donaldseadog

(hoping not to appear to be conflicting with Tony E's answer)... here is my thoughts re each of your numbered questions: 1. yes 2. I think of three key elements: scenario battleset data base the scenario is kind of 'the game', the battleset is kind of the geographical area and the data base is the available elements such as bases, ships, planes etc. early battlesets have the database built in, battlesets such as the EC2003 series and Westpac and later have the database 'attached' or external. So for the desired scenario look for its battleset (in the download section of harpgamer this is easy as the scenarios are arranged by battleset) and look for its database (if it is a "new" battleset, eg EC2003, westpac etc). If the battleset is a 'custom' battleset then you have to download the battleset, these aren't very common. If the database is other than the default then download the database, eg HC-50to65-DB_100426 database is needed for scenario "korea-51". There are two ways of getting it all together in playing the game. The easy way is to download Tony E's "HC launcher" from the "tools/ mods/ docs" section of the downloads, it is easy to use and lets you arrange your custom files in their own dirrectories or to give them descriptive names. The second way is to keep copies of the commondb. rsr and commondb.res files that you will get with downloaded databases in respective folders and manually swap them into the main HCE folder to use that database. All the download stuff is under the download sections (upper menu line on web page) and clearly arranged. (A little practice and what appears muddy will become clear) My best hint is to keep asking for help until you have it all worked out. Don

I must say I've never found anything wrong with playing with myself, so to speak. Harpoon has a very large number of scenarios and they're always increasing. It would take a very long time to play every one twice, and then you can get your favourites and redo them for added difficulty (though I wouldn't try redoing any of the 'breakouts' for added difficulty ) Personally I wouldn't bother with online gaming, you never know the opposition might be less challenge than the AI and you have to organise yourself to fit in with the other player (I assume). It seems to me there are lots of on line games, it's only reasonable that some games don't go down that road but concentrate on other aspects. As has been said, if some one wanted to through in the necessary money/ time to make it happen (without degrading other aspects of the game) great! Don, a contented harpoon player.

Maybe in complex scenarios the victory conditions need an "OR" condition for each possible approach while in the simpler ones there can be multiple "AND" conditions to get a very tight victory requirement. Generally I've found every ones comments very instructive, now I think I need to go over all scenarios I've uploaded and check my Vic Cond's and orders....

File Name: korea_51 (HC_50to65 BS) File Submitter: donaldseadog File Submitted: 9 May 2010 File Updated: 5 Feb 2011 File Category: WestPac DB Used: HC-50to65-DB_100426 Authors: don thomas Battleset-WPac: .scq - WPac - WestPac A new scenario for new database HC-50to65-DB_100426 Placed (geographically and in time) about the Korean war but based on very loosely on the actual situation. Limited naval action, primarily air strikes against ground forces and bases. "Take this new data base for a spin" Click here to download this file

Thanks for that confirmation Tony. The way I look at it the only thing that needs to be done is to ensure that following the given orders successfully is guaranteed to give minimum victory. some times orders are pretty 'tight' so no problems but other times problems can occur (it is up to scenario designers I guess, but they need to know the situation).. EG in a scenario I looked at last night (EC2003 scneario 12) a necessary minimum victory achievement is to have bombers on station for a given time, in the orders the only requirement that seems to relate to this is having bombers proceed to a failsafe (I think that is the term) position. The actual 'on station' rectangle is quite small on a regional basis so even if you understand the failsafe terminology (I'm not sure I do!) it is still a bit of luck that you choose the right spot. Now I refer to this as an example only, often I read a post where people have had problems getting any victory even though they have destroyed the whole opponent's forces. People with more experience than me comment please.

I like your solution, on looking in more detail at the scenario in question, the other of the two total victory conditions (Kill four bases) has one of the minimum victory conditions damage four bases - so that's why it always works. I kind of wonder maybe it is correct to 'insist' on meeting the minimum before being awarded the total, I think you, Akula, pointed out your terminology 'tactical' and strategic' victories and we should always I think be going for the tactical as a minimum result, so to speak.?? Don

(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 cert.......................y 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. 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

(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.

I'm testing some of the PAK's new EC2003 scenarios and am stuck with a total victory condition (scenario 5, sink three amphibious ships). I can only get this complete vic condition if I've scored a minimum victory. Is this normal? D

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?

I assume that includes custom scenarios that I (or anyone) write at home with the Scenario Editor? Pretty cool Thanks.

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? 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? 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.

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

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.

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.

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)!

HUmmmmmmm, I think I've been a bit conservative with my plane allocations.

With harpoon getting quite good for WW2 type actions (and a few good databases available for download) I often play in this era but wonder what were typical compositions of air groups attacking surface targets, shipping and land based Any one got info handy?

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 )

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. getanexcrash.zip

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