donaldseadog

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

chase_tnk.zip

I've browsed through some forum titles and didn't see one on the Gmae Tutorial, so I'm guessing this will be way to basic for of a question.

 

First, let me say, I'm mainly a land warfare kind of a guy, WWII, Amer Civil.

 

I like to start with the basics, so I've printed the manual and I'm trying to go through the Tutroial. A bit frustrating, first, the manual doesn't have th beginnning of the tutorial, after I finally figured that out, I cut and pasted from the in-game briefing and printed out the first few sections.

 

But that was just the strat of the frustration. I've ran through the tutorial maybe half -doze times. starting with the submarine group vectoring NorthEast of Iceland.

 

I enver get ANY contacts that aren't SOSUS. So I never get to launch missiles. I usually easily get to the first destination, so after the 2nd time I played, I would plot to the point the tutorail says to, and after getting there I''d just plot movenet in increaasing squares - still no contacts.

 

Oh, my question - is there somthing that the Tutorial left out that I need to be doing?

 

I haven't gotten much farther than this, have to admit its a bit frustrating.

 

I should add I played this long long time ago, when it was put out by company named 360. I've dug up an old Battlebook I had back then, maybe i'll try reading though it.

 

Thanks

Rick

Hi Rick, sorry to hear you're getting frustrated, I'm sure you'll get heaps of good advise from the various guys (some might be girls too I guess) who lurk in the shadows.

If you really get stuck there is a "cheat" key shortcut - 'Ctrl Alt s'. That will let you see the enemy. It's very handy for testing but might be good for you while you get the hang of things?

I guess you're using the 'walk thru' scenario in GIUK battleset, the first battleset in the start up window. There is also a good 'walk thru' in the westpac battleset (though if you have an early version of the game westpac won't be there).

Are you using the time compression? Things can happen very slowly in real time, especially in the walk thru'. Using the '-' and '+' keys are good for controlling time compression, and if you '-' from the 1:1 compression you come down to '0' time compression which is a real cool pause that stops the game but lets you select groups and units and issue commands, the action starts again when you hit the '+', great for tight spots.

If you follow the instructinos in the 'show orders' (under the drop down for 'reports') you should get contacts. I'd suggest getting a couple of the planes up and searching with radar on if your not finding targets, use the Ctrl Alt s switch just for a peek to get a better idea where to head, then go.

It is a bit hard to get started so don't give up, but beware, it's very addictive.

Don Thomas

HCE - 2010.003 - 2010/03/29

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

...........

- Chg:0000 GE Message Log window will show when standard gunnery engagements are

abandoned due to: target submerging, target going out of range,

and target going out of valid arc.

- Chg:0000 GE Player ships may now fire SSMs and Guns at surfaced submarines.

Added UI elements and logic.

 

Have at it

Attached is game save where your blue ship guns can not fire at surfaced submarine. (Bad)

Guns can fire at red surface ship and if blue ship is turned then out of arc notice appears and can't fire on it (Good)

Use ctrl alt s (see all) mode and note that sub has fired torpedo in illegal arc (I guess not even Tony thinks of everything).

Also if turn your blue ship so sub is right astern you can still fire Ikara and torpedoes (out of legal arc)

data base HCDB 100206, GE 2010.03, game save from scenario SE 2009.42

Don Thomas

shoot_sub.zip

A theory of an old mine drifting and impacting this vessel is possible, but is it probable? This theory looks to have a two-fold purpose. First, from the public perception it deescalates tensions with the North and secondly, again from the public perception, it eliminates a crew mishap with the DC, which would cause embarrassment to the crew and to the Navy. My guess is either it was an onboard error or a North Korean SS has one less torpedo in its inventory.

 

An old mine certainly is the most politically convenient cause if you want to avoid escalating tensions with the DPRK. They could conduct tests to confirm the type and age of the mine, presumably (assuming it was a mine), but the question remains: would they want to? or if they did, would they want to disclose the true results?

Old land mines take out individuals (nearly always civilians) all the time, I'd guess the probability is low but a low probability doesn't mean it can't happen.

