donaldseadog
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by donaldseadog
-
-
Run the scenario through the Scenario Editor and see what the all the Victory Conditions are. Something might just need to be tweeked a bit.
(P.S. Golden Retrievers rate just slightly below Basset Hounds in the "Wonderfulness" catagory.)
(I'm actually a kelpie Man myself, but the retriever photo was handy)
Back to the issue.
A lot of good comments, thanks.
The victory conditions are a bit more complex than most scenarios I feel, that has been mentioned in the applicable issue tracker thread.
There certainly are minimum red victory conditions (all 'or') and more than one total red victory condition (all 'or'). It seems with the total red victory = sink three amphibious it works if you've already gotten a minimum red victory but not if you get straight to the total victory condition. I seem to think though that I've seen a total victory with out first getting a minimal victory for other victory conditions.
I made copies of the scenario with all sorts of tweeking to the victory conditions but haven't really been able to make up some "rule".
I'll go back to the scenario editor and try more fiddles with a simplified version of the scenario.
I welcome any further comments, thanks.
Woof.
-
-
BTW 43 veiws on the topic and only 1 answer.... is no one interested in better db hndling?
For me the launcher and DB handling fall into the category of "nice to have", but there are other, bigger priorities, such as the unresolved issues in the Issue Tracker list.
Point taken. Anything us mortals can do to assist?
-
Miscellaneous piece of info...
Any recent scenarios (i.e. EC2003 and newer) have stored within the scenario the name of the database used to save the scenario. So MyFunnyScen.SCm will have information in it that says HCDB-040506 for .res file and HCOfficialCommonDB for .rsr file. A utility (launcher for instance) will hopefully someday key off of that information to automagically match scenario to DB.
I assume that includes custom scenarios that I (or anyone) write at home with the Scenario Editor? Pretty cool
Thanks.
-
I like the general idea but wouldn't like to see the download file double up in size.
As I see it the launcher is a great (and getting greater) tools for people who test new scenarios, databases etc, but that the normal launcher that comes with the game is the entry for normal players. Maybe we'd be better if the normal launcher is made able to select databases perhaps in co-ordination with selecting battlesets.
I think one of the things when you get a lot of scenarios, battlesets and databases to choose from is launching the game with everything correct. I forget what database I used or even which battleset for custom battlesets.
I guess ideally each scenario should store information on its database and battleset and automatically load them, but then if you change their name or folder you have a problem.
I definitely like the idea of naming databases.
Don
As far as i remember, the launcher will replace the current launching screen as a start point. Like the H3 launcher.
I didn't realise that. It makes sense as it is more powerful but also (for some people) more difficult to use. I suppose for very basic users they could just start the GE with no settings selected and use the existing game entry windows, I assume they will stay?
First you start the launcher, then select to start the game with some personal settings like db etc....I see your point about the larger dl file.
And your point about the bs/scen containing data about the used db, sounds like the signatur feature of h3/ANW.
The hard thing I'd think would be 'linking' to custom databases and battlesets, there would have to be some unique ID code piece but custom items can be written by anyone anywhere in the world so how would the unique ID code be determined?
BTW 43 veiws on the topic and only 1 answer.... is no one interested in better db hndling?
I agree we need lots of ideas and comments.
I currently use a separate folder for each database within a database parent folder and the same for scenarios for custom battlesets (because you can't tell the battleset from the file type). It would be good not to have this complication. Just having the databases named helps, maybe will will have to stick with a structured folder system.
-
Hi
Thanks to the HCE launcher it becomes more and more easy to switch between differnet DBs
What i have tested so far is that with the launcher the commonddb files need no longer to be in the HCE Mainfolder and we can edit the name of the files.
so my idea and proposal is that we dbh-designers, those who publish databases regulary, provide them in a zip container, containing a folder named "databases" containing the db file named like hcdb_20100506.res, oder HC-50to65-DB_20100427.res, etc...
+ the "normal" commondb.res file outside the folder for those not using the launcher...
Maybee at a later point we can distribute the db files as an installer file? So the dbs gets automatically into the hce folder!?
the wish behind it, the player gets a folder with a db collection where he easly switches between the dbs with the HCE Launcher
I like the general idea but wouldn't like to see the download file double up in size.
As I see it the launcher is a great (and getting greater) tools for people who test new scenarios, databases etc, but that the normal launcher that comes with the game is the entry for normal players. Maybe we'd be better if the normal launcher is made able to select databases perhaps in co-ordination with selecting battlesets.
I think one of the things when you get a lot of scenarios, battlesets and databases to choose from is launching the game with everything correct. I forget what database I used or even which battleset for custom battlesets.
