TonyE

I hear ya...and that was my understanding as well. ...And another thing, where do I get one of those "lunch rolls", I sure am hungry. I've long held a belief that the Migs probably had no way of knowing they were under attack by the early F-14/Phoenix combo and that this would impact the combat results in a big way if the Migs weren't following an erratic base course (and given the short legs on the Migs I think they'd not be wandering randomly). A non-maneuvering fighter isn't much different from a non-manuevering Tu-95 if neither knows missiles are incoming.

I think Pete has a good handle on the unification project. My position as well it outside the core paper people but I do see a number of things fly by periodically. I don't think you'll see a single 20th + 21st Century data annex and a single ruleset to rule them all. What you will have at least some ability to do is pit a CG Ticonderoga against the Great White Fleet and have rules that accomodate your desire. At present, pre-unification, you would have to translate both rules and platform data. Post unification you'll already have largely compatible data and rules. I still don't think that will mean you see a single ship data sheet that covers more than a century of warfare and the CG Ticonderoga annex entry won't have quite the right information to fit CaS rules to a tee. But once again, it'll be all so much easier to interpret together and be familiar with all of the games by using even one of them. That'll leave us players with the still herculean task of tactics and strategy but reducing the administrative burden should be a tremendous boon to play.

Yup, laughing, I'm all about dark grey land + light blue water

So all this time I've been struggling to see the blue units, I could have simply recolored them in Paint Shop? Well, at least it gets fixed now. Well, not forever but after the 2008.024 patch and before the 2008.044 patch, yes. Don't forget to share the wealth, maybe StalinTC will let you work from his modified icons http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=330

Great article right up until there. These two paragraphs may illustrate the Cold War approach and I might venture a sane approach but they don't cover 'rogue regimes', a power grab in North Korea, etc. As I've recently been educated, sure North Korea can pummel Seoul to dust with conventional means but maybe there would develop targets outside of the rather static range of their largest forces that would meet an impressive end with a low-yield nuke, what better way to cement a new leader's grasp on power.

Not a complete answer, but under settings/staff options, you can set the options so the staff assistant has less reasons to bother you. Of course, this may cause you unnecessary casualties. Right on VitP and that is indeed as thoroughly as you can silence the staff assistant. He can't be exorcised entirely.

afaik there is no loiter requirement (in fact the planes have to be at Cruise to refuel) and no altitude requirement either. Correct as well that there is zero correlation between joining time and the start of refueling, the refueling is entirely dependent upon fuel state. What I need in order to troubleshoot is a small test scen (ideally a Red sub, and on the blue side as few units as possible to recreate the refueling inconsistencies). Then run the scen until the moment just before refueling starts, save the game. Repeat as needed for the various different strangenesses. Then zip up the scen and saved games and put them into a new issue report here at HG.

After an IRC chat today we seem to have reached agreement on the tactical turn layout, data exchanges (3 as I listed in my segments post), and such.

Not RC yet, the nephews still run it round on the floor via the wheels and motor built-in. Once that dies down I'll toss in the RC gear and put it on the lake.

Okay, after re-reading the rulebook examples it appears they follow the stated structure of movement before planned fire. This adds some complexity since the game will have to estimate positions at launch (i.e. post movement) at the plotting phase to know which weapons will be in range. ex. At start of turn target PTM is within Harpoon range but is running away from the firing ship. After movement the PTM will no longer be in range. Therefore during the plotting phase the player can't fire Harpoon since it will be out of range after the movement phase even though it isn't out of range at the time the orders are being given.

Pete asked for photos of my train track so here they are. Obviously I'm not into scenery, it is all about the track laying and wiring for me. Each track segment has its own leads soldered on with insulators between each track segment so in theory someday I can do all manner of sensing and signalling and computer control (keeping in mind I started this before DCC was affordable). Two more loops of track are planned (what you see are the 22" and 18" radius loops, 15" and trolley track are yet to appear). Recently I've been installing Tortoise switch machines (which I errantly called turtle one time when asking for them at the hobby shop).

More assorted boats, some works in progress (the big rubber duck for instance). I haven't even started conversion of the GI Joe aircraft carrier, the nephews still like running it round on the floor too much. Some other toys too mostly old and decrepit (much like the pile of nearly worthless batteries there).

The pop bottle boat. The performance isn't quite what I want so I'm thinking about using a lithium polymer battery instead of the NiMH. Perhaps then I can also strip off the pink foam bits thanks to the reduced weight. And Li-Polys are impressive when they burn up.

Let's watch the language please. You can modify the icon colors by editing \Graphics\GR_ICONS.BMP . You'll want to save it as a 256-color BMP or it won't look right at all in the game.

How do you account for the reaction fire phase then? You'd have to be prescient about what happens in the detection phase in order to plan reaction fire at the start of the turn. That or as pmaidhof offered on IRC have standing orders (which he later agreed doesn't seem at first blush to fit into the intent and examples on page 15/16 of the rulebook).

