TonyE

We snuck in a visit to the MAP Air Museum (https://mapsairmuseum.org/) after flying into Columbus. We didn't have enough time to do the outside planes justice but I needed the boys to see a real F-14 (B model in this case). The Prowler was a welcome surprise, no ALQ-99 pods but begars can't be choosers. We had a great tour guide show us around inside, using up almost every minute until the museum closed for the day. Thanks Bill! Yes, the boys were able to traverse and elevate the AA gun just like my dad did when we visited over a decade ago.

GDW 0718 South Atlantic War for Harpoon III Rules Supplement pages 117-120 4.0 Movement 4.3 Aircraft Movement Speeds affected by altitude Altitude changes are not instantaneous Nap Of Earth (NOE) crash % per resolution phase table 5.0 Detection Sea State effects on Radar range and detection chance Land blocks Radar line of sight 6.0 Combat Lots of targeting, guidance, and attack profile tidbits Shore batteries, anti-tank fire against ships, infantry against ships, etc. There are no rules in this supplement governing landing operations. The Combined Arms game is referenced as what to use for the land operations. The scenarios themselves appear at a quick glance to be either land (Combined Arms) or sea (Harpoon) oriented. The very first scenario has a landing operation and it is governed by the Combined Arms rules, not Harpoon. P.24 "Scenario Notes This scenario is primarily for Combined Arms. See the rules section for ship-to-shore movement and shore bombardment." I also checked the other H3 supplements I have, GDW 0711 Battles of the Third World War (no landing operations rules) and GDW 0750 Troubled Waters (no landing operations rules). Troubled Waters did remind me that there could be some SITREP issues with landing operations but my collection of SITREP issues is tiny and unhelpful.

A tool for aspiring warship designers to crank out some reasonably accurate numbers on how your ship will perform from a staying afloat and tooling around perspective. I suggest looking at the 3.0 betas rather than version 2 for something that is easier to get running. http://www.springsharp.com/

I'm looking forward to your review

Matrix Games has released the 2022.027 Patch for Harpoon Ultimate Commander's Edition. The patch will bring any version of Harpoon Ultimate Commander's Edition from the very earliest 2009.050 to the 2022.026 beta up to the current official patch version 2022.027. Read more at https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=392148&p=5071499 We will continue to post beta builds here at harpgamer.com

They would but neither party would have to have been negotiating in good faith. The USA could sign a mutual defense agreement to increase stature in the area yet have no intention of abiding by the agreement should the Philippines really come to blows with a foe. Similarly, the Philippines could sign an agreement only to mislead the USA about how close the Philippines is really partnering with China. Then there is always the drift in relations between the time of signing and current day. In either country, what was agreed upon 5 years ago may hold little value today, or more value than it did 5 years ago.