On board accidents happen too, here in Australia we lost some people in an onboard fire a few years ago and (I guess 35 years ago) we lost a destroyer cut in half by our own 'carrier (during night operations). Things can go wrong.

The cause needs to be found, in the case of our lost destroyer (HMAS Voyage for those interested) an enquiry led to a change in stnading orders for operation with the Melbourne (the 'carrier in question). I think maintenance protocols may have been changed after the Westralia (I think that was the ship) fire as well.

Don Thomas

Not of serious historical or military interest, but I think the series and film Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea is worth of mention (when it was running on TV I was some 7 years old, and my parents have not TV, I'm downloading it now), at least for fans of Science Fiction as we are great part of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_to_the...Sea_(TV_series)

 

And I forgetted a very curious 1959 film in the first list, The Atomic Submarine, because I've recorded it from other source, more SF than military theme, and relationated someways with Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atomic_Submarine

Guess I'm a pacifist, I liked the Jules Verne "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea". Maybe not really a submarine film as the Naulilus was quite hypothetical at the time of Vernes writing, or so I believe, but interesting to see how he thought it might work. (Lucky he wasn't as accurate with "Time Machine" I think).

There was also a Sci Fi movie (It might already be listed) about a sub and a kind of bionic flying saucer - can anyone remember it - about 35 years ago I guess. I seem to remember they rammed the saucer then enterd it via a torpedo tube??

Don Thomas

ASW Planes need some kind of search mission....

 

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...&hl=pattern

Wow, I didn't know so much thought had already gone into this. It would be a great addition, IMHO one of the best I've seen in wish lists etc.

Don

Heh, I can only wonder where you folks have been.

 

The 'adding land based air to ship formation' option has always been useful for providing direct ASW cover to a ship formation in transit, especially where that formation doesn't have any organic airborne ASW of its own.

 

But what we really want to do is to find a way to permit land based air to perform its own "automatic" ASW search patterns.

I think it could be done by cheating (eg a fast non detectable ship) but that detracts from the 'close to real' kind of doctrine that seems to make harpoon so kool.

If planes had formations like everything else? or if we had 'dummy' units that could be picked up and plonked down?

It all sounds a bit hard when what we have is still good even if not perfect.

Don

Long range fixed wings would be good to get to patrol on their own but you can put them in formation patrol about a surface group (and use F10 to remind you to send them home for fuel because they won't go automatically unless they can land on a unit of the surface group).

Don thomas

For years playing computer Harpoon, and I had never think about that simple solution, it can reproduce also the present situation, CV or CVH Battle Groups without organic ASW planes, teorically protected by land based ASW planes, as P-3, Nimrod or Atlantic.

Thanks Don.

 

What an excellent solution! Clicking the aircraft in the Unit window will give you the Bingo fuel %age, so I guess if you F10 every 4 hours or so and leave with 5%, you won't get caught crashing OOF on the way home.

I normally look at the cruise speed and fuel distance remaining to calculate (what I hope is on the safe side) endurance in time, allow time to cruise back home and have a time on station figure. For P3s etc its pretty long but for some planes or helos (might borrow a helo from another group) it can be short.

Don

OK, I've think I've got this figured out. When you have a helo or fixed wing aircraft with an ASW loadout, set a course, set the speed to cruise then set the speed again to loiter. Set another course, set speed to cruise then set speed to loiter again. When the helo/aircraft stops to loiter the sonobuoy will automatically drop. If the aircraft doesn't start moving then set the speed to cruise to get it moving then every time it reaches the end of each leg to loiter, a sonobuoy will drop as indicated by the small box in the unit screen. This sounds complicated but if anyone wants me to explain it in more detail, I will.

Thank you

 

Steve

I used to do something a bit like what you've explained but used F10 at each 'stop' so that I'd get a reminder to kick the helo/AC into cruise again.

If you have anything with MAD its easier (and I don't know but seems to work) just cruise them around with no need to hover/ loiter.

I seem to remember a few items on the wish lists to get proper ASW patrols which would be real nice (don't you think!!) but as it stands I find the easiest (where possible) available strategy is to use a formation patrol around what ever it is you're protecting.

