donaldseadog

Not withstanding anything others have said (because it all seems pretty correct), I still find playing with scenarios using the WWs database fun. Maybe there is less action but more planning? There are ways of cheating, but that is like teasing a dog pretending to throw a stick, you know you're smarter than the dog so why prove it, ditto you know you can e.g. 'double take' with gunnery but what's the point in cheating (yourself).

You can play and make allowances for the deficiencies, eg if you spot an enemy fighter within 3 miles range it will probably shoot you down with out being able to shoot back, well these things happen.

Any way I think if you're interested give it a fling and accept that it won't be a perfect representation but its not bad and it is fun. I still often play my own westpac scenario "Bases Loaded" - http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=502 - and always enjoy it. I think I've done three or four WWII scenarios, all in westpac BS, some very simple some more involved. If you do something like battle of Midway I'd love to have a play (hint). I tried a (sort of) Battle of Coral Sea but limitations mean its hard to do a good historical reproduction (I think).

PS it can be slow finding the various scenarios for particular DBs as they are arranged by Battleset not Database and I for one hadn't thought about putting a hint in the scenario name if it didn't use the standard database, but I'll try to remember from now on.

Don Thomas

I VERY much like the idea of a zero time pause that allows one to look around and issue orders.

 

This is neither 'pansy' or unrealistic. You as the player are not just acting in the role of senior decision maker, you are also acting as your whole command staff plus the unit operators. You decide what to do and then you have to issue all the various orders to realize that decision. This is the job of several people and to have to perform all these functions in 1:1 time is both unrealistic and very irritating.

 

I'm hoping that I'm correctly understanding that in the newest version of HCE such a function exists.

Good point, thanks for "un-pansying me"

Don

Well, Gol-ola-lee, Sergeant Carter.

Thanks, Brad. I reclassified it.

I didn't realise any one else was old enough to remember Gomer Pyle (being Australian, we're always ten years behind the rest of the TV world so I figure that give me a ten year head start so to speak in remembering old stuff).

Why is it that when TV went colour it went down hill?

On the same note, why is it that when computer games concentrate on the graphics they go down hill

Don (old timer) Thomas

Yep, and we read every wish and weigh them in picking and choosing what to work on.

 

I've just had a look at that wish list, a real impressive quantity of things to do - I thought HCE was almost perfect before I saw it :-)

Just completing half of them would made HCE the best strategic/tactic "game" around!

 

Thanks

Francesco

Huh, ain't it already??

Don

Hah, a challenge, and a challenge met (to some degree). I don't know if GE vers 2010.019 was a help (no red window open though) but we did get through with three losses and five enemy sunk. see AAR separately. I did have a piece of good luck though... Don

 

Thanks very much, Don, for taking the time to produce an AAR. That is always appreciated.

 

As for the challenge, I'm still waiting for someone to match the accomplishments of Captain Michael Barkai (Yomi) and his men.

I must admit I've played this a few times since my first 'win' and always lost. The difference is that the first time around I was lucky to start just after midnight, and came across a merchantman in the right spot to hide in his shadow. I got the work done before daylight and was able to sneak in often to within gunnery range (didn't need to light up my radar for missile guidance) for quick kills.

Yes the actual historic situation was a real accomplishment, as "Harpoon" illustrates.

Don

With the in-progress and upcoming changes to the GE for multi-sides play there is a very real possibility the Staff Assistant will be updated. With the potential for the player to control multiple sides the Staff Assistant will have to indicate what side each message is for. I think he'll be brought at least into the late 1990s UI land. The changes should allow things like the insta-pause button.

 

Don't get all excited for all of your Staff Assistant dreams to come true though. While the changes will contain the framework for much rejoicing I don't hate him as much as most people so the further refinement may take a very long time unless some more programmers with a thing against the Staff Assistant emerge.

 

My goal will be to replicate the existing behavior but expanded to multiple-sides. The pause button may be an easy capability to add at that point and if it is I'll probably throw it in.

