TonyE

Now that the US has elected Obama, I think it is time to remind everyone that the annual vote for Pooner and Lifetime Pooner is approaching. Voting will begin December 1st. There may be some trinket awards this year for the winner, any ideas are welcome. A USNI tie or cufflinks cross my mind as potentials... For more details and to view the past winners, visit http://www.harpoonpages.com/poonervote/pooner-Intro.php

OUCH!! Am I seeing that right? How many warheads is that, and at what yields? I haven't seen anything about yields yet, but did find numbers: "SLAM was to be equipped with multiple (between 14 and 26) thermonuclear warheads which would be ejected one by one as the missile flew over its assigned targets. The warheads were to be ejected from hatches on the top of the missile to follow a lofted trajectory to the ground. This would give the low-flying SLAM a few seconds of time to escape the blast of its own bombs. " http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html The page also mentions them being thermonuclear so yield would not have been insignificant.

I agree. Reading the number of Flankers and Fulcrums in service with Russia surprised me. Though I know total fighter force for Russia used to be huge compared to the present, the still flying number is much larger than I expected.

Overachiever Larry, you blasted thru your required participation in the last couple of days. Thank you.

Yes, you can keep scenarios in as many different folders as you desire. I feel your pain with the F-14, I loved the 110nm Phoenix!

Perhaps you are just trying to open the scenario in the wrong battleset. You first need to select the correct battleset for the scenario when starting the game. Once you are in that battleset you can choose Load User Scenario. A chart of file extension vs battlesets can be found at: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2380

It is with great trepidation that I approved your post. Take it easy guys, that was at least straddling the line, if not a few nm over it!

I second that motion, make it easier on the whiny programmer too

See the second post in the thread for a new full installer. I would suggest to everyone but Brad to uninstall your existing copy if you have one, then install from the full installer. It would be good to test the USNI #4 and #5 scenarios and they've seen the fewest miles. Counts towards your beta testing requirements if you post up some useful notes. I do know at a very minimum the credits page needs to be updated and we're still hoping for a USNI specific splash screen.

Well, going thru the posts this has been a pretty poor 3 month period for activity on the beta testing front. Lucky for you I did this preliminary review tonight so those of you needing to contribute more still have two weeks to do so. There are many release note items yet to be verified, the Pipe Dreams always need attention (I think of those as the low hanging fruit). There are items in the Bug Tracker that haven't even been verified, plenty to do, and plenty of time to do it... Current as of: 2008/11/12 People who get to stay anyway: Akula Bretm - Bret McKee CV32 TonyE UncleHarpoon Testers who have contributed enough: Divefreak - Rene TEPonta - Buddha wombat1417 - Larry Gertner noxious - Nic Testers who have not contributed enough: Gdtrfb - Joe (needs 3 more meaningful contributions by 12/1/2008) jaymcmullan_beta (needs 3 more meaningful contributions by 12/1/2008) pmaidhof - Pete (needs 3 more meaningful contributions by 12/1/2008) Stalintc - Terry (needs 3 more meaningful contributions by 12/1/2008)

Not yet, that's what we're focusing on at present.

Have you tried it yet? It runs fine for me on XP though I didn't do an install from CD (I had a previously installed copy that I moved to XP). Maybe you can tell us what problems you are having with the installer?

Go Canada, keep that capability strong! Now this isn't picking on Canada but do the listed upgrades make sense as good use of the funds? Let's pretend you are a sparsely populated country with huge coastlines and can't possibly defend the entire coastline with traditional ships such as a monohull FFG. So I can spend billions of dollars upgrading my few ships to play well with others when they are unlikely to be needing to play well with others in a wartime situation. That doesn't sound very useful to me, I'd want to spend my billions buying some surveillance platforms or if terribly conservative, buy more lower-tech ships. The expected effect of such a change of course would be lower interoperability with the USN and greater ability to patrol my home maritime domain. Am I wrong?

I'm not having any problem with those three. I tried both Google Chrome and IE7 to download the files and Winzip 9 to open them, all had the expected files and were not empty. Thanks for taking the time to work through this. Can you provide any more information?

Please tell us which ones so that someone can fix them.

File Name: HDS9 - HDS III GIUK Orders File Submitter: TonyE File Submitted: 9 Nov 2008 File Category: Tools/Mods/Docs Authors: TonyE ZIP file containing MS Word and PDF versions of the orders for the battleset. The table of contents links work in the Word document, they do not work in the PDF. Click here to download this file

No they cannot, but we've chatted about such things on IRC and would like to see more intentional participation of neutrals at some point far down the road.

HCE - Harpoon: Commander's Edition formerly known as HCCE (Harpoon Classic: Commander's Edition) is the continued development of the Harpoon 1 line of computer games such as your previous HC experience. H3/ANW is the continued development of Harpoon 2 line of computer games. HCE will run scenarios from the earlier HC iterations. HCE and ANW scenarios are mutually exclusive, you cannot run a HCE/HC scenario in ANW and you can't run H2/3/ANW scenarios in HCE. HCE does have sizeable windows but 1600x1200 is getting near the limits again (the maps we use are 1024 pixels across so anything past that width for an individual map window isn't possible at present). In other words, it won't choke on higher resolutions but past 2052 pixels screen width you wouldn't get much benefit to a higher resolution. ANW doesn't have much trouble with XP screen resolutions, if you keep to certain ratios of width to height you are fine, there is no longer a limit of 1280x1024, nor are you forced to play in full screen. MP is the only strictly compelling reason to choose ANW over HCE. Otherwise it comes down to what you enjoy. Both games continue to be developed.

Welcome back Al, The HCE tutorials (there are two, GIUK scenario 1.0 and WestPac scenario 1.0) work as desired. Past that I'd say download some of the newer scenarios here from HarpGamer (Mark Gellis makes some nice smaller scenarios to get a start with) and give them a whirl. Come back and ask questions as they arise, come chat with us on IRC and you can ask them while playing . PDF of WestPac 1.0 orders in case you want to print them out when you play: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=263 IRC Chat Java chat: http://www.harpgamer.com/ (left-side) Chat client that often works but sometimes can't connect, a work in progress... http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=281 Suggested smaller scenarios once you get thru the tutorials and any of your old favorites: Oubliette (get your Boomer into position): http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=264 Kore10a1 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=216 Willpower (a little more advanced) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=346 After that I'd probably dig into the rest of the WestPac scenario built into the game, then head back to the HG downloads for more EC2003/WestPac/... fun. just my 2 cents

If you read: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...&showbug=43 you will see that I cannot reproduce the issue. Please take it for a spin in 2008.044 and add your results.

In terms of space in the current structure. There are two missile flag spots available. I think they would go to terminal maneuvers rather than armor penetration. There are no flags for dumb bombs. So you'd probably need a DB structure change, plus rules saying how to use that new armor penetration field (as the flags aren't going to cut it). Not a trivial adjustment at all.

The database can be found at the page: http://www.harpoonhq.com/?page_id=5 Or directly at: http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon3/scenario...2000v10_0_0.zip

Some code that I changed years ago has been bothering me. At one point I limited the Damage Points of non-nuclear weapons to 999 DP. That has no functional merit in the code so I've gone back to the old limit of 30,000DP for a conventional weapon. So have fun DB editors, you can make bigger bombs again...

HCE - 2008.062 ============== - Chg:0000 GE New loadout type distribution. http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3262 - Chg:0000 GE Reverted to max conventional damage points = 30,000 instead of 999 since the DP must be > 30,000 anyway to be in the nuke annex so anything less is artificially limiting with no benefit.