Long range fixed wings would be good to get to patrol on their own but you can put them in formation patrol about a surface group (and use F10 to remind you to send them home for fuel because they won't go automatically unless they can land on a unit of the surface group).

Don thomas

Trying to run these new scenarios and I cannot. Seems my install of HCE, when I select the Middle East battle set, wants a scenario file that ends in .scz. I notice there are 2 Middle East battle sets available and I have tried to use either one, including hand delete of the files from one when I install the other, yet stil no go. What the heck am I missing?

 

Thanx

 

RAS

So far as I know .scz scenarios are 'user' scenarios (installed by using hdsu.res and hdsu.rsr files into the main HCE directory)

The middle east scenarios using .scv scenarios is a built in battleset although not in older versions of the game. My guess is that you have installed a 'user' middle east battleset. I'd move your hdsu.res and hdsu.rsr files into a 'holding' folder and try again. You should have (depending upon game version) "The Middle East IOPG" as the last (or second last if a user battleset is present) in the initial battleset selection window. If you get into the correct battleset then the .scv scenario should be selectable.

If you have a quite old game version (which version do you have?) you might not have the correct built in battleset and need to get the latest update from the Matrix games web site.

Hope this helps but undoubtedly some better information will come if you haven't solved the issue by later today.

Don Thomas

File Name: "A nice little shootout"

File Submitter: PAK

File Submitted: 28 Feb 2010

File Category: GIUK

DB Used: HCDB-100206

Authors: PAK

Battleset-GIUK: .scm - EC2003 - EC2003

 

Hello, I present my first scenario "A nice little shootout". It presents a situation, when NATO exercises on Baltic turns hot.

It's small and quick, maybe with a little twist. Have a fun!

 

 

Click here to download this file

Wow, plenty of action in the air, hold your breath and take a ride, woopeeee.

(Hint: look after your standoff strike aircraft, especially those with anti radar capability or you'll be like me "armless")

Don Thomas

Hello!

 

Just like Anthony and Brad hinted, any assistance would be most appreciated. It's simply a matter of devoting some spare time to play those scenarios. Outside evaluation will be a great help before I will start working on EC2003 NACV, MEDC and IOPG battlesets. I'm currently playing revised version of 11th scenario "Hot Rocks"

As Anthony informed all revised EC2003 GIUK scenarios are availabe in Issue Tracker.

Well I can certainly say the games still play well, I don't know if I'll be testing many victory conditions though!!! (unless it's for the oponent) I did find, I think game 10 or 11 (I know I should of written it down) when opening the game instead of reading the orders I got a meesage about illegal characters. I'll double check which it is ,.... and try to get more useful feedback.

Don Thomas

Thinking about some of the comments here I'd guess it depends on the type of SSM and how many SAMs are estimated by AI to be needed and if the sea sparrows aren't required in any salvo to make up those numbers then they aren't fired.

I've attached my last version of the scenario and an early saved game (in which I think the sea sparrows ae fired) if any one interested.

Don

 

This is a true and important part. At some number of SAMs the game considers the SSMs well enough covered and no more SAMs will fire for the next while. It is a big reason you'll see the LR SAM shooters go wild and then nothing from the shorter-ranged. Note I'm not trying to defend it (somewhere buried deep in HG forums is my explanation of my approach to improving the situation).

It is a fascinating question, how is it decided how many SAMs to fire, at which targets and when???

I fiddled my scenario to go down to one defending ship and three attackers (to get enough SSMs to be a challenge).

A number of SAM salvos were fired but I couldn't make any sense out of what was targeted and how many SAMs per target are allocated as it didn't seem consistant. Some times there is a 30 second delay between firing, sometimes 10 sec. The initial SSM firing consists of 6 pairs of missiles but only three pairs are initially targeted (with either 6 or 12 SAMs depending on whether 'light' or 'heavy' setting made) while the ships info box indicates (if I read it correctly) that 15 SAMs can be fired per salvo.

Any way it is a very interesting query, thanks Koevoet for highlighting it>

PS I tried doing a logging of a short game but couldn't find a logging catagory that told me much about SAM firings and I dread the 'log all' setting - any hints?