I guess ideally each scenario should store information on its database and battleset and automatically load them, but then if you change their name or folder you have a problem.
I definitely like the idea of naming databases.
Don
-
A big step forward I find. So good for testing anything.
1. I can't wait for the SE tab to get filled.
2. I guess it is because I'm a bit tardy but when I do a selection from a drop down 30 % of the time I forget to tick the box so the selection has no effect. Would there be a disadvantage in have the box ticked automatically if a selection is made from a drop down (if it doesn't take much effort in coding)
3. I think (but am very open to disagreement) that the default for formation patrols should be 'enabled'.
Don Thomas
-
From CNN
South Korea raises sunken naval ship
By the CNN Wire Staff
April 15, 2010 1:32 p.m. EDT....
One of the navy's most experienced divers died while attempting to enter the wreck in the hours after the ship sank.
Navy Chief Master Sgt. Han Joo-ho, 53, fell unconscious after reportedly exceeding recommended times and depths under water. Two other divers were hospitalized on the same day.
It is unclear whether intense public pressure contributed to the divers taking excessive risks.
Family members of the missing have consistently criticized the navy for what they consider an inadequate response to the disaster.
The media are rife with speculation over what caused the explosion.
One theory is the ship struck a mine left from the Korean War in the 1950s. But South Korea has backed away from casting blame on North Korea.
[CV32: The damage appears to be much further forward than I would have expected, given what we knew up to now (which, admittedly, wasn't much).]
Comparing to the photo in post #2 I'd think about midships, perhaps an engine room? I assume they're diesel, no big smoke stack, still little clue.
I'm sorry for the dead diver, I think most navy divers in that situation would be stretching the rules as much as possible with no need of pressure from others - one life risk to maybe save forty, easy decision for the right kind of guy.
-
It it's inexhaustive march toward the ultimate big brother state, work has cought up and finally blocked harpgamer at the office. I do not feel that those those in power would find the humor in me submitting a form for excepting harpgamer from the internet acceptable usage "policy". So be that I will now be accessing from home alone.
Don't you think a few good references would help?
-
I recently read (from a link in harpgamer) the article "Mig Alley" re the korean war. It sounds like a great basis for some harpoon scenarios.
I've looked at databases and don't see one that seems to fit the era, is that correct?
If I use the new weapons/sensors database (good one) any tips on good places to get suitable info on platforms, particularly planes, from the era. Early jet fighters like the Mig 15s and sabres would be a start.
-
They needed the fighter escort to survive the enemy CAP ...
Often true, though interestingly, the pre-WWII manual USF74 (Revised), circa April 1941, stated that escorts for torpedo bombers was "not normally desirable" except where (1) strong enemy fighter defenses were suspected; or (2) for 'set piece' attacks where the torpedo planes would remain outside the target area until needed.
The doctrine called for either "close escort" or "high escort".
In practice, it tended to be "close escort", where fighters provided direct protection to the strike aircraft, flying just above them or just behind or on the flanks. (High escort would fly well above the bombers).
(All this according to Lundstrom).
I searched Lundstrom in wikopedia and found a large amount of stuff that will be useful in altering my tactics and writing scenarios.
I also looked up the posted link to 'MIG alley', very interesting and a great base for some korea war scenarios. Just need more time in the day (well night)!
-
From Lundstrom's The First Team, regarding the Battle of the Coral Sea (which, of course, was the first carrier vs carrier battle) ...
On the morning of 7 May 1942, the carrier Lexington launched the following strike group:
3x SBD (command section)
10x F4F-3 fighters (escort)
15x SBD-2, SBD-3 dive bombers
10x SBD-3 dive bombers
12x TBD-1 torpedo bombers
For her part, Yorktown launched:
8x F4F-3
8x SBD-3
17x SBD-3
10x TBD-1
It is notable that the two carriers contributed half of their entire force of 36x operational F4F-3 fighters, to the strike.
HUmmmmmmm, I think I've been a bit conservative with my plane allocations.
-
-
Tony...what types of enagagements are arc limited currently with .005?
Should be all gun engagements. Aircraft guns being limited to 30 degrees to each side of the nose.
Does that include aircraft air to air (30 degrees each side of nose).
air to air guns appears to be 360 degree and considering the micromanagement that would be introduced with any thing else I think that is essential. (BTW, are air to air missiles limited, I've never seen anything indicating they are?)
Air to surface, sure 30 degree sounds good.
PS strafing of ships is getting much more realistic, plan the attack and get much better survival rates. I do think that ship anti air guns are some how cheating and that strafing has too good an affect but I will have a look once we have this stuff sorted.
BTW, any one got data on typical flight compositions from WW2 for anti ship attacks?
