VictorInThePacific

Unfortunately, there appear to be 2 mutually exclusive positions on this. 1) The launcher has to be able to establish LOS to the target at the time of SAM launch, but after that the missile will find its own way; 2) A friendly unit can request a launch at a target the launcher cannot see, but the launcher needs LOS to the target at the time of intercept. Unfortunately, this is not just hypothetical for me. It has a critical impact on a calculation I am doing in the Matrix forum. Actually, I could manipulate either possibility to give the same result to my calculation, but if a friendly unit can control the SAM launch, and after that the missile will find its own way, it gives a huge advantage to the ship. I just downloaded the demo again, and I will try to test this myself, but perhaps someone can help me with this. The simplest possibility would be to create a scenario with an Arleigh Burke DD and a Hawkeye nearby, and a Flanker C 30 nm away from the ship at VL. Does the Flanker live or die? If the Flanker lives, pop it up to low, wait for a SAM launch, and go back to VL. Does the Flanker live or die?

One more question to clarify this: The Flanker is sitting there, below the ship's radar horizon, believing itself to be perfectly safe. However, a Sentry nearby can see the Flanker very well. So the Sentry asks the ship to fire a couple of SM-2s. The ship complies. Now that the SM-2s are in the air, they do not need to worry about the ship's radar horizon. So the Flanker is meat. Is this correct? If it is correct, then what about the 100 sea-skimming cruise missiles that are approaching my fleet, all below the radar horizon of any of the ships, all clearly seen by the Sentry? Can the SM-2s shoot at them? How many? Who is controlling the SM-2s?

I have been thinking about this a little bit more, and it seems to me, one day after having coined the name "Vertical Little Bighorn Attack", that I was being somewhat silly. This is by no means a new tactic. This is simply a pop-up attack. The concept of using terrain to defeat a target's defenses is completely standard for attack aircraft, even if the only available terrain is the curvature of the Earth. _________________________________________________________________________ I do tend to be somewhat silly in the use of language, but I am not apologizing for that. For example, I will say, "Bring your airplanes in and park them in such-and-such a location." Now, obviously, I understand that you can't just "park" an airplane somewhere (with certain exceptions). However, we do know that, in real life, once a target has been identified, hopefully with as much information about it, such as the exact formation, location, course, and so forth, being known, then a whole bunch of people will sit down, work out a detailed attack plan, and tell the various assigned assets to fly on very specific paths to the target, arriving as close to the plan and schedule as possible, and attack in a coordinated way. In the case of a coordinated strike, there will very often be at least one assembly area as part of that plan. That assembly area may well be very close to the target. How many Harpoon players want to bother themselves with all these details? Answer: zero, or close to zero. So I say, bring your airplanes in, and "park" them nearby until all your assets have arrived and are positioned where you want them. If you look at the Harpoon situation at any point during this process, it may look very unrealistic. But if you compare the overall result to real life ("against such-and-such a target, I brought such-and-such assets in, attacked in such-and-such a manner, and achieved such-and-such a result"), it hopefully will be very realistic. That is what we are trying to achieve. One unrealistic aspect of "parking" a plane and "waiting" is that, as I understand it, in real life, a plane hardly ever flies with the maximum amount of fuel. Instead, it is given as much fuel as it will reasonably need for that particular mission. So loitering somewhere may well not be possible, unless that is built into the mission. However, to make this perfectly realistic in Harpoon, it will be necessary to work out detailed flight plans for all the assets involved, with various launch times, yada yada, and who will play the game then?

A SAM that cannot otherwise shoot at you at Vlow, can shoot at you at Low and then follow you down and attack you at Vlow. Thanks, guys, for clarifying that. I will still be including this as part of my attack plan; I will just be ensuring that the SAMs will be too busy with other targets to deal with my now-weaponless and fleeing Flanker. For example, a bunch of Flankers are waiting ("parked") at VL at 30 nm, below the ship's radar horizon and perfectly safe. A wave of cruise missiles sweeps by at VL. The SAM batteries launch to the ship's control limit (20). The SAMs can't shoot for the next 30 s. The Flankers pop up to low and launch their ARMs, dropping back below the ship's radar horizon before any SAMs are available. Since the Flankers are never exposed while any SAMs are available, they are at all times completely invulnerable. I don't even need to use the fact that there will be plenty of higher-priority targets than some weaponless, retreating airplanes. Speaking of priorities, can someone please tell me, when a SAM has a range of targets to choose from, how does it choose? Eg. biggest missile, closest missile, least time to intercept, least time to hit ship, ...

