TonyE

Thanks Don! Earlier condensed wishlist thread(s): http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3071

Time sure does fly! Thank you for posting up the notification. One of these years we should start adding them to the calendar. Could invading Russia have been a sound strategic move on the part of the Germans? (assuming it wasn't a random stab at the map by Hitler) http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/...dingrussia.aspx gives one opinion. I happen to think that Hitler should have focused on rolling up the Med and hooking around the Middle East before looking to Russia. I do also think Barbarossa could have been a success if the military minds would have been allowed to execute their plan less hindered but I'm not sure Germany could have realized similar benefits there to the benefits of the Med/Middle East.

Looks great to me Don! Let us know when you have a final version and we'll run with it though I'd be more than happy with your interim. Thanks again!

Why do I feel that the lesson the US learns will be that if you don't have carriers, you can't get into these foreign entanglements? Grrr!

Source: CZ list Date: 1992/11/02 An early post from Bret Mckee, the programmer you have to thank for... The WestPac battleset (and the battleset making utilities that I wrapped with the BS Builder) The game code changes to work with the editable database as well as decoding the battleset format itself! Vastly improved submarine AI Code that I still haven't taken advantage of that will add land height and sea depth to the game Shaping me into a productive HC programmer Thousands of other fixes and tweaks Much much else

In the full game (and in the WestPac battleset of the demo) you'll find many Slammers on your bugs. The USNI battleset depicts a time before the AMRAAM was in operational use so it isn't present there.

Oh no, you did nothing to apologize for, we want to know how many people are interested in each item and get as much community input as possible. I provided the links to help keep your thoughts moving and progressing, not to squelch you one bit.

Thank you for cobbling together your wishlist. Here are some links for further gestation of ideas... SAR Pipe Dream - http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2185 Logistics Pipe Dream - http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2176 Amphibious Pipe Dream - http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2174 (I view this is related to your CSR wish in terms of picking up passengers) 6. Attacks have always been Group-centric. You launch planes to attack a group but only when you get within range of the closest unit in the enemy group can you attack a Unit. The wish would suggest the ability to queue up an attack against unit CVN-65 in group AAC right from the Launch dialog. 11. At one point it was possible to enable and disable the iterative via a keyboard shortcut. Timing was adjusted in the autosave interval (decimal points were allowed). I'd like to see more save flexibility as well (i.e. cycle 10 or 100 or x save file names, save every x game seconds instead of real life fractions of minutes, etc.). Anyway, I'll have to take a look and see if the keyboard shortcut still exists (and what it is!). Agreed on your bingo at throttle settings other than cruise and loiter as well. Any chance you can renumber your wishes in order so Don can easily account for them in the master wishlist update? Thanks again

What the? I had to reply to this one just to make sure it doesn't get deleted in my periodic pruning so that the craziness is preserved.

Depend on it--old Navy saying: "You can always tell a Navy pilot, but don't expect to tell him much." I am forced to admit that I cherish each of my 13 arrested landings... and still miss the flying, 17 years later. Oh well, got to grow up some day. Interestingly enough, nice Harpoon connection, my destroyer (USS CHANDLER DDG-996) was the OpEval ship for Harpoon Block C. Finished the Retreat scenario and apparently ran afoul of the Victory Conditions--I was south of the Bay of Biscay with most of the kiddies and the game was still declared a draw. Probably needed to be more to the West... Final score: Blue losses: 3 ships (Belknap, Deyo, and Manchester, sucks to be threat-side of the formation!), 8 aircraft (6 Hornets, 2 Toms), and 2 helos. Red losses: 1 carrier, 8 ships total, 8 subs, 386 aircraft (woot!), and 14 helos. Jeff Congrats, and as indeed welcome as broncepulido said! You might find the O hotkey useful, http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=417 to show where the on-station stations are located.

hehe, you guys aren't stupid.

Source: Usenet Date: 2008/04/17 This one by the unforgettable Giftzwerg was good

LOL, yep, Russia will be developing an arms race because it doesn't have enough nuclear ballistic missiles already, nor operable decoys nor maneuvering warheads in development nor SSBNs that can fire SLBMs the system can't intercept. Have fun with that Russia. Gotta give them credit for trying and winning the PR game though.

