Joe K

I've typically used it - just on general principles, I guess - but I don't recall any indication that it actually does any good as far as Harpoon gaming is concerned. If it does have any benefit - either in real life or in the game - would it be more in relation to avoiding subs/torps or to reducing general detectability/trackability?

Run launcher Check -l for logging, check radar for radar logging Run game, the ge.log in the game directory will be extra large thanks to the additional radar logging ... OK, that's why I wasn't recognizing radar logging. (launcher) I also was not aware of the ge.log, anyway. (Might there be anything saved in the default (non-launcher) version of that log file, that would be worth me checking at this point, in regards to any of the various issues that I've seen - such as impervious air groups, ineffective missiles, etc. It's a little much to wade through without having something specific to look for... especially when I don't understand (yet) what a lot of it means or refers to... ) Dittos with the radar log packets, although I imagine I'll figure out some of the more obscure bits there during actual use. Anyway, I'm give that a try and see what shakes out. Thanks.

I think "we" are getting a bit "target-fixated" on the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario here, and indeed there are issues relating to that specific scenario that I might be interested in pursuing further in another thread or venue... BUT the scope of the puzzling inconsistencies that I observe is much broader than that one scenario, so discussing within the context of only that one scenario merely diverts attention away from the larger questions. Also, some questions have been raised here regarding the quality of my observations, and certain misconceptions are apparent in some of those comments, so let me digress a moment to reiterate my "credentials" and current MO: - I am not a newbie to the game, although there are clearly some aspects that I've somehow missed entirely. Instead, I have been playing Harpoon ever since my friend gave me his retired Three-Sixty DOS version after he had upgraded to the first Windows version. I have played (and in some cases, re-played) most of the "canned" scenarios that have been available in - as far as I know - all of the included Battlesets. Generally speaking, I have not played any "non-OEM" scenarios, other than ones I've occasionally created myself. I tended not to create my own scenarios, because in knowing the design of the scenario, they often were neither challenging nor particularly satisfying to play. Also, my skills and ability in regards to scenario creation probably are inadequate for creating any "worthy" scenarios. - Beyond my fairly extensive experience with the GE and SE in all these older versions, I have no experience with alternate databases nor with the Platform Editor - because I was never able to figure out how to work properly with these (such that I did not corrupt some aspect of "normal" operations), and so I left well enough alone, and ignored them henceforth. - Although I own (license?) a full copy of HC Gold, I have retired that and now use only the HCE demo, thus limiting my play to only the two demo Battlesets, so I have replayed those scenarios several times each - although I generally use only WestPac because of the extremely lop-sided scenarios in the USNI Battleset, and the generally more "interesting" platforms used in the WestPac scenarios. This frequent replay tends to make me attuned to the idiosyncracies that show up from time to time in those scenarios, for reasons as yet unknown. Further, my focus has moved away from completing the objectives of the scenarios, and instead rests more on developing skills and testing tactics. - I do not have any intimate knowledge of real-life platform capabilites, although I have a general knowledge of many types of weapons systems, and a superficial knowledge of sensor systems. I generally understand how they work, and when they are used, and some of their primary deficiencies or limitations... but I certainly do not thoroughly understand all the nuances of such systems, nor the variations of performance among all similar systems. That is a quick summary of my experience - or lack thereof - in regards to the various versions of Harpoon up through HCE. I have seen the evolution of the game, along with the accompanying changes in the performance and behavior of the game over those years. I believe my extensive use of the GE makes me reasonably qualified to observe and notice changes and anomalies in behavior of the game - even fairly subtle ones. Some of the observed behaviors have existed across at least several versions, while others are fairly new developments (or perhaps only recently noticed), and in particular, issues being discussed here involving the dealing with attached and detached AD units, and involving inconsistencies of detections, are relatively recent issues... and in fact have impaired somewhat my ability to enjoy the game in its recent incarnations - leading to these discussions. That said, my objectives in this discussion - and in similar ones - include: 1. To determine the true nature of anomalies that I've observed - that is, whether they are issues with my understanding of the situations, or with my tactics and methods, or whether they are some "technical" misbehavior of the game itself (as several appear to be so far, pending any identification of other causes), or perhaps of the computer system. 2. To determine why certain behaviors don't seem to make sense - either by improving my understanding of the legitimate reasons fo them, or by resolving any issues that cause them if they are not legitimate behaviors. 3. To develop my tactics and skills to make them as realistic as possible. Regarding my alleged "inabilities" to observe accurately and/or to properly understand the goings-on for what they are, I think the jury is still out. I believe my observations are true and correct, although apparently not particularly repeatable elsewhere for some reason. I also tend to believe the conclusions that I have reached from these observations, combined with other knowledge and experience. Others obviously believe otherwise, and because I believe in the premise that there is always a correct answer to any situation, I seek to work through these issues until I can be convinced of a reasonble explanation, whatever it may be. So, to "explain" things by saying that I "can't possibly" see what I see doesn't help. Nor does saying that I'm "mis-understanding" or that I'm doing things "incorrectly" - without showing reasons that give plausible explanations of the situations, in light of the actual observations. I concede that I may indeed be mis-understanding or doing things poorly - but I need plausible explanations that match the facts before I can reach that acceptance... and so far, all I'm finding is yeah, it should be the way I expect it to be, but not why it actually isn't... or conversely, no, it shouldn't be the way I expect it to be - but no particularly compelling reason why not. For example, in regards to the two main issues being kicked around here: - Why are there such noticable and puzzling discrepancies between the two sides' abilities to detect, track, and engage air units? Or, put another way, why isn't it as "difficult" for the AI side to detect, track, and engage as it is for the player's assets to do so - particularly in cases where the player's assets presumably are superior technically? - Why is it so puzzlingly difficult for the player's assets to detect and kill AD units, particularly in view of the maddening ease of AI units detecting and killing player's AD units (which, by the way, the player has little control over anyway)? There has been a lot of reasonable information and discussion presented about why things ought to work in certain ways - and a lot of that even confirms my own understanding, expectations, or suspicions - but so far, I'm not seeing much to explain why things sometimes (often?) don't seem to be working the way they are expected to, or at least not consistently from side to side. That's what's really puzzling about all this - at least to me.