Don Thomas

(second swing)

I can't leave this alone. The more I play with it the more I think Koevoet has highlighted a valid problem.

The way I see it only point defences are considered on a unit basis. SAMs (even relatively short range ones) are considered on a group basis and if the ship with good SAM capability is a long way on the wrong side of a fairly incapable unit the incapable unit has to rely on its guns without touching its missiles (assuming the SAMs don't get there in time).

In one case the Karel Doorman emptied every point defence gun but fired no SAMs (because the AAW frigate had fired of 20 SAMs that were never going to get to the SSMs before they hit the Doorman)

Perhaps it is also to do with calculations based on the group centre, not individual units?? The AAW frigate thinks the SSMs are headed for the group centre (I'm guessing) and that therefore it has fired a worthwhile salvo of SAMs when in fact the SSMs' headings show up their target unit and the fact that the SAMs won't get to the SSMs before they get to their unit target.

(am I raving nonesense, I hope not?!)

I suppose good placement of units in the formation according to their capability is the short term answer (is it?), but that depends on correctly guessing the threat direction. Also (I do this sometimes) taking the target unit out of the formation and letting it fend for itself seems to help sometimes (but I'm not sure).

happy sleepless nights, ..........

Good work on testing all this.

 

@Tony: How hard would it be to code in the arcs for the naval guns? And is it worth the effort?

call me a wet blanket but I wouldn't think this would sit at the top of the consolidated wish list that Tony compiled (from all our wish lists) late last year. So I'd ask "would the effort needed be better spent on some of the wish list items?"

Perhaps an ability to place 'markers' on the screen, highlight selected groups or units, fix some of the drop down lists that go to the list start after each selection etc?

Certainly the current situation as uncovered here isn't perfect but in the heat of battle I think the job is done acceptably well, clearly others might disagree with me.

Don Thomas

oke now with JoeK aside we can continue with this topic

 

let me see .......

 

now game balance or not,this doesnt feel right and i hope that someone will agree with me.

Hey Joe, WHAT kind of SSM is fired, and what altitude do they fly at?

I wrote ...

e needed and if the sea sparrows aren't required in any salvo to make up those numbers then they aren't fired.

I've attached my last version of the scenario and an early saved game (in which I think the sea sparrows ae fired) if any one interested.

Don

wich battleset did u use with the .sce?

Sorry, I should have specified:

test.scn (scenario) and tst.hpn (saved game) are in 'EC2003 battle for atlantic ocean' battleset.

(the "n" tells you the battleset, I forget where you can look it up in harpgamer but you can use the game start boxes to work it out - I have my common ones written down next to the computer because my memory is a sieve)

Don

oke now with JoeK aside we can continue with this topic

 

let me see if i can explain the following..

 

i have a scenario where i have tree ships in this setting(all radars on):

 

- a mechant ship

 

-a karel doorman frigate (The Karel Doorman is carrying VLS RIM-7M)

 

and a zeven provincien frigate (LCF).(the LCF carries a Smart-L radar and SM2 blockIIIA missiles)

 

(both frigates from the Netherlands)

 

the formation of this group is:

 

mechant in the middle,the LCF 8 nm from the merchant to the west and the karel doorman 1nm east of the merchant

 

enemy surface group 50 nm to the east.

 

the scenario evolves like this:

 

the enemy surface group launches it's SSM's (targeted at the merchant) to witch the LCF answers with it's salvo SM2's,not all the SSM get shot down,the surviving missiles overfly the karel doorman and hit the merchant,sadly the merchant sinks.

 

when i checked the karel doorman's ammo and i saw that it only fired it's 76 mm gun,wich means that the karel doorman's SAM's never fired on the incomming missiles while the SSM's almost overflew my frigate.

 

 

now game balance or not,this doesnt feel right and i hope that someone will agree with me.

Hey Joe, WHAT kind of SSM is fired, and what altitude do they fly at?

I wrote up a quick scenario on what I knew about the situation in question and had a play.