More fodder, Hollywood this time http://io9.com/5416779/epic-alien-battlesh...s-on-the-new-et

I think the system would be used to defend Europe against missiles flying in from Russia. That's why there can be no guarantee. I don't think for a second the defense poses any ability to prevent Russia from making a successful ballistic missile attack against Europe. The number of interceptors and their capabilities preclude the defense from being capable against anything but a small attack. This is why there is no technical need for a guarantee. Such a guarantee would not lead to Russia stopping this silly game of words. Next they'll focus on their desire to be integrated into the system and the PR message will change to, "NATO is hiding something since they won't share the operation of the site with us."

I only understand it from the perspective that it is an endless font of political win for Russia. The pacifists of the West gain a little power every time Russia criticizes missile defense. Over a long period of time that erodes overall Western military investment and perhaps more specifically allows Russian ballistic missile defenses to increase at a faster rate the NATO/The West. Before we know it Russia has credible ABM systems and with them an asymmetric advantage. Not to mention with the Obaminator's pandering to every potential enemy the credibility of the USA dives with every Russian advance and press release. A strong US president could turn the argument against the Russians. With that advantage Russia has benefited itself and can look at China and say, "hey, look what we did, harmed your other major opponent, the USA, making them more vulnerable to your ballistic missiles." Followed soon after by, "Since we did this nice thing for you, would you be interested in jumpstarting your ABM capabilities with a sizeable investment in our systems?" Russia wins everywhere and if Iran happens to lob a few ballistic missiles into Europe and does some major damage Russia either wins big or loses big. That is the only area where I see a down side for Russia, potential backlash when the general public is educated about how Russia marginalized ABM investment that could well have prevented Iran's missiles from getting through.

Is there anyone who wants to volunteer to update the condensed wishlist spreadsheet? http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3071 If you are interested, please let me know. It is a laborious but easy process.

I read the PDF on Friday and highly recommend it. Probably I liked it because I agree with so many aspects of the document!

File Name: Attack of the Aliens (tiny scenario) File Submitter: TonyE File Submitted: 5 Jun 2011 File Category: GIUK DB Used: HCDB-110531 Authors: TonyE Battleset-GIUK: .scm - EC2003 - EC2003 The aliens have landed in the mid 1980s! Can the US Navy save London? This is a very small scenario to see how to defeat a limited alien force with one of my favorite CVBGs from the late Cold War. Click here to download this file

HCE - 2011.006 - 2011/06/04 =========================== - Chg:0000 GE Made enough sides changes that player should now be able to enter some basic commands for both Blue and Red sides. Examples are launching aircraft, setting paths, and adjusting EMCON. This does not include intercepting opposing forces. Hint, choose to play a scenario as both Blue and Red to try it out.

HCE - 2011.006 - 2011/06/04 =========================== - Chg:0000 GE Made enough sides changes that player should now be able to enter some basic commands for both Blue and Red sides. Examples are launching aircraft, setting paths, and adjusting EMCON. This does not include intercepting opposing forces. Hint, choose to play a scenario as both Blue and Red to try it out. You can leave the visual sensor dll in play if you want, either way should be fine. I also gave playing as Red and Green a quick try and was able to launch a green plane.

It isn't just you. Would I rather have a bunch of F-35 in place of a bunch of F-16, yes. Would I rather have a bunch of F-35 in place of a bunch of F-22, no. The F-35 is in large part the high/low mix gone very bad (like high/nose up stalling). I'm sure it is a great plane for many situations but as these arguments have indicated, not an air superiority fighter vs other fifth generation combatants and maybe not even against 4+ generation opponents.

Lacking the option of "none", my opinion here in the USA is: 1. JAG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAG_%28TV_series%29 then because it is the only other one I know... 2. McHale's Navy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McHale%27s_Navy Here's hoping everyone else has some good watching I can queue up!

The article and related articles sounds strangely like sanity... I'm all for keeping the capability around. I'd really like to see actual production but waiting in the wings is better than nothing.