In the unit window, click on the plane and on the ship. The game will tell you the range. You can then set a course in the unit window, which was not possible in HC. The course command dialog will tell you how far you are moving along a particular leg. Seems like this should work, unfortunately I cannot test it personally at present.

Actually, having seen how different the 2 versions are, I am pretty careful to not base any suggestions or analysis on Harpoon Classic unless I explicitly state it and warn people. I have only come up with the vertical version of the Little Bighorn Attack in the past 24 hours. It doesn't work well in HC because there are very few planes that can safely fly at VL, and SAM range is relatively short. I may try it out in that game if I have the chance. Unfortunately, I can't access Harpoon Commander's Edition right now, otherwise I would have tested this. Maybe someone can quickly create a scenario with an Arleigh Burke and a Flanker C, fly the the Flankler in to 30 nm at VL, pop up to low to provoke a SAM launch, then go back to VL to see if the plane survives?

This coalesced from some ideas that I have discussed previously and elsewhere, and in particular from a discussion that is current right now in the Matrix forum. It is similar to or the same as what Warhorse and Mack2, and perhaps others, are already doing. It is time to give this tactic a name. At the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Custer's men were heavily outnumbered. Therefore, they were forced to assume a static defensive posture. Sitting Bull's forces drove their horses in circles around the defenders, who spent their ammunition ineffectively. In a modern plane-on-ship engagement, the 30:1 speed ratio forces the ship to assume the role of static defender, regardless of actual force strength. The plane can drive in circles around the ship just inside SAM maximum range, and the ship will fire the SAMs. At this point, the plane can simply escape outside of SAM maximum range and repeat the process until all the SAMs are used up. Then the ship is meat. What I described in the previous paragraph is what happens in Harpoon. If this is what happens in real life, well and good. If this is not what happens in real life, then it needs to be considered a flaw with Harpoon (a bug ?), and I wanted to raise it here rather than in a public forum. However, I think that this behaviour actually should happen in real life, because that plane could very easily be carrying nasty ordnance, and it is trying to get close enough to the ship to use it. The tactic described above is pretty nasty, and pretty obvious. However, the Harpoon battlespace is 3-dimensional, even if we only see a 2-dimensional representation of it. The tactic can also be applied in the vertical dimension. Many anti-ship missiles can be fired over-the-horizon: the launching platform (especially if a ship) does not ever need to have radar LOS to the target. On the other hand, many SAMs do require the launching platform to have radar LOS to the target, especially near the intercept. Radar LOS is affected by the geometry of the Earth: if the target is far enough away and low enough, the target will be outside the radar LOS. This becomes much more relevent as technology advances, because the fuel range of the SAMs increases, while planes become more able to safely fly at VL altitude. In the Vertical Little Bighorn Attack, the plane drives in at VL altitude to fairly near the ship. 25 nm is the approximate ship-VL radar horizon, and 30 nm is a good working distance for this tactic. You should only do this with planes than can safely fly that low, such as the Su-30MK2. The plane pops up to low altitude. The ship can now see the plane and shoots some SAMs. The plane goes back to VL, where the ship can no longer see it. The missile loses tracking and whizzes by above the plane. Repeat the process until all the SAMs are used up. There are 4 cases to consider. 1) The tactic described in the previous paragraph is the way it happens in real life and in Harpoon (I haven't actually tested it). Well and good. 2) It doesn't happen like that, either in real life or in Harpoon. Well and good, except that I am wrong again. 3) It happens like that in real life but not in Harpoon. That's a flaw in Harpoon. 4) It happens like that in Harpoon but not in real life. That's a flaw in Harpoon, and using this tactic would be a sleazy exploitation of a hole in the game. I do think that the real life process should happen as I have described it, because the plane may very well be trying to do something damaging to the ship from low altitude that it can't do at VL. In particular, the Su-30MK2 is attempting to attack with YJ-91 ARMs, which have a minimum flight altitude of low. I believe that these missiles can't actually be launched from VL altitude (I could easily be wrong). On the other hand, the SAM computer should realize that the plane can always escape, so the SAMs should never be launched in this situation in real life. So there are some serious questions here which I am hoping the experts can answer for me.