Playing as Red can you get within range of the Wisconsin? I couldn't and was repeatedly destroyed trying.

File Name: WWII-USAvsDEguns File Submitter: TonyE File Submitted: 21 May 2009 File Category: BattleSets DB Used: embedded HCWW Authors: TonyE A WWII BattleSet pitting US vs German units in gun battles. Thanks to CV32 for the HCWW database that is embedded in this BattleSet. Only one scenario so far, perhaps more will follow. Usage Instructions: 1. Unzip the contents of the file to your HCE directory then run the game. You will find the battleset towards the end of the list. Click here to download this file

How about looking at this from a different angle. If playing PBEM, how many times per 30-second turn do you have to exchange info with your opponent. My feel is that the answer is (a minimum of) three times. 1. After simultaneously entering any plot changes, planned fires, sensor changes (mode and on/off), etc. 2. After entering reaction fire orders. This is as a result of the changed detections and locations due to the detection and 2nd air movement phase. 3. Upon completion of resolution phase. The above three-exchange system assumes the two players use the same die rolls otherwise exchanges would have to be made for detection and resolution as well. I'm thinking computer-wise so it is easy enough to include a huge number of die rolls in the above two turn segments to carry the day (or even just a seed for the random number generator to make sure all die rolls are synchronized). Pete, I think from this discussion it is obvious the natural state of the game will be paused for order entry. I'm still liking a realtime option and in this two-segment tactical turn it would be (logical guessing it) 20 seconds for segment 1, 10 seconds for segment 2. The vast majority of actions takes place in segment 1, segment 2 is just an annoying fly in the ointment. Example Flow of Play Time 000.0 Segment 1 (note my re-arranging of the phases, do we fire first or move first? I'm thinking of the examples in the rules book here) Plotting Planned Fire Movement Detection Check Send data bundle to other players [*]Time 000.25 Segment 2 2nd Air Movement Reaction Fire Send data bundle to other players. Before sending each side only knows its own reaction fires and as such can't resolve the entire turn until Segment 3. [*]Segment 3 Attack Resolution. No orders are entered here. Send data bundle to other players. [*]Time 000.5 Segment 1 ...

Let's brainstorm how to represent the various stages of the tactical turn game-wise. While they are fairly clearly delineated in the rules book I'm having a difficult time converting that flow to actual practice (such as, shouldn't the plotting phase really be part of the previous 15-second interval...).

Simple is good and perhaps the HCE ruleset will be named HC2011 or whatever the date may be. Simple is why I've named the HC builds as I have, year.build. So my HC directories look like... D:\Games\HC1997 D:\Games\HC2002 D:\Games\HC2003.010 D:\Games\HC2003.015 D:\Games\HC2003.16b3 D:\Games\HC2007.000 D:\Games\HC2008.024 D:\Games\HC2008.044 D:\Games\HC2009.036 D:\Games\HCCE (this is where I keep the latest betas) someday I'll work my older HC builds in there (Winharp and earlier)

I'm not at all against JSGME but in the longer term a more native approach is planned (nor do I have much material that would be affected). See http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2423 for more info on the 'integrated' approach.

Here's my stab at it. I'm using the 2009.036 SE (available at http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2049 as of this writing). Step 1: Create new group. In my case I add a single submarine to a new blue group, put it in formation then land back at the main window. Step 2: Click the "Course" button. Step 3: Click the "Enter New Legs" checkbox Step 4: Click a couple of spots on the map Step 5: Uncheck "Enter New Legs" checkbox Step 6: Click the "Orders2" menu then "Enter Alternate Path" Step 7: Click the "Enter New Legs" checkbox Step 8: Click a couple of spots on the map Step 9: Click "OK" on the path editor dialog Step 10: Enter percent chance for alternate path and click "OK" Step 11: Click "OK" to get out of the path editor dialog At this point you have an alternate path defined but we can keep going Step 12: Click "Course" to get back into the course editor (note you see your alternate path 'event') Step 13: Click the "Enter New Legs" checkbox Step 14: Click a couple of spots on the map Step 15: Proceed to step 5 to add another alternate path at this point, rinse and repeat as desired.

First things first, you should only under the most dire of circumstances enter an ID manually. Let the PE assign one for you. Everything is misaligned in the DB as a result of you editing them manually, there can't be gaps in IDs within each annex.

Brad just gave what I consider the first good reason to keep the Intermediate turn and that is PBEM. In a PBEM situation you don't have the freedom to keep changing orders, the Intermediate turn preserves that focus on planning at least 10 minutes out. That is where Brain's further meddling comes in with the comment that a turn should be submitted with some guidance on how long the orders are good for (i.e. maybe when crossing the Atlantic if no contact is made you can go for 3 days rather than 10 minutes. I admit to finding the idea intriguing.