donaldseadog

From australian ABC news service https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-10/uk-intercepts-russian-sub-threat/106548994?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other

I'd suggest the best way is to prepare some folders named for each database you intend to use (I use subfolder 'HCDBs' with further subfolders for each database eg HCDB2, HCCW, HCWW) then just download the files fresh from the downloads section of harpgamer. The thing is that the database files will generally all be named commondb.rsr as they were intially intended to be swapped in and out of the root HC folder. By having the individual folders and by using the custom 'launcher' programs (also in the downloads section) the complexity is negated. You can even give the database files unique file names. Otherwise you are continually having to move or rename the commondb files and easily loose track of which is which.

I'm getting quite excited. I'll hopefully give this update a run tonight. I realised I can use Toolbox to set active group and unit in the game without needing the game's group window, so I can put this one over it (on my 14" laptop screen) and give it a good workout.

The aerial drones in particular, or more to the point their loadouts, would be a demand on our database if treated individually, so that was mostly where I was thinking, and some well thought out generic platforms would be beneficial. For the type treated as weapons I'm thinking there is much more space availability in our DB annexes, maybe a few new specialised platforms and mounts and modified existing platforms but for the most part it would just be additional weapons?

With a lot of new drone and autonomous weapons it seems to me (once we get back to modernising DBs in some way) that the line between platform and weapon is becoming difficult to decide. Also there is the decision on whether to create single generic items or create a pletherer of individual. Here's what hot my thinking about it (I know infact it's not a new delema) seen in current events https://defence-blog.com/xdown-develops-stud-drone-for-squad-level-strikes/

Some back ground: I guess its an historic thing, pre 2003 all battlesets had there own in built database so it was effectively selected from within the game when you selected which battleset you were going to play, and then from there you could select scenarios. Since 2003 the option (normal arrangement for 'new' battlesets) is that the database is external and as it can't be selected once the game starts you need to know before starting the GE which database you are going to want. The databases tend to relate to time periods so that's not so bad. So most of the xxx2003 battlesets and Westpac are like that, Malacca being an exception as it has the HCDB2 database embedded in it. A scenario's required database will be listed in it's HarpGamer download page plus if you open the scenario file with a text editor and look at the first few lines of gobblygook you'll see some plain text including the database name, eg HCDB170909, that will be the database the scenario needs. (You don't need to do that if the scenario is from one of the pre 2003 legacy battlesets) Loading a scenario that requires a different database to the one loaded into the GE gives an error message similar to your "GetMemAnnexA Error" but that doesn't mean for certain that's what's happened to you, but it's what brought this to my mind. By default the GE loads the database from the commondb.res file in the main hc folder but a different database can be loaded by using a modified command line (eg by using HClauncher or SELauncher respectively for GE and SE, but also by other means more fiddly). Before HCLauncher the two common methods were to rename the database file needed as commondb.res and to swap it for the one in the root folder or to execute the GE (or SE) via a shortcut and manually write into the execute line the flag <-d ?> followed by the full pathname to the database file, Tony's GELauncher was an obvious godsend. If all was working fine for you using the last beta and you were starting GE and SE straight from the respective executable in the hc folder (or from the default game menu) then I think you must have only been playing custom scenarios for the default (HCDB) database or legacy battlesets? Don

One thought, are you trying to open a scenario that uses other than the standard database, if so then the necessary database needs to either replace the commondb database in hc root folder or be linked in the command line executing the SE (and GE). For this reason it is good to start the GE with TonyEs game launcher or the SE with my SELauncher as they allow you to search and link the database (and battlesets\scenarios etc) at launch.

From Australian ABC news service: By Tom Lowrey Germany's defence minister is continuing his tour of Australia, taking the opportunity to check out some of Australia's newest military hardware. Boris Pistorius will join Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy at RAAF base Amberley this morning near Brisbane, checking out Australia's 'Ghost Bat' aerial drones. Last year, the federal government signed contracts to acquire six Australian-made Ghost Bats from Boeing Australia. More than $2.34 billion has been committed to the ghost bat program since 2019. Ghost Bats are designed to operate as wingmen for manned Australian fighter jets, such as the F-35 or F-18. They are fully armed, and last year a prototype took down an aerial target with a live weapon for the first time. But it's hoped they'll find a place beyond just the RAAF. Germany is among a number of countries expressing interest in the ghost bat, and the German defence minister will receive a demonstration this morning. He'll also visit German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall's factory in Brisbane, where the Australian-made Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle is being manufactured, with the first batch just rolling off the assembly line. Rheinmetall is a German company, but is producing more than 100 Boxer heavy weapon carriers for the German army in its Australian factory. Australia and Germany are also expected to take further steps today to collaborate on the manufacture of anti-ship cruise missiles, with plans to produce components for both the naval strike missile and the joint strike missile in Australia.

