TonyE

1. Yes, 20% off the top. I don't recall if it is successful in that reduction every time (vague memory says yes). 2. There isn't such a direct correlation. 20 miles is to be thought of as a power number (20nm jammer is less powerful than 50nm jammer) but the actual jamming effect is calculated per situation. See http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2574 for some detail and a handy spreadsheet that gets you in the ballpark.

One would think any nation with helos and the decoys could figure out how to rig a string to the decoy (that is probably already has for streaming behind the ship) and drop it from low speed or hover? That said, what is the benefit vs towing in the traditional fashion? Are you hoping to decoy the missiles entirely away from your force?

No quibble here. Yet, since you bring it up, I do rather wonder why you don't have more resources on the job. Let's see... Brad has a full time job and a family. Tony has a full time job, owns and operates a company in his spare time, and is fumbling towards being in a position to have a family. We are the major contributors. Then there are the beta testers like donaldseadog who go above and beyond. Database authors like Enrique and Rene who work their magic day in and day out provide valuable service. Scenario authors are out there too pouring time into their creations, keeping the game alive. All of us are volunteers. For none of us is this our job. We spend ~$400 per year to keep this website running (Brad, Fred, and I split the bill). The programming tools run around $750/yr these days. I've averaged about $200/yr in payment for the work, Brad a little less, Fred little at all. Note also that we did not ask for money. While we'd love to be paid a respectable wage for the work that won't happen unless a rich benefactor comes along. This year I'll spend hundreds of additional dollars out of pocket to ship copies of the game around the world to those that have helped the game over the years and have not been rewarded by any person or organization more senior than me. So do you still wonder why there aren't more resources who want to be battered in public forums while paying for the honor? Do others really want to finish a patch and not have it distributed by the publisher for over a year, all the while taking flack for not patching the game? Some have tried for a short while and most melt away just as quickly.

Welcome back to you as well Damascus! There is no other currently published Harpoon package other than HUE at Matrix as you've found. First there are two families, HC and H2, that are derived from two codebases: Harpoon 1 -> HC -> HCE -> HUCE (I call all of these HC for Harpoon Classic) Harpoon 2 = H2 -> H3 -> ANW -> HUANW (In my head I call all of these H3 but publicly I've shifted to using ANW) The HUE (Harpoon Ultimate Edition) package includes twenty-some versions of the games, 20 iterations of HC and 3 iterations of H3. I'll start with HC since that is what I play most (and where I'm currently the programmer). When you look through the downloads here in the HC section all of them will run on the current version of the game. At each scenario's listing it will show the battleset to use, anything older than EC2003 doesn't use many of the features added in the game in the last 8 years but they will still run. http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=638 for example will run in any version of the game with the HDS1 battleset which is the vast majority of them. The current version of HC is very stable. It rarely crashes, as compared to 1.53c the current version is rock solid. ANW doesn't work out of the box with all of the historical scenarios. Some of them were written for databases that are no longer maintained and haven't been updated for use in the current version. But what does come with ANW runs quite stably (I'd venture HC is more stable but they are both stable). HC is what you are used to and HUCE is just the current iteration of that delivered in the HUE package from Matrix. They definitely took the "buckshot" approach and stuffed it all into one big installer so you get most everything you would want, and for HC you just head over here for hundreds more scenarios.

Your question can really fire up the community so please don't be too surprised or offended if it is pretty quiet or if it blows up into a flame war. With that, welcome back! I do play both games. H3/ANW is your only choice for multiplayer Harpoon so that is one of the few clear differentiators. H3 is going to be better for engagements in the Norwegian fjords since it models land altitudes and sea depths interacting with sensors (whereas in HC you can drop sonobuoys over land and detect the T-72 passing by which probably is quite accurate if the SB didn't crumple on impact). My general level of happiness is maintained if I play very small engagements in H3 and larger engagements in HC. Each game has some models better than the other but in general H3 has the more complex models. That hasn't always meant more accurate or realistic but most people make that assumption. H3 does have a higher learning curve and requires significantly more patience with the UI but the learning curve isn't as steep as it seems at first (the interface looks sparse and uninviting but getting up and playing effectively isn't that difficult). Give them both a whirl and imho play what you enjoy (I'm after enjoyment first and foremost, not accuracy or excruciating detail).

