Joe K

sucks to be you, dinnit? Apparently. One thing you could do is rerun the scenario from the other side. You should get a partial answer to your question. You will also find that YOU do not get that many planes. YOU might get 100! Again, sucks to be you, dinnit? I discuss this issue in my USNI 1 AAR. Yeah, IIRC, I did... and it didn't. I just assumed the scenario was set up differently for each side. What are all these special keys that I never heard of? Are they documented somewhere?

From my observations, I would agree: The AI seems to attack everything that is there - even things that it seemingly shouldn't have detected. However, I assume that an active AEW type is the most likely thing to be detected, followed by any air groups at high altitude (especially if their radars are operating). Again, from my observations, an AI group bent on intercepting a particular group - especially if it is an AEW type of group - will go headlong for that target group, while virtually ignoring other nearby air groups. The only times I recall them doing differently is when the target group gets destroyed by something else, or when some other group attacks the AI interceptor group. In the latter case, it seems the AI group will return fire, and maybe even go evasive, but then continues to attack the original target (rather than breaking off and pursuing the "interruption"). Incidentally, these AI groups that are "target-fixated" on an AEW target are the most likely to demonstrate the "impervious AI air group" effect, where I'm vectoring multiple groups to attack the AI interceptor group, yet it shrugs off volley after volley of missiles, and blows through to kill my AEW. Whether this is generally true, or simply some artifact of my own installation of the game, remains to be determined... but this is my fairly consistent observation here.

Apparently. It leaves me wondering what types are good at finding them... because the RA-5Cs are rarely provided in the scenarios that I've played... in fact, maybe only in that bridge scenario. All of the above. It depends on the situation, and what's available. Unless it's dire circumstances, or unless I'm expecting imminent missile attacks, I generally won't deploy anything that doesn't have a Sparrow or better for ATA defenses. So, in that case, I'd likely re-arm those types right away - as reserves. From experience, I know that scenarios typically involve AI attacks of some nature very soon after the scenario starts AND that the provided initial loadouts on player's aircraft generally aren't well-suited to meet the particular attacks that will show up. So, I try to throw up an adequate defensive posture to cover all those potential attacks to the degree possible, at least until I can get some AWACS or other platforms in place to provide situational awareness... and then adjust my coverage accordingly. Because I'm running the demo these days and have only a limited number of scenarios to choose from, I suppose I sort of cheat via recollections of past play. But, there have been a few cases when I played a scenario and was almost literally decimated almost before I could even assess my assets... and I re-played those scenarios with some tactical adjustments according to my glimpse of the near future. (I remember one in particular - although not its name - where the player's group was northwest of Norway and literally moments after the scenario started, what must have been several hundred bombers and incoming missiles were detected. Those blew right through the few CAP assets that had gotten up, and swamped the shipboard defenses, and literally wiped-out my fleet. The AI achieved total victory within five minutes of game play, and left me in the "What the ____???" mode. Well, I replayed that scenario and immediately turned on all the radars, and launched literally every plane that had any AAW capability in the direction the previous attack had come from. I then turned on all the radars of those planes - so they would attack any missiles that came within range (because there was no time to intercept the bombers). Well, between much fewer attackers the second time through, and having some assets in position to knock down some of the incoming missiles, my carrier was able to survive, although damaged... and I still lost several escort ships, but still had something left to continue playing the scenario. So, yes, I cheated in that case... but I also think that the scenario cheated a bit to begin with. (I still can't figure how the scenario was set up so that AI bombers were in position to launch their missiles so soon after the scenario started, nor did I ever figure out how they were detecting/targeting my carrier group in that first run, where I hadn't even had time to turn on the sensors nor start the group moving. It also seemed a bit unreasonable that the AI had something over 700-800 Tu-22 type bombers available to attack my group. Yes. My comments were simply regarding the initial deployment at the outset of the scenario. Once I've gotten a feel for what's going on and what enemies are lurking around, then I get down to the business of establishing air superiority. But I try to get lots of fighters up initially, in order to fend off attacks that come in before I can find out the big picture. My thoughts, exactly. 1. Pickets: What I meant by "pickets" in this case are various air groups that happened to lie along the ingress route of the AI interceptors that were going after the AWACS. I typically array some defenders at low altitude, with short-cycle intermittant radar - partly in order to try to detect any sea-skimmers. In addition to that there typically have been other air groups, and even surface groups, with active or intermittant radars along the presumed ingress route of the AI interceptors. Yet, none of these pickets typically detect the AI group as it presumably passes near them. 2. Low/Vlow approach: That's one of the reasons that I park those defender groups at low altitude with short-cycle intermittant radars. 3. The only scenario that I recall that had any sort of stealth fighters involved some Eurofighters. The undetected interceptors in most of the other cases have been things like MiG-29s, MiG-19s, etc. and usually in groups of three or four. (In some cases, the interceptors were never seen, so I don't know what they were - and can only infer what they may have been based on the unit types that were in the particular scenario. Generally speaking, there were no stealthy types involved - at least not ones that are known to me to be stealthy). 4. Yes, the AWACS are always stationed at their default altitude - which I believe is their maximum allowable altitude. 5. I don't recall ever seeing any jamming indicators on the AWACS in these cases. LOL! I should reiterate that the "kill all the AI units" situation usually happens when no victory conditions have been achieved, and so I continue playing and about all I can do is to try to destroy as many AI units as possible in hopes of possibly satisfying victory conditions. I must say that I regularly satisfy the stated victory conditions, yet no victory announcement is forthcoming in many of the cases. That's why I wish I could check the actual victory conditions via the Scenario Editor, so see why the orders (or my understanding of the orders) differ from the actual requirements. Unfortunately, that's not an option while lacking the Scenario Editor.

