Joe K

Being new to Harpoon using armor as anything other than air targets, I promptly ran into trouble while trying to direct them to attack other ground targets... so, I'm wondering where I went wrong. Specifically what happened was that I had some groups consisting mainly of M1 tanks, and I was trying to attack an AI group of T-72 tanks. Each time I tried to order them to attack the T-72s, it would simply inform me that my range was 2nm, and the target group was, say, 9nm away. (There was no typical dialog asking whether I wanted them to close and attack). Meanwhile, they continued trundling on towards the enemy tanks, and pretty soon the T-72s started "plinking" my M1s. I tried to return the favor, but still got the out-of-range message! Thinking that maybe the T-72s had a longer range than the M1s, I checked the unit displays and found that both types of tanks have the same range (2nm) for thier main guns (as I would've expected, intuitively). So, the question remains: How to I get my armor to attack the AI armor? And howcum they can shoot my tanks while I'm still out of range of their tanks?? Note: The T-72s in question were "attached" to an airfield, which was the only relevent target that was offered in the attack dialog; Is this why it thinks that my tanks are out of range (since the airfield is further away than the attached tanks)? I always thought that it went by the closest element of a formation, but...? If this is the case, how should I manage the attack?

Understood... My only point was about the fact that one of the P-3s was initially set up as ASuW (while the others were set up as ASW) which led me to think there was some scenario-related reason where the ASuW would be needed; I was just curious whether that was the case, since there wasn't any "obvious" use for the ASuW loadout.

Understood... but what about when you're laying down a course? I didn't see any way of determining elevation while in that mode - which is where I really need the info (considering how many of my ships and subs seem to run into stuff after the fact).

The victory conditions in Oubliette are nowhere near as onerous as requiring you to be at a specific set of coordinates. The general area is quite sufficient. The first time that I played that scenario, I managed to get all three subs into the "general area", but then all heck broke loose, and it wasn't long before the AI had knocked off both the Tubillee (sp?) and the Providence... at which point the game announced that the Reds had achieved total victory - even though the Ohio was undamaged (and undetected, AFAIK), and there was still time remaining. Is this correct? (I thought that all platforms were "expendable" - except for the Ohio?)

Thanks for the clarifications, guys! Pretty sure that's what Tony was intimating above. I still can't quite figure whether the KC-135s are giving themselves any fuel in these cases. (Are real KC-135's capable of tapping their own refuel stores?) I can only speak for Oubliette, since I wrote it. I can see why the presence of the KC-135 would perhaps confuse you. I included them when I had some other aircraft (other than P-3s) in the scenario. I removed them but not the tankers. The P-3s are capable of reaching the Kuriles, but only when operating out of Naha, and even then they are near the limit of their endurance. This is intentional. They do have a very good radar and also ESM capability, so they are useful even if they cannot stay on station long. To offer more than that would be to compromise the scenario. It is, after all, about submarines. Well, it's probably obvious that I'm easily confused... Yeah, the reason for the presence of the tankers in that scenario, coupled with the P-3s essentially being out-of-range, left me scratching my head - thinking that I was missing something. Thanks for clearing that up! Now then, the P-3s with ASW loadout are marginally capable of engaging in some parts of the battle zone... I was in fact able to use one against a sub... albeit, by pushing it beyond BINGO (but was still able to save it by using one of the "tricks" in the game). On the other hand I'm still puzzled whether there was any use for the P-3 in ASuW loadout, as that definitely cannot reach the battle area without going well beyond its range. Granted, a P-3 could go on an ASuW suicide mission, which could be of some use in certain situations - but only if the player has extraordinary powers of anticipation, because the extensive travel distance really wouldn't give adequate reaction time to counter a known surface threat, and the distance wouldn't allow it to stand-by on-station while awaiting potential threats. I ended up just switching that one to ASW, in order to give it adequate range for recon.

Can't say that I ever used the Grid Lines for actual game play in all these years, and in this case the only reason I wanted them was to determine where the specified target position actually was - because I figured that probably was important for victory conditions. Yeah, I had tried that; It's no doubt fine for finding out what the lat/lon is for a given point on the map... but it was really difficult trying to use that "in reverse" to figure out where a specified exact lat/lon position falls on the map (in order to lay a course terminus there). By "pecking around", I was able to get within a few minutes of the specified point... but then it became almost impossible to place a course terminus point on the proper spot - mainly because I found no report of lat/lon during course placement, and also found no way of pre-marking the approximate point that I had determined by the "hunt-and-peck" method, to use as reference when subsequently placing the course points. That's why I was asking whether there was some better way of getting course points placed on specific lat/lon points.