Joe K, as a general rule I detest screenshots (often people use them as a substitute for real investigative work like providing saves), but these folks are just trying to understand and find a way to communicate with you and move you and understand you. There is no random number of planes added, there is a random chance that a "scenario designer set number of planes" is added. I know in the scenarios that I did for the reworked USNI the difference may well have been in the hundreds of bombers spread across multiple airfields. So as a fictional example KolaA may have a 100% chance of 50 bombers, 50% chance of 50 more, and 25% chance of 25 for meaning anywhere from 50 to 125 bombers at the one base at scenario start.

In RL each sonar device has a certain arc (towed arrays generally can't see a slice directly forward thanks to propulsion noises, bow sonar generally has a nice rearward gap,...). Most often if you have sensors to cover the full 360 degrees there will be operators covering the whole compass. You'll also have vertical limitations but the game does not model those other than docking you for cross-layer detection attempts. I don't recall if the paper rules have the 5 minute interval but I do know the explanation was that even if the sensors are always going to town it still takes time to do a proper TMA (target motion analysis), hence the 5 minute rule. I'm not going to say that it is the best model for detecting the quite loud torpedoes streaming towards you. In the game torpedoes are annoyingly loud. That 5 minute interval is for both active and passive sonar for the TMA reason (though really it should be easier with active sonar, you'll know range for sure which you don't with passive but you still need multiple ping returns to determine course and speed). Sonalysts take on TMA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49609458/16/Targ...on-Analysis-TMA Brad's Tactics 101 series: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3608

HUCE has the original USNI battleset and does not represent much of a challenge. The HC demo http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3446 does have the rebuilt USNI scenarios that Joe K is referencing. I haven't take the time yet to integrate them into the full game. You can have both the full game and demo installed at the same time without installation nightmares.

Those appear to be the only ones related to the request (and there only in the spirit of the request). Google doesn't return much of anything for those two systems. Do you have any more detail such as statistics, actual deployment, etc.? Thanks

Demo will log though I have to say it took a few builds before I got the logging actually working in Release builds (you can see my musings in ReleaseNotes.txt or one at http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...e&pid=11779 ).

LOL, Gatekeeper and sonar logging, that'll fill up the old hard drive Truly it would be educational though. Yep, launcher still works fine with HUCE.

That is the term I use. Sometimes I call the others far misses though I doubt very much that is a standard term, clear miss is also used on occasion.

The only game effect multiple torpedoes has is trapping the target. If your have weapons approaching the target from four different directions it is harder to run away than if there is one torpedo from which the AI can try to turn and burn away from. Hit percentage is not affected. The animations show as Brad said if the weapon is close enough to the target that the hit calculation is run (including point defense). The exception being launch animation for standoff weapons of course. I don't know if counter-firing is going to help you against the current incoming torpedo but it will make it less likely the AI will be lobbing another torpedo against you on its own terms (i.e. you are successfully complicating the AI's tactics, the AI will tend to run from your torpedo instead of maintaining contact with you and lobbing more torpedoes. The AI may even lose the exact contact it had with you while trying to evade).

I think that is what you said, not me. I wanted you to use the tools available to prove to yourself the game is working right or prove to us that it isn't. One of those tools being the full game so that you can write targeted scenarios. Another of those tools being the extended logging added to the air to air missile hits so that you can put real numbers to your claims of the invincible F-16s (which I happen to think I lent great credence to being untrue in your provided situation thanks to that logging that showed very valid possibility of 6 F-15 being downed without a single F-16 loss despite the exact same AAM thanks to the random die roll and 20% differential in hit chance).

Brad covered the 5 minute cycle (true) and also true on the layer (50% reduction in range right there).

I don't see the merit in using multiple systems in the first place other than the one system other than yours to get you access to the full product so I'm probably not a good one to answer whether installing on multiple operating systems is a good thing or not.