I guess we're just never satisfied

Staff assistant, even as he stands, is pretty good in at least you get a chance to look at what is what and plan how to go about a response. There is the 1:1 button and that does bring us back to reality, if in the real situation we've got all sorts of stuff coming at us we do only have real time to sort it out, make decisions and issue orders. However it would be nice to be able to make group selections, issue orders and alter window focus while being bombarded with assistant's messages and the zero time compression would do it. The 'zero time compression' is a very powerful tool, being able not only to pause the AI but allow selection of units/ groups, group windows and focus, and issue commands for course/ speed/ attack etc.

Don

I noticed somewhere there's a hot key to the (new) "zero" time acceleration (pause, but can still use windows and issue orders etc) in the beta GEs. The hot key is alt ctrl P. In case you haven't noticed it it is very good for those hectic moments when you have been cruising along at high game speed but suddenly need the world to stop NOW.

I wonder if it could be twiddled to work from the assistants advise box, you know the sort where he says, something like "every known missile is headed towards you, would you like to turn on your radar?"

Don

SPOILER ALERT

(Note played in latest beta GE 2010.019, that might make a difference)

Opening the game (playing blue) paused: it is just after midnight in calm conditions with three surface groups of patrol boats comprising 2 groups of three Saar (gabriel SSMs 12 mile range) and one group (AAS) of two Dabur ("pop-guns" only) cruising about 45 miles out from Latakia, the two Saar groups being close to each other and about 20 miles north west of the Daburs. No enemy are detected other than Latakia but intelligence indicates two or three fast missile boats (long range styxs SSM) are deployed.

The Saar groups are both conducting a similar curved patrol taking them in a loop to within about 25 miles of Latakia, the Daburs conducting a tight patrol. One Saar group (ACS) is re-directed on a generally easterly direction to provide some extra cover for the Dabur.

At 0233 keen lookouts on Saar unit Hanit (group ABS) spot an enemy P-4 5 nm out bearing 28 degrees. Its estimated doing 8 kts away from us (closing speed ~ 6kts). No threat in its self but may have more potent escorts and may detect us. Radar kept off and course altered to close. Group ACS redirected to North East heading to provide further cover if needed. ABS close to 5 nm and at 0235 open fire with 76mm/62 compact main guns. P-4 confirmed sunk. Group ABS course modified to run closer to ACS, lookouts maintained.

0303: ABS unit Saar lookouts spot merchant man (neutral) heading south east at 10 kts, group course altered to east of south east to run under cover of merchant.

0332: ABS course altered to cross close astern of merchant man and continue patrol towards Latakia. Enemy MCM T-43 detected by ESM from both ACS and ABS giving triangulation good position at 7nm ENE of ABS and 11nm NNW of ACS within both missile's range. Enemy headed towards ABS at full speed with radar on. ABS considers it is likely to have been detected and fires SSM salvo (radar on for guidance) then changes course and speed to shadow behind merchantman.

One missile self destructs one miss, fire 6 salvos main guns, one hit and enemy reduced to 7 kts, two SSMs fired and one hit, mine sweeper sinks, most importantly its radar is sunk.

ABS: Radar off, continue to hug merchant man.

0355: ABS leaves shadow of merchantman passing ahead and changing courrse towardsLatakia.

0416: ABS 10 nm from ACS, both groups heading 14 kts approx NE and East respectively with SSM overlap and about 20 nm out from Latakia.

0424: one Komar class PTM spotted by lookouts, 5nm easst of Saar Herev (group ACS) cruising NW at 8 kts. ACS radar on and 2 SSMs away and commence salvos from main gun, first round hits and PTM sunk but 6 Styx are in bound.

Two more PTM detected Ossa and another Komar, ACS engages two SSMs a piece and salvos from the main guns.

The smoke clears, two more enemy PTMs to the bottom but loss of three Saar (ACS wiped out).

But with three enemy PTMs sunk we get a victory... but go on for more. ABS comes up to 25 kts and heads easterly intending to proceed down to AAS and escort survivors home... But no more enemy units so we are granted a win....

Don

It's a scenario I'm thinking sometime on making it. Thanks ! Played ten times (short, fast and furious scenario), is a very though game to win ...

 

Heh, I remarked today on IRC that if anyone can come through unscathed, I will be impressed.