Well, it is Microsoft... OK, so my constant futzing with time compression should cause no problems. (Whew!) I'm still wondering whether leaving the game dormant at all times while I'm not actively playing it might allow it to take memory hits from other (potentially errant) tasks that go on in the meantime... especially considering that the unexpected behaviors that I see generally show up only after the game has been active for quite awhile (or after re-loads of game-saves). Still, it's hard to imagine that memory hits would be consistent enough to cause only such subtle oddities, and no severe malfunctions. Anyway, I suppose it would be "safer" to exit the app when I'm not using it, but it's a whole lot less fuss to simply leave it dormant when it's not in use.

Better yet, use the radar logging and have the game spit out the numbers (granted you'll have to sift through the results to compile a nice spreadsheet). Briefing, please! (Either I don't know how to do that, or else I only know "radar logging" by some other name... )

I have played that scenario several times, including one time when I generally followed your AAR - although I admit that I experimented with some various deviant tactics when I got some unexpected results. The difficulties that I experienced in playing that particular scenario fell into these general categories: 1. The AI detected virtually every air move I made, at any range, while it was extremely difficult (near impossible) for me to detect the AI's air assets (except when they activated their radars) even at close range. 2. The Sparrows were generally ineffective against the MiGs, so the best result I could achieve was to drive them off by lobbing missiles at them. But if they didn't chicken out, then all the Phantoms could do was turn tail. This made the Phantoms generally useless in the scenario. Fortunately, the Sidewinders were more effective, but still allowed the MiGs to get close enough to inflict damage. 3. Although I was able to detect surface AD units fairly well with the aid of the RA-5Cs, it was very costly to actually knock them out because I was unable to attack AD units without hard fixes using the allowed weapons, and I could get hard fixes only at suicidally close ranges. 4. The B-52s were suicidal unless the MiGs had been wiped out and all nearby AD units had been destroyed... so it was less costly to attack the bridge with A-6s and A-7s.

