Custom Scenarios...

[Joe K]

... If you're wanting a slick game that does everything for you, and doesn't require 'external knowledge' to play, then you may be playing the wrong thing, really.

 

I really, really wish we could dispense with these misconceptions.

 

As far as I'm concerned, HCE is a "slick" app... and I'm certainly not wanting it to do "everything" for you... and it doesn't require 'external knowledge' to play.

 

That said, nothing there says that there may not be some rough edges that can be smoothed in order to improve it. As with any app that has evolved over the long term, there are inconsistencies that pop up - for various reasons - but with no particular reason why that can't -or shouldn't- be corrected (barring any bizzare situations where it would take an absolutely inordinate amount of effort to fix - and I don't think that is the case in most of these issues, given that other similar aspects work in better ways, leading to the conclusion that it would be fairly easy to bring them all to operate in the same way, using the desired mode as a pattern for the others).

 

Regarding the "do everything" issue, I think that is an exaggeration. Let me put forth my "vision" about that:

 

IMO, each operation that can be commanded should be able to complete pretty much autonomously if left unattended, albeit perhaps not with ideal or optimum outcomes in some cases. (This would simulate the real world where many people are involved and responsible for the proper outcome of the particular operation, and does not require nor necessarily benefit from, meddling by the commander. This would provide the aspect where the commander deals with strategy and can rely on subordinates to make it happen - within reason). The game already does this to a large extent... the only problems I see in this regard are the occasional situations where some gotcha pops up because something wasn't "covered" in the automatic side of things.

 

My response to those who enjoy micro-managing everything, and wearing many hats within the command chain is simply this: What I'm suggesting does not preclude this micro-management mode in any way - nor would I desire it to! All I'm suggesting is that things ought to go fairly well even when no micro-managing is being done. Part of this is to simulate behaviors that a subordinate or pilot, etc. would reasonably be expected to do - rather than having some, well, just plain ridiculous things happen if the commander does not keep his thumbs in everything. I don't see this as being unreasonable nor restrictive in any way. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about this).

 

Regarding external knowledge, I'd say that certainly is useful and helpful, but I don't see it as a requirement to play the game - nor do I think that it should be. I see no reason why the game should not serve double duty as a training environment (in fact, I thought that was what it did in some cases). I think the issue that came up about "external knowledge" had to do with weapons capabilities versus the GE-imposed limitations - or lack thereof - of their suitability and use for particular applications. From my own perspective, all I'd ask for here is what I think would be a valid simulation of real life where if a commander does something apparently wrong, an XO - or whoever - would likely give him a "heads-up" and/or a recommendation about it. In the game, the Staff Assistant sometimes serves this purpose, but other times, the SA just seems to sit back in the corner and snicker while he knows the commander is gonna screw something up. All I'm suggesting about this is to have, via the SA or whatever, the player be advised when he accidentally - or even due to incompetence - attempts to do something obviously wrong. Again the game already does this in many ways and instances, and all I'm suggesting is that it cover comparable situations in comparable ways by advising of potential errors and so forth. Again, I'm seeing this as a slight extension of the existing general mode of operation, not some big re-vamp - nor as harming the playability of the game in any way. Am I wrong?

 

Hopefully, that clears up some of the wierd notions about my suggestions/requests/opinions regarding the game operation.

[TeTeT]

I love to use the launcher for utilizing the different databases. I wonder if the Harpoon community would benefit from a database sync program. For example, harpgamer.com could offer rsync or zsync access to the databases and probably scenarios. A player would synchronize the databases and scenarios on their local disks and then use the launcher to use them. Wondering if this would help to overcome the custom scenario / database problem or just aggravate to the problem?

[VictorInThePacific]

I just put the scenario files in the folder. Where would I get/switch databases?

 

It is critical to match scenarios with the databases and battlesets that they use.

 

Each scenario uploaded to HarpGamer should have the appropriate database listed on the same page where the scenario is posted for download.

 

The available databases are likewise posted in the Downloads section of this website, appropriately enough called Databases.

 

Just want to point out that, while the draft documentation is just that, this particular point is covered there.

 

Tony's launcher seems to cover the automation aspect. Documentation for that will be available at some point.