 

There, a challenge for ya!

Hah, a challenge, and a challenge met (to some degree).

I don't know if GE vers 2010.019 was a help (no red window open though) but we did get through with three losses and five enemy sunk. see AAR separately.

I did have a piece of good luck though...

Don

First GE crash for a while.

No saved game so I don't know if the screen shot is helpful (with C++ complaints) but included it. (four warning windows appeared, copied three as in jpg)

GE vers 2010.19, DB HCDB 090726 BS ec2003 GIUK/ inbuilt scenario #2

Had just split one plane from group of two and issued new course, instant crash.

Don

There's something with detections, I get them all right, but all are from sonobuoys, even if there's not a single sonobuoy...

 

More detail please, targeted (i.e. tiny) scenario/save game with instructions if possible that I can use to reproduce your findings.

sounds a bit like my previous report. I noticed the behaviour when playing red but haven't tested it playing blue, I'll have a look. Anyway maybe try the saved game in my upload AI-sonar.zip a couple of posts back: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...ost&id=1174

Don

1. re # 20101030 Red autoformation patrols setting ignored http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=181

(tony's GE sides open items), it seems that the formation patrols setting at game start effects the blue side even when playing red.

try the scenario file in attached zip, open as red player and use formation patrol setting on/ off and see the on/off effect on blue surface group.

2. Also problem with sonar detection: Playing red (use the saved game in attached zip) you soon pick up a detection of the blue group from a sonar drop by blue helo. That is the player gets a sonar contact using AI sonar bouy.

Don

sorry, should have noted used GE V-2010.19 for game save, HCDB 090427 in GIUK-2003 BS

To demonstrate sonar buoy problem, open saved game (playing red) and make sure you have a blue group screen open and active. Soon the box appears announcing detection by sonobuoy, 'push' "select". You might need to press key board key 'C' to focus on the blue group which has a helo in formation patrol and it has dropped a sonobouy which appears to have detected one of it's own group ships.

AI_sonar.zip

Tony, I think item '20101123 Platform Display' (my initial report) in your GE sides open items has been attended to.

Also I think that:

# 20101205 Can only play as Blue, when selecting Red player, most of the button bar is inactive like the player is Blue.

# 20101104 Can't play as neutral, crash http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=184

are also both fixed.

Can play red with all buttons seemingly normal, can play neutral and open a new game via ctrl-N.

Don

24.

gray out (make not selectable) the very low altitude button in the speed setting window for aircraft that crash when flown very low.

25. Logging for ESM.

26. AI can split off a unit(s) from a group to execute a defensive action. EG a long range air strike with fighter escorts could peel off some of the escorts to intercept a threat, or a slow surface group with say an oiler could peel of a couple of fast destroyers for same purpose. I guess the planes RTB after intercept but I don't know how to handle the ships unless they return to parent group and rejoin.

Rene, help me out here. I wasted 10 minutes figuring out what DB to use based on the save file but I have no way to determine what battleset you are using since it is a custom. So, what battleset is this?

 

In the future please provide the links to the appropriate files.

 

And as long as we're at it, you started playing the scenario in 2010.019 and not an earlier version right?

 

Thanks

 

Yes started in 0.19 saved the game, stopped the GE and restartet it again. Getting a Mem Allocation error.

 

The BS is my Falkland BS.

I had no problem with the saved game.

I used GE 2010.19, DB 95to10db110112 (didn't have the 110107 used for saved game) and your Faulklands BS. The game opened and ran. I saved the game as a new name and 'opened' the newly saved game which ran with no problems.

Could it have been the version of the database?

Don

(later note)

I had a play in the saved game and its funny but RED side (AI) seems to be making no defensive or offensive moves against my air or surface assets even thought it can see them, so maybe something is wrong???

I don't think there are that many true bugs (fault in code or code logic). There are some true bugs come to light now and again but I'd think that most of the severe ones get fixed pretty quickly. I also think you have to delve pretty deep and keep a very well peeled eye to catch a bug these days.

There is not so far as I have found a single scenario that doesn't play pretty much as intended and with the exception of beta versions it's a long time since you got game crashes.