The only way for the American planes to get 2x outside the Vietnamese radar range is to fly SE from the carrier! Just look at this screen shot: http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww33/Vi...ridge/brdgA.png I was referring to 2x the radius of the AI bases' range circles. In the game I played, I distinctly recall that I placed a stationary Hawkeye between the carrier group and the AI bases, as well as patrolling Hawkeyes, one about 150 nm directly North of the carrier group, and the radar range circles for the Hawkeyes did not reach the radar range circles for the bases, and thus my "territory" seemed to be at least 2x the radius of the AI bases' range circles. I also placed RA-5Cs near the Hawkeyes, to augment the recon, as well as to triangulate any detected AI units. The AI regularly vectored MiGs to attack the RA-5Cs, and sometimes the Hawkeyes, in these locations. My assumptions were: 1. The AI should not be able to "fix" these groups due to the distance involved. 2. The MiGs should not be able to track these groups due to their distance away from the AI's ground radars (at least not without revealing themselves). 3. Radar or ESM detection should trump visual detection. 4. The Hawkeyes ought to be able to detect the MiGs via radar and/or other sensors. 5. Short-range visual detection by each side should be at least in the same ballpark. Apparently, none of these assumptions were valid... but I remain puzzled about why. Which makes me wonder how they were so adept at finding and attacking my air groups, under the circumstances.

I said: The air search radar covers all altitudes low and above (iirc). If the AEW unit also has a surface search radar, that covers VL and surface targets. One AEW does it all, assuming it has those radars. The only additional hiding the AI planes do is to travel at low altitudes to benefit from horizon effects. My assumption (previously) had been that an aircraft such as a Hawkeye or Sentry has both air and surface radars (along with other sensors) and so when it is at its normal altitude it should pretty well cover anything that approaches at any altitude (well, except for subs of course)... and that there would be variation in the detection range based on factors such as size, speed, altitude, and RCS of the "subject". I also had assumed that the normal (high) altitude of these types would provide at least some degree of over-the-horizon coverage. But, then it was postulated that the various non-stealthy aircraft that were sneaking up on my AEW and EW assets from time to time were doing so by approaching at Low or VLow altitude, and that picket groups such as fighters at Low altitiude are of little use in detecting these "sea-skimmers". Hence, my new assumption that the only viable way to counter these "sea skimmers" would be to deploy the long-range air radars of AEW types at all altitudes... not that it's practical to do so, but it sounded like there was no other way to detect those. The computer does it all the time. You can do it too. Select an enemy group. Order an intercept. If your base formation planes have the range and weapons to do the job, they will volunteer. Whenever I've tried it, I just get the "We are out of range" message. Picket ships out in front with radar energized are not long for this world. Ditto for picket fighters. Are you doing this with your fighters? If the picket fighters are trying to hide, they won't see much. Which one are you doing? I typically place fighter patrols, air recon patrols, and even ships at times, in the areas of expected routes of ingress by these sneak-attack AI interceptors. I think I described this previously, but typically, these are arrayed in (and/or are patrolling) the area roughly within the range of the AEW's air radar, but are mainly at low altitude - for two reasons: First, on the hope of reducing their detectability by AI bases and groups, and second, in an attempt to detect "sea-skimmers", on the theory that my groups' air search radars may detect only within their own altitude band - so to detect low-fliers, my patrols ("pickets") must be at Low altitude. Sometimes, these groups have their radars off - but that is usually only when they are waiting in ambush for some detected target. Normally, I set them up with intermittant radar at assorted cycle times - in the hopes of confusing/surprizing any approaching enemy. I think that's just wrong. The Vietnamese radars extend well out into the Gulf of Tonkin. And a Vigilante is quite large. The Hawkeyes, with radar energized most certainly are seen. There is no inconsistency. The Hawkeyes are the least stealthy units in the scenario. The MiG-17s are the most stealthy. I dunno: Although the Hawkeyes and RA-5Cs and such may stick out like neon signs, it seems to me that some AI unit or base still would have to be close enough to see those "signs"... and as far as I can tell, they are well out of range. On the other hand, the AI units remain undetectable by any means (air- or ship-borne radar, ESM, visuals) even when player's units are virtually tripping over them. But the thing that's particularly puzzling are the cases where a detected AI group is on course to engage a particular player's group that is well beyond any AI radar range. I see them coming 100-200 nm out, so I turn off the target's radar, drop it to Low or even VLow altitude, then send it on an evasion course. Meanwhile, I'm watching the AI's group via other nearby player's groups, and can track it when it's radar is active. It is always able to track its target, despite the target going Low and quiet and taking an evasive course. This really seems inconsistent considering that my units can't track the AI unit unless it is using its radars, even when they are quite close to each other. And in many cases, the player's groups presumably have superior radar and sensors. It's all very puzzling.