When attempting to lay out courses for my surface or sub groups using the "visual aids" of the map, I often find later that I have inadvertenly laid the course over a shallow or even a small land mass - which was unseen when laying out the course, even if I used rather extreme magnification. I've also noticed that the visual indications of water depth often do not seem to be consistent with the depth reports at specific groups, that is for example, two groups may be near each other over a large area on the map where the water color is a consistent light blue, yet one group reports water depth as intermediate, while the other's report says VDeep. So, my question is, how are the water depths and land locations actually determined in the GE... and do they have any correlation to the visual indications of water depth and land masses that appear on the Group Map? If the visuals are unreliable for guaging water depth, is there any other good way of finding out the water depths at points along group courses as they are being laid out - so as to avoid shallows or land masses? This isn't a big issue in "blue water" (usually), but it tends to be a frequent problem when laying courses around islands or in coastal areas, or when approaching land (like at a beachhead or harbor). Is there a good way to determine depth for courses in such areas?

When attempting to play the OUBLIETTE scenario in the WestPac Battleset under the HCE Demo (2009.042), I wanted to turn on the Grid Lines in order to find out where the Tennessee's final destination should be, but when I invoked that menu item, I found all settings for Grid Lines were grayed-out (disabled), regardless of the water "color" that was selected. When checking the game configuration settings, I didn't see anything else that seemed like it would affect the Grid Lines, so I'm curious why they are disabled. Also, if Grid Lines are no longer available, what are the (practical) alternative methods of locating specific navigational coordinates on the map?

Hmmm... That raises a few more questions and comments: 1. Is there any way of pre-determining whether a type is refuelable (from within the game play), so as to avoid these mistakes? 2. In the cases that I ran into when playing the HCE demo scenarios, all situations involved one KC-135 and one or more P-3s or EP-3; so does the tanker think that it's refuelling itself? And if so, would the tanker's own range be extended by doing this? 3. If the P-3s are indeed incapable of refueling, I'm a bit puzzled why they are even included in the BACKYARD/II and OUBLIETTE scenarios in the WestPac demo set, because their eligible bases are pretty much out of range of the action. In particular, the OUBLIETTE scenario includes several P-3s, EP-3 and several KC-135s at bases where they are well out of un-refueled range of the action area - yet that fact, plus the fact that these are the only Blue a/c types included in the scenario, sort of implies that the P-3s were intended to be refueled in this scenario. (The only altenative use of the P-3s would be on single suicide missions, and the tankers would be moot). So, particularly in this scenario, it's very puzzling why the P-3s and tankers were even provided. Although I can't easily go back and check, IIRC, P-3s were refuelable in HCG... so perhaps the scenario was built under that presumption, thus explaining the situation above? 4. Would it be practical to put in a check that would prevent the refueling operation when it's bogus like this - so as to avoid dumping the tanker's refuel load in such cases of "mistaken capability"?

First, the big question: Are P-3 Update II Orions used in the WestPac demo scenarios supposed to be refuelable? Either way, I've been seeing some puzzling behavior, and am curious why: When attempting to launch the P-3s, it generally seems to indicate that they are not refuelable (i.e. - If I attempt to send them beyond their own (unrefueled) range it will just give an error beep and do nothing, or else it will allow the destination, but then a popup will report that they are not capable of refueling. I'm unsure what causes the two different behaviors here, though). In any case, if a tanker is joined to the P-3 group (either a single or multiple P-3s), and manually ordered to start refueling (Alt-R), it reports that refueling has begun, but almost immediately reports that refueling is complete and asks about separating the tanker. After separation, the P-3's fuel is unchanged from what it was before the "refueling", but the tanker now shows NO REFUEL. Similarly, if a tanker is accompanying a P-3 group, the P-3s will go well beyond BINGO (as indicated by the range circles) without ever reporting BINGO fuel state, and eventually the refueling will start of its own accord (i.e. - no manual refueling command issued), at which point, the behavior will be as described in the paragraph above. So, all this leads to two secondary questions: 1. If the P-3s are supposed to be refuelable, howcum they aren't taking fuel? 2. If the P-3's are not supposed to be refuelable, why are they involved in bogus refueling operations that only drain the tankers, but give no fuel to the P-3s... and why does the presence of a tanker suppress the normal BINGO fuel actions and cause the other weirdness? Thanks.