If, as Brad suggests, the Vanguard was struck from the back (i.e. its blind spot), wouldn't this mean that the Vanguard had NO chance of detection? How would the Vanguard's towed array affect this? Was the towed array deployed at the time? Bear in mind that if the subs are traveling on the same path at the same speed, they can never collide. Also bear in mind that there should be no real expectation that the statements officials are making about this are intended to be truthful.

Let's see ... Wouldn't this put the subs inside solid rock? Add it to the list of headline bloopers.

Happy to be of service. I was, after all, teaching physics for a living, before I was downsized.

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...02&hl=cheat I don't see the cheat mode combination .... I have deliberately excluded it. See my short Feb. 6 post in http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3581. But I can put it in if necessary.

Here is the second draft of the graphical representation of the keyboard commands. red flags Please refer to the discussion above and in "order descriptions". 1) The d/f dichotomy. The Unit Display data is not consistent with the Active Unit Display data. This applies in particular to the sonar data and probably to other data as well. This should be resolved at some point, but not necessarily for purposes of these 2 play aids. 2) Free Memory. This command should be removed from the list, unless someone objects. 3) u. This command will remain off the list, unless someone objects. 4) Force refueling. Somewhere there should be a note that this command should only be used as a last resort. 5) CTRL- A. This command should be removed from the list, unless someone objects. After waiting for some final feedback (if any), these 2 play aids could be sent to the public area. <OLD VERSION OF KEY CARD.PNG DELETED BY AUTHOR. SEE BELOW FOR NEW VERSION.>

I was looking for this (turning off the autosave). I had interpreted the "save every 0 minutes" option as "save with a time interval of 0", which is what all the other options mean, i.e. save continuously. Now I know.

Akmatov, I have been thinking about the situation you presented and it appears to be the case that you probably can't do what you want. The problem is that (I am guessing here, someone correct me if I am wrong) the probability of a group assigned to a base actually appearing is independent of the probability of another group appearing, whereas what you really need is a conditional probability. For example, you want a 99% chance of something being there, and IF something is there, you want a 1/3 chance that it is of type A, B, or C. Alternatively, you want a 33% chance of group A being there, and IF group A is not there, you want a 49.5% chance that group B is there, and IF group B is not there, you want a 97% chance of group C being there. That way you would get the following result: "a 99% chance of one of the three types of a/c being present AND being on CAP and a 1% of no one home at all". Unfortunately, neither of these conditional setups are options in the scenario editor. On the other hand, if you want a 1% chance of nothing being home using independent group appearance probabilities, you would need (1 - pA) x (1 - pB) x (1 - pC) = .01, and, assuming pA = pB = pC, (1 - pA) = .215, so pA = .785 But if you need to assign such a high probability to the appearance of the individual groups, then the average result will be that there will be a lot of airplanes at the base. In this case, the average result will be that 2.355 groups will be present.

Here is the complete calculation for this situation. I am going to modify the situation slightly for ease of calculation. Premise: I have a base at which 3 different units, A, B, C, may or may not appear. Each unit has an appearance probability of 1/3. So the probability of any unit NOT appearing is 2/3. Each appearance probability is independent of all the others. Outcomes: All 3 units appear: 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/27 Two units appear: 1/3 x 1/3 x 2/3 = 2/27 (can happen 3 different ways) One unit appears: 1/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 4/27 (can happen 3 different ways) No units appear: 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 8/27 Total probability: 1/27 + (3 x 2/27) + (3 x 4/27) + 8/27 = 27/27 = 1 (i.e. it is guaranteed that one of the possible outcomes actually happens. If the total probability does not equal one, there is a mistake in the calculation.) Average number of units appearing: (3 x p3) + (2 x p2) + (1 x p1) + (0 x p0) = (3 x 1/27) + (2 x 3 x 2/27) + (1 x 3 x 4/27) + (0 x p0) = (3 + 12 + 12)/27 = 27/27 = 1 One of the units appears on average, and each one is equally likely. The average result can be obtained by just looking at the statement of the premise, but the individual outcomes need to be calculated in detail.