Detectable, yes. Always detected or always detectable at a safe distance, no. OK, but what circumstances would cause them to remain undetected consistently until they get within their gun range? No, surface search radars will not detect airborne targets unless they (the targets) are flying at Very low (Vlow) altitude. ... I thought the thesis in this case was that the MiGs were not detected by the Phantoms and Hawkeyes because the MiGs were approaching at Low or VLow, which I assumed would mean that the RA-5Cs S-S radar would be able to detect them? In any case, the bottom line is the question of how they can regularly fly by ships, Phantoms (at various altitudes) and a Hawkeye or three, and yet still track and approach an RA-5C totally undetected by any of those player's platforms. It just doesn't seem plausible.

Seek and ye shall find ... Keyboard commands by location Keyboard commands by type A few questions: 1. What is the actual function/purpose of ALT-3 "Nuke 'em"? Is that a general override for nuclear release, or...? 2. What is the purpose of the O command, and when can it be used? (I couldn't see that it did anything). 3. Is there any difference between I and ALT-I? (They are listed as though they do the same thing, and it appears that they do, so I am curious if there is some subtle reason for the two forms).

Thanks for the info. In my own case, I typically refrain from issuing more than one order while the game is at Zero time - and if I wish to issue additional orders, I set the time to 1 Sec, and then back to 0 Sec, after each command, assuming that will allow it to be processed - and also offering other benefits, such as updating Ready Aircraft displays, etc. Beyond my simple curiousity about all this, my concern was whether there are any circumstances where tweeking the time compression back and forth to zero, or setting the pause states, could screw up the game state - because I tend to do a lot of that during the course of playing a scenario (along with a fair number of re-loads of the latest auto-save, in some cases), and so it occurred to me that something might be happening as the result of my doing these things frequently, that could lead to some of the anomalies that I encounter. Note that I typically leave the game app active, but paused, at all times when I'm not actively playing, except at the end of a game, at which time, I exit and then re-start the game app. While I think of it, every so often (and always while the Game is in a dormant state), Windows will decide that it needs to adjust the virtual memory resources. I don't see any overt effects on the game, but I wonder if that happening while the game is dormant could corrupt the game's memory in some subtle way. It's unclear just what is causing this adjustment of virtual memory to occur so often, considering that the machine has only the exact same set of apps active 95% of the time (assuming, of course, that some unnoticed system tasks aren't getting wierd from time to time). Anyway, I wonder whether the Virtual Memory manager is doing right by the game during all this.