I don't know how to create a saved game for this, but I'll report the observation, FWIW: It appears that some of the totals reported in the Status Report do not register correctly - or something. I've seen numbers that didn't "look right" in the past, but wasn't able to tell for sure because I typically don't keep my own tally of platforms damaged or destroyed. However, in a recent play of the BACKYARD II scenario from WestPac Battleset under 2009.042, I saw some stuff that definitely was not correct: At the end of the game, it reported 20 Red subs destroyed plus 4 Red subs damaged. In reality, at least 16 Red subs were in fact destroyed in the action, but there were no additional subs damaged (unless such damage was not reported for some reason). A clue here may be that there were four cases where large subs were not destroyed immediately (and therefore would have been recorded only as damaged for awhile) but were subsequently sunk. It appears that when these damaged subs were ultimately destroyed, they must have been added to the destroyed tally, but were not removed from the damaged tally. A similar situation occured for the Red ships tally, where at game end there were 42 Red ships listed as destroyed, and 6 listed as damaged, yet there were no Red surface vessels remaining anywhere at the end of the game. (i.e. - all detected RED surface vessels had been destroyed, and no damaged ones remained - although I do not know whether the total of 42 was actually correct for the number sunk as it looks like some of the land targets get reported as "surface contacts" and may also get tallied as such). In addition, there were four Green ships listed as sunk and two damaged, although during play, no green units were involved in any reported action, so unless they were damaged or destroyed by AI activity (and not reported in any way), it appears that the Green losses were totally bogus. (Note: Only three Green units were detected during game play). So, it appears that either I am totally misunderstanding the Status report, or else something is getting the tallys goofed up... but since it apparently happens "after the fact", and may require replay of an entire scenario, I'm not sure how practically to capture any relevent game save. (Any suggestions?)

40. Change the logic of the Weapons Allocation Popup so that the shortest-ranged missiles (that are in range) will be allocated first Currently, the logic of the Weapons Allocation Dialog appears to always start with the longest-ranged weapons in the loadout, even when shorter-ranged weapons are in range, and it will proceed to add the shorter-ranged weapons only as needed to fill the computed number of weapons to fire. In most cases, it seems that it would be preferrable to use the shortest-ranged (or the fastest) missiles first, when more than one type is in range. For example, say a pair of MiG-21's has "snuck up on" a pair of F-14s. By the time the MiGs are detected, they are within range of all three types of missiles carried by the F-14s (but not inside the minimum range of the Phoenixes), so, under the current logic, the Weapons Allocation Popup offers three or four Phoenixes to shoot. However, the F-14s are trying to intercept a group of four Flanker Es, so it's not really best to waste their Phoenixes on the MiGs. In such a scenario, it would seem best to "dump" Sidewinders and/or Sparrows on the MiGs, so the Phoenixes will still be available to deal with the Flankers! So, my wish would be for the Weapons Allocation Dialog to select the optimum weapons to fire first at the target, rather than just starting with the longest-ranged missiles, and working down through the loadout. (The "optimum" might vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the type of weapons and the target involved, but generally speaking, it seems like it would be best to start with the shortest-ranged weapons that are capable, or perhaps with the fastest missiles, if it's a real "knife fight"). Obviously, whatever default is offered, the player can re-allocate as needed, but it makes sense to have the most likely choices offered as the default, so as to minimize the horsing around.