I don't know if it has much -if any- bearing on playing Harpoon, but I recall that it used to be that planes would be launched with minimal fuel on board, so that their ordnance load (weight) could be maximized. Then, the planes would need to rendezvous with (a) tanker(s) in short order to get their fuel supply in-flight. I presume that the tanker(s) were launched first in these cases, but I don't really know... nor do I know whether this would be represented in Harpoon as having the tanker(s) in a separate group or as part of the same group.

It's interesting, because I generally follow this strategy (well, except for the occasional situation that has special requirements)... yet I often don't achieve as good results as one might expect. Some of your comments may explain this "deficiency" of mine: First, the usual lack of anything with capabilities comparable to an RA-5C is a distinct disadvantage. The AWACS and other AEW/EW platforms often have a puzzling (and maddening) lack of ability to detect things - at least in a timely manner. I have a fair amount of success with "turn and burn" tactics when dealing with ATA engagements... BUT very little success with that when attempting to provoke ground units - who usually have weapons with much longer ranges than my detection ranges, leaving far too little escape time. I had to chuckle about re-arming everything with ATA weapons right out of the gate. That seems to be such an SOP for me that I do it as a knee-jerk, sometimes without thinking of the immediate need (that is, getting adequate ATA assets into the air right away - even if their initial loadouts are non-ATA), nor considering other potential attack needs. Generally, it works out well, though. I also tend to put up a whole lot of fighters right away, pending the arrival of "situational awareness" through AWACS coverage, etc. One thing that I try to do whenever practical is to use only the minimal ATA weapon that is applicable, to conserve the other, more capable, weapons for possible needs against targets possessing comparable weapons. What I mean by this is to override the suggested weapons allocations and instead use weapons that are just superior to the target's weapons. For example, when attacking a target that has a 9 nm best AAM range with an F-14, I'd close the range and use Sparrows instead of the default Phoenixes. Or when attacking a recon type, I might close the range to use guns instead of missiles. Similarly, I might send the F-5s (armed only with Sidewinders) to intercept a flight of bombers, rather than vectoring F-15s (armed only with longer-ranged AIM-120s) after the bombers. That way, the longer-ranged weapons are conserved for use against the gaggles of front-line fighters that the AI typically throws against the player. Obviously, though, I always try to catch the bombers before they can launch their missiles - even if that means "wasting" some long-range AAMs, if necessary to accomplish a timely intercept. I have fairly good luck taunting the AI... but there are a couple of gotchas that are just a bit frustrating: First, the AI seems to have the uncanny ability to have its interceptors arrive on scene at the exact moment that my "hunters" run out of fuel... and quite often, it isn't possible (due to timing issues or lack of assets) to provide continuous fighter coverage for the "bait". The other thing is the puzzling ability of the AI interceptors to weave their ways unseen through numerous pickets enroute to attacking an AWACS, often remaining undetected until they are right on top of the AWACS - or worse, never being detected at all and only their missiles being detected moments before killing the AWACS. Except for these difficulties, the baiting tactics have worked well for me. When attacking ground defenses, I always go after the attached recons and then the active radars. Once those have been dispatched, the trouble starts. There are reportedly SAMs that don't require radar, so they can track and kill my planes at stand-off distances where they remain totally undetected by any means. I've yet to find a tactic to address this, short of brute force. Unfortunately, these stealth SAMs are typically arrayed around the objectives, so there's no way to skirt them, and so they must be dealt with. It is not uncommon for me to experience no aircraft losses up to this point in the progression, but then suffer debilitating losses in short order when trying to deal with these undetectable SAMs. And after that, there's the AAA - also generally undetectable except by in-the-face visuals. I can usually deal with this stuff if I have considerable assets to burn, but eventually the planes run out... or my pilots start defecting. Now, one of my personal mission objectives (when no victory conditions seem to be forthcoming) is to try to destroy all of the AI's assets. This may mean going after bases, etc. ... and that means dealing with those stealthy SAMs and AAA. This mayhem may continue until either I can't find any more targets, or I run out of capable assets... And probably 75% of the time, despite all the carnage, neither side achieves any victory conditions. (Since I have no scenario editor, I can't check the victory conditions to see why this is the case, but it tends to be rather frustrating).