Thinking of current russian-ukraine war and where we were immediately before, that is a very accurate observation.

Would a feasible approach be to focus on a time and region, prune plus grow the hcdb2 db, and embed into a dedicated battleset? Don

From Australian ABC news service https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-10/australia-to-provide-military-support-to-gulf-states/106435248?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other

Above article has been updated by ABC since first posting

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-06/adf-helicopter-evasive-action-chinese-military/106426388?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other

I'm assuming the date range includes the active platforms in various nations so I think that sounds good, in line with what brad was doing when he created hcdb2 as the update of the first general hcdb.

For thise that don't scour Discord HC discussions a recent interesting concept came in about gaining points or awards for completing scenarios. Apparently this is something common in the gaming world so many will know about it. Its worth a little look at the discord recent posts of the last few days if you use the platform. Anyway it has me thinking about how this could be done (the structure is there to do it) and currently I'm thinking of issuing a score (by an unbiassed exportdll probably) according to some (not yet determined) formulae and string those scores for a player across related scenario strings eg a battleset. I think it could be a bit of icing for some people, any thoughts?

(linked from our current events sub forum) https://defence-blog.com/russia-warns-of-possible-military-action-in-baltic-sea/

One direction I'd wondered if a small well organised team or a single person were to start a new database they could target a particular currently interesting region, maybe even a single modern scenario, and build up from there. Remembering that the intellectual property rights in the current hcdb2 (and most of the other db we use) belong to Brad (quite rightly in my opinion due to the huge work in creating them) the start from scratch direction is a big undertaking. One avenue that is a bit clumsy and only in my view useful for small additions is the use of exportdll units that modify the loaded database. These can be produced eg for a set of scenario ( abit like doing a custom battleset) so as to update existing platforms with modernised or customised variants but doesn't work well if introducing a totally new item (platform sensor or weapon). I've used it with I'd say 80% effectiveness to eg modify a submarine into a one way autonomous semisubmerged drone. It works well to alter available loadouts of aircraft or mounts\weapons on ships from avaialble weapons\mounts\sensors etc. Eg a modified japanese ddg simulate a hypothetical australian new gen frigate. As I said though it is somewhat clumsy and restricted and doesn't really progress to cover totally new items of technology.

Well I guess it shows for those interested in naval simulation if they haven't 'played' the latest HC then HC97 is pretty impressive.

"And this brings on an even bigger question, how many people still want to play this game? " That's something I sometimes wonder. Certainly the download of new scenarios isn't what it used to be but there is still obvious interest. Also time will tell but the Steam addition to the equation might well bring a new surge. I think HC is still a unique simulation, where the new programs are more a game. Taking into account current limits to database size when pondering this question I've wondered whether there's now a need to start a new (series 3?) DB from a more recent start date - an issue is that many nations still use quite old platforms. The main issue to my mind is the sheer size of the job of starting from scratch.