True, except if you manage to get a saved game before the ship gets mysteriously sunk. Then you can turn on more detailed than default logging when you load the save and accumulate data.

Hint: sonar logging

And they return, reconnect, and the clients rejoice and away the backup mail exchangers to dequeue the mail, hurrah!

So those few of you who visit us on IRC noticed the absence of the IRC server from mid-day Friday through Saturday mid-afternoon. That was planned as the server was moving physically a few blocks to a new location. I met Comcast at the new location on Saturday. There was an existing Comcast business cable Internet connection there and we managed to get my signal on that line (I was pretty amazed that went off without so much as a hiccup). Life was good until today when when someone else from Comcast showed up (I was not there this time) and promptly disconnected the line outside (at the pole or the lockbox I do not know, nor does it matter). They were fulfilling the disconnect order for the connection we replaced even though we'd accomplished that and more on Saturday. Sad, so sad, now my customers are without (primary, I maintain 3 backup mail exchangers) e-mail services, not to mention Internet at that location, and we're without IRC until Comcast can make it back to undo the disconnect. Talk about job security!

You are running XP so you're good to go system-wise. No clean-up needed or merited. It does not matter which component you install first. By default they will install to different locations, since you had HC installed there before just make sure the demo installs to a different directory than the game (and it will anyway). There is no series of installers for the demo, just the 2009.050 install then as you say 2009.052.

Every newscaster in the USA should take a look at those so they can understand that a few boats disturbed in California doesn't even begin to compare to what has befallen Japan!

Run launcher Check -l for logging, check radar for radar logging Run game, the ge.log in the game directory will be extra large thanks to the additional radar logging You'll see a number of packets of entries for each radar attempt: 102671 Search.c:860 - Radar Emitter=F-15K Slam Eagle Target=F-4EJ Kai, TargetRange=240, Radar LOS = (BaseLOS x weather_mod + 128)/256 102671 Search.c:861 - Radar LOS of 328nm = (328nm x 256 + 128)/256 --> Radar LOS=107712/256 102671 Search.c:867 - A RCS=150 TName=F-4EJ Kai AName=F-15K Slam Eagle Range=240 Die=50 aPD=65 102671 Search.c:940 - B RCS=150 ARng=92 Arng=150 SRng=92 Srng=150 102671 Search.c:1017 - Not Detected F-4EJ Kai First line lays out the players and the distance between them (240nm) Second line looks at radar line of sight (328nm) Third line shows the percent chance of detect for the radar and the die roll Fourth line shows the radar used by the F-15K has a max 150nm range in both air and surface modes. Against the F-4EJ the F-15K radar has a max detect range of 92nm Fifth line says the F-4 was not detected. An example of a detect: 102671 Search.c:860 - Radar Emitter=Tsuiki Target=F-15K Slam Eagle, TargetRange=138, Radar LOS = (BaseLOS x weather_mod + 128)/256 102671 Search.c:861 - Radar LOS of 246nm = (246nm x 256 + 128)/256 --> Radar LOS=60644/256 102671 Search.c:867 - A RCS=154 TName=F-15K Slam Eagle AName=Tsuiki Range=138 Die=18 aPD=50 102671 Search.c:940 - B RCS=154 ARng=144 Arng=200 SRng=0 Srng=0 102671 Search.c:944 - Target was previously tracked. 102671 Search.c:999 - Detected F-15K Slam Eagle with Air Radar of range 144 with PD 50, Roll=18 That radar with a low PD of 50 gets a fortuitous roll of 18, radar range 200nm can detect F-15K at 144nm and is within radar LOS so the detection happens. A second note about this one, the "Target was previously tracked." has the effect of not needing a die roll

Zig-zagging will be minimally useful in preventing the AI from localizing you with ESM. The direction changes will temporarily partially confuse any refinedment of your position. I don't think it is practically useful though (not worth the effort).

Yes, and doubly bad the power went out yesterday and my server didn't recover correctly but it was going to be down today anyway so I guess it could be worse!