Akmatov

I actually asked when this was coming out given that the events might happen before the game comes out - they are trying for 30 September.

Hmm, will try it. Has this sort of thing been reported before? I would really hope I was doing something odd, thought I can't see what it could be. EDIT 1 OMG! This is a GREAT collection, whether or not helps! I had no idea such a collection existed. EDIT 2 Sadly, still have the same problem. :( It is happening in both the Scenario Editor and in just Play. Could I be doing something wrong? All I'm doing is unzipping the file and copying the new commondb.res into the Harpoon CE folder, overwriting the current one. Then with the picture file, I'm adding it to the folder. Is there something else I should be doing? Should I be deleting anything?

Thanks, that is very helpful and I hadn't noticed that they had the same scenarios.

I thought I saw somewhere that you could convert the EC2000 battle sets to EC2003. Is there such a thing or did I just imagine it?

Scenario Editor/EC2003/GUIK/Groups/Platform Display Selecteding UK CVH Hermes, CVH Hermes (Falkland), CVH Invincable, CVH Invincable (Falklands) = "error in ReadRescourceHeader () - probably a corrupted .RES/.RSR file" clicking OK = CTD various other platforms display properly this is true of both the 19 May and the 30 May versions I also reDLed to check also the RU Kirov I unzipped the download and overwrote the commondb.res file, is there a different way I should be installing? I would be sure of that, except other platforms show up just fine.

That is really interesting and explains a lot. I'll probably be toasted by the time I get in this evening, but I will try to mess around a bit. The scenario I sent you lacked the two air bases I was using to fly AEW aircraft out of so I could see what was happening before I found out about Show All. I'll bet either the bases or the AEW aircraft were the triggers for the Bears to energize.

I am so sorry I managed to tread on already sore toes. I knew I was 'venting', but I thought I was avoiding any sort of attack on anyone. I had wanted to 'vent' to people who would understand my frustration - when I tried to explain the problem to my adolescent tom cat, his response was to ask when dinner would be served and to then turn his back and resume his grooming. I am very aware of the fact that it is only due to the dedication of folks like you guys that Harpoon even still exists in a form that an up-to-date operation system - my old 5.25" disks are only useful as coasters today. There are certain games that I find myself coming back to repeatedly and the factor that causes that is folks like you guys who have taken over an older game and continually breathed life into it. The current version of Harpoon is unique in today's game/simulation market and a vast improvement over the original. BTB, you guys do realize that your demonstrated willingness to listen to player reports might lead to more reports and/or suggestions?

I'm curious, do you see an oddity about these two sentences right beside each other? And btb, did you notice that as soon as Tony directed me to the best way to address issues, I immediately followed his helpful guidance? And that he has verified the problem? My sole desire has been to draw attention to a problem that seem to me to be major and to provide the fullest possible information to assist in its resolution. I have indeed expressed dismay at the problem, but have not directed any negativity toward the folks responsive for the much appreciated ongoing development of Harpoon. My choice of thread titles was intended to be a bit light-hearted, although it seems to have utterly failed in that intent. You seem to have perceived my comments as something personal, hence your snarky response and now this suggestion that your 'sympathy' for a particular customer and potential future customer would be "highly relevant" to the resolution to a "reported issue" (btb, recently verified by Tony). I am certainly very unhappy about what I'm currently calling the No Radar Bears and I expressed that unhappiness. At no time, as far as I know, did I express any derogatory comments toward the folks who are keeping Harpoon alive and growing. I think our exchange has definitely gotten into a negative area, which is especially distressing as you have previously been very helpful. This will be my last comment on this thread other than those strictly focused on assisting in the resolution of this verified issue. Let's all have a better day.

Hmm, frankly it seems you are being gratuitously snarky. 1) Not everyone knows that the older battle set, simply by virtue of being older and non-editable, are prone to causing problems. 2) You seems to have missed the point that the scenario in the old battle set under v2008.044 worked just fine. It was only after patching up to 2009.042 that the undesirable behavior began. 3) Given that the only variable change prior to the undesirable behavior was the installation of a patch, it seem logical to suspect that this singular variable was the source of the problem. 4) Given the above it would seem more likely that the undesirable behavior is a result of something in the code, rather than my apparently poor choice of battle sets. 5) Therefore, your lack of sympathy for me is irrelevant.