I keep forgetting that the demo <> the beta. Question about installing the HUE: My friend was muttering something about HUE taking "a year and a day" to install - I guess because it installs a number of different games and things. If we're only interested in HUCE, can we skip or bypass the other stuff somehow, and what portions would need to be installed for just HUCE testing purposes? Was just wondering whether testing on multiple versions would help to find anything. if not, I won't even bother with those.

You recreate the situation in the full game by playing the scenario from the start. If it is so rare that you can only reproduce it once AND in the demo then I'd have to say my resources are better spent on the hundreds of items that are reproduceable every single time. But I think you can reproduce the items, it takes you time. He can install HUE on as many computers as he desires. The idea is that he can only play the game on one computer at a time (one concurrent user). You can install the demo on as many computers as you wish and play them all at the same time. The demo can be installed on the same machine as the full game. I do that and each stores the settings in a different spot in the registry. OK, If I understand correctly, we can legally put the demo on as many machines as we can get our hands on, and compare results... and it won't risk fouling the HUE installation? And, if I understand correctly, he can legally put his HUE on multiple machines - so we can do some testing with a separate copy or two of HUE - so long as we run only one of the copies at any given time, correct? But before doing that exercise of installing HUE, is there any real value to be gained from recreating the situation (if possible) on HUE, or should we focus on wringing-out the issue on demo versions instead? I think he may still have copies of HCE and/or HC Gold, but probably no longer installed. If so, is there any point in fussing with those... and would they also be "safe" to install and use on the same machine with HUE?

Hmmm... Then there's no way to compare results from my platform to his? Darn! (I was hoping to get an idea of whether the problem is machine-related or not - that is, if it really is specific to my installation for some reason). I guess he'd have to put the demo on his machine, then, in order to make any sort of comparison? Would that risk mucking-up his UE installation in any way? (I'm not sure he'd be willing to risk that, anyway.) Is there anything else (useful) I can do to leverage his set-up to help figure out what's going on? But without risking his UE installation, of course. That also brings up a licensing question: Can he install his UE on two of his computers, concurrently? Or, at least put the demo on another computer, concurrently? If so, we could use another computer for testing, and thus avoid any risk to his primary UE installation. *** Speculation alert! *** BTW, if the format of the game-saves changes from version to version - and seeing mine from the demo produced some rather "interesting" results in the UE version - it makes me wonder if there is any possibility that a demo game-save does not read-back the same as it was written (even in the demo), and thus causes the behaviors to differ from installation to installation? Specifically, I'm thinking of some piece of data that doesn't get saved (and/or doesn't get read-back) yet remains resident in the original installation, causing repeatable results there, but might be a different value in another installation (and would not get updated from the game-save under this situation), and thus could cause the saved game to behave differently from installation to installation? I know, I know... speculation (not to mention grasping at straws) but the question came to mind, and could explain the observations, so I thought I would be worth considering.

This is the part where you try the updated GE and say that the issue is indeed fixed. I think we're talking about two different issues again... sorry for that! Well, unless the fix affects both of those things - but since they don't appear to be directly related, I'm guessing that it didn't.

