TonyE

I think just playing around for now is fine, I'm taking it easy until the patch comes out in case I need to fix something major that we missed.

Thanks for the feedback Ralf

Well done, and interesting vengeance of the die rolls there. Thanks Pete

Oh, don't thank me, thank the money grubbing billionaire owner of the Twinkies who won't pay for talent and rooked enough citizens into buying him a ball park he didn't deserve! grrrr!

Herman had a link there, here's another copy for emphasis http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1702670

Cool, and here I thought we wouldn't have any news stories while Brad is off galavanting around the wild South of the USA.

Addressed in 2008.024, yet another buffer overflow.

Just double-checked in 2008.023 and while your issue is indeed slightly different, the 'fix' covers what you saw as well, ARA closes to attack range with ZWa after the attack order and subsequent placating of the staff assistant.

Allrighty, anyone want to propose a model for this? Things that could possibly be repaired Damage Point damage (i.e. the % damage) Sensor damage Runway damage Other critical hit damage

Can you expand on your vision for this one? The part I have a hard time with is "no threats". I also wonder how to decide how many tankers can be used in this capacity (i.e. you set a one plane tanker patrol, is a new tanker sent up as soon as the first has offloaded its fuel, or as soon as the first lands, or do you only launch again when the first has landed and refueled? (the general rule is three planes caught up in the formation patrol pool for each plane actually placed in the formation editor). Thank you

understood, and it is a wish list

You'll need to download the GDI+ package from Microsoft, see http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en as a starting point (I assume you'll need a different language). 3rd. You can use any EC2003 or WestPac battleset scenario in a custom battleset using the battleset builder. You cannot transfer scenarios across other battlesets as the databases and scenario file formats do not match up correctly.

You are missing the ambiance and feel aspect of the orders being in all caps and having cryptic acronyms. We won't be re-doing any existing orders files but most scenario authors don't use all caps so new material is produced in a format more to your liking. I still look at the all caps orders files and do imagine the teletype knocking out caps cause the transmission protocol doesn't know anything else, and the typists don't want to worry about ever turning off the all caps . If the orders files didn't come in all caps I wouldn't have that imagination work going on at all.

I don't think non-square maps are wrong so I don't think anything needs to be solved.

Okay, I'll bite, is all caps that annoying in the context of a missions brief clickety clacking in via a teletype machine?

Workaround, don't move all units from the old group to new when splitting a group. We handed off the first game patch to AGSI on Monday, who knows how long it will take to filter down to players, certainly too long as it isn't available yet.

I would play it the same way, detecting each incoming missile. Just look at Top Gun and one plane masking another, detecting each individual incoming missile emulates some of that confusion. In HC there can be up to 255 missiles in each 'unit' that gets detected, it has no bearing on this discussion but I think I'd rather more gradually figure out there are 255 incoming missiles than see it all at once. As for your point defense, I can't see how it wouldn't get a clean shot off at the first incoming Harpoon and any subsequent missiles within the parameters of the mount's tracking capabilities. Assuming decent weather where the point defense system actually stands a chance of picking out the sea skimming Harpoons from the wavetops.

Thinking of HC and the ability to use some SAMs also in the anti-ship role but not thinking they can be used over the horizon brought me to a quick Google search and http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-arme...range-2518.html . So, can the SM-2 and company use off-board targeting or relay via helo over the horizon? That would make the SAMs a decent anti-ship missile against most targets imho.

Hmm, buy some Brahmos from India because we don't have a decent anti-ship missile (moving target JDAM seems about the best we have at present...)? I really think it is time for a Harpoon replacement, long past time actually, something much faster and stealthier, and ideally capable of off-board targeting when the situation permits.

Jamming aircraft do not need to be in the same group as they planes they are 'protecting', that was true in older versions of the game (HC Gold was that way), when we re-did the ECM that requirement was removed. However, the farther away the jammer from the protected, the lower the effect (and it lowers quickly!). There is a burn-thru range dependent upon the range of the jammer and the range of the radar trying to break thru. Standoff jamming (to reduce the range of enemy radars) is modelled, as is local protection jamming making nearby units more difficult to localize, and finally the reduction in hit probability as Brad mentioned. There are threads here and there on the topic, probably an in-depth one someone here on HarpGamer in the general HC forum.

Thanks

okay, thanks

Okay, so did anyone actually test and see if say, a Hellfire does the job?

Addressed in 2008.004 - Chg:0000 GE If an air group is out of weapons range when their target is destroyed, find them another target in the same group instead of saying their task is finished. (thanks theCase) http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1677672

Reminders for Tony: PE says torpedo acquisition range is in yards, GE thinks it is in DUs, change GE to convert from yards to DUs. done 2008.042 Filter listing of classes in SE by country, see Akula wishlist item #1 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2088 Make the clock display wider for higher DPI displays, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1800067 done 2008.040 Consider cdecl calling convention for DLL as more cross-platform compatible than stdcall - considered and they were cdecl anyway, oops! List abandoned 2008/09/20 as I think/hope we'll have a 32-bit SE to put the effort into rather than sink much more time into the 16-bit SE.