TonyE

I really like how you indicate what you think the behavior should be. I look forward to you posting the test scenario (zipped up). Others, @donaldseadog, any insights fueled from your tools?

I can't remember ever noticing that lack of LR attack/patrol/ferry time. This is a great item to start off your Wish Lists - HarpGamer. Create your own thread in that forum and keep piling on your wishlist items to that single thread. Some people keep editing the original post in their wishlist thread with a comprehensive list. I do add my new wishes to the first post in my wishlist by editing that post but I also create a new post with the new wish (in that same thread though).

It doesn't do anything except demonstrate a different application reading the information from the pfData file then also a concept for producing the data for a new loadouts structure and linking that to an aircraft. It was there for Eric to grab when we were sitting at his place creating the program that will hopefully become the way to escape the 4095 loadout limit. I'll be deleting it momentarily since it was really just for Saturday's fun.

That's the way it looks

The connecting thread may be Interactive Magic (HC97) and Bill Stealey (Microprose and later Interactive Magic) and Microprose. iEntertainment Network - Wikipedia That's just me Googling, no special access or knowledge here.

It is likely expected but unintended behavior. The code that decides valid weapons for a given situation does not have the flexibility to consider every situation so sometimes it answers incorrectly. More than a decade ago I wrote comprehensive code but it was too slow so I scrapped it. That said, if you manage to catch a saved game, especially in a small or purpose-built test scenario, please post up the scenario and save for me to analyze.

Thank you for pointing that out. The first conspiracy that comes to mind is perhaps Microprose bought the Alliance Interactive rights and will re-publish HC97 as a thirst trap for the new MicroProse Sea Power? But I agree of course, would be much better to publish our updated HC to Steam. I admit I've never pushed Matrix Games to do that nor even gauged their interest for whatever minor influence I might have.

You will probably get much quicker and more comprehensive support at https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=10201 for Command. You are of course welcome to ask here, just setting expectations.

Thank you sir, for some reason I'm surprised there have been that many THAAD produced. At least we are somewhat ramping up SM-6 acquisition, manufacturing 300/yr is a start. SM-3 BlkIIB numbers are a little less anemic than BlkIIA but even 43/yr isn't much when you get into a more intense war.

30% as per the Harpoon 3 paper rules 6.2.1.1 if (tUnit->kts > 1300L) ProbHit -=30; / *fast mod */

There is Computer Harpoon (wait for the holiday sale that starts just after Thanksgiving) Larry Bond's Harpoon - Ultimate Edition - Game - Matrix Games. You can grab a demo version at HC Demo Available - General - HarpGamer though only one scenario in the demo is NATO vs. China. With the full game you can run user scenarios, many of the WestPac scenarios are USA vs. China WestPac - HarpGamer Another option is Command Command: Modern Operations - Game - Matrix Games Modern Warfare is still 'coming soon' Modern Naval Warfare - Game - Matrix Games Sea Power https://www.triassicgames.com/games/ doesn't seem to start with USA vs. China but I bet it will get there quickly.

What are your versions of: 1. Windows 2. MS Access or MS Access Runtime 3. HUCE If you are on the newest release version of the game or newest beta, things should work fine.

Looks good, are you in the early release pool?

Thank you for writing this up. It is a long-standing issue which long ago lead to the scenario design tenet of having a submarines in single unit groups. I can't make any grand promises of a near-term fix for this shortcoming but as you know, every now and again we get a lucky light-bulb moment.

Please do create a new issue report. My opinion is that we addressed the issue on this report successfully. I think this issue of multiple units in the target group has been reported previously but since it is probably lost in the depths, a new one will help, especially since you have such a solid example. Thank you!

Up to you. The educational intent doesn't require it to be an even fight so the primary deliverable will be a Nimitz vs. Kuznetsov scenario. I did slip in the additional ask of adding some submarines. My first thought on submarines is to add a couple of Los Angeles on the Blue side, each in their own group of course but in support of the CVBG then add a Kilo variant of some sort as well as bring the Victor out of the Kuznetsov group and into its own group.

Well, I will be happy even if only one squadron of F-14s

The BattleSet itself is late 80s, very early 90s. Looking at scenario orders of the scenarios in the BattleSet, they seem to follow a chronological order. Scenario 11.0 talks about 1990s USA military budget cuts and the appearance of the CVN Charles de Gaulle. de Gaulle was launched in 1994 while she wasn't commissioned until 2001, in the world of the game I would guestimate a 1997 commissioning. CVN Carl Vinson was 2 years from launch until commissioning in the 1980s for reference. So should we look at a date of your choice in the range of June 1997 to Dec 1999? I'd prefer a date where the US CVN has some Tomcats but I haven't cross-referenced those dates.

Would anyone like to volunteer to recreate the [Original IOPG] scenario "12.0 ...and then there were two"? This would need to be tested and ready to go by mid-December 2024 at the latest. Parameters: 1. Similar groups, units, victory conditions to the original scenario. 2. Use EC2003 IOPG or Custom BattleSet. 2. Use HCDB or HCDB2 (HCDB2 would need a custom BattleSet from the BS Builder to make distribution reasonable). 3. Adjust design for increased realism (would Kuzenetsov really carry that many planes in that timeframe, similar for Nimitz, ...) 4. Add two submarines per side

2024.006 posted. My fear is that submarines will fire missiles at targets that aren't localized but I bet you can validate that isn't true @donaldseadog.

HCE - 2024.006 - 2024-09-04 =========================== - Chg:33611 GE Let AI submarine groups fire missiles against player ships again. AI should be able to fire missiles at 3/4 max range now instead instead of a range similar to their torpedo range. (thanks Enrique) https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/33611-ia-submarines-dont-launch-anti-ship-missiles/

I couldn't resist giving it a try, looks promising. I should be able to get the build out in the next 24 hours for you to poke holes in it (or a bunch of ships).

So digging a little more, submarine groups do have almost entirely different AI than surface groups, hence the different behavior for the group with the tag along ship. Way back on Dec 29,2001 code was checked in sub_ai.c that should have limited submarines to the attack range of torpedoes carried by the sub when the code looked for valid weapons. This replaced the previous code that could use Guns, Missiles, Torpedoes. For 2024.006 I've switched it back to that more permissive set of weaponry so that you guys can give it a whirl. Still submarines should be limited to firing at 75% of the max range.

Demo version 2024.005 has been uploaded

HCE - 2024.005 - 2024-08-27 =========================== - Chg:00000 GE Tinkering with listviews to try to get rid of masked out item. This affected the game when run with WINE. (thanks DAQ)