I'm very tired tonight but seeing as some of the guys on HarpGamer DIscord were discussing the Philippines, thought I'd get ChatGPT's thoughts. Cagey fellow that ChatGPT. Perhaps when I'm more awake I could frame better questions. Anyone else have a more successful go at this? Does China have a legal right to Fiera Cross? The question of China's legal rights to the disputed territory of the Spratly Islands, including Fiery Cross Reef, is a complex issue that is the subject of ongoing debate and disagreement. The Spratly Islands are claimed in whole or in part by several countries, including China, Taiwan, and the Philippines. China has built artificial islands on Fiery Cross Reef and other disputed islands in the South China Sea, which has been criticized by some as a violation of international law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the basis for determining the legal status of the Spratly Islands and other disputed territories in the South China Sea. China claims a historic right to the islands based on its "nine-dash line" map, but this claim is not recognized by UNCLOS. In 2016, an arbitral tribunal established under UNCLOS issued a ruling that invalidated China's historic rights claim and found that China had violated the Philippines' rights to fish and explore for resources in the disputed waters. It is important to note that the question of sovereignty over the disputed islands is a complex and ongoing issue, and there is no clear consensus or resolution. data:image/svg+xml,%3csvg%20xmlns=%27http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%27%20version=%271.1%27%20width=%2730%27%20height=%2730%27/%3e How long would it take for the USA to reinforce Luzon if China attacked? It is difficult to provide a specific time frame for how long it would take the United States to reinforce Luzon in the event of an attack by China, as it would depend on a variety of factors such as the nature and scale of the attack, the readiness and availability of U.S. military assets, and the logistics of deploying them to the region. The United States has a robust military presence in the Pacific, including in the Philippines, and has a Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines which states that both countries will aid each other if either is attacked by an external party. The U.S. has a number of military bases in the region, including in Japan and Guam, which could be used to launch a rapid response to an attack on the Philippines. However, it is important to note that a military reinforcement would be a complex and difficult operation, requiring a significant amount of planning, coordination, and resources. Additionally, any military action taken would need to comply with international laws and regulations, and would require the authorization of the US government. data:image/svg+xml,%3csvg%20xmlns=%27http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%27%20version=%271.1%27%20width=%2730%27%20height=%2730%27/%3e WHat would prevent the USA from upholding its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines? There are several factors that could potentially prevent the United States from upholding its Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) with the Philippines in the event of an attack by China or another external party. The first is the political situation in the United States. If the U.S. government is unwilling to take military action, it may not be able to uphold the treaty. The second is the legal and constitutional limitations of the U.S. government. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and authorize the use of military force. The Executive branch can't start a war or use military force without the Congress's authorization. The third factor is the military capability of the U.S. and the Philippines. If the U.S. lacks the necessary military assets, personnel, or logistics to respond to an attack, it may be unable to uphold the treaty. The fourth factor is the strategic assessment. The U.S. government would need to make a strategic assessment of the situation and weigh the potential costs and benefits of military action before deciding whether to uphold the treaty. The fifth factor is the diplomatic considerations. The U.S. government would need to consider the potential diplomatic implications of military action, and weigh the potential reactions of other countries, including China, before deciding to uphold the treaty. It's important to note that the Mutual Defense Treaty is a political and diplomatic agreement, the U.S. government would have to make a strategic assessment of the situation and take into account all the factors before deciding to respond to an attack. data:image/svg+xml,%3csvg%20xmlns=%27http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%27%20version=%271.1%27%20width=%2730%27%20height=%2730%27/%3e What would be the USA's diplomatic considerations in upholding the mutual defense treaty with the Philippines? There are several diplomatic considerations that the United States government would likely take into account when deciding whether to uphold the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) with the Philippines in the event of an attack by China or another external party. The first consideration would be the potential impact on U.S. relations with other countries in the region. U.S. military action in defense of the Philippines could have a significant impact on relations with China, which could in turn affect U.S. relations with other countries in the region. The second consideration would be the potential impact on U.S. relations with other major world powers. U.S. military action in the Pacific could also impact relations with other major powers, such as Russia and the EU. The third consideration would be the impact on the global economy. U.S. military action in the Pacific could lead to economic disruption, particularly in relation to trade and energy. The fourth consideration would be the regional stability and security. U.S. military action in the Pacific could potentially lead to an escalation of hostilities and negatively impact the stability and security in the region. The fifth consideration would be the support of the international community. The U.S. government would likely take into account the views and reactions of the international community, including other countries and international organizations, before deciding to uphold the treaty. It's important to note that these are just some of the diplomatic considerations that the U.S. government would likely take into account when deciding whether to uphold the Mutual Defense Treaty. They would weigh the potential benefits and risks of military action and also consider the information gathered by the intelligence and diplomatic agencies before making a decision.

Some neat data pipelining and visualization using Cesium JS OpenSensorHub – Software for building smarter sensor networks

Thank you to those who popped in today from three continents! It was a more technical discussion than usual, focused more on the game and less on world events. It was great to show a real life lightbulb changing color based on the status of the game (light turned red when the Red side launched a plane or missile, light turned blue when the Blue side launched), a recap of the upcoming official patch, walkthroughs of donaldseadog's AAR and Toolbox Export DLLs, a new BattleSet, and more. Join us anytime here, on Discord, or at the larger quarterly gatherings.