Used current standard data base and 2009.42 game engine. I didn't know the enemy ships or the SSMs in question and I'd think that is where the answers lie. In my original scenario (now lost) both blue ships fired SAMs including sea sparrows at the incoming SSMs (styxs I think). In the attached sscenario (with DDGs added to the enemy) I don't think the sea sparrows get used, for what ever reason.

Thinking about some of the comments here I'd guess it depends on the type of SSM and how many SAMs are estimated by AI to be needed and if the sea sparrows aren't required in any salvo to make up those numbers then they aren't fired.

I've attached my last version of the scenario and an early saved game (in which I think the sea sparrows ae fired) if any one interested.

Don

sea_sparrow.zip

My opinion is that the AI needs to be smarter before the player is given micro-management of SAMs capabilities. Of course I question whether the player should ever have the capability to micro-manage air defenses. There is no chance surface to air engagements will be made manual in the next 3 months (and unlikely in the foreseeable future).

Tell me why should the player not have the option to micro manage the air defenses??

I think that the option is more realistic and will have more game value..

 

This time there is no code reason... It is my feeling that the player can already 'game' the system too much. Allowing the player to manually allocate SAMs and AAA would imho take that ability much farther and harm the playability and realism of the game. In the event we add multiplayer and/or a more intelligent AI I'll be much more easily convinced to allow micro-management of SAMs. You might say for me it is a matter of play balance and allowing manual allocation would tip the balance even farther in the direction of the player.

I agree completely with Tony on this. My main goal when designing scenarios is to give that poor old AI a chance against the average player.

I'd have to agree here too, as much as I WANT to manage my assets as best I think, when you see the oponent AI (artificial intelligence is being very kind I think) blundering along (well in some of the situations such as aircraft use) you kind of feel like your cheating. Sometimes you just have to let things go badly (even though you see a better way of doing it) just so as to keep it meaningful.

This is a tactis or strategy game - micro management shouldn't be the key aspect (I might cop flack here 'cause that's were the 'trill' resides). At one time in my life I thought I'd like to be an admiral of the fleet, not worried about when joe blow torches the afterburner but thinking about allocation of ships to targets and target priorities etc.

There are shoot em up games that are 100% micro management and they bore me like a soap opera.

So long as its even between me and the opponent the less micro management the better for me.

PS, I've picked up some interesting things about unit radar and SAM firing, built a scenario to see how it works and now I'm back to 'breakout' ( I love a good wolloping) to really test it out.

PSS Only harpoon generates this sort of dialogue, thanks guys.

Don Thomas

Ive had alot of trouble detecting sams, and if i cant detect them i cant use SEAD strikes on them. Also i rarely see a plane avoid a missile, is there some tactics for using some ECM equipment?

 

Or maybe the sams are inside bases or something?

Getting back to the original question, I like hunting SAMs 'cause it challenging. As CV32 said, most modern combat aircraft will detect certain SAM presence, if you know what it is (even without an exact fix, you can work out a strategy that suits your current units.

4-8 mile range precion bombs with IR detectors (maybe F/A-18s) work well against short range manpads that might not be radiating and therefore not targetable with ARM units - some sead loadouts have both precision bomvbs and ARM weapons and I guess for this reason.

Longer range SAM batteries need ARM (IMHO) and often prlenty of them, still the closer you're game to come the less missiles you need.

I sometimes find coming in very low (especially if I have IR sensors), as soon as I get a fix on one unit (note the unit in the unit window) let fly with ARM, and if in range precision bombs that can't be defended against), turn and burn out of range before coming back again, one bite at a time. Don't waste ammo unless you have an exact fix (the unit shows up red with its unit number in the unit window) If you want use the 'minus' key to bring time compression right back to '0' (effective pause) while you nut it out.

Long range SAMS amongst other enemy sensors are a real pain, I still try the stealth method (my aircraft willing) and hope to dodge around enemy sensing units before they 'see' me coming.

Perhaps try try sending in decoy payload planes (very low and stealth cruise) with sead payouts coming back behind and high with ECW 'protection' for good locating of the SAMS, or for very long range SAMS leave your good sensors at the fringe of their range up high and loitering (watch for their fighters intercepting so leave a fighter CAP too)

As for defeating a SAM, it helps to be religous 'cause then you can pray. If I know I'm still well within the range of the SAM and it's very close I'll go very low till either the SAM disappears or I get clobbered - I don't know if this is best but as CV32 says they have a high probability of hit so just running whenits right up your claker don't work.

