OK, then back to my point about whether the activation range dialog is offered or not: Because it is not possible (AFAIK) to determine the BOL capability of a particular weapon without external knowledge, it seems that the activation range dialog should not be offered as it is... or perhaps even that the incapable weapons should not be released for that target (as is the case with ARM-types)... or if the weapon is "slightly capable", at least that there would be an advisement that the weapon is not really suitable. I conceed that it is arguable that a "professional" should be knowledgable about these sorts of nuances, but considering the inavailability of that information within the game, it seems that it would be more consistent with other comparable situations (such as the attempted ARM launch situation) if the use was blocked or at least had an associated advisory - instead of offering a dialog that implies, "Hey, this is good - go for it!" Just my two cents.

 

Can't concur with not offering the BOL option for these reasons (at least):

 

1. It is easy enough to simply remember that radar guided is best for BOL.

2. I don't want to be denied something that is possible, even if it may not be ideal. It may be all I have.

3. The ARMs, for example, should be very useful in the BOL mode, and maybe we can crack that little issue down the road with beta work. It wouldn't make sense for us to remove the option in the interim.

4. There are weapons/tools that are useful in BOL mode, even though their accuracy might suck. For example, decoys.

 

And I am not interested in 'spoon feeding' the player with info about weapon capability and such. Maybe someday we can have that information displayed as with platforms, but that would be a wish list item. Right now the Staff Assistant is annoying enough. I don't need him telling me what to use where.

Can't concur with not offering the BOL option for these reasons (at least):

 

1. It is easy enough to simply remember that radar guided is best for BOL.

2. I don't want to be denied something that is possible, even if it may not be ideal. It may be all I have.

3. The ARMs, for example, should be very useful in the BOL mode, and maybe we can crack that little issue down the road with beta work. It wouldn't make sense for us to remove the option in the interim.

4. There are weapons/tools that are useful in BOL mode, even though their accuracy might suck. For example, decoys.

 

And I am not interested in 'spoon feeding' the player with info about weapon capability and such. Maybe someday we can have that information displayed as with platforms, but that would be a wish list item. Right now the Staff Assistant is annoying enough. I don't need him telling me what to use where.

About the only weapons that I can remember being radar-guided - well, radar-homing, if you want to get technical - are ARMs; all others disappear into the soup of guidance types as far as I'm concerned.

 

I agree that I don't like being denied something - which is why I suggested an advisory-only indication as an option. However, we're already being denied ARMs at times, with no choice, so perhaps a little consistency is in order?

 

If an appropriate advisory was provided along with the activation distance dialog, it wouldn't even be necessary to spoon-feed the player all the weapons info anywhere. Instead, it would just be a generic reminder at the time of attempted use.

About the only weapons that I can remember being radar-guided - well, radar-homing, if you want to get technical - are ARMs; all others disappear into the soup of guidance types as far as I'm concerned.

 

How about the game's namesake, for example? I think I've said this before, but most anti-ship missile types are of the active radar homing variety, and any of these would make for useful tools in the BOL mode.

 

I agree that I don't like being denied something - which is why I suggested an advisory-only indication as an option. However, we're already being denied ARMs at times, with no choice, so perhaps a little consistency is in order?

 

I can think of more useful things to do with our limited coding/beta testing time.

 

If an appropriate advisory was provided along with the activation distance dialog, it wouldn't even be necessary to spoon-feed the player all the weapons info anywhere. Instead, it would just be a generic reminder at the time of attempted use.

 

You know (or should know) where the beta forum - where wish list items should go - is located. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.

Because it is not possible (AFAIK) to determine the BOL capability of a particular weapon without external knowledge,

 

My comment to this is that, imo, the game/sim really isn't *designed* to be played without external knowledge. i.e. you're severely handicapped if you don't know what's a radar homer, what's an EO guided weapon, which missiles are heat-seekers, and which a/c have a high dogfight value. (Don't dogfight with F4s vs a Flanker OR a MiG-17, for example.) There are many other things it's good to know that could be classified as 'external knowledge', such as the fact that fighters are generally radar-blind in the rear, sort of like a submarine without a tail.

 

What's helpful about coming here is that you can find out that particular *implementations* of those are a bit strange, like ARMs, for example. I don't launch ARMs w/o a hard lock. Sometimes, when I have trouble getting such a lock, I'll hit the '-' key to put the game back to '0 time/stopped' when I do get a target locked up, launch the missiles, then start game time again. Sure, it's a little 'gamey', but, the reason I do it is that the BOL implementation can be just plain weird on anything but a line-of-bearing uncertainty zone, and, as Brad has pointed out, ARMs don't work with it at all. I tend to only use BOL on single targets that I have a good line of bearing on, and that are not in the middle of a bunch of other ships, because I know that if I launch BOL into a bunch of other ships, I'm likely to kill something I've already got non-BOL missiles on the way to.

 

Also, use Tony's Launcher, turn on some of the logging, once you're using the full version of the game (demo won't log, right?), and that can be very instructive as to how it all works.

Also, use Tony's Launcher, turn on some of the logging, once you're using the full version of the game (demo won't log, right?), and that can be very instructive as to how it all works.