[Brains]

My response to those who enjoy micro-managing everything, and wearing many hats within the command chain is simply this: What I'm suggesting does not preclude this micro-management mode in any way - nor would I desire it to! All I'm suggesting is that things ought to go fairly well even when no micro-managing is being done. Part of this is to simulate behaviors that a subordinate or pilot, etc. would reasonably be expected to do - rather than having some, well, just plain ridiculous things happen if the commander does not keep his thumbs in everything. I don't see this as being unreasonable nor restrictive in any way. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about this).

 

You are wrong. (You asked.) There is a reason why you have multiple levels of humans running things in the real world... Because it can't be reliably automated in the real world. As you already noted, the sim already does a good job of doing most things in the game for you and you have the added ability to stop time (and speed it up) to take care of the extra supervisory work. The real world is full of examples where many levels of humans and machine assistance still screwed the pooch so a few non-optimal (but seldom horrifically bad) SA/AI decisions are the least of the worries in a sim like this.

 

An example... IMHO, Running a (charitably described) no-margin tanker setup for a strike plus no tankers in the air for contingencies counts as a choice if it was intentional or a failure if it wasn't. War is hell. More than one of my flights has died due to my mistakes and more than one has been sent to its certain death.

 

Regarding external knowledge, I'd say that certainly is useful and helpful, but I don't see it as a requirement to play the game - nor do I think that it should be. I see no reason why the game should not serve double duty as a training environment (in fact, I thought that was what it did in some cases). I think the issue that came up about "external knowledge" had to do with weapons capabilities versus the GE-imposed limitations - or lack thereof - of their suitability and use for particular applications. From my own perspective, all I'd ask for here is what I think would be a valid simulation of real life where if a commander does something apparently wrong, an XO - or whoever - would likely give him a "heads-up" and/or a recommendation about it. In the game, the Staff Assistant sometimes serves this purpose, but other times, the SA just seems to sit back in the corner and snicker while he knows the commander is gonna screw something up. All I'm suggesting about this is to have, via the SA or whatever, the player be advised when he accidentally - or even due to incompetence - attempts to do something obviously wrong. Again the game already does this in many ways and instances, and all I'm suggesting is that it cover comparable situations in comparable ways by advising of potential errors and so forth.

 

The difference between a stupid mistake and a daring (or constrained) choice is not something easily determined by AI. The SA already rejects attempts to do obvious wrong things (complaints about lacking appropriate weapons, bingo warnings, radar warnings (which actually bug more me than help...)), but, as another example, attacking ships with iron bombs isn't necessarily a mistake. Yes, I've intentionally attacked ships with iron bombs IIRC. Didn't turn out terribly efficient, but it did the job.

 

Again, I'm seeing this as a slight extension of the existing general mode of operation, not some big re-vamp - nor as harming the playability of the game in any way. Am I wrong?

 

Hopefully, that clears up some of the wierd notions about my suggestions/requests/opinions regarding the game operation.

 

Again, you're wrong. Dismissing work as a "slight" extension this and an easy change that is trivial.... And horridly wrong.

 

As the conversations on this thread and others have shown, sometimes it is hard for other people to understand what a player wanted or commanded or whatnot , much less an AI given a "slight" tweak. That doesn't mention having an AI constantly bugging you "Are you sure?" as a playability negative... Or even what should be questioned! (Iron bombs against ships? Not a question in my mind. Fuel constraints on a mission? How is the AI going to know that I've got tankers on a racetrack and prepositioned for the strike? etc etc etc)

 

You mentioned that you considered going back to an earlier version of HCE because it behaved more "normally". Most of that is nostalgia in my opinion, since the view of the game is much less rosy when you sit down and start analyzing the actual behavior of the old versus new. The recent versions of the game aren't just bells and whistles, but actual improvement to the AI and modeling to the point that the older games just get annoying.

 

(Blame the typos and such on the late night...)

[Joe K]

You are wrong. (You asked.) There is a reason why you have multiple levels of humans running things in the real world... Because it can't be reliably automated in the real world. As you already noted, the sim already does a good job of doing most things in the game for you and you have the added ability to stop time (and speed it up) to take care of the extra supervisory work. The real world is full of examples where many levels of humans and machine assistance still screwed the pooch so a few non-optimal (but seldom horrifically bad) SA/AI decisions are the least of the worries in a sim like this.