You can take some comfort in the fact that the feature is fairly new, or at least, has evolved somewhat in HCE. Okay, I kinda wondered that myself, but figured I might as well go ahead and eliminate it as a potential issue. You are describing a somewhat different situation where you have detected a target, but it lies in an uncertainty zone, and you have weapons that are 'theoretically' capable of seeking out and trying to find that target on their own. Without going into a great amount of detail (yet), the bearing to the target and the size of the yellow uncertainty zone are of paramount importance here. If you have don't have a narrow bearing range and/or if the uncertainty zone is large, your chances of your weapon detecting and attacking the target (or the correct target) are significantly reduced. To optimize your chances, what you're looking for, ideally, are a very narrow range of potential bearings to the target (just a few degrees at most) and an uncertainty zone that looks more like a fine line than a fat polygon. AND Tony's follow-up (which I apparently can't quote here without cut-n-paste ) That makes sense... and I imagine it was the situation in most cases that I tried - especially in the cases of targeting a group where there were some fixes. I mean, usually if you're within weapons range, then the uncertainty window is fairly narrow by default. If I could get better triangulation results, that should improve things, too? (I'm still a bit puzzled why I typically get only one uncertainty zone indicator for targets, when I have several groups of the same aircraft type arrayed around said target... (?)) Anyway, now that I know that I can have finer control of BOL, I'll try using that instead of the distance-only dialog, and see what happens. Thanks.

1- They are the same. 2- There is a reason your demo saves have a different extension than the stock WestPac battleset, the saves are not meant to be exchanged between demo and full game. You need to start the scenarios fresh in the full game, not try to work from a demo save. Then, what good are game-saves?? I thought the whole point of those was to demonstrate/replicate the problem (??) (Man, am I confused!! Must be 'cause it's Friday... )

This thread, 40 posts before you created a useable issue report (which ideally you would have linked to in post #41 in this thread). http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...amp;showbug=197 . It is extremely out of character for us to make it to a post 41 without the goods being provided as it takes a large time expenditure and level of patience, neither of which I'll normally choose for this hobby endeavor. Your Tanker to Base had a usable report on the first post. Plus, I quoted the useful two paragraphs in post #44 of this thread, the rest of the post wasn't germane to the issue and would have ideally been left out. One can't always know what is germane and what isn't but in that particular case I hope it was pretty easy to see that you migrated across multiple issues instead of sticking to one. I think I'm done with this part of this thread, others will have to help clarify if you need more clarification. I certainly regret the confusion that existed in this thread, but in my own defense, let me say that I did not provide any new game-saves until late because, earlier, I thought we were dealing with the issues that were already demonstrated in my earlier game-saves, and therefore there was no need to re-submit them. Later, I realized that you were asking for saves for a new issue of AI missiles hitting 100% - which was not a primary issue in the discussion. So, apparently, you were trying to talk about that, while I was still operating around the other earlier issues. Again, I apologize for the confusion... but that's why I didn't provide anything sooner: I thought it was already there. Regarding linking topics, I'm sorry; yes, I probably should have thought of that... but I didn't, and it's a moot point anyway because I haven't figured out how to link in this forum. In fact, I have a really hard time just finding my way around here at times. Case in point: I don't know where in heck that Tanker to Base report even is now - so that I could go back and try to see what you were saying about it not being germane. (I saw the darned post somewhere yesterday - or the day before - but I can't find hide nor hair of it today. ) Call me forum-challenged, but honestly, I'm still trying to figure out what some of the icons in the directories mean! I can't even figure how to sort the posts by date or poster... Bottom line is that I'm more than willing to help with any reasonable requests, and will do so if I understand what you need... but it's painfully clear that we need to somehow get on the same page here.

