donaldseadog

NOT an AAR but, Impressed with the performance of Rubis, without giving anything away I chose to provide a distraction by sinking a good few of the opposition and it left the scene with empty tubes and plenty of scrap metal on the sea bed. A good scenario for those that like to run at a high time compression and do a bit of gambling, a bit of calculating and a fair bit of breath holding, thanks Brad another great scenario. Don

I think a staff reporting problem: Saved Game attached in zip pack, playing "SLMM chance" scenario from GIUK 2003, HCDB-110415, GE 2011.005. shortlly after starting game you should get a staff message "Sir, we have detected 1 new contact:>>Contact>>Method: SONOBUOY" Blue has no sonar bouys and the message doesn't say what is detected. I'm guessing that this is a "red" side staff message getting through the system? Don bad_detect_method1.zip

I've been running scenarios with plenty of visual detection with and without the visualreportdll in place but not noticed any responsiveness difference, how ever I can't think of a good way to test it in a measurable way. I'm assuming that you just need to know it isn't having devistating differences?? Don

I'm thinking that to play players will need H4 paper rules, will this be the case? Don

No need to feel that way. This game always had a steep learning curve. I've been playing since 1994 and I have yet to learn all the ins and outs. I generally don't bother <SNIP> harder it will be to localize them. As often as not, the only indication that you'll have than a SSN is in the area will be when they give themselves away by firing. Their launch transient will give a rough indication of their position but by then you'll have torpedo's inbound. It can get fustrating.....seeing this polygon dance around you, knowing that there's a sub around but you can't narrow it down to get a shot. The best solution is the liberal application of active sonar but this can work both ways, especially in an MP game because the player will be able to get a fix on where your helos are and react accordingly. Don't forget decoys too. The AO is about as smart as the 1991 version of Iraqi air defense network in that particular case. Later D Thanks again for the in depth comments, again you've given me some good tips (manually deploy decoys...hmmm). Between your advice and playing the Pason scenarios I think I'm getting more of an idea of handling the 'panel'. Ta Don

I'm frequently having a situation where I have done significant damage to some members of a task group and I "K" them (denote probable kill) so that auto or blanket attacks use resources to more benefit but then when I get the others hosed down sufficiently I don't seem to be able to undo the "K" tag in order to finish them off. I suppose being a good humanitarian I should leave them in their toothless but living state, however the victory conditions don't seem to share this view. Is there a way to undo the "K" command (I can't find any in the manuals), do people think that the "K" command is to be avoided? Interested to hear experienced opinions. Don

Thanks so much for all those comments and advice. Quite a few finer points that I can't remember seeing in either of the manuals. Re pairing up the helos (aircraft in general). I don't seem to be able to do this (in the same manner as I can with surface platforms). I try shift click both units and key "G", I try drag select and key "G", I try dragging one to another, none seem end end up with a "group", which is what I assume you mean (so that they attack as a pair). So my further question is: by pairing up do you mean a group of two helos, and if so how do you achieve this? (Gee I feel dumb ) Don

I'll attach a zip pack with two game saves and explanation note. In this case the helo is on an assigned intercept. Other places in the game helos are on mission defined ASW attacks and seem to be going through the whole thing correctly (except for the guy who miss calculates fuel and crashes). The GE is version 3.10.1.0, I think it is the packed game in 'Ultimate' (or did I have to do an upgrade to get it to run or was that 'classic'?) PS a separate matter, where should I post questions such as: in the tutorials (air ops I think) I can't launch a particular A/C as the runway is inadequate; suggestions for game operation (eg. keyboard short cut for mission edit/ create); a couple of missing entries in command card within manual (key "K", Ctrl 7, Alt S)? Thanks for help (I need it) helo_waiting.zip

Do you by any chance write speeches for politicians??? I was starting to think it made sense

Am I correct that there isn't much instruction in the manuals for actual game play, just all the warfare theory (which is valuable)? Little problems seem to stop me from playing 'successful' games (IE having fun), my current problem relates to helo ASW game play. I send a helo to attack a sub contact (eg PASON #3 (ASW/ASUW) HUD3 db), it goes so far then hovers outside of the uncertainty area, the unit status window says its 'waiting' but never seems to get a trigger to proceed further. It seems to make no difference as to how I attack, select the helo and use F1, select the sub and use F6, use the mission editor (no shortcut key?), the same result. I can't find any specific instructions in the manual to do anything different, what am I missing, what should I be doing? Do you need more information? Don PS I browsed the official ANW forums but here seems a better place for questions & info, any comment?

I didn't actually cast a vote as I've never had anything to do with these games and wasn't sure about most aspects. However I'm interested to see more and probably participate in a short(ish) simple game. I'd have no preference in most of the questions except; time limit [i'd like less than six months]; turn frequency [three to six days] and basis [forum based sounds better judging from comments] Being a 'virgin' my biggest preference (not asked) would be for simple rules. Don Thomas [ed.] PS I assume (generally speaking at Harpgamer) having 'looked' at the votes in a poll you then can't vote?

That's a set of images for Rene Haar's custom HC xx to xx series databases. It will replace your commondb.rsr files (where the images are stored) in your HCE/HUCE directory. I cannot vouch for whether it will work with the standard/official HCDB database and user scenarios created for that database. If you use scenarios with any of REne's databases you will need it if you want to go into the platform display (especially to look at graphics). I believe it is designed to be a safe replacement for the standard 'picture file' (commondb.rsr), I used to run my HCE with Rene's 'picture file' in my main folder (thus replacing the standard) and it didn't cause problems. I now use Tony's Harpoon Launcher to swap it in when needed (but sometimes I forget and shoot my own foot when going to the platform display in Rene's database). Don

Quoting this very interesting article, form the 'special mention' section. Can harpoon model shipping mines dropped by plane? I assume yes as mines are just zero speed torpedos (correct?) I think (if correct) we need some new loadouts for A-6, A-7 in HCCW and divefreaks HC_65to80 Dbs (ED. if not already there ). This looks like fun.