Two days away from chat time! Some potential topics: 1. Donaldseadog's AAR ExportDLL 2. Timing of next official patch release by Matrix Games 3. Updates on things that haven't had any progress 4. Current events 5. A BattleSet?

Hello Harpooners! What: Multimedia Harpoon Chat (video, screen share, audio, text) When: Monday January 16, 2023 @ 2:00 PM Central US time. Where: HarpGamer server on Discord has been established, follow the invite link https://discord.gg/ZmrFAZXbyw

Updated to version 25 with some of the newer exports and fewer tabs have the information capture enabled by default.

View File AutoSaves Purpose: Moves, Copies, or leaves alone each saved game file. In the move and copy cases, the saved game is moved to an AutoSaves directory immediately under the directory from which the scenario or saved game was loaded. ex. If I load C:\Games\HC\MyOrd\Test1.SCm and have "Copy to AutoSaves" selected, when the game is saved, a copy of the saved game will be made under C:\Games\HC\MyOrd\AutoSaves\ To 'install', unzip the downloaded file to the ExportDLLs directory within your main game directory. The window will appear once a scenario is loaded and will be behind your main HC window. This is to accommodate multi-monitor setups. You can get to it via the task bar. Submitter TonyE Submitted 12/28/2022 Category Tools/Mods/Docs  

There has been a lot of progress since the last official patch distributed by Matrix Games in 2015. We publish the interim (beta) builds at https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/29035-current-files/ Installing that will bring you up to date. For an extra challenge, this scenario also requires a different database. You download https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/files/file/934-hcdb2-170909-1980-2025/ and extract it to your main game directory (by default C:\Matrix Games\HUCE . The original HCDB database will still be available in the commondb.bak directory when you need it for other scenarios (or download it from harpgamer.com). We can help you through if you run into challenges, it can take a while to get used to the file swapping. Someday we'll get around to tools that make it easier!

If the original files exist I bet we could convert them but even so there are scanned and/or photographed copies floating around the interwebz. As long as the house doesn't burn down, I have my original paper variants acquired from e-Bay over the year (except 4 & 5 for which I'm the original owner).

At HarpGamer we do the programming for the game and offer support & guidance but Matrix Games holds the publishing rights. As such, we can't deliver non-expiring builds of the game. That said, I extend the expiration now and again. We've been at this since 2005 and have no intention of shutting down the site and operations. Also, as I hinted, Matrix has been sent the 2022.027 files which they are packaging as an official release. I just got word this morning that it won't be published in December but as a result is a high priority for their January production schedule. Bummer about the Discord link, I assume it is my fault and https://discord.gg/ZmrFAZXbyw will work better?

Excellent, happy Harpooning and we look forward to seeing some of your creations shared on HarpGamer someday. Discord channel

My family will be in Ohio March 19-22. The main event is visiting the National Museum of the USAF the 20th and 21st. Can I count on you to meet up either of those days (or night of the 19th or morning of 22nd)? If we manage to get any kind of a crowd, I'll see about renting a spot to hang out and get our gaming on. Thanks for considering! https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ The museum is an amazing place. I've been twice and have zero qualms about going again despite my favorite aircraft being a Navy bird and as such, not present.

This is what my se.log file looks like upon opening the original GIUK scenario 3.0 and saving it. There are no log messages for the saving action at this time, only for the loading. se.log

HCE - 2022.028 - 2022-12-19 =========================== - Chg:00000 GE When ITER_SAVE_GAMETIME is enabled, the default save every 2 minutes will not happen. This is to reduce saved game filename conflicts when autotesting.

Couldn't help myself, the latest beta is at and is very stable. 2022.027 was sent to Matrix for to become the next official patch, they are working at their second attempt on the installer.

Thank you, that is unique. I see I don't have a current beta installer uploaded, I'll get to that later today and post back here when it is available. Do you happen to use Discord? This might be a situation to share your screen in real-time to troubleshoot if the beta build doesn't do the trick.

I'm ignorant on towed decoys, can the parent aircraft generally reel them back in and use them again or are they one-time use mechanisms?

Got it, which scenario? Original GIUK 1.0 for example is a reference I can use to open a specific scenario and attempt to re-save.