Last night, I tried to run several of my game-saves on my "imaginary friend's" installation of Ultimate Edition, and I ran into some problems, raising several questions: First, his installation reports as version 2009.050 - which is the same version as my demo copy reports. Are these actually the same version? (There are some noticable "appearance" differences that showed up right off, so ???) 2- The file extension applied by the demo version is ".USNI-hp2", even though the Battleset in use was the WestPac. This raised a question of which Battleset to run the demo under in the Ultimate Edition, where the USNI uses ".hp1" and the WestPac uses ".hpq". (I renamed all my game-saves to ".hpq" and ran them under the WestPac battleset in the UE). 3- Apparently, a lot less of the UI configuration gets saved with the game-saves than I was assuming - at least, I had to spend a lot of time re-configuring and re-positioning stuff in order to get a similar presentation on UE. (That makes me wonder if there is some game configuation aspect(s) to the problem of differing results). 4- The behavior of the game-saves on that installation of UE was puzzling - to say the least - maybe even bizzarre. First off, the good news is that the behaviors that I was trying to demonstrate via the game-saves behaved generally the same as they do on my demo (although perhaps somewhat less consistently). But the bad news is that there were several totally repeatable, unexpected (and unexplained) behaviors on the UE that I never see on the demo version: a. Shortly after opening the game-saves, all three ships in the Blue group of Hayabushas spontaneously "self-destruct", and I don't see any missiles or torpedoes to explain this. b. Shortly after that, there are about 20 instances of the Staff Assistant dialog stating that group such-and-such is being detected by enemy radar and should turn its own radars on. This is more puzzling because there is no graphical indication of any radar that impinges on all of the reported groups. It sort of gave the impression that something decided that most of the Blue groups were being exposed to some ficticious super-long-range radar... but I didn't investigate that in any great detail, so perhaps there is some explanation that I'm not noticing. c. A little while later, all three units at the Blue FARP spontaneously blow up. I've watched the replays closely and I see no missiles or anything that would account for this. These three effects occur consistently in several of the game-saves (which were originally saved at several points in the same original game)... but they never occur (before or after) when I run the game-saves on my demo installation. (What the heck???) Anyway, before proceeding any further, is there something that I'm likely doing wrong when trying to run these game-saves on UE? If so, I need to get that settled and establish a decent baseline before trying to figure out anything else as far as comparative behaviors.

Wow! Thanks! That was really enlightening... for two reasons: First, despite having played Harpoon for at least 15-20 years, I was totally unaware of that "b" capability. (That'll be fun to play with! ) Second, it reveals that we weren't really on the same page in terms of the situation I was trying to describe... and may explain the confusion. The situations that I'm referring to are those where I simply order an attack on some group, and (I assume) because some or all of the units in the group are not "fixed", after I allocate the weapons, any target which is not "fixed" will cause an individual instance of a dialog regarding activation distances for a bearing-only attack. (This dialog does not offer the ability to change anything other than the activation distances). (As an aside, I always have trouble figuring out which target is involved in each instance of the dialog, which is part of my annoyance factor with that procedure). In any case, I don't recall ever getting any hits using this bearing-only mode - although, it's possible that I missed some BOL hits in cases where there was a mixture of fixed and bearing-only targets in the group, and so some hits that I assumed were from fixed shots may actually have resulted from some of the BOL shots in the mixed group of missiles. But when it was a totally bearing-only situation, I don't believe I ever achieved a hit - and that was true regardless of what activation distances I tried. (I also never hit any friendlies). As a side comment about friendly fire, I don't recall experiencing any instances of that since the days of HC Gold - or before - and, only in connection with Phoenix AAMs in those cases that I did see. Of course, I rarely use BOL(in the form described here) anymore due to its apparent ineffectiveness, so I suppose the chances of friendly fire are fairly small in such a situation. Anyway, we were apparently talking about different forms of the BOL attack, and the one I was referring to is (obviously) less-capable.

It doesn't affect hit probabilities or detection probabilities in the sense you probably mean, but obviously, speeding up the clock does make things happen more quickly. Since many sensor sweeps only happen periodically (e.g. sonar once every five minutes), speeding up the clock is going to increase the number of sweeps that happen in real time (your time). Yes, I was thinking along the lines of "missing" things. Some specific examples that come to mind are times when I was running at fairly high compressions and it seemed like one of the following things happened: - Air groups would run out of fuel and crash "prematurely" (That is, they should have had enough gas) - AI air groups would get into attack position on an AWACS or similar before they were ever detected (which rarely happens at slower game speeds) - Torpedoes and anti-ship missiles would all miss (in situations where they usually had a fairly good chance of getting at least one hit) In some cases, I re-loaded the last game-save and re-played the segment at normal speed, and the behavior would be more "normal". All this led me to wonder if maybe some things (like calculations) were getting "skipped" or not being done as frequently, in order to accomplish the time compression. It was almost like I could "cheat" - like, if a sub had caught my ship with its pants down, I could re-play with a much higher compression, and the otherwise-doomed ship would survive. Conversely, in the reverse scenario where my sub had launched torps against an AI ship, if I got "impatient" and sped up the game, then the shots would miss... but if let it play out at no more than 10 Sec compression, then my shots would generally get at least one hit. It was all very inconclusive, considering the probabilities involved, but things like that happen often enough to make me wonder about it. But, more importantly, I'm curious if such an effect does occur, then maybe it is somehow "inducing" some of the other behaviors regarding unexpected hit rates and so forth - because I do tend to fuss with the time compression quite often while playing.

and the file you attached. OK... but I'm still feeling confused because I thought that I did all of my reports pretty much the same way... but, apparently, some (or all) of the rest were "bad" reports for some reason? If so, I guess I'm still missing the distinction. (??)