Well, first, think about the nature of that target. Your typical mobile ground target is buried in clutter, surrounded by intervening terrain and other features, often camouflaged, sometimes slow moving, etc. HCE doesn't model much of that, of course, but we try and simulate it through adjusting the detection probability (PD) and RCS values. AEW&C (the more useful term, as AWACS is rather proprietary) platforms are not really designed to search for ground targets. (See, for example, the E-8 JSTARS project, for something that is). That said, they do have some surface search capability. In some instances, their capability in this regard is superior to that found amongst many other aircraft types. In all cases, however, the raw capability of the radar and the RCS of the target will rule. ... Thanks for the detailed dissertation! All that, including the detection range information, is pretty much what I intuitively would have expected the behaviors and performance to be. And it generally supports the bottom line that AEW&C types are not particularly the right tool for the job of hunting ground-based AD units, fixed or mobile... which is all I was saying in this regard - although, it does leave the question open as far as what available types are suitable for the task. (Ah, if we could always have a couple of RA-5Cs or JSTARS, then ground-pounding life would be good! ) Unfortunately, those types aren't available in most cases, so it leaves me wondering what available types are useful. So far, it seems like the A-6E's are the best bet, although -a bit surprizingly- so are the Vikings. Unfortunately, both types are quite vulnerable to the SAMs that they are hunting, due to range considerations. So, to be clear, are you saying that your AI controlled fighters are not being detected at ranges typical to those posted here? Yes, most definitely! But, n.b. that it is not the general case, and only happens every so often, intermingled with "normal" detection behaviors... and it often seems to afflict certain scenarios more than others. I believe so. Again, we're talking about the WestPac demo scenarios here, pretty much exclusively. I believe the bridge scenario has the least-capable Hawkeyes of any of these scenarios, but conversely, I believe The Backyard has some of the more-effective AEW&C types mentioned. And I believe the target types you mentioned pretty much cover all the target types in these scenarios, so we should be on the same page in that regard.

It is true that I haven't checked for formation patrols in every case, but when I have looked, it's either been the case that the units (group?) show up in the Unit Display as part of the formation, or they don't show up on the Unit Display, in which case I'm assuming them to be these non-formation groups that I'm wondering about. In any case, they either don't show up on the Group Window at all, or else they disappear from the Group Window shortly after the initial detection report. I don't recall ever attempting to select the detected group and then watching its report as you described, and I haven't ever tried the "see all" in these cases, because I wasn't even aware of that facility until very recently. Perhaps those techniques would shed some light on this; so I'll see what I can turn up next time it happens. As far as intuition goes, you see what kind of hot water I get into here when I try to go with my intuition!

If that's the case, I have yet to see evidence of this occurring. A couple of questions arising, though: 1. Are you sure you are detecting the enemy groups via radar? Or is it ESM? 2. Are your own detecting groups maintaining their position or range viz-a-vis the enemy group? 3. Are the enemy groups going radar silent or changing their altitude? 1. It must be via some means other than radar because in most cases, the AI base is well beyond the indicated range of the player's own radars. So, it would have to be via ESM, HUMINT, or something. But, I do believe that many times, I see ESM mentioned in the notification dialog. Also, usually - but not always - there is an initial uncertainty region displayed - although that disappears soon after. 2. Not knowing the position of the enemy groups, it's a little hard to say. But, at least in a fair number of cases, my own detecting group(s) are either stationary (typical with AWACS, etc.) or may even be moving towards the enemy base (as in the case of attack groups or fighter sweeps, or TARPS, etc.). 3. Also unknown, due to lack of any fix that would generate a report. I assume, though, that they are not using radar, as evidenced by the lack of "fix", or later, by lack of even detection. (My assumption here is that my AEW/EW -or even other assets- should detect AI groups that are using active radar... although I'm beginning to doubt that assumption, based on other recent discussions regarding relative detectability ).

Then save the files somewhere else? Put em in 'My Documents' or create a special directory for 'HCE Mysteries'. But... but... that would be too easy! Seriously, though, if I stick 'em somewhere else, then it's just gonna go back to the problem of them getting lost in the shuffle of my disorganization. But, lacking any better alternative, what the hey! At least I'll have them for awhile.