Some aspects of play you have to allow for (ships grounding?) and make your play accordingly, some times you might not play certain types of scenarios as you don' t like their style (sub hunting might be thought boring).

However to make a broad statement that the game is rubbish, why make the statement? Do you want it not to be rubbish (in your mind) but think the guys fixing stuff are clairvoyant? Do you just want to slag off at those of us who like it? Are you just a bored tiresome person filling in time?

If you want the game to work better for you, join the community constructively, go the the wish lists and start adding your wishes, go to the issue tracker and see if you can do something to help with some of the outstanding bugs, .....

Don Thomas

Guys,

 

you need, in addition to divefreak´s latest HC95to10 database (submitted on December, 26th), his picture file: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=328

 

Then everything should work as intended.

 

Regards,

Ralf

You certainly need the latest DB, ( I thought I did have), I played for about three hours, the action was so constant that it took that long to realise I kept sending out bombers from Clark AFB but they were instantly landing, the latest DB fixed that so now I can get on with the job (now with a bit more hope

Don

HCE - 2010.017 - 2010/12/12

===========================

- Chg:0000 GE Fixed the logic that decided not to count individual planes shot

down towards the related victory conditions and only counted

plane 'Units' shot down instead. (thanks Don Thomas)

 

See test files at:

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=9964

 

Neat how this explains the randomness isn't it...

Hind sight makes everything so obvious (I worked as a Patent Attorney so this statement gives me a giggle)

Here's an example, once you figure it out it will be obvious, I'm sure.

Game save is from scenario (both in zip) played 2010.017, hcdb 101022, EC2003 giuk.

from the scenario the 'plane group ADA has been split (F8) from formation patrol and assigned to attack teh red base, then it has been given a course to follow but won't take any direction orders. So far as I can tell the unwillingness to take orders (going AWOL?) seems to only occur if the unit has been split from a formation and given an attack order in the initial "do you want to enter a course for the new group" window, but I'm not certain if this is the only circumstance where it happens.

If this doesn't show up much give me a yell and I'll look at it further to try and get better tests.

Also note the position of the airbase (in the group windows) moves around 'averaging' the unit positions rather than staying put in the true position of the base.

(OOps, I better upload the file hehe)

Don Thomas

notcommand.zip

I just tested this in 2010.017 using Larry's EC2003 GIUK scenario and was able to launch Harpoons at the submarine while outside of the firing ship's torpedo range. Please verify that this is fixed.

I also used the original test scenario in GE 2010.17 and all seemed to work as expected.

(so long as the sub stayed surfaced) Harpoon available and allocated, short range asw available and allocated, guns available and allocated when in arc.

One question, is it reasonable for one 76mm shell to sink the wisky and should it be reported in the message window as: 30008 DP applied (that seems a lot or is it that the shell hit for 28 or more DP which is enough to sink her)?

Also on the plus side it highlighted another problem with playing as the Red side in the current betas. A problem now fixed for the next build (but don't go getting all excited and think that playing as Red will be pleasant yet).

who cares about playing red, I'm hanging out to play Green, double the targets

Don Thomas

Attained victory with 1:23:45 to go.

 

Lost the patrol ship Mersey early on, but she was caught under enemy air cover at game start and did not have much of a chance.

 

Not long thereafter, lost the Forbin class Chevalier Paul early on to a torpedo from a Scorpene class submarine, which really hurt but I moved the de Gaulle in behind the Prince of Wales group to take advantage of the latter's air defense envelope and this worked out.

 

Rubis managed to close the distance with the Vikramaditya group, and put her torpedoes to good use against the carrier and escorts.

 

Lost a couple of helicopters to air raids out of Gan, but other than a couple of Super Hornets dropped by enemy SAMs (due to my inattention more than anything), no other losses.

 

Fun scenario. Thanks for putting it together!

If anyone manages to keep onto their Mersey I'll be surprised, a bit mean I know putting her in there but its only a game

There is a fair bit of luck as to what planes you get but you seem to have done pretty well, after lots of testing (with a fair bit of cheat mode) I couldn't stick it out to actually complete an unassisted run so you might be the only one to get an honost victory so far, Admiral Brad.