If you go sit at your "imaginary friend"'s computer and play the game that would be legal. It isn't legal for him to loan you the DVD so that you can install the game with his serial number and have it on both of your machines. It is legal if he sells his copy of the entire package to you and removes it from his machine. I'm pretty much aware of the legal aspects (and had/have no intention of violating those), but I was wondering whether using his installation as a surrogate would provide the needed/useful technical results - considering that it's on a different machine. The latter would be the most likely possibility... but with zero income, my credit rating is not too favorable. I apologize for being too verbose, BUT it seemed that when I tried the "short answer" approach, people were misunderstanding things, or missing the point altogether. When that happens, I try to set things straight with more detailed explanations. I do rather resent these continued accusations that I don't provide any supporting material. From my standpoint, I've provided extensive material that clearly demonstrates and describes the situations that I've observed. Yet, you say - at almost the same time - that I don't provide any supporting information, and that I provide too much supporting information. I've tried to provide what I thought that you wanted, and when that repeatedly proved to be "insufficent", I did my best to try to explain the things that I had provided. I regret that my efforts appear to be a waste. Good reports? Bad reports? Which is it? I'm confused! I guess you're just going to have to spell out for me which ones (if any) were "good" reports... and why... because I'm just not "getting" the difference.

Does time compression (T/C) affect the PH or probability of detection in any material way? Every so often I notice something that makes it seem that having the time set to 10 secs or faster (or increasing the T/C to 10 Sec or greater during an encounter) alters the probabilities of certain events rather noticably - although I've really never been able to pin this down. Is there any reason why running the game "fast" would make it less likely for a missile, torpedo, etc. to score a hit... or make it less likely for a Sonabouy to detect a sub... or make it more likely for an air group to run out of fuel (as due to a delayed BINGO advisement, etc.)... or make detections less likely to occur? If T/C is an issue in regards to any of this, then what recommendations are there as far as the appropriate T/C to use in given situations... or other general guidelines for using T/C in ways that will avoid any undesirable effects - or avoid producing an inadvertent "cheat" situation?

Me, too... I have a save that was done not too long before the tanker non-split situation, but so far I haven't been able to get it to do the same tanker split scenario as described; not sure why - because I don't recall anything special going on when it happened the first time. Oh well, time will tell... No joy so far... For some reason, I can't get the group to do its re-fueling at the right time where it produces the same effect. Only thing I can figure is that the tanker group did not join the receiver group until sometime later during the game where the oddity occurred, and thus had less fuel of its own by then. Unfortunately, the saved game I have was "taken" quite awhile before that happened, so I'm probably not moving things around subsequently in the same way they were in the original situation (i.e. - the fuel states are different than in the first instance). (Seems like, IIRC, the tanker group was way off to the East of where it should have been in that original game, and so it had to be brought back in order to join the receiver group. I'll try fussing with that, but I'm thinking that timing is going to be too critical to make it happen in the same way). Oh, well...

Well, that is consistent with the observations in the various instances where I noticed it. I wonder why I only noticed in Backyard, though... Maybe because of the greater-than-typical distances among the various friendly units in that game? I didn't pay close attention to the distances in the Landing Base dialog in other instances - probably because they seemed plausible at a glance - so maybe it was happening in all cases, but just wasn't so grossly off most of the time that it made me take notice. One of those weird little gremlins! Fortunately, one that probably didn't affect game play in any material way - well, unless you made decisions based on the displayed distances, I suppose.

Possibly... although I'm having a bit of trouble visualizing how that would work. It also seems like it would be a lot of work, especially compared to the insignificance of the issue (because I've long since gone to tactics that avoid BOL anyway). The other thing that gives me pause is my lingering suspicion that this may be just another manifestation of same thing that causes weird hit percentages with my AAMs... and, if so, the procedure probably wouldn't help here anyway. Over the years, I've already experimented with tweeking just about every parameter that I could think of that might affect the success of BOL attacks (and I'm referring mainly to ASM attacks here, because SSM engagements are so rare), so chances are that I've alread tried and failed with the tactics - unless there is something key that I'm just completely missing with this - and that's really all I'm trying to find out. Anyway, I'm thinking that whatever provides a quick and simple briefing would be all that's warranted here. If screenshots are somehow simpler to do than a text summary, then I guess that's worth a shot. Thanks.