39. When the popup for automatic attack on missile groups appears, allow new options for manual allocation of weapons and suppression of further messages for that particular attacker/target combination When an "attackable" enemy missile group is in range of a friendly (air?) group, a popup appears occasionally asking whether the missile group should be attacked by the friendly group; if this popup is acknowledged, then the missile attack is conducted automatically, which whatever weapons the system decides to use, usually starting with the longest-ranged AAMs that the group has available. In some cases, it is more advantageous to use the shorter-ranged missiles (so as to save the longer-ranged missiles for the primary intercept mission). For example, say an AI missile group comes within close range of an F-14 group having a full intercept weapons load; if the resulting popup is answered affirmatively, the system will likely attack the missile group with the Phoenix missiles first - even if the Sparrow and Sidewinders are also in range. Conversely, if the player was to initiate an attack on the missile group via the Attack menu, the weapons allocation box would pop up, allowing the player to select Sparrows or Sidewinders, as might be desirable in this example because the short-ranged weapons could be expended on the missile group, while the Phoenixes coud be saved for that Foxhound group that is heading this way!. So, the wish is for the automatic popup to have its affirmative button changed to something like "automatic", and a third button would be added to permit the attack, but allow "manual" allocation of the weapons to be used - by invoking the usual weapons allocation popup. That way, it would be possible to use either automatic or manual weapons allocation as may be desirable. Another wish relating to the automatic missile attack popup is to offer the ability to suppress the attack on the given missile group by the given friendly group. Sometimes when there are multiple friendly groups around the missile group's path, it is desirable to have only some of those groups attack the missiles - rather than having everyone shoot at them. Unfortunately, the current scheme will repeatedly ask whether each particular friendly group should attack the missiles - and this flurry of redundant popups can get to be overwhelming. Instead, it would be nice to have a button on the popup that would suppress further popups for whatever missile group and air group combination was being offered by the particular popup, thus avoiding the needless recurrence of requests for that combination - and avoiding the resulting "excess workload" and confusion.

38. Ability to set a "shadowing" course relative to a specific "target" group This would be the ability to specifiy a group's course such that it could "shadow" another group (either friend or foe) at some specified distance and direction from that "target" group. The "shadowing" group would then follow the target group's course and speed changes so that it would remain at that standoff distance. In the case of shadowing enemy groups, the "shadowng" course could be configured to either "use the last known course" or to actively attempt to re-establish contact with the target group in the event that contact with the target group is lost. This feature would be helpful not only for keeping tabs on AI groups' movements, but also for setting up coordinated attacks and so forth. It would be useful for friendly groups in cases such as escorts or pickets or "macro formations" where two or more groups are to move "in formation", while not actually being a part of the same group, as is sometimes helpful when the 255 mile formation isn't enough to provide the desired spacing, or when it's desirable to keep the groups as separate but coordinated entities.

37. Have some means of determining how much refuel a group needs compared to how much a tanker type can supply Occaisionally I run into problems determining how many tankers to scramble to resupply a large starved group that is in flight some distance away from a base. Usually tankers are in short supply, so I don't want to "waste" them by sending out several when one or two may be all that are needed... so I conservatively guesstimate the number needed, only to find that the group comes up just a bit short in many instances when refueling is done. It would help if there was some way to readily determine the fuel needs for a group to go a given distance, as well as how much fuel a particular tanker type can supply, so as to make the correct determination about how many tankers and/or what type of tankers to send out. I'm not sure how it would be best to display this info, but perhaps a status field could be added that would indicate the quantity of fuel that a group needs to return to its base, and a field showing the quantity of fuel that a tanker carries could be added somewhere in the tanker's readying status - like perhaps in the Qty column, or some such.