Thank you very much Tony for both the help and the remarkable promptness. I confess to finding this confusing. I have changed computers since the last time I played Harpoon, so when I installed Matrix HCE it was an utterly clean install with no possibility of any bits and pieces left from a prior install. I then updated with patches 2008.024 and 2008.044, not knowing any better. At that point, using Show All, I could watch Bear-Ds lifting off from Murmansk East with their Surface Search Radar already turned on (could see the range circles). Only after I patched up to HC2009.042inc.zip plus HC2010.006GE.zip, did the no radar Bears behavior occur. I then decided to revert to the pre-HC2009.042 configuration so I could get my AI radars back. When I went to Control Panel/Uninstall there where two listings for HC, as I recall one seemed to reference HC2009.042 and the other vanilla HC. I selected the HC2009.042 uninstall choice and an uninstall process occured. Then when I went to remove the second listing for HC, seemingly vanilla, it could not uninstall it. Looking at the directory I found most, but not all,of the HC files gone. I then deleted the remaining files. I've gone into all this just in case it might relate to what comes next. I then reinstalled Matrix with HC patches 2008.024 and 2008.044, still not knowing any better. Everything seems fine, except now, using the same scenario I had previous used with both the pre and post HC2009.042 patch installs, the AI Bear-Ds still had no active Surface Search radar. Using Show All I could again watch them take off from Murmansk East without SS and later when they came inside the Air Search zone of a blue surface group all without turning on their SS radar - the same pattern of behavior displayed under patch HC2009.042. Therefore, believing that there were no files remaining from the previous HC2009.042 patched install, I assumed something in the registry was changed that caused this issue, even when I wiped the offending installs files and reinstalled. Of course, I guess there could be some other file somewhere outside the Matrix Games\Harpoon CE directory that causes this behavior. If so, I have no idea where to even begin to look. One random thought just occurred. I did not reboot the computer during all of this. So I'll check tonight to see if the No Radar Bears Behavior might be different after a reboot. A minor point, but I kinda liked being able to have grid lines on when I wanted them. Having the old on/off grid lines would be nice. I realize there were problems with their accuracy, but they still provided useful reference points. I will in future do my experimenting in EC2003 or newer battlesets. Of course, I realized there were newer databases, but I didn't realize that the older battle sets, just by virtue of being older, were prone to bad behavior. The only things I know to do regarding the No Radar Bears Behavior are: 1) Check to see if a reboot, i.e. turning my computer on this evening, has any effect. 2) Rewrite the scenario in an EC2003 or later battle set and see what happens. Is there something I'm missing that I might do?

Just posted the issue at HarpGamer > Issue Tracker > HCE with a .zip of the very basic scenario I was using for testing. Things have actually gotten worse. Thinking I'd just revert back to 2008.044 I uninstalled HCE v2009.042 and reinstalled HCE and added 2008.024 and 2008.044. Now my game is not allowing AI Surface Search radars on the Bear-Ds, i.e. it is showing the same behavior as with the new patch. As all the game files were deleted before the reinstall, the new patch must have messed with something deeper than just the files. I really need to find out how to fix that. I'm afraid something was changed in the registry and that is a bit scary to mess with.

Will do. Just one simple question - how do I send you the scenario? It is very small and very simple, I was just testing two things. Thanks a lot for the fast replay!

I just updated my HCE with HC2009.042inc.zip and HC2010.006GE.zip from HarpGamer and did a short run test. I have some serious concerns about one of the changes made since the last Matrix patch, v2008.044. Reports I have read are completely correct, the AI Bear D recon aircraft now do not turn on their surface search radar and are now completely useless, as well as are several billion rubles of ASM carrying bombers up around Murmansk. This castration now makes it impossible to model a key Soviet strategy. With this change several regiments of very expensive Soviet bombers will spend the war waiting for a recon report that will never ever come. Yes, I am NOT amused. I can't express how weird I find this. It completely destroys any possibility of AI maritime recon. PLEASE please fix this. Reading the status reports on various improvements makes me want to play with them, but I will have to delete Harpoon and reload it so I can get my AI recon back. Or better yet, point out what I'm missing that fixes this. And just a small note: I believe I read that in one of the more recentish patches the grid lines were disabled. Well, mine are on permanently. I can change the way they are applied, as usual, but the On/Off buttons are grayed out. The scenario I cooked up to test some things had them turned on, so my guess is they were imported into the game from the scenario. I like having the grid lines as a general thing, but it would be nice to be able to turn them off.