Done. Still futzing with this... I'm sorry that seemed like whining... but, then, you know how I get when it seems that I'm being barred from something... and it sure seemed like they were pulling the plug on me. At least, that was the effective result. I did respond to your offer. I'm not sure what the rest of that is all about. Question: My "imaginary friend" has Ultimate Edition. Is there any way I could use his copy to accomplish your needs? Obviously, beyond the logistic issues, there is the question of it being installed on a different platform than mine - which I suppose is only an issue if the stuff relates to something that's specific only to my system/installation. Anyway, if that would work, and he is willing to put up with it, it would avoid all the issues of my shortage of funds and any remaining problems with being unable to purchase via Matrix. So, I'm just wondering... Really then you shouldn't have posted at all since you are using not only your time but my extremely limited time and Brad's as well. So please please please act this time around. I wouldn't have posted that getting the game is the way to go if I didn't truly believe that it is. I realize that everyone's time is limited, yet I don't follow your logic leading to my not posting. Anyway, I'm merely trying to point out that we need a way to avoid the ineffective methods and finger-pointing that happened the last time we tried to deal with this stuff. It sounded like we would be heading down that same road again... and that seemed like it would be a rather useless exercise in futility.

This is a question that's bugged me for a long time, but apparently never enough to make me remember to ask it - until now: I've noticed that certain types of ordnance apparently will not hit anything unless the launching group's radars are left on. This includes, but probably is not limited to, the AGM-130s, the Popeyes, and the "TV Bombs". I assumed this was some sort of modeling of the need for target-designation, yet there are a few puzzling things about that theory: First, it doesn't seem to matter whether the target stays within the range of the aircraft's radar - or, for that matter, whether the target is ever within the range of the radar... it just matters that the radar is active. Second, if radar (sensor?) guidance is required for these types of ordnance, howcum there is no Staff Assistant advisory about turning on the sensors for guidance - like with Sparrow missiles, etc.? Third, how can something like the B-52 use its Popeyes, because the B-52 has no radar to turn on! So, I'm curious what's the real scoop on all this: Do the launch group's radars actually have to be on in order for these weapons to work? Or is there some other factor(s) involved with this? And if they do need to have the radars on, is there any way to tell which weapons require this?

LOL! I guess you haven't had the "pleasure" of seeing one of my game-saves, yet, eh? I typically run with every range circle there is turned on... to the point that it's hard to see what's going on at times! Anyway, yup, I pretty much concur with your observation about the fix range - although, I'd say that's probably a best-case result, in the situations where the targets are emitting. I've (regularly) seen situations where I've had several air groups hunting around in an area maybe 10 nm x 10 nm, trying to get a fix on an AD target... yet, even with all this "triangulation" going on, and my radars burning away, I still get no fix until some plane group gets a visual on the AD unit - usually with lethal consequences for that plane group. By the way, speaking of range circles, as a wish list item, I'd love to see range circles for estimated fuel remaining on AI air groups. Fair's fair!

Yes, and there are many. Most anti-ship missiles employ active radar guidance, e.g. AGM-84 Harpoon, AM.39 Exocet, Sea Eagle, several flavours of Kh-22 (AS-4 Kitchen), etc, etc. Its a long list. I'm 99% sure that I've used all of those types in (failed) attempts at bearing-only attacks. Maybe that failure is related to the stuff I see with AAMs, etc. Anyway, IME, no fix == no hit (well, excepting AAMs sometimes, but pretty much across the range of ASMs, SSMs, and ground-pounders (GP)). No surprise really, considering how hard it is to get a measley hit even when I have solid fixes... One interesting observation is that when I've tried Bearing-Only shots, usually there is comparatively little or no counter-fire against those BOL missiles... sort of like when I launch a barrage against a worn-down surface group, and get a couple of kills. The AI apparently is smart enough to refrain from firing against other incoming missiles that are still targeting those killed ships - unlike the case where the player's missile defenses fritter away missiles against incoming stuff that's aimed for already-killed ships. (Makes me want to bring 'em all up on charges! )