Any way keep trying differnet stuff, and think about what results you get. Lots of fun!!!

Don Thomas

Yes you can,but i found out that the scenario editor doesn't work..

 

This is because the SE is 16 bit.

....................so...........does that mean to the computer is trying to byte off more bits than it can chew???

..........

(perhpas I'm a noob too - I can't wait to use that word in a conversation!!)

Don Thomas

File Name: transit2

File Submitter: donaldseadog

File Submitted: 11 Feb 2010

File Category: WestPac

DB Used: HCDB-091024

Authors: Don Thomas

Battleset-WPac: .scq - WPac - WestPac

Provide cover for the transit of a small convoy from north of Australia through the restricted sea lanes to Singapore.

A 'small' scenario designed to be played at a fast time compression. Aircraft recon and suppression is key operation (or loss of ships). Well planned use of aero-tankers a must. Watch the mines and the long range land based anti shipping missiles.

Don Thomas

Click here to download this file

They don't actually do anything though? Unless I've missed a patch which added replenishment? The Antonio is basically a large slow target, transfer it's helos to the CV or something. If the Supply class would actually replenish the SAM's on the CV group, then I'd keep it, but they don't do anything afaik.

 

No, they don't actually perform replenishment, but I try to play as realistically as I can, often imposing artificial limitations on my game play.

I'm with Brad on this. I think I screwed you guys, so sorry. I'll add 2 days to this soon, or you can too.

A couple of extra days would be nice.

I've had a few goes at each of the "breakouts" and its always a matter of racing to try and make the deadline but delaying detection and then having enough time to knock out the various (and numerous) land based anti shipping units.

One suggestion (because this is one hell of an addictive scenario) is to have more alternative start positions for the anti shipping and long range SAMs, maybe the mine fields too. Not that I want it any harder mind you

Don Thomas

PS, I've lost boats to that slippery sub too, its very quiet . Once I did get a detection but wasted over a dozen torps trying to get a kill. I couldn't get a reliable exact fix.

I'm liking this one thus far, looks well researched and the geography is refreshing.

Yep, not just the geography, I think quite a refreshing "feel" to the game, a lot of hide and seek and from the blue side (only side I've played yet) a need for caution as well (limited tech weapons). More thinking and less shoot from the hip I guess.

I've taken a bit of a hammering often with out an ability to do very much about it once I've gotten myself into trouble. (It's good to know you can get a second chance).

Don Thomas

HCE - 2010.001 - 2010/01/20

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

- Chg:0143 GE Early beginnings... Track sensor status by range ring.

No player noticeable changes yet.

- Chg:0000 GE Disable Windows\Cascade menu item.

 

Only need to test the latter. Nothing to test for the former yet.

I'm having trouble loading one particular saved game. Game and screen shot showing error message in attached zip file.

The saved game is from a custom scenario. I've not changed the data base (HCDB 91024) since saving the game.

The game was saved using GE 2009.42.

I can't start the saved game from either the initial screens or via "File" "Open".

I'm using window XP on a celeron processor laptop.

I seem to be able to open other saved games from different scenarios. I can open the scenario in 2010.1, save the game and reopen it.

Don Thomas

bad_file_open.zip

Damn. It'd be really nice if it were possible to extend the formation and ready/launch aircraft screens down so you could see say, an entire carrier groups air wing at once. I don't think it'd matter as much from the right to left stuff, but making them longer up/down would be awesome.

 

The formation window annoys me especially because it seems to "snap" back up to the top of the list sometimes and I have to scroll all the way back down.

I'd think that the size isn't so important, afterall if you have a really big list it still won't fit. What would be good is that in all of these sort of lists that the highlighted/ cursor position stay put in the window after a selection command is made until the OK or what ever is pushed. I seem to recall something like this coming up in the windows for selecting units for groups in the scenario editor (or was it somewhere else?).

It's the 'snap' we need to get rid of I think?

Don.