*** SPOILER ALERT*** Well while I got my total victory, the sinking of a damaged merchantman in reprisal for a UAV incursion on my airspace, I suffered a large loss and the opinion rating in the polls are pretty bad I spent about 4 hrs for 10 hrs game time. I decided to try and occupy the mid and east Black Sea and to weed out and sink anything that Russia had in the area. Maintaining air cover by F-16 proved costly. Keeping up good surveillance without AC loss proved difficult (OK I didn't manage it). Not waiting for Poland to bring in better AC for ASUW attacks proved costly, in the end a flight of three F16 and a pack of mavericks was all I needed. Well trimming the number of Russian fighters patrolling the area before hand did help but at a worse than 1:1 loss ratio. I'm going to have another go at this gem, after a bit of wound licking, and with a much more conservative strategy. I'll certainly be trying tho dodge their Su-35S Flanker E and maybe let their naval patrols have their end of the Black sea for themselves Thanks heaps for this Patrick. Stats: [Victory Summary] Time=05 Jan 2026, 06:14:02 The RED side has met their minimum victory conditions Time=05 Jan 2026, 10:50:02 The BLUE side has met their minimum victory conditions Time=05 Jan 2026, 10:50:02 The BLUE side has met their total victory conditions [Kill Detail Blue Side ] F-16CM40 Falcon 15/Plane=6 MQ-8C Fire Scout 17/Helicopter=3 F-16CJ50 Falcon 14/Plane=5 CN-235MSA/Plane=2 Super Lynx Mk110 05/Helicopter=1 Heybeliada/Ship=1 S-70B28 Seahawk 12/Helicopter=5 Gediz (FFG7/11)/Ship=2 E-737 Peace Eagle/Plane=2 [Kill Detail Red Side ] MiG-35 Fulcrum F 18/Plane=8 Il-38 May 92/Plane=4 Ka-27M Helix A 17/Helicopter=3 Ka-29RLD Helix E 95/Helicopter=1 MiG-31BM Foxhound 15/Plane=1 Buyan Pr21630 06/Ship=1 Su-35S Flanker E/Plane=4 Steregushchiy Pr2038 07/Ship=1 Su-34 Fullback 16/Plane=12 Gorshkov Pr22350/Ship=1 Grigorovich (1135.6)/Ship=1 Soobraziltelny Pr20381 11/Ship=1 Merchant damaged/Ship=1 MiG-29KR Fulcrum D 15/Plane=2 [StoresConsumed - Blue] Blue Weapon=Tally AIM-120C7 AMRAAM=41 AIM-120B AMRAAM=29 AGM-158A JASSM=32 Taurus KEPD350=24 AGM-88B HARM (ARM)=28 AGM-84K SLAM-ER=26 SOM-A=16 SA-10c Grumble (S-300PMU)=22 SM-1MR Block VIB=29 RIM-162B ESSM=12 UGM-84C Harpoon=8 DM2A4 Seahake=2 SM-3 Block IIB=16 RGM-84G Harpoon=4 AIM-9X Sidewinder=10 AGM-65G Maverick=6 [StoresConsumed - Red] Red Weapon=Tally AA-12 Adder B (R-77-1)=12 AA-13 Arrow (R-37)=6 SA-21 (9M96E)=43 SA-N-12 Grizzly (Shtil-1)=36 AA-12 Adder C (R-77M1)=26 AA-10 Alamo C (R-27RE)=26 AA-10 Alamo D (R-27TE)=6 SA-N-11a Grisom=3 SS-N-26 Strobile=8 SS-N-27 Sizzler (3M54)=8 Sosna-R (9M337)=3 AA-12 Adder A (R-77)=8 AA-10 Alamo A (R-27R)=11 AS-4 Kitchen D (Kh-32)=24 SS-N-25 Switchblade=8 SA-24 Grinch (Igla-S)=14 SA-6b Gainful Mod1 (Kub-M4)=12 AA-11 Archer (R-73M)=4 SA-23b (9M82M)=4 AA-11 Archer (R-73)=2 [Damage List Red] ZZa: 00 Yeysk damage=265/2500 ZXp: 00 Novorossiysk damage=1067/2500 ZYS: 02 Grad Sviyazhsk damage=33/36 [Damage List Blue] ARS: 00 Anadolou damage=303/425 Time (well) spent: [Session Summary] Session Game Start=5 Jan 2026, 01:00:00 GameTimeDuration ThisSession=3Hrs23 Mins TotalGameTimeDuration=3Hrs23Mins GameTimeToGO=68 Hrs: 36 Mins Session End RealTime=4/02/2026 22:00:00 RealTimeDuration ThisSession=1:09:59 ==== ===== Session Game Start=5 Jan 2026, 04:23:54 GameTimeDuration ThisSession=3Hrs21 Mins TotalGameTimeDuration=6Hrs45Mins GameTimeToGO=65 Hrs: 14 Mins Session End RealTime=5/02/2026 13:01:14 RealTimeDuration ThisSession=1:39:00 ==== ===== Session Game Start=5 Jan 2026, 07:45:18 GameTimeDuration ThisSession=3Hrs20 Mins TotalGameTimeDuration=10Hrs5Mins GameTimeToGO=61 Hrs: 54 Mins Session End RealTime=5/02/2026 17:51:41 RealTimeDuration ThisSession=1:18:20 ==== =====

Oh yes, please share, that does sound another level. I'll be one of the first to give it a spin.