Don

Hiya mate, possible silly question but how do I get this to open? I've downloaded the required database and opened what I thought was the right Battleset but it wont seem to open!

Its a good idea to give us some more detail about what you did. Which database version, where did you place which files? Did you open the game using HCLauncher (this makes it easier with database management). What happened "it won't seem to open"? Could you see the battleset in selection window or not, etc

I note there are two "faulklands" battlesets, as TeTeT says, use divefreak's battleset "Faulklands/southatlantic, (not the "Faulkland island War" battleset). That might be the problem?

Don Thomas

[This started in what is now archived but I can't find an upload window in the original (I suppose because it is in archive?)]

Any way the problem relates to victory conditions using aircraft subtypes with multiple numbers of kills required.

The attached has two scenarios, the vic conditions are slightly different, one requiring 4 kills of aircraft subtype ASW, the other 5 kills. these are minimum conditions. There are also kill 2 subtype EW (all are OR conditions) min condition.

blue base has 25 ASW and 2 EW planes in formation, the ASW will get hit first by FA-18s.

In the subtyp4 (requires 4 kills) scenario almost always (but not quite) red gets minimum vic once it has killed the ASWs.

In subtyp5 (requires 5 kills) scenario blue gets away with loosing the 25 ASWs with out red getting vic, if blue moves the EWs to a vulnerable sector red will generally (but again not always) get the victory once the planes are downed.

I advise playing at about 5 min to the sec time acceleration.

HCDB 101022, GE versions 2010.006 and 2009.042 both tested same result.

Don Thomas

subtypeairvic.zip

I'm interested in taking a look if there is a nice little test-scen available

There is if I can find an upload window???

Don

HCE - 2010.015 - 2010/12/05

===========================

+ Chg:0000 GE ESM works again (thanks Don Thomas) as do the other detection

types.

+ Chg:0000 GE Formation editor should show the correct size now.

+ Chg:0000 GE Formation editor should highlight the selected sectors again.

(thanks Don Thomas)

 

 

I've attached my scenarios that I used to test the Sensor types. Play all as Blue, targets to the East. HCDB-101022 was used.

 

VISUAL.SCM

Visual - Fly A-4 straight East, expect visual detect at 2nm from Red cargo ship

IR - Fly F-35 straight East, expect IR detect > 2nm from Red cargo ship

Radar - Turn on F-35 Radar and fly East, detect...

ESM - Since this build is broken you can turn the Red sensors on by toggling on Show-All, turn on sensor, toggle off Show-All then launch F-35, insta-ESM detect.

 

SONAR.SCM

CZ - Convergence Zone detect - Run Seawolf towards LNG carrier, I ran at 5kts Intermed or Deep and got a 3rd CZ detect one time out of three tries, that's 97-107nm from the Seawolf. Oh, I used the trick to control Red and set it to Flank speed.

 

Passive - Set depth to Shallow and intercept the ship at Creep (19kts in Seawolf's case). You should get a Passive detect plenty far out.

 

Active - I couldn't get an Active detect before Passive by using Seawolf, you'd have to turn on sonar logging. One can always go back to Rene's test scen in the original issue report.

 

SONBUOY.SCM

Use SBs to detect the Red Noisemaker. It is loud so you shouldn't have too much trouble.

 

The one detection type I didn't test was MAD; the code looks consistent like it will work but I didn't follow-thru with a test.

Might this effecte EW escorts masking detection, has anyone looked at if this? I'm not very good at this stuff but in a test I did with a pair of prowler I wasn't getting what I expect (very handy have both sides view point to pick up this sort of thing). Any tips on how I can test it (and learn more about EW escorts)

Don Thomas

No screenshots of super marked-up maps yet? Is everyone doing real work or something???

A couple of other things happening, but I did waste a bit of time drawing Panama Canal (which of course won't work as ships will just run aground). Certainly it is working for the texture views so that's something. I'm thinking about my Sydney harbour mini sub attack, I'll try shifting my 'harbour' in the texture map out over sea and see how the game plays.

Don