donaldseadog

Enrique, I'll have a look at your tests on my game for cross check tonight, if no one beats me to it. (9am here at the moment) I see it looks like you use a modified HCDB2-170909 MOD database, is that right? it might effect the outcome. I'm doing a quick run with std HCDB2-170909 and see what I get.

I don't know if this helps. I have two edtided versions of hcdb2, one form sept 22, one from recently. when used in a test scenario the 2022 comondb is good, the 2023 shows errors in the mag. I have a couple of screen shots here and attach a zip with the two commondb files and the pair of pf files. in the PE the mag looks good. PEMagProb.zip

(I'd be also wondering about the windows OS version, I have an update ready to install and I'm not having problems so far. I've imported into PE DB, amended them, looked at them and ships have magazines correct, exported and loaded into a game and toolbox is picking up magazines. I think its a toolbox error but I am seeing incorrect magazine info for some platform ? I'll check that out.) ed I've looked again and I think toolbox is good (yeh) but that exports from PE are getting the magazines wrong, tying in with Enrique's comment about some magazines in the wrong platform, I think I'm seeing this too.

If I remember PE is running in a band aid state because of a change a while ago to ms access or some such and TonyE had to write a work around. Maybe there is some connection, but probably no 😳

New wish regarding what is selected from advice window when intercepting a new content.

removed AIChance setting wish as testing doesn't seem to make much difference, if any, to game play. also added a IFR related wish regarding aircraft that have expended their loadout. also expanded my wish regarding PE import and export

View File SouthPacIslands-NamedSeaTest This Battleset is to test the idea of text in the texture file naming geographical features, in this case some of the seas and oceans. The text is rather grainy and is not well aligned but is something that perhaps can be improved and show an idea for future more sophisticated work. The included scenarios are to be played using Database HCDB2-170909 and toy with an upgraded australian defense capability in line with various announcements of the early 2020s. Note for scenario 3, in order to obtain maximum surprises ensure you you have not disabled nuclear weapons. Submitter donaldseadog Submitted 09/27/2023 Category BattleSets  

Some good points. In hc the main restriction is that when looking generically at asw you need to be able to loiter\hover at low alt at periodic places in order to drop bouys, lower sonar etc. I haven't tested mad but i seem to think mad will work (when fitted) at medium alt, but this could easy be wrong (and perhaps should be?) My asw patrols are based on a two ring octogon (or maybe hexagon, i forget) and at each node the unit loiters\hovers for 30 or 60 secs {probably it should be longer) so as to drop sensors. In between these it flies at low alt but I'm thinkng of having it fly medium alt for better electonic visual surveillance

Lets take something like a P8 Poseidon, it will fly 'low' to drop sonar bouy, but in between bouy drops will it normally remain low or climb to a medium alt to gain a better theatre eyes view? Any one know what the usual practice is here? I'm thinking of altering the Toolbox ASW patrol for fixed wing ac to give better detection of surface vessel.

What sort of additional information? A means of tracking and restricting aircraft munitions would be nice.

Tindal Tallyho View File 170909 Scenario Background: In August 2023 it was announced that RAAF Tindal would be upgraded to host USAF B-52 bombers. In this scenario, which is aimed to be the first in a series, RAAF Tindal hosts not just the USAF B-52 but also thier long range IFR tankers, F/A-18 tankers, F22 fighters and F15 attack aircraft supported by RAAF AEW and maritime patrol and F/A18 and F-35 attack/fighter units. A small RAN surface group is present to patrol close in waters to the north. The principal task is to provide anti shipping patrols over the numerous seas between Australia and China. Some Chinese air defense is present, but not numerous nor widespsread. Chinese submarine patrols may also be present. An intersting aspect is the management of RAAF F35 fighters as escort units, and the difficulty in giving them sufficient range (via IFR tankers) to operate away from base. Submitter donaldseadog Submitted 08/13/2023 Category WestPac  

The sizing is why I gave the idea up originally, but wondered about it again recently. If the geographical area isn't large I guess it would be OK, I'll do a version of my Pacific Islands and see how it goes, if useable I'll put it up here

This is sort of scenario design question, sort of Battleset design question, but as there is no Battleset sub forum I'll bung it here. What do people think of the concept of having the names of major islands, island groups and seas included on HC texture map for a battleset . Here is a sample of the sort of thing I'm thinking of: This is something I did while playing with the HC map to include more of the islands of the south west pacific for my pacific islands battleset. My thought with the name text is to allow reference in orders to seas, oceans and islands, eg patrol the Banda Sea

Many night's worth of good reading there. 🥰

the Toolbox version incorporating this feature is now up loaded to the downloads section.

New version which includes a modest punishment for players attacking neutral assets and removes a bug in the attacking window with respect to selecting player torpedo groups (and now correctly shows torpedo units' targets. See above for link. PS "modest punishment" did lead to me losing 2/3 of my surface combatants in one test run basically it makes it risky to blast away at detected units if you don't have a positive ID that the unit is an enemy.

A neat little scenario with interesting use of the suicide boats, nice idea, thanks for your continued contributions for us to enjoy.

confirm fixed 2023.010

Thanks for your input Enrique. Yes to me this is important. The 'test' version I have operating does this. I think it gives a lot more purpose to having neutral platforms in a scenario. This test version does also include a temporary removal from player control any aircraft that conduct the attack by turning them to neutral until they RTB (generally when they go bingo, but I've not fully tested this), the purpose here is mostly to inconvenience the player in the case they fire upon a non combatant, eg an organic - probably we have all blown up innocent whales. One limitation, at the moment, is that I am 'triggering' from an intentional attack on a neutral platform (this is usually before identifying it's side, so it is yellow on the screen) but perhaps in the future I can extend this to 'accidental' hits where for example a missiles hits a neutral without being aimed at it. If you'd like a 'pre release version' to play with and provide more comment let me know. Don

Some of us have probably done it, you get a close contact, you know the platform type, maybe even its class, but you don't know its side, is it an enemy or a neutral? It might in fact be a neutral but due to it's close proximity you blast it! You then find out your mistake but there are no consequences. If you use my Toolbox, this is about to change, but I have two consequences available: 1/ The attacking group is stood down (in game it is turned into a neutral) and the commander sent off to war crimes trial. (or in the case of attacking a whale something else?) 2/ The attacked group turns against you and becomes an enemy. OR both? If the neutral group is destroyed in the attack (or is an organic) then 2/ is mute. If the attacking group is an airgroup then it returns (as a neutral) to it's home base and goes thru the normal ready time to become available again (so no great inconvenience) but if a ship or sub etc it will remain a neutral for the rest of the game. If a scenario is written with this in mind then I think some rather cleaver neutral groups could be included. Does anyone have any ideas on the best of these consequences to use?

I've pondered putting this one into 'toolbox', if the player destroys a neutral then all remaining neutral turn to enemy. pretty much ready to go

Nice, that be, if did

I like this (and the whole discusion)