Demo will log though I have to say it took a few builds before I got the logging actually working in Release builds (you can see my musings in ReleaseNotes.txt or one at http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...e&pid=11779 ).

My comment to this is that, imo, the game/sim really isn't *designed* to be played without external knowledge. i.e. you're severely handicapped if you don't know what's a radar homer, what's an EO guided weapon, which missiles are heat-seekers, and which a/c have a high dogfight value. (Don't dogfight with F4s vs a Flanker OR a MiG-17, for example.) There are many other things it's good to know that could be classified as 'external knowledge', such as the fact that fighters are generally radar-blind in the rear, sort of like a submarine without a tail. What's helpful about coming here is that you can find out that particular *implementations* of those are a bit strange, like ARMs, for example. I don't launch ARMs w/o a hard lock. Sometimes, when I have trouble getting such a lock, I'll hit the '-' key to put the game back to '0 time/stopped' when I do get a target locked up, launch the missiles, then start game time again. Sure, it's a little 'gamey', but, the reason I do it is that the BOL implementation can be just plain weird on anything but a line-of-bearing uncertainty zone, and, as Brad has pointed out, ARMs don't work with it at all. I tend to only use BOL on single targets that I have a good line of bearing on, and that are not in the middle of a bunch of other ships, because I know that if I launch BOL into a bunch of other ships, I'm likely to kill something I've already got non-BOL missiles on the way to. Also, use Tony's Launcher, turn on some of the logging, once you're using the full version of the game (demo won't log, right?), and that can be very instructive as to how it all works.

 

Thanks, mavfin. Lots of good stuff in there.

but the wierd part is some of the missiles went off on perpendicular paths leading nowhere, and some even went in the opposite direction from where their targets were!

 

I witnessed something like this yesterday. Don't know how reproducible it is, but it's going into the defect tracking section. AI was launching torps at me. If this "weird" behaviour is "standard" for certain types of poor-detection launches, perhaps at a minimum the AI shouldn't be doing this.

Because it is not possible (AFAIK) to determine the BOL capability of a particular weapon without external knowledge,

 

My comment to this is that, imo, the game/sim really isn't *designed* to be played without external knowledge. i.e. you're severely handicapped if you don't know what's a radar homer, what's an EO guided weapon, which missiles are heat-seekers, and which a/c have a high dogfight value. (Don't dogfight with F4s vs a Flanker OR a MiG-17, for example.) There are many other things it's good to know that could be classified as 'external knowledge', such as the fact that fighters are generally radar-blind in the rear, sort of like a submarine without a tail.

 

What's helpful about coming here is that you can find out that particular *implementations* of those are a bit strange, like ARMs, for example. ...................................

I totally agree, I've learned a huge amount from Harpoon and this site. If all this stuff was built in I think Harpoon would perhaps degrade to just another 'game'.

As it is you need certain knowledge (which you can obtain here) and you need to do lots of thinking.

Don Thomas

I've never played the scary big Westpac scenarios. I will have a preliminary look at Middleweights today. I may refuse to play it. But I think it's only the USNI scenarios that are insanely hard.

 

I meant to comment on this earlier. The USNI scenarios are challenging, I'd agree, but "insanely hard" or impossible to the point that anyone should refuse to play them? Nah, can't agree with that. I would be interested in hearing about others' experience with them. Are you getting your butt handed to you regularly in USNI?

 

Maybe it depends on your definition of insanity.

 

I don't have access to the USNI scenarios right now, but looking at my old AAR, I recall that there was a huge variation in the starting airpower. Playing as the Russians, I remember that I got the maximum number of Fencers, without which the USSR probably has zero chance of winning. In general, if you get a poor OB and the AI gets a good one, you won't have a chance. Besides, Brad, what's challenging for you may well be be impossible for a non-expert.

 

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1997503

 

Hasn't Joe been talking about being swarmed with 700-800 heavy bombers almost before he gets anything in the air in one scenario? He hasn't provided screenshots ... yet.

I've never played the scary big Westpac scenarios. I will have a preliminary look at Middleweights today. I may refuse to play it. But I think it's only the USNI scenarios that are insanely hard.

 

I meant to comment on this earlier. The USNI scenarios are challenging, I'd agree, but "insanely hard" or impossible to the point that anyone should refuse to play them? Nah, can't agree with that. I would be interested in hearing about others' experience with them. Are you getting your butt handed to you regularly in USNI?

 

Maybe it depends on your definition of insanity.

 

I don't have access to the USNI scenarios right now, but looking at my old AAR, I recall that there was a huge variation in the starting airpower. Playing as the Russians, I remember that I got the maximum number of Fencers, without which the USSR probably has zero chance of winning. In general, if you get a poor OB and the AI gets a good one, you won't have a chance. Besides, Brad, what's challenging for you may well be be impossible for a non-expert.

 

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1997503

 

Hasn't Joe been talking about being swarmed with 700-800 heavy bombers almost before he gets anything in the air in one scenario? He hasn't provided screenshots ... yet.

So here is dumb question of the year (glad it is early in the year, I might get beaten before it ends)..