Interesting problem. I have never come across this before. Most of you know by now that I have spent most of my time with Harpoon with Harpoon Classic, yada, yada. However, I did test drive the demo of HCE and I did not notice this problem. Now the following are anecdotes, but they are accurate and, I believe, repeatable. Example: WestPac 3 (Philippines). My platform is the F-35B Lightning II. It carries a variety of different weapons, but for present purposes it is loaded with some number of AMRAAMs plus some number of anti-surface weapons, such as 2 ARMs plus 2 bombs. I typically used every weapon before rearming the plane, which is to say that I would shoot down a couple of aircraft, launch the ARMs at ships that had SAMs, and bomb some freighters. The chronological order of the attacks was not relevant. There would always be at least 2 target groups involved, and sometimes as many as 6 different target units. The point is that I never had any difficulty in attacking multiple targets, although I generally shot at one target before acquiring another (i.e. I didn't assign the plane to some target and then change my mind). I typically launch with "patrol" orders, because I typically use groups with only one or 2 units, and the "patrol" default is one unit, while the "attack" default is all units of that type, so the former means I have to click the mouse less. But I also launch with "attack" orders, and get no problems that way either. More details are available in my AAR in the Matrix forum http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2002545 Example: WestPac 2 (Pirate War). My platform is an attack helicopter (various types). It is carrying some number of anti-surface weapons. The helicopter would engage one target after another, ending only when it ran out of weapons. Generally, all targets would be in the same group. More details are available in my AAR in the Matrix forum http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1998012 Question: Could the problem have anything to do with the specific weapons the Phantoms are carrying? For example, the anti-armor loadout may not include weapons that can be shot at ships or land bases. Question: Can you try clearing the course (F3 or CTRL-3) before you send the aircraft after a new target?

Huh? A joke, or a facetious reference on my part to HG member Victor in the Pacific, and his obvious penchant for math. Never mind. Ask, and ye shall receive. Akmatov, the numbers you have stated (33% chance of each of 3 units A,B,C being present) would appear to mean that 1% of the time you would have no units. However, the specific possibility of getting zero units in a particular test would require the simultaneous failure of all three units to appear. The associated probability is obtained by multiplying 67% by 67% by 67%, approximately 2/3 cubed (= 8/27 = 30% done in my head; you can plug it into a calculator). So if your intention is to have some unit there 99% of the time, this would not be the way to go. In this case, I would suggest that, unless you want to spend a lot of time calculating these possibilities, you allocate a group with a 99% appearance probability, and then the other groups as appropriate.

As I understand it, the in-air refueling process works as follows: 1) The tanker and the aircraft to be refueled (TBR) approach each other until they are just a few feet apart (less than the length of the refueling hose). 2) The tanker assumes a stable flight pattern (straight and level or a gentle circle). 3) The aircraft TBR flies formation on the tanker. 4) The tanker extends the refueling hose. 5) The aircraft TBR makes solid contact with the refueling hose. 6) The tanker sends the fuel over. Clearly, this process takes a certain amount of time, and specific preparation is required. As I understand it, Harpoon simulates this process as follows: 1) The tanker and the aircraft TBR approach each other until they are close enough to join into one group. This could involve a separation of as much as 8 nm. 2) Both aircraft need to be loitering at the same altitude. 3) The groups are joined. 4) 60 s later, the refueling process stars. 5) 30 s after that, the refueling process is finished. It seems to me that the simulated procedure is a very good model. From the player's perspective, it is very simple. The 60 s delay takes care of all the details of the final approach of the the real process. If any of the existing requirements were removed, it would be clear that refueling could never happen that way in real life. The only flaw with the Harpoon model is that, after refueling one aircraft, the tanker will almost certainly be able to refuel many other aircraft later on, which is not possible in Harpoon. Now I am going to guess that the way the Harpoon refueling algorithm works is that, when 2 aircraft groups are joined, Harpoon checks to see if the conditions <tanker present with available fuel> and <both groups loitering at same altitude> are all met, and if so, executes the fuel transfer process. The point is that the trigger is probably the joining process, because it is generally a rare process that has only a few possible reasons, which makes it a good trigger. If the presence of a tanker was the trigger, then far more checks than necessary would be happening. So this may be why, as Warhorse points out, if the tankers start as part of an aircraft group, they never transfer fuel. In that case, the proper procedure would be to make the composite group loiter, split out the tanker, rejoin the tanker, and wait 90 s. Bear in mind, I am only guessing here. In my opinion, allowing instantaneous refueling should not be allowed. It would be sort of like removing the rate of fire restrictions on weapons systems. In the present (or recent) versions of the game, are there still cases where the automatic refueling process does not work, assuming the player (or AI) has followed the proper process?