Born about 1901 and was a combatant of WW1. How old could he have been? Who ever said "war is hell" must have been there. Lest We Forget.

There's only one HCDA, which you can download here. It is updated regularly, the latest being HCDA-110225. CV32 thanks for the stear. When i went to the downlad I found a caution "The stock HCE scenarios for EC2003 and Westpac will NOT function with this database installed." Seems pretty clear and I can live without the stock scenarios. However, I have built a number of User scenarios using the Stock scenarios as a basis. Are these now useless? As well as Brad's comment swapping the database files in and out of the mainfolder (or renaming dtabase file) you can download form the tools/mods sections Tony's harpoon launcher, way slick and if you have lots of scenarios based on a variety of different databases it lets you keep them all nicely organised in respective folders. Sounds like you're having lots of fun, great. Don

You might be able to find an older (and smaller) version somewhere. I've used OO for a few years and I seem to remember my original version was a reasonable size although it only handled the basic office applications (quite enough for my purposes). You could also check micro soft web to see if they have a reader like they do for Word. Don

Yeah, I guess that the database question is pretty complex in ways, it actually wasn't my main thought but where my thinking got me (the database was kind of my deadend). I'm thinking about what the 'harpoon classic' set up will look like in another twenty years (and it will be around I'm sure). We currently have kind of era oriented families of battlesets as a hand me down from the old in built database. I think there is a need to know how we should be working towards continuing this and expanding it so that the official release also has say 'cold war' grouped scenarios (there are getting some pretty good custom scenarios). With a super database capability such as Tony describes then every thing could grow on it, but it will be a long time coming and is it better than 'era' based databases? (I find era based databases good to write with as I don't have to figure out if particular platforms are legit inclusions) I guess what I'm wondering is how best (may be status quo) we should be heading so as to attract the best scenarios to go into currently 'empty' battlesets and to represent current era circumstances (will they go into EC2003 family of battlesets in a 2018 upgrade release???). Don

I know the official database (Brad's HCDB-xxxxxx) is maintained so as to be workable with old scenarios written on any of its predecessors, and with all else being as is this is necessary but I have this following thought (collection of thoughts). The most recent battlesets' built in scenarios (say in EC2003 family of battlesets) are getting old. In some future release/patch/upgrade I see a need for perhaps post 2010 era scenarios built in to battlesets. Also some of the battlesets have no built in scenarios and these ideally should have some. The official database is filling up the loadout annex space, it has some entries included as workarounds that are now unnecessary and better not used (eg sam barges) and it has platforms and weapons that are pretty outdated. If we had a pruned version of the HCDB that had old outdated and undesirable items removed we could write new scenarios for these envisioned modern battlesets, solve the loadout annex problem and use that DB to replace the official in the up grade. (The last version of the current official DB would be included (perhaps with some of the other databases for older eras) to run the EC2003s etc and custom scenarios written on it). Is this a hairbrained idea? Is it just too much work? Is it unnecessary? Is it none of these? Don (who should perhaps be doing more and thinking less?)

sounds good, I haven't been using the formation window except to set formations, I guess from what you say I should use it a bit like the unit window in 'classic'. Thanks, Don

I just got ANW as part of the Ultimate Package after playing Harpoon Classic since the days of DOS. I'm still getting used to the game play, and I can see why so many players prefer one over the other. ANW is definitely going to take time to master playing, but right off I'd say that the Mission function is priceless. Many times I'd have found uses for that feature in the Classic version. Buddha Yes, the Mission editor is one of H2/H3/ANW´s most valuable assets. This one is really mighty. Regards, Ralf Is there a way of using the mission editor to perform something like the "intercept" available in Harpoon Classic to assign planes currently in formation patrol to intercept a target? I find the absence of the good old "intercept" alternative in the staff advisers list a real annoyance. Don Thomas

Not so sad from my end, if it works it works

Yeah, I'll do that for the next version. ed Ignore this bit (I've just tried this rather quickly and then tested on your (Tony's) bakaship test scenario but got a crash immediately after firing the baka 250. I also ran 2009.54 with two diferences: (in 2009.54) on approach of blue boat red boat turns and runs; and baka 250 missile attack is executed. I'll look further but maybe there is more to it, I've never found anything definitve on what many of the weapon flags do so I'm a bit in the dark, eg should I delete other guidance flags.) Had another go and it worked fine with the suggested inclusion of Terminal Guidance flag and no other changes. I must have cocked up the database edit. Interesting though the evasive action in 2009.54, absent in 2011.05. Well I best be of to write some suicide scenarios. Don

All mentioned crash problems resolved by new DLL. Don

The problem might be at my end as I find that my winharp32 won't get past the first couple of intro screens so until I find my problem maybe you shouldn't spend time on my crash file. Funny though as winharp32sides will start a scenario and run for a while till a crash for unidentified reason. Don

Had a couple of crashes and got one game save in the westpac walk-through scenario #1 attached. I used hcdb -110415. Almost as soon as the game save starts you (blue) are engaging enemy a/c. If you release the 4 AAMs you get the crash but if you cancel the game survives. crash.zip