If this is correct, then it goes back to my comments about abnormalities, at the beginning of this post. Not really. As I said, it's been pretty much across the board since I started using the HCE Demo, and obviously involves the included scenarios. I will try to save some files around the points where this sort of thing occurs, but considering that it is so prevalent here, if it's not happening to the "general population", then it may well be some "local issue" - which I suspect might not show up if the saved game is re-played on some other platform. On the other hand, if this isn't something that's isolated to the local system, or due to some unusual tactic that's unique to my play, then I have to think that it would present for most anyone at any time; I mean, it's rate of occurrence here must be at least 80%, so it's hard for me to believe that it wouldn't show up regularly in normal play, barring any "unique circumstances" that might exist. In any case, I can snag some actual incidents, to see what happens when they're played elsewhere. Well, it looks like I just shot myself in the foot: I had an autosave of a tanker not being offered its home base as an option in the return-to-base popup (and it was even one that involved F/A-18s instead of EA-6Bs ), and another where one group (B-52s with GP loadout) could not be ordered to attack a land target, while another group (A-6Es with Precis-LR) nearby could attack that same target. (These autosaves were both from the "Backyard" scenario in Demo 2009.020, WestPac Battleset). The problem came in when I proceeded to install Demo 2009.042, so that I could run these autosaves in that version, in order to compare results. However, after installing the 042 version, I can no longer find the autosave files, so I'm assuming the install wiped them out (although it seems to have saved my preference settings and so forth, which applied in the new version). Anyway, unless anyone knows where those files may have been squirreled away across the re-install, I guess they're lost; if so, I can only see if any new instances turn up when playing under 042. Since there are many autosave files from previous versions of HCG (and HCE?) still floating around on my hard drive, I was not anticipating that these autosave files would get blown away (or I would have copied them elsewhere); Anyway, when contemplating my observations, a couple things came to mind that may explain the carrier group being missing from the list in the return-to-base popup, specifically with those EA-6B/KA-6 combinations: - In that scenario, there are two carriers in the group, and I believe the KA-6 tankers were based on one of the carriers, while some of the EA-6Bs were on one carrier, and some were on the other. Perhaps this situation is confusing the popup dialog as far as what is the home base of a group that contains a mix of a/c from the two different carriers. (This could also explain why other tanking combinations of a/c from the carrier group, and those from land groups, apparently don't have the problem). - The EA-6Bs default to high altitude cruise, while most other groups default to medium cruise altitude (or low cruise altitude when launched in attack mode); perhaps there is some issue with this "altitude contention" that ends up confusing the return-to-base popup. (Yeah, it seems like there is no connection, but it is something that differs in the groups that showed the problem versus those that did not... so, I figured it was worth mentioning). In any case, unless I can figure out where those files went, it looks like I'm back to Square One as far as capturing the symptoms. <Sigh!>

Well, my first reaction is that something bizarre is going on, and judging from some preceeding comments and off-line discussion, it seems that the behavior is abnormal, so it's possible that the effect is unique to my specific situation - for whatever reason(s). So, the first question is to confirm whether these behaviors really are abnormal - or if there is some set(s) of normal circumstances where they can occur on a regular basis. (I'll emphasize that these have occurred pretty much consistently at all times since I first started with the HCE Demo programs (currently running 2009.020). Obviously, I've run only the included scenarios, but the effect seems to be consistent across all of those scenarios that I've run so far). Yes, I was referring to the plane's targeting radar, which is required for many of the older radar-guided missiles - like the Sparrow and several of the Soviet types. I can't quess how many times I've had flights of pairs Tomcats or Hornets, etc. simply blow up, due to undetected adversaries... and later determine the culprits to be MiG-23s or MiG-21s - whose missiles supposedly require the launch aircraft to "paint" the targets. However, in these cases, no such radar activity is ever detected, either by the targeted group, any nearby groups, nor by the AWACS that are covering the victims. Understood. But not what I was meaning; I'm assuming that in a realistic scenario, the attacking groups would need to emit at some point in order to locate and target my groups, and that my EW-capable assets would at least detect the presence of the attackers when they do emit. It totally puzzles me that these attackers can conduct successful stealthy attacks without ever emitting anything. If this is correct, then it goes back to my comments about abnormalities, at the beginning of this post. Not really. As I said, it's been pretty much across the board since I started using the HCE Demo, and obviously involves the included scenarios. I will try to save some files around the points where this sort of thing occurs, but considering that it is so prevalent here, if it's not happening to the "general population", then it may well be some "local issue" - which I suspect might not show up if the saved game is re-played on some other platform. On the other hand, if this isn't something that's isolated to the local system, or due to some unusual tactic that's unique to my play, then I have to think that it would present for most anyone at any time; I mean, it's rate of occurrence here must be at least 80%, so it's hard for me to believe that it wouldn't show up regularly in normal play, barring any "unique circumstances" that might exist. In any case, I can snag some actual incidents, to see what happens when they're played elsewhere.

