donaldseadog

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, ..........

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

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

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

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

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

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