Here is the second draft of the "keycard" (sorted by function). I believe that I have taken into account all of the feedback received so far. There is a related discussion that is taken place in the "order descriptions" thread. When that is completed, this keycard will be ready to be sent to the public. <OLD VERSION OF COMMANDS.PNG DELETED BY AUTHOR. SEE BELOW FOR NEW VERSION.>

Here is what I am proposing: a (mostly) succinct description of each existing command, but not all the details. In some cases, I had to add a bit of commentary. At present, this stuff is just unformatted text, and that is probably appropriate. Feel free to nitpick or rip it apart any way you see fit. There are a few items that I think need to be dealt with. These are colored red. Note that the CTRL - # commands have been replaced by F#s. This is not important here, because for the present purpose, the headings are only placeholders. _______________________ F1: Attack or Intercept Allows you to attack the enemy. Can be executed after selecting a friendly or enemy group. The first case is considered an “attack”; the second is considered an “intercept". In either case, there are 3 general possibilities. If your group is already in weapons range of the enemy, you will be asked exactly what weapons you want to allocate. If your groups are not in weapons range, you will be asked whether you want them to close the range, or they may do it automatically. If the enemy has not been sufficiently localized, you will be asked whether you want your groups to search for them. F2: Speed and Depth / Altitude Dialog for Groups / Units Allows you to set the speed and altitude for planes, speed for ships, and speed and depth for subs. F3: Course Entry Dialog for Groups / Units Allows you to set or edit the course of a selected group. F4: Formation Editor Lets you review and change the disposition of the individual units within a group. When you select this option, the Group map focuses on the group you’ve selected on the map and zooms down to about x32. This allows you to rearrange the units of the group directly on the map. F5: Ready Aircraft Allows you to prepare aircraft for particular mission profiles using a list of available loadouts. F6: Launch/Land Aircraft Allows you to launch aircraft from a selected group, or land a selected aircraft group. F7: Join Group Allows you to join two separate groups into a larger one. F8: Split Group Allows you to split a group into two smaller ones. F9: Set Sensors Dialog Allows you to set sonar and radar status for a selected group or unit. F10: Enter Staff Note Allows you to write notes which will be displayed at a designated future time. B: Bearing-Only Launch Sometimes you just have a gut feeling that there's an enemy ship over there somewhere, but for some reason you can't get an actual contact. Maybe your recon planes keep getting shot down, or maybe the enemy ECM is too strong. Using this command, you can launch your missiles along a specified bearing, hoping that the missiles will eventually be able to locate something with their own sensors. You can also use this procedure for other situations, such as when your nuclear missiles have been sabotaged and you had better get them off your ship before they blow up. C Centers both the Unit and Group windows around the currently selected unit or group. D Brings up the Unit Display if a unit is currently selected, or accesses the entire unit database if a group is currently selected. The Unit Display data is not consistent with the Active Unit Display data. This applies in particular to the sonar data and probably to other data as well. I have raised this point before. Based on the feedback I have seen and for other reasons, it appears to be the case that the Unit Display Data is not consistent with the current status of the game. F Brings up the Active Unit Display if a unit is currently selected, or a group status report if a group is currently selected. I, ALT – I Shows or hides group and unit IDs on the maps. M: Free memory display Most users won’t care about this. O: Show On Station rectangles for the player side (2008.068+) No idea what this does. U Units - Selects the first unit of the currently selected group (in the Unit window) (??) Doesn’t seem to work. V Shows or hides sonobuoys. X Zooms out the currently selected window (Group or Unit). Z Zooms in the currently selected window (Group or Unit). Arrow keys Scroll the currently selected window (Group or Unit). Enter Time compression is set to 1:1. . (Period) Drop a sonobuoy from the currently selected aircraft unit or group. Obviously, the aircraft needs to actually have a sonobuoy available, but aircraft altitude and speed are not relevant. Backspace Selects the next object to the north (up) in the current window. Spacebar Selects the next object to the south (down) in the current window. Tab: Active Window Toggle (Group or Unit) Toggles the active window (Group or Unit). - (also -/_): Time Compression De-compresses time by one increment. + (also +/=): Time Compression Compresses time by one increment. Keypad 5 Centers the Unit or Group window around the currently selected unit or group. ALT - 3, ALT – F3 Immediately enables nuclear release status in any scenario. For those situations where you need a really high-yield weapon, or maybe you’ve used up all your other weapons, or maybe you’re just really mad, but high command is refusing to let you escalate. You may get court-martialled, or you may precipitate a nuclear winter, but on the other hand, you may not live long enough to notice. ALT – R: Force Refueling The refueling process normally starts automatically 60 s after the units involved have been properly prepared, and is completed 30 s after that. I don’t see the point of this command. Does the automatic process ever not work? Should you be allowed to ignore the time requirements? ALT – T Shows or hides paths for all friendly groups. CTRL – A: Staff Report The Staff Assistant will make any appropriate recommendations for the currently selected group. That is the claim, but I’ve never seen it actually do anything. CTRL – B: Order of Battle Provides a list of friendly forces and detailed information about them. CTRL – D: Platform Display Provides a way to access the entire unit database. CTRL – E: Show Orders Displays the orders you were given at the beginning of the game when you selected the scenario. CTRL – F: Calculate Range & Bearing Lets you calculate the range and bearing from one group to another. CTRL – H: Game Status Displays a status report for Blue, Red, and Green forces (losses and damage sustained by each side). CTRL – I: Icon Display Selector Lets you set different styles for game icons. CTRL – K: Game Options Lets you configure which animations appear during game play. You can also toggle the display of killed ship pictures. You can toggle the time display on the Group window from a time of day display to a game time remaining display. You can change the color of the land and water. Finally, you set the time interval between autosaves. All these settings are saved. CTRL – M: Staff Options Used to enable or disable various staff options. You can choose to not be informed of new contacts, ships running aground, subs too deep, groups without movement orders, being too close to the map edge, and lost contacts. You can set the SAM fire rate and the range at which units start firing at incoming aircraft or missiles. You can choose to display certain information on the map, such as sonobuoys. There are other options as well. CTRL - P: Pause Game Pauses the game !! Note that the game will be paused (game time will not advance) whenever any command is being entered or report is being viewed. CTRL – R: Range Circles Display Lets you display information on the maps about the range of your weapons and sensors. CTRL – T: Time Compression Sets the time compression feature. For example, 1 second of real time could be set to equal 1 minute of game time. CTRL – W: Weather Report Displays the weather and other environmental conditions. Weather can affect sensors, weapons, and smaller ships. Only available near a friendly group or unit. CTRL – Y: Sound Options Allows you to choose which sounds you want to hear during the game.