Regarding the Rafales, I don't recall having any problems with them, other than avoiding their long-range AAMs. As far as I know, all of them were detected... which may deepen the puzzle when comparing to the F-16s and so forth that often behaved more "stealthily". Maybe I'm confusing scenarios here, but I thought there was a need to destroy the Korean S-S missile launchers that were periodically bombarding the Japanese facilities. (?) Also, I did attempt, in one scenario at least, to attack some air bases that hosted some of the fighters that had long-range AAMs - and thus destroy those planes on the ground - because those types were raising havoc in A-T-A engagements with the relatively inferior Japanese types. Beyond that, I don't recall the rationale behind the ground attacks.

Joe, if you took any casualties in that scenario, you should definitely read my AAR mentioned above. I work it out in all the gory details, from overall strategic plan down to individual weapons fired. I should think that the results would be highly repeatable. Oh yes, many casualties... but, except for the "sniping" of my RA-5Cs and occasional Phantom group, all of the casualties were suffered while attempting to damage/destroy the AA defenses enough that it was clear to send in the big boys (B-52s). Unnecessary, and impractical. The air search radar covers all altitudes low and above (iirc). If the AEW unit also has a surface search radar, that covers VL and surface targets. One AEW does it all, assuming it has those radars. ... That's what I thought... yet, weren't you saying that the interceptors were undetected because the AWACS couldn't see them at Low or VLow altitudes... and fighters stationed at Low altitudes would not detect them, either? That's my understanding, although I haven't been aware of intercepts being launched from formation patrols. In any case, it shouldn't make much difference in most cases that I've observed because, in such cases, the AWACS usually are as much as 500 n miles from the interceptor's base... meaning that even if the interceptors did for some reason fly perpendicularly to the edge of their formation before breaking off on the intercept vector, that 255 nm maximum range of the formation is still the short leg of the triangle by almost 2:1... so, by the time their vector "arrived" at the AWACS, it would have been well within the radar range of various "pickets" arrayed near the AWACS (within about 100 nm, at various bearings). So, it seems that intercept vector would put the interceptors well within radar range of several groups, as well as the AWACS itself. I discuss this in detail in my AAR. I think you are exposing your Vigilantes too soon. Yes, you are dealing with cloaked enemy fighters. Your Hawkeyes cannot possibly get close enough to help sufficiently. A fighter without missiles has no need to turn its radar on. And you can bet your bottom dollar that your Vigilantes were seen by Vietnamese ground-based radar, as were your Hawkeyes, especially when their radars were on. Look at the size of the radar circles in the screen shots; you will see what I'm talking about. ... OK, first off let me clarify that I'm not speaking to the case where the RA-5Cs or Hawkeyes (or other groups for that matter) were anywhere near the indicated radar range of the ground radar... I mean, perhaps 2x or more away. That's why it is so puzzling that the MiG-17s showed up "unannounced": It's a "double whammy" puzzle, where on the one hand, the AI could detect the RA-5Cs and other groups at spots well beyond any AI radar, and on the other hand, the friendly units could not detect the MiG-17s until they opened fire. There seemed to be some gross inconsistency there. Speaking about the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario, I can tell you definitely: 1) All American planes (or close to it) in the combat zone are seen by the Vietnamese ground radar. 2) The AI will attack all detected American planes. 3) It is hard to extremely hard to detect the Vietnamese planes. And I quote: "The first solid contacts on enemy aircraft start occurring at about 40 nm from the Hawkeye." 4) The MiG-17s mount the Romulan cloaking device. So I have to say that the behaviour you're reporting is about right. OK, but I was referring to the general case. Regarding the bridge scenario specifically, I would say that all Ameerican planes were detected even well beyond (2x or more) the indicated radar range of the Viet Namese radars... and it appeared that the only times the MiG-17s would be detected - at any distance - was when they activated their own radar, or when they opened fire. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but my assumption is that the MiGs ought to be detectable via radar when they approach the US air groups - especially the Hawkeyes - even when the MiGs aren't using radar. I'd also assume that the RA-5Cs' SS radar would be able to detect the MiGs, even though the MiGs are approaching at lower altitudes... or that the MiGs would be detectable via some other of the "magical" sensors of the RA-5Cs... yet they weren't. Romulan cloaking device, indeed!