-
Hey, thanks guys, you gave me some faith so I persevered switching different addons etc on and off. It now seems to be good (though I don't know what was causing the problem, I think some left over setting from when I was running 3.0.2.
I do agree 'it would never have happened in DOS!!! (I'd hate to see my old 286 trying to get through all this processing
) -
HCE - 2010.005 - 2010/04/02
===========================
- Chg:0000 GE Fixed more crashes introduced by arc limitations in 2010.003.
Got another of the Get Annex crashes. A fair way into a complex scenario so will try to get some thing small out of it as a save. Looked like during engagement by AI aircraft with player aircraft. (one player aircraft just shot down and one remaining).
Saved game uses database HCWW100326, (westpac batleset).
ramp up to 10 or 30 sec time compression and you soon get enemy contact (Hurricane). Select intercept option to intercept 'aircraft'. program crashes with a get annex error message.
-
Hi Guys,
I assume lots of you use Mozilla firefox browser, I've recently gone from version 3.0 to 3.6 and am having difficulties having to frequently reload pages and sometimes log out. Version 3.0 seemd fine.
If I use 'safe mode' (no add ons etc) it seems better so I have just about every thing turned off but still have some problems. The usual problems are graphics appearing in the wrong places or componenets (such as up load manager) not loading.
Any one had (and solved) similar problems and can give me some clues?
I use AVG free anti virus and windows XP.
Don Thomas
No trouble here with the latest FFox on Win XP...
Thanks, that gives me hope, I must have some spurious settings. I'll knock them out one by one and see how I go.
Don
-
Hi Don,
I don't use Firefox, but thanks by the warning. Casually I used it some weeks ago at another place, and I constated was faster than my usual Windows Internet Explorer and I was thinking in change the thing (I'm not a PC connaisseur for 20 years, and I will not to be for the next 20 years
)My motto in computers is if it works, don't improve it
I had no problems with the older version 3.0.(1 0r 2) and I think if I can't solve this I'll go back to it. I like firefox and infact my internet service provider (I'm on a satelite) recommends it. Apparently more secure.
My version 3.6 seems OK on other sites but harpgamer seems to have a lot of icons and little graphic thingees and these are what seem to go wrong for me.
I guess if I folloewed the if it works don't fix it I'd still be using my 286 and PC Dos - maybe
Don
-
continued..
15. An "evasive" feature available to the AI (switched by the scenario writer) that can be applied to groups so eg surface groups don't go running aground chasing enemy and poorly armed groups don't attempt Kamikaze runs.
16. Download files in scenario section showing the respective database in the browsing section so as to easily find eg HCWW database scenarios.
17. A switch to send aircraft back to base after an initial weapon launch, the switch available to player at launch of attack and to AI via the scenario editor at aircraft launch.
18. Stealth generic bases, ie small bases that aren't automatically known to the player (or AI) at game start. A bit like a FARP but able to handle small planes or maybe just STOL planes.
19. Ability for in air refuelable planes to "land" on an in flight tanker including one in formation about a base.
20. Planes able to go in formation patrol about settable 'points'. Useful for any surveillance patrol especially ASW.
NEW
21. Within (the new 32 bit) scenario editor, an ability to ferry aircraft via a way point. Also an ability to ferry from a neutral base to either a red or blue base. The aircraft then becoming 'property' of that side. Thus a neutral country could supply aircraft to one side in their support while still claiming neutrality. A similar thing with neutral ships/ subs with an ability to 'join' a red or blue base at the end of a cruise.
Don Thomas
-
Hi Guys,
I assume lots of you use Mozilla firefox browser, I've recently gone from version 3.0 to 3.6 and am having difficulties having to frequently reload pages and sometimes log out. Version 3.0 seemd fine.
If I use 'safe mode' (no add ons etc) it seems better so I have just about every thing turned off but still have some problems. The usual problems are graphics appearing in the wrong places or componenets (such as up load manager) not loading.
Any one had (and solved) similar problems and can give me some clues?
I use AVG free anti virus and windows XP.
Don Thomas
-
HCE - 2010.005 - 2010/04/02
===========================
- Chg:0000 GE Fixed more crashes introduced by arc limitations in 2010.003.
(from '.04 release notes...
It would be appreciated if an enterprising tester hunted for a second potential gun arc crash bug. I haven't seen it yet but what someone could try is aircraft vs aircraft gun engagements. Do they crash 2010.004?
...)
Tested a number of situations with HCWW data base and aircraft including air to air and air to ground/ surface ship. (just thought I haven't tried air to surface sub, I'll do that). From what I can see though air craft guns don't have firing arcs (just as well I suppose).