Now that I've found my way back onto the forum after a long hiatus, I just wanted to update this sub-topic: Although I still have "issues" with the relative ability of the AI and the player's forces to detect each other, I have been able to adapt tactics my sufficiently that I can actually play - and even occasionally win - some of the HCE demo scenarios. The things that I still find very puzzling (and annoying) are: 1. The AI's astounding ability to detect, target, and destroy my units while remaining totally undetected. This includes my puzzlement over how AI aircraft having radar-quided missiles can destroy my aircraft without their missile guidance radar revealing their presence. (If I try leaving the guidance radar off when I attack AI air groups, not only don't my missiles work, but launching them almost always elicits a return volley - which presumably means that the AI has detected my missiles). 2. How is it that the AI "knows" where to search out my groups - especially those that are "out in the middle of nowhere", far away from any AI detection platforms, and that are being as stealthy as possible (for example, small air groups operating only at Low or VLow altitude with radars off)... and how do the AI groups then vector and "fix" and destroy my air groups without the AI planes or their missiles ever being detected in any way whatsoever? This is especially puzzling when there are all kinds of friendly AWACs and/or other AEW or EW platforms monitoring the area where the AI air groups are operating. If the AI groups can remain invisible to these platforms, how can they possibly detect and attack my air groups when they have absolutely no AEW or other platforms anywhere within at least several hundred miles of my "victim" groups? And to do so on a regular basis? It just doesn't make sense. 3. Why is it that the AI groups (air or surface) often can remain completely concealed unless my units manage to get close enough to get visuals on them? It's as though the player's radar and passive EW systems are totally ineffective - unless the AI group(s) turn their radars on. 4. Why is it that it is so difficult for the player's units to get "fixes" on detected AI units, even when I have multiple platforms "triangulating" on the AI groups, yet the AIs can easily blow away any of the player's groups that try to sneak up on them, under the vigilance of separate AEW assets? Anyway, either I'm really missing something here, or else there's a inexplicable and considerable inconsistency between the effectiveness of the AI and the player's systems - when speaking of systems and conditions that I'd expect to be roughly equivalent. Any ideas?

(I apologize if this topic duplicates info found elsewhere... but I could't turn it up, so I'm asking here). The HCE seems to be undergoing constant development and "repair", so my question is, are there "Service Packs" or other such updates available, and if so, what is the best procedure for keeping current with the fixes and upgrades? Currently, I can use only the Demo program (as I haven't yet been able to obtain the released full version). I see there are frequent updates to the Demo, although I guess the only way to get them is to check back here periodically? Are the updates and fixes that appear in the demo also applied to the purchased version? If so, are they free updates for owners of the latest release, or would owners need to buy them separately or wait for a new release in order to get them? (And is the Demo actually more "current" than the purchased version?) Thanks!

36. Modify the automatic behavior of attacking aircraft so they don't "over-fly" their own missiles One of the problems that crops up frequently during air attacks using "stand-off" weapons is that the aircraft, even at cruise speed, seem to be faster than those stand-off weapons. This causes the situation where the aircraft launch some of their stand-off weapons, but then continue flying towards the target, passing by their missiles. Usually, especially in the case of SEAD attacks, this results in the aircraft flying into effective range of the target's AA, and getting shot down, before the SEAD weapons reach the target - sort of defeating the whole point of stand-off attacks! My wish is that the aircraft would automatically "evade" the target's weapons, perhaps by moving away from the target after launching a volley, at least until they are out of the target's AA range or until their missiles have hit (or self-destructed). (Note: At times, this "evading" does seem to occur, while at other times, the attacking aircraft just fly headlong at the target after releasing a volley, so perhaps there are conditions which cause variations in the post-launch behavior of the aircraft - perhaps related to those "automatic" attacks on the air formations of a target, mentioned in Wish #35, above. In any case, it would be helpful to eliminate this "over-flying" behavior in all cases).

35. After a group expends its primary weapons, offer the option of continuing with alternate weaps, or returning to base, loitering on site, etc. One of the "gotchas" that "bites" me frequently in HCE is that air groups which have, say, SEAD and Air-to-Air weapons, will prosecute their SEAD attack on a target, and after exhausting those weapons, they will proceed (unannounced) to attack any formation air patrols the target may have. Because the SEAD weapons are typically longer-ranged than the attacker's AA missiles, this behavior tends to lead to the attackers flying well into the target's AA range, and getting shot down! And in cases of heavy "workload", this behavior is easy to overlook - until it's too late. So, my wish is that when a group has expended its "primary" weapons (that is, the weapons that it was ordered to attack with, typically via an attack on the "Surface" elements of the target group), then a popup would advise of the situation and offer the options of, "Return to Base", "Attack with secondary weapons", "Loiter", or "New Orders" - instead of automatically going on a headlong attack on the target's air formations, or whatever. (Because it's not a typical method of attack, I'm not sure, but I don't believe that an air group will automatically attack surface elements after completing an attack on the air elements, but if so, the same type of notification popup would be applicable in such cases, too).

