be assigned to a mission so they do seem less focused

Hi John, Please see http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2449 for the SE not running. Usually players find they have the 64-bit version of Vista (or Windows 7) and that is why they can't natively run the SE. As for the orders writer, please provide more detail about any error message or prompts or how it isn't working if it is loading. Welcome (back) to the fray!

Two topics merged, one wishlist topic per person please.