Don't know whether to cheer or cry. Another excellent Harpoon product to buy. Soon I hope.

Problems solved - wonderful how much smarter I am when I've had some sleep. I was leaving blank records in the Mags, Mounts and Sensors area.

I am having a problem getting homemade scenarios to work. So last night I reinstalled HCE and copied the original-original .mdb and .res files for safe keeping. Went into PlatEdit-Import DB-and changed the AA denfenses for Kef-Red and added a blue airbase in Greenland (an overwrite) using the basic, provided DB - Export DB. All OK, I can pull up the saved data in PlatEdit and can create a scenorio with ScenEdit using the new bases. BUT I can not load it to play. I get this message "GetAnnex Error-ADDIDToList Error: expected a disk ID, got 0 (0x0). this message has been logged. The program will now terminate". HELP!

This is something I came across that might be of interest. From: http://navysite.de/cvn/cvw.htm It probably belongs in the FAQ thread, but I can't post there. I couldn't completely clean up the format, but I think it is understandable. The Air Wing compositions from 1943 to 1998 The charts below do not reflect the exact Air Wing composition they just give an approximate view of the most common compositions. In addition to the CVW a Fleet Tactical Support Squadron (VRC) Detachment consisting of 2 planes is embarked aboard the carrier. These detachments are not listed below. In the "additionally" – chart lists just the most often used squadrons. These are squadrons embarked in addition to the core of the Air Wing. The Air Group Composition aboard the ESSEX-class carriers (1943) Squadrons Aircraft Remarks 1 Fighter Squadron (VF) 36 F4F or F6F 1 Bomber Squadron (VB) 36 SBD 1 Torpedo Squadron (VT) 18 TBM or TBF Total: 90 aircraft The Air Group Composition aboard the ESSEX-class carriers (1945) Squadrons Aircraft Remarks 2 Fighter Squadrons (VF) 73 F6F 1 Bomber Squadron (VB) 15 SB2C 1 Torpedo Squadron (VT) 15 TBM Total: 103 aircraft The Air Group Composition in 1960 Squadrons Aircraft Remarks 2 Fighter Squadrons (VF) 24-28 F-8 or F-3 3 Attack Squadrons (VA) 36 A-4 1 Heavy Attack Squadron (VAH) 10-12 A-3 Total: ~70 aircraft Additionally: Squadrons Aircraft Remarks 1 Carrier Early Warning Squadron (VAW) AD-5 Often but not always embarked. 1 Light Photographic Squadron (VFP) RF-8G Detachment The Air Wing Composition in 1970 Squadrons Aircraft Remarks 2 Fighter Squadrons (VF) 24 F-4 or F-8 F-8 mainly used aboard the ESSEX class carriers. 2 Attack Squadrons (VA) 24 A-7 or A-4 1 All-weather Attack Squadron (VA) A-6A/B 1 Reconnaissance Attack Squadron (RVAH) 4 RA-5C Detachment 1 Carrier Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 4-6 E-2A Detachment 1 Tactical Electronic Squadron (VAQ) EKA-3B Detachment 1 Helicopter Combat Support Squadron (HC) SH-3A or UH-2C Detachment Total: ~90 aircraft Additionally: Squadrons Aircraft Remarks 1 Light Photographic Squadron (VFP) RF-8G Detachment 1 Heavy Attack Squadron (VAH) KA-3 Detachment The Air Wing Composition in 1981 Squadrons Aircraft Remarks 2 Fighter Squadrons (VF) 24 F-4 or F-14 2 Attack Squadrons (VA) 24 A-7 1 All-weather Attack Squadron (VA) 10-12 A-6E and 4 KA-6D Also responsible for tanker operations (KA-6D). 1 Carrier Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 4-6 E-2C Detachment 1 Tactical Electronic Squadron (VAQ) 4-6 EA-6B Detachment 1 Air Anti-Submarine Squadron (VS) 10 S-3A 1 Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 6 SH-3G/H Detachment Total: 86-92 aircraft Additionally: Squadrons Aircraft Remarks 1 Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron (VQ) EA-3 Detachment 1 Light Photographic Squadron (VFP) 3 RF-8G Detachment The current Air Wing Composition (1998) Squadrons Aircraft Remarks 1 Fighter Squadron (VF) 12 F-14A/B/D The F-14 aircraft will be relieved by F/A-18F planes and later by the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Maybe the Fighter Squadron will be reduced to 10 aircraft until the F-14’s decommissioning. Just 2 of the 10 CVWs still have 2 Fighter Squadrons. 3 Strike Fighter Squadrons (VFA) 36 F/A-18C 4 of the 10 CVWs possess an VMFA squadron instead of a VFA squadron. The F/A-18B and D are currently not used aboard the carriers. 1 Carrier Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 4 E-2C Sometimes the VAW-Detachment consists of just 3 E-2C aircraft instead of 4. 1 Tactical Electronic Squadron (VAQ) 4 EA-6B Sometimes the VAQ-Detachment consists of just 3 EA-6B aircraft instead of 4. 1 Air Anti-Submarine Squadron (VS) 8 S-3B In addition to their anti-submarine task the S-3B aircraft are also used for refueling operations and reconnaissance operations combined with the capability to attack surface vessels with Harpoon missiles. 1 Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 4 SH-60F and 2 HH-60H The SH-60F and HH-60H will be relieved by the SH-60R. Total: 70 aircraft Additionally: Squadrons Aircraft Remarks 1 Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron (VQ) 2 ES-3A After just some years of service the 16 ES-3A aircraft have been decommissioned. Their job will be done by land-based P-3C aircraft. The VQ-Squadrons were only embarked as detachments.