34. When a group completes its attack on a target (expends its weapons or destroys the target), offer the option of returning to base In HCE, once a group has completed its attack (by expending its eligible weapons or destroying the target), there is a notification popup of the situation, advising that the group is loitering and awaiting orders. It would be very helpful to have a "Return to base" button on that popup, so that the group can be sent home quickly and easily (which was the "automatic" procedure in prior versions of Harpoon Classic). Such a button could either simply send the group to its base of origin, or it could offer up the "enhanced" list of bases with its home base as the default (as discussed in Wish #33, above). A further enhancement might be an "Orders" button, so that new orders could be issued via a direct link from that notification popup, rather than having to manually go through the added steps of Selecting the group, then selecting the orders menu item. (Not a big problem, but it is a bit cumbersome and annoying to have to go though those "extra" steps).

33. Highlight (or default) the originating base when the list of bases is offered upon splitting a tanker from a group In HCE, when a tanker in an air group finishes refueling its group, and if the popup asking whether to split the tanker from the group is accepted, then a popup appears that lists the eligible bases for the tanker to return to. It would be helpful if the base from which the tanker was launched would be made the default (perhaps by highlighting that base, or even by a "Original Base" button), so that the tanker could be sent back to its home base quickly and simply (and without error) with just one mouse click (rather than having to scroll through the list of bases to find and select the proper one - which can lead to mis-selections at times, especially when base ID names are similar). On that same list of bases, it would be helpful to mark the bases which are beyond the remaining fuel range of the tanker with some warning, perhaps with a different color, or with an asterisk, etc. in such a way that they have an obvious warning yet could still be selected (in case tankers can be re-fueled in some future implementation, allowing them to actually make it to such out-of-range bases).

32. Modifications (tweeks) for the Ready Aircraft displays It would be helpful at times to be able to quickly view only the "Ready5" aircraft on the Ready Aircraft display, rather than also viewing the "Readying" aircraft, too. (This can be accomplished by starting the attack/ferry/patrol dialog series, but having the ability within the Ready Aircraft display itself would be more convenient). Off-hand, I can think of a couple of ways to accomplish this: Put a Radio Button set on the panel, that presents options such as "View All" (default), "Ready Only", and "Readying Only". The user then selects one of these views, according to the "filtering" that is desired. Have sortable columns (as with the Details display for the folders/files in Windows Explorer, messages in Outlook, etc.). This would be useful in many ways in addition to selecting the desired readying status to be viewed: Sort the list by Quantity (might be useful in some situations) Sort the list by aircraft Type (like if you wanted to see all the AEW assets grouped) Sort the list by Aircraft name (such as group by F/A-18, etc.) Sort the list by Loadout (for example, to easily see all available ASW assets grouped) Sort the list by Status (this is the one that facilitates the original objective here, by grouping the "Readying" and "Ready5" aircraft separately) Sort the list by Time to ready (this would be *really* handy during the heat of battle) If the "sorting heads" worked the same as in WE or Outlook, the sorting order of each column could be reversed simply by re-clicking the column head, which would be handy. Anyway, the ability to manipulate (sort or filter) the Ready Aircraft display would be helpful, even if only to filter out the Readying or Ready5 aircraft, when the other category is the one of interest.

This would simply be that when a group (including a missile group) was selected on the map, its current target (if any) would be highlighted by some graphical means - like color change, flashing, outline, etc. - giving a quick visual confirmation of the proper target. This would be especially helpful in "furball" situations, where it is necessary to quickly confirm which enemy group or base is being targeted by each friendly group. The reverse of this would be when an enemy base or or group is selected on the map, to similarly highlight all groups - incuding missiles - which are currently targeting that selected enemy base or group. All this would help by giving a quick visual assessment of attack "configurations" - especially when multiple groups are being designated to attack a given enemy target, or when there are concurrent attacks in progress on separate targets. Note: If "rendezvousing tankers" are implemented, it would be similarly useful to have this - or similar - highlighting applied to the target air group of the tanker, or conversely to highlight assigned tanker group(s) when an air group is selected. Another useful extension of this idea would be highlight an air group's current 'home" base when the air group is selected.