The 3 CTRL-ALT combinations seem to be intended for testers only, so it would be my intention to exclude them from a play aid card.

from Tony, in "play aids" thread: ... to expound a little upon what each one does as keycard descriptions are necessarily short, but if someone eventually builds an interactive keyboard chart, longer descriptions would be very handy I will be working on this now. It will not be a manual, because the manual already exists. However, I will definitely be plagiarizing like mad from the manual. If there are copyright issues, I hope that someone removes them.

Based on the responses I have seen so far, and unless I hear otherwise, I think that what I will do is replace the CTRL-# options with F#, and add a note to the effect that the duplication exists.

obsolete data removed by author

I deliberately excluded these because they duplicate the CTRL - # commands. There will be a space issue if both are included (and even if the other possibility is used alone). Some of you may know that I have mostly played Harpoon (the old one, HC) on an old Mac. I don't recall right now if the F# keys exist on that keyboard, or if those functions work. Not that it matters, but that is where my preference comes from. As a second aside, it turns out to be considerably easier to execute CMD - # on the Mac than CTRL - # on the PC because the CMD key is placed so that the thumb can press it easily while a finger presses a number. The CTRL key location makes this awkward. Personally, I have never used the F# keys on the PC, for no great reason. Maybe this is a bit of a silly question, but to people use the F# keys or the CTRL - # keys? Correct. In fact, the "group" label is probably more important, because most commands are issued to groups. I have tested all the listed commands, except ALT - R. (In the demo, that is, and generally in HC. I presume the demo is functionally identical to the full game?) They all work as indicated. "Enter staff note" allows you to type some text in, but I don't know what value that has, so I excluded it. "Show / hide grid" doesn't seem to work in the HCE demo, so I excluded it. I suppose that I could start that process, and post the results for editing. It would be straight text.