OK, I am now thoroughly confused and mathematically humbled. My goal is to create a situation where there is an element of uncertainty regarding which units will be present in a self-created scenario. A 1% 'no show' chance is not important, it just came about as a result of my choosing 33% rather than 33.33% in my example. If 33.3% x 3 groups or 25% x 4 groups doesn't arrive at that result, what percentage value should I be using?

Huh?

So if I set a 33% chance of MiG-21s, a 33% of MiG-25s and a 33% chance of MiG-29s AND each element is assigned a CAP Formation Mission; I would have 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? This would be very nice

The idea of beefing up the usefulness of recon aircraft got me thinking. I've putzed around with Harpoon over the years and am coming back to it again and really liking HCE. I usually find myself overwhelmed with the huge scenarios with platforms all over the landscape doing all sorts of things. I prefer smaller scenarios where the problems are more limited - like escorting a convoy across the Atlantic in the face of Badgers, Bears and Victors or conducting a detailed carrier strike against a target. Currently I'm setting up a 'test range' with a base in Greenland from which I'll be running flights down to Keflivik to get a feel for what the various aircraft can do. So far, I've noticed that my EW a/c can provide intel on aircraft present via ESM; which in reality would be hugely helpful, ie is the base protected by MiG-21s or MiG-29s. Given that I'm writing my own scenarios, I kinda know what the Red side has. BUT when assigning a unit to a base, one is asked the percent chance this unit will be present. Does this work? If so, it would be a great way to increase the uncertainty factor and justify the use of pre-strike recon.

I actually copied and pasted the idea, but messed up the format in the Wish List - hoping a moderator will fix/delete. Are the right sensors available at present to load? If so, need to look more carefully. I just think it would be cool if you had to do a recon to get a good BDA and maybe somehow make a recon flight a damage multiplier on the strike (the latter is a very murky idea).

Ops, I should have titled this 'Akmatov's Wish List', sorry edit will not let me change the Topic Title - feel free to retitle it or delete it. gkm posted this elsewhere and I'm just copy pasting it here in hopes the ideas get consideration. I think it would be great if the recon a/c were to have more of a purchase.

And I know this isn't the wishlist, but I like the ideas for actually giving recon a/c a purpose.

Oh, quite agree. Just think they or an engineer could look at a bridge, or whatever, and have a MUCH better idea than I about what is needed to drop it. Hence, I think peeking at the DPs for a target isn't cheating, but is more like having some of the information available the RL planners do. OFC that doesn't mean I'll get my loadout right or that my plane will not get shot down or that they will actually hit the target.