Some options: 1. Save the keyboard layout PDF file(s) in the HCE/Manuals directory (or some other suitable place) in your computer. 2. Make a 'bookmark' or 'favorite' using your browser. 3. Just physically/mentally remember they're in the Downloads/Tools section here at HG. The first option seems to be the most practical... although, doesn't that directory get blown away each time the game is re-installed?

A quick perusal of those results brings out two points that are particularly of interest to me (please correct me if I'm wrong): 1. AWACS platforms are fairly ineffective at locating ground targets, particularly mobile units, from any reasonably-required stand-off distance... and, in fact, are not much good at suicidal ranges, either. 2. Typical AI fighter types that I have observed (or presumed) to sneak up undetected on my AEW assets, particularly on AWACS, should have been detected at distances well beyond the range of their own missiles, and thus the situations I've seen remain puzzling. (Note: In case I haven't been clear about it, let me emphasize that the "sneak-up" situation does not happen anywhere close to a majority of the times, yet it happens frequently enough that it indicates that something unexpected is going on - as opposed to being some rare aberration. I can't give any actual data on frequency, but I'd estimate it to be in the realm of averaging once in every two games).

I can only hope and pray that you are kidding me. Not at all. As I said elsewhere, this forum does not resemble others that I'm used to navigating around, and I've yet to figure out how to bookmark, nor to sort posts, nor to link posts, nor to spell-check (since the spell-check icon does nothing), nor to access the first un-read reply, nor to do many of the other "standard' functions that are typical to other forums that I visit. And even the search "feature" behaves unexpectedly, or not at all. I realize the hierarchal location of those references, but I need to set aside some marker (bookmark, pointer, URI, or something) that will allow me to easily find those again when I need to refer to them. As far as I could tell at a fairly quick glance, there was no means to mark/save either the reply here nor the actual location of those references - short of copying the URI and saving it off in a text file somewhere - which I'm not even sure would work here, and I'd probably loos it in the shuffle, anyway. Hopefully, there is some better way built-in?

Given my observations of your previous reports of various issues, this is what I expect you are seeing (and not understanding): You are detecting in-formation air groups as they take off and energize their radars. Your detections are being made via ESM and not by friendly radar (hence the apparently extreme ranges). These in-formation air patrols do not appear on the Group Map, and so, although their detection is reported, you are not seeing them on the map and therefore they seem to 'disappear' or contact appears to be lost. If you look more closely at the Unit Map, you will likely see these in-formation air patrols flying around and doing their thing, assuming you still have the assets in range to detect and track them. Basic game mechanics (since forever) that appears to have eluded you for reasons unknown. I apologize for not being clear, but I was referring to non-formation AI air groups. I do realize that formation air groups (for both sides) appear only in the unit display.

Would someone please explain the actual goings-on relating to "stopping" the HCE game via setting to Zero Sec time compression and via the "Pause" menu item? In particular: 1. Do these methods have any different effects on the game? 2. Do they affect other system resources differently? 3. Does the game continue to "run" in any way that is significant to game events while in either of these "stopped" modes? 4. Is there anything else relating to the use of these "stop" methods that might be useful for the player to know about? I'm also curious if there is any other means for "stopping" the game in some effectively paused and resumable state (other than saving the game), and if so, how it compares to these other methods, as far as effects on the game and on system resources. I'm also curious what happens to the game action, and to the system resources, when the app's window is minimized, either with or without first "pausing" the game in some way. These questions all came up as the result of noticing that the sound effects sometimes continue even after the game has been paused, so I was wondering what actually goes on when the game is in one of these "stopped" states. Thanks.