I know i've seen USNI scenarios, but I can't find them. I'm sure they were 'resident' in the game battlesets but not now.

I seem to have something funny with HDSM.res and HDSM.rsr files, should they be the USNI battleset??

(If so I need to reload I guess), otherwise where should they be??

I just have to have a go in there, nothing like an insane flogging

DonThomas

So here is dumb question of the year (glad it is early in the year, I might get beaten before it ends)..

I know i've seen USNI scenarios, but I can't find them. I'm sure they were 'resident' in the game battlesets but not now.

I seem to have something funny with HDSM.res and HDSM.rsr files, should they be the USNI battleset??

(If so I need to reload I guess), otherwise where should they be??

I just have to have a go in there, nothing like an insane flogging

DonThomas

 

Actually, HCE doesn't have USNI, as far as I know. HUCE and the demo do.

USNI scenarios ...

I just have to have a go in there, nothing like an insane flogging

 

Actually, HCE doesn't have USNI, as far as I know. HUCE and the demo do.

 

Donald, if you do get flogged, or better yet if you do the flogging, I hope you will provide an AAR?

So here is dumb question of the year (glad it is early in the year, I might get beaten before it ends)..

I know i've seen USNI scenarios, but I can't find them. I'm sure they were 'resident' in the game battlesets but not now.

I seem to have something funny with HDSM.res and HDSM.rsr files, should they be the USNI battleset??

(If so I need to reload I guess), otherwise where should they be??

I just have to have a go in there, nothing like an insane flogging

DonThomas

 

HUCE has the original USNI battleset and does not represent much of a challenge. The HC demo http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3446 does have the rebuilt USNI scenarios that Joe K is referencing. I haven't take the time yet to integrate them into the full game.

 

You can have both the full game and demo installed at the same time without installation nightmares.

About the only weapons that I can remember being radar-guided - well, radar-homing, if you want to get technical - are ARMs; all others disappear into the soup of guidance types as far as I'm concerned.

 

How about the game's namesake, for example? I think I've said this before, but most anti-ship missile types are of the active radar homing variety, and any of these would make for useful tools in the BOL mode.

My intended point was that I typically don't remember all that stuff without some sort of prompting or reference material. In other words, I don't keep it all in my head - at least not available for instant recall - probably because it is not my bread and butter job.

 

I do have a question, though: For BOL, my assumption is that we're were talking radar self-guided weapons, not weapons guided via radar from the launcher or target-director platforms, correct?

 

 

I agree that I don't like being denied something - which is why I suggested an advisory-only indication as an option. However, we're already being denied ARMs at times, with no choice, so perhaps a little consistency is in order?

 

I can think of more useful things to do with our limited coding/beta testing time.

No quibble here. Yet, since you bring it up, I do rather wonder why you don't have more resources on the job.

 

If an appropriate advisory was provided along with the activation distance dialog, it wouldn't even be necessary to spoon-feed the player all the weapons info anywhere. Instead, it would just be a generic reminder at the time of attempted use.

 

You know (or should know) where the beta forum - where wish list items should go - is located. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.

Well, I kinda thought that I'd used up my quota there...

My comment to this is that, imo, the game/sim really isn't *designed* to be played without external knowledge. i.e. you're severely handicapped if you don't know what's a radar homer, what's an EO guided weapon, which missiles are heat-seekers, and which a/c have a high dogfight value. (Don't dogfight with F4s vs a Flanker OR a MiG-17, for example.) There are many other things it's good to know that could be classified as 'external knowledge', such as the fact that fighters are generally radar-blind in the rear, sort of like a submarine without a tail. What's helpful about coming here is that you can find out that particular *implementations* of those are a bit strange, like ARMs, for example. I don't launch ARMs w/o a hard lock. Sometimes, when I have trouble getting such a lock, I'll hit the '-' key to put the game back to '0 time/stopped' when I do get a target locked up, launch the missiles, then start game time again. Sure, it's a little 'gamey', but, the reason I do it is that the BOL implementation can be just plain weird on anything but a line-of-bearing uncertainty zone, and, as Brad has pointed out, ARMs don't work with it at all. I tend to only use BOL on single targets that I have a good line of bearing on, and that are not in the middle of a bunch of other ships, because I know that if I launch BOL into a bunch of other ships, I'm likely to kill something I've already got non-BOL missiles on the way to. Also, use Tony's Launcher, turn on some of the logging, once you're using the full version of the game (demo won't log, right?), and that can be very instructive as to how it all works.

 

Thanks, mavfin. Lots of good stuff in there.

Acknowledged.

 

Still, do you intend the game to only be usable by people who have a certain level of "external" knowledge... or do you intend it to serve as a bit of a learning tool at the same time? Personally, I learn stuff from playing the game, combined with bits of knowledge that I've picked up elsewhere, and it sort of brings it all together. But if players would need to have all of the knowledge beforehand, then it seems like it would actually cut down on the appeal of the game because it would reduce the learning experience aspects. So, why not have some learning "hooks" in there?

 

Looking for another perspective, what is the comparative effort-versus-value ratio of putting in certain bits of information or advisements like this, as compared to generating considerable information in the form of logging? Just thinking...