***SPOILER ALERT*** After about 9 hrs of play and TotalGameTimeDuration=24Hrs22Mins we have a result, which I found rather funny seeing USA is now regarded as commo camp by I assume the Frogs. Some summary detail to start: [Kill Summary Red Side ] Planes:=172 AD mobile:=3 Submarines:=2 Carriers:=2 Ships:=15 Helicopters:=48 [Kill Summary Blue Side ] Ships:=2 Planes:=45 Helicopters:=1 AD mobile:=2 Submarines:=1 [StoresConsumed - Red] Red Weapon=Tally TLAM-C Blk IIIA=33 TACTOM Blk IV=583 RGM-84G Harpoon=8 AGM-84K SLAM-ER=12 TLAM-D Blk IIIB=33 MIM-104E PAC-2 GEM+=15 FIM-92D Stinger RMP=2 AIM-120D AMRAAM=209 AGM-158B JASSM-ER=96 AGM-158A JASSM=32 AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Blk II=4 GBU-31 (Mk84) JDAM=32 AIM-120C7 AMRAAM=10 SM-2MR Block IIIB=97 MIM-104F PAC-3=13 Mk54 Mako=3 Mk48 Mod7 CBASS=2 SM-6MR ERAM Blk I=28 MIM-104B PAC-1=22 RIM-162A ESSM=11 AIM-9X Sidewinder=8 [StoresConsumed - Blue] Blue Weapon=Tally Meteor=196 GBU-39/B SDB=201 AGM-88B HARM (ARM)=24 AIM-120C6 AMRAAM=49 AIM-120B AMRAAM=44 AIM-9X Sidewinder=10 20mm M61A1 burst=31 Aster 30=64 NASAMS II=42 IRIS-T=18 SM-2MR Block IIIB=24 RIM-162C ESSM=32 RIM-116B RAM Blk1=3 AIM-9L Sidewinder=6 AIM-9M Sidewinder=4 AGM-84K SLAM-ER=16 Mica EM=8 Mica IR=9 FIM-92D Stinger RMP=22 SCALP EG=144 MU-90 Impact=4 Company Paratroopers=1 DM2A4 Seahake=12 F17 Mod 2B=3 Platoon Paratroopers=8 Tp62=12 Airborne hvy wpn team=1 Platoon Rangers=1 Mk48 Mod7 CBASS=18 F21 Artemis=13 SM.39 Exocet Blk2=2 The strategy summary was to get plenty of fighters up onthe likely attack side of bases, kill base radar unless incoming threats were detected, start to ferry useful AC first to Iceland bases and where they could do the hop in one leg (often with tankers) to southern Greenland. Once the location of northern bound enemy surface groups was known (a short lived close contact helped there) recce flights (passive detectors only) ran every where that might be useful. The good number of subs were headed off at creep speed towards the SAGs, constantly worried about enemy subs bound to be heavily spread thru the area. Our prime Carrier group set up dense asw patrols form minute 1. Annoying red bases in Iceland and Greenland then got attention in the long run resulting in Keflavik being captured with minor damage and gain of a nice operational P-8A Poseidon which proved handy later. Pituffik Space Base wasn't of interest once the AC it housed were destroyed (either intercpted airbourne or hit while grounded). As the troops were getting a bit itchy we did send in a few commando raids. Not much inroads could be made against the Surface Groups, 2 carrier (probably escorts) and a large invasion force centred it seemed on Iwo Jima unit, a Wasp class until our subs got in close, then real action started. THe sub commanders held their nerve and got in to range of the big targets, sinking one carrier then heavily damaging the second (ultimately sunk) before pretty much eradicating their escorts. By this stage our attack AC off our nearest bases and DeGaulle were no longer needling at the enemy, their SCALP missiles were sending tons of now scarp to the bottom. Just to make a point we decided to cause a bit of mayhem on the enemies home turf and sent a few SCALP and SDBs into Loring AFB (damage=4337/9000). Despite the inclusion in the orders, we didn't duck - there was no time available Thanks heaps for this scenario, I can see a lot of effort gone into it, and I'll be having another run just so I can remember to better look after my EW and the HARM they carry. I guess I should first give the Reds a spin too. For anyone interested the full minutes and data are in the attached zipped txt file. AARdata-HDSI0.zip

Progress is slow. The yanks must be running low on TLAMs, they've lost important surveillance, fighter and bomber AC and we're getting our bases stocked. But it still looks dodgy. Having lots of fun!

Do you know will that mean some one will be again licensed to do bug fixes and upgrades?

I saw that high speed departure too, I wondered if it needs some testing as it doesn't seem right. I nailed it with choppers off my surface group, while my ssn headed in to shred the carrier group. Another thing I noted and don't remember from previous is my air defense destroyer doesn't want to fire of its long range sam, I wonder if its keeping them for possible ballistic missile attack 🙄