One thing that has puzzled me for a long time is the following situation regarding detection - and then loss of detection - of AI groups: Many times (maybe all times?) if the player has any sort of AEW/EW resources - or even other air groups - aloft (even if they are well beyond their radar ranges), the Staff Assistant will advise that the launch of such-and-such AI air group has been detected by such-and-such (player's) air group. However, said AI air group often is not seen again until it moves well within the radar range of some player's air or surface group. My question is two-part: First, how is it possible for the player's air groups to detect these launches at ranges so far beyond their radar ranges, and second, if they are able to detect these AI launchs (which presumably are low-altitude events), then why are they unable to detect/track these AI groups subsequent to the launch event? I never could make sense of this. It's nice to have the "early warning" that something is afoot... but not being able to detect or track it afterwards is rather perplexing - and seemingly inconsistent.

Seek and ye shall find ... Keyboard commands by location Keyboard commands by type Thanks! Now, um, how do I "bookmark" this for future reference?

Well, I don't recall all the scenario names off-hand, but a number of the WestPac demo scenarios, especially the ones involving Japan vs Korea, and The BackYard. The North Viet Nam bridge scenario was also a bit costly, but with the RA-5Cs, at least I could detect the targets before tripping over them. I don't know which would be "best" (in the sense of causing the most casualties), but I recall the one Japan vs Korea (Middleweights) scenario being pretty tough (especially due to having no ARM missiles)... of course, I was having other issues in that scenario as well, so perhaps those things were connected somehow. Correct. In that case, I guess the "best" that could be done would be to "stack" AEW types in one spot at each of the altitude bands - so their radars would cover each altitude? Technically, it is correct that I can't tell for sure what path the AI group used for ingress... but, I can make a pretty good educated guess based on these factors: 1. As far as I've ever observed, the AI interceptor groups always vector directly from their base to the target. If so, this usually puts their ingress route through a whole bunch of friendly groups. 2. In the cases where the AI groups were detected, their approach direction was consistent with #1 above. 3. In many instances, the AEW "target" was amongst a number of other groups, that covered several of the approach directions. But really, the bottom line here is that the AEWs - especially the AWACS - should have detected the AI interceptors sometime before they reached kill range... and probably well before that. I mean, in other cases, it seems they can detect stuff well beyond their indicated radar ranges, so having something be able to "sneak up" on them seems a bit implausible. Of course, the AI groups that do this are the ones that would be trying to sneak up on the AEW target, so I'm sure, in RL, they would be trying their best to be stealthy - as opposed to other groups which might not be so "careful" about exposing themselves. But is this modeled in the game? One interesting related observation is with the RA-5Cs in the bridge scenario. They were forever getting "picked off" by undetected AI interceptors - despite their "magical" detection abilities... and despite the presence of Hawkeyes and so forth nearby. I always wrote this off to being due to the MiG-17s being small and hard to detect... yet a number of these instances occurred while the RA-5Cs were well beyond any ground-based radars, so it was a puzzle how the MiG-17s were able to locate and attack the RA-5Cs at such distances from their home bases/radars, and without exposing themselves in some way to some of the many intervening friendlies, nor to the AWACS and RA-5C's themselves. And it seems that it would be especially difficult to vector in on the RA-5Cs when the RA-5Cs themselves were not radiating. It all really was rather puzzling. One other thing: If fighters' radar is so poor at detecting AI air groups, then how is it that the AI groups are so adept at being able to come into the player's "back yard" (that is, well beyond the range of the AI's ground or AEW/EW radars) and still track and target the player's groups? I mean, it doesn't make much sense to me that an AI group - especially one having inferior sensors - can waltz completely undetected into my back yard, under the umbrella of my AWACS, and plink my air patrols (whether or not my patrols are radiating). It begs the question of how the AI can track and target the player's groups, while remaining undetectable themselves.