I had one problem (and posted in issue tracker), can't engage target from close range (less then weapon range).
Also tested gunnery of surfaced sub and found engagement continues when sub dives (posted in issue tracker)
I also concur Wombats post in 2010.04 release notes.
Don Thomas
-
- Chg:0000 GE Surface gunnery vs submarines Missile and Gun type radio buttons were improperly greyed out (lack of missiles greyed guns, lack of guns greyed missiles), remedied. (thanks Don Thomas)
Well.......most of it works.
I wrote a small program with an O.H. Perry vs. a Whiskey in EC2003.
In Cheat Mode, I was eventually able to get Whiskey to remain surfaced so Perry could detect it.
I selected Attack and the Attack box popped up to allow a Missile Attack selection. However, there were no weapons in the Weapons Allocation box.
It wasn't until Perry got into Whiskey's torpedo range that I was finally able to select a Harpoon to fire. The Harpoon did fire.
Attempting the Short Range ASW allowed the Mk 46 and Harpoon to be selected. Both the Mk 46 and Harpoon did fire.
Attempting Gun Attack allowed a 76mm burst to be selected, but the attack was properly cancelled as Perry's superstructure masked the 76mm from firing straight ahead.
A turn to starboard opened the firing arc and the 76mm sank Whiskey.
So, the radio buttons aren't greyed out, the firing arc cut-out seems to work, but the Weapons Allocation is a little off.
The attachments include a .zip folder with the "SubSurf" porgram along with a game save that picks up with thw weaponless Weapons Allocation.
Ah, nuts! I tested this with the .005 beta, but I'm not going to rewrite this over there now...
I ran your scenario and game save.
First, I hardly believe it, but the sub is being evasive. I'd never seen this until yesterday (with a land unit).
Also the incorrect initial weapons allocations being greyed out - I had the same as you (as expected) so I tried the scenario in GE 2009.42 and found similar sort of problem (no missile or guns though of-course) it gave an option for standoof ASW and short range ASW (the short range greyed out) and when you select the standoff ASW it showed no weapons (correct for the platform, but why have the option appearing?)
Looks like more work for poor Tony?
Don Thomas
-
The funny thing is that I purposefully disabled all of that code for land units, the programmer after me re-enabled it. Having that functionality enabled really detracts from land engagements in my experience.
Yep, having gotten over the laughter it is all quite pointless. If land units would pursue intelligently then maybe it would be OK but as is it is extremely time consuming. I guess it is on the list of things to (re)correct?
Might be OK for units with no weapons I suppose? Does the fleeing unit resume its assigned path at some stage, I couldn't be bothered waiting around to see?
...Well blow me down, I've just seen the same thing with a submarine, but htis time it seems sor tof usefule, well if the scenario writer could turn the feature on and off (maybe in the course editor).
Don
-
Now maybe you've seen this for your self but I have only just come across it and I thought it hilarious.
The game save includes a blue tank in pursuit of a red tank. The red tank has a fixed gun and can only shoot pretty much right ahead and obviously the AI knows its limitations because (if you enter cheat mode Ctrl Alt s) if you enter courses for the red tank then chase it with the blue the AI ignores your course and speed and keeps the red tank going full speed away form the blue tank threat.
Don Thomas
PS westpac battleset and HCWW 100218
Total victory conditions
in General
I've attached a very small scenario from EC2003 GIUK (I used HCDB 100308, GE 2009.48 to play). Red and Blue each have an air base and an undefended base and each have strike aircraft.
Here are the victory conditions (from the SE):
ANALYZING VICTORY CONDITIONS:
BLUE MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (OR) 1:
2 bases must be damaged at 20%.
BLUE TOTAL VICTORY CONDITION (OR) 1:
1 base must be killed.
RED TOTAL VICTORY CONDITION (OR) 1:
1 base must be killed.
MISSING RED MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITIONS!!
Notice that red has no minimum victory conditions, just to test something.
Play blue side and kill one base (without damaging the other base) No victory condition is awarded! Now damage the second base (I suggest send only two bombers) more than 20% but don't destroy it, you are now awarded the total victory.
The 'rule' seems to be that to get the total victory you have to obtain a minimum victory either before hand, after or simultaneously (of fulfilling the total victory condition). The total victory is awarded if both minimum and total victory conditionsare met.
Just to check Red has no minimum victory condition (and the SE warns you of this, implying it is necessary!). Kill both bases and you get nothing awarded.
Does this apply to all battlesets? I'd assume so.
Therefore players need to know that they have to follow basic orders (and fulfil minimum victory conditions) before going for glory.
I also wonder if it would be good to have the victory conditions in the orders or somewhere accessible to the player.
woof
victory_conditions.zip