 

Sigh! As per usual, it seems that I failed to get my point across. What I'm referring to are things like pilots, who were ordered to do a stand-off surface attack, but then proceed on their own (after expending their surface weapons) and attempt to engage the target group's air assets - especially considering that doing so is obviously a suicide run as it puts them far into the SAM envelope. Now, it's fair to argue that the game might not be expected to be smart enough to avoid the SAM envelope (and even that seems debatable), but it's clear to me that air groups should not be regujlarly defying their orders - with nobody in the command chain taking any notice... yet that's what's currently modeled.

 

Further, I never said - and don't believe I even implied - that automated actions should necesarily result in favorable outcomes. Instead, what I was trying to suggest is that the groups would follow orders and make some reasonable basic decisions, based on the circumstances - as they do in many cases already. It's just that there are some gotcha situations that don't follow the usual automatic response patterns, and I hoped those could be addressed.

 

 

The difference between a stupid mistake and a daring (or constrained) choice is not something easily determined by AI. The SA already rejects attempts to do obvious wrong things (complaints about lacking appropriate weapons, bingo warnings, radar warnings (which actually bug more me than help...)), but, as another example, attacking ships with iron bombs isn't necessarily a mistake.

 

Three things:

1. I don't see any particular problem (nor any inconsistency with current game behavior in other instances) to offer advisories when attempts are made to do things beyond the reasonable capabilities of the hardware involved - such as attempting BOL attacks with non-BOL-capable weapons.

 

2. I'm not suggesting that the player be prevented from going ahead and doing dunderheaded things despite the warnings, if he so chooses.

 

3. I assume that it would be practical to have a game preference setting that determines what level of warnings and advisories the player wants to have - and thus an inexperienced player could choose lots of such information, while more experienced players could opt-out of some or all such "chatter"... making the game more suited to either type of player, as required.

 

 

Again, I'm seeing this as a slight extension of the existing general mode of operation, not some big re-vamp - nor as harming the playability of the game in any way. Am I wrong?

 

Hopefully, that clears up some of the wierd notions about my suggestions/requests/opinions regarding the game operation.

 

Again, you're wrong. Dismissing work as a "slight" extension this and an easy change that is trivial.... And horridly wrong.

 

As the conversations on this thread and others have shown, sometimes it is hard for other people to understand what a player wanted or commanded or whatnot , much less an AI given a "slight" tweak. That doesn't mention having an AI constantly bugging you "Are you sure?" as a playability negative... Or even what should be questioned! (Iron bombs against ships? Not a question in my mind. Fuel constraints on a mission? How is the AI going to know that I've got tankers on a racetrack and prepositioned for the strike? etc etc etc)

 

Again, I think you're reading a lot more into this than what I'm actually trying to suggest, and even so, I think your concern could be handled to everyone's satisfaction via an appropriate game setting option for the type of warnings and advisories to be applied.

 

You mentioned that you considered going back to an earlier version of HCE because it behaved more "normally". Most of that is nostalgia in my opinion, since the view of the game is much less rosy when you sit down and start analyzing the actual behavior of the old versus new. The recent versions of the game aren't just bells and whistles, but actual improvement to the AI and modeling to the point that the older games just get annoying.

I believe I also said that I usually dismissed those urges, for the very reasons you re-iterated.

 

I am not saying that the game is worse off now than it was in the past by any means. CV32 had asked me why I kept on playing the game given the troubles I've been having, and I was simply responding to that. I don't believe the game is "all screwed up" (as some people insist is my position)... but on the other side of the coin, I am having real problems with the version of the game that I'm running on my particular system - mostly things that did not exist for me in prior versions even of HCE - so, in that context, yes, it is very tempting to step back to that version where I didn't see the problems. Even so, it's a difficult trade-off.

 

 

(Blame the typos and such on the late night...)

I often wish people would cut me some slack in that regard...

[Kavik Kang]

I should explain that I am not a typical gamer. I was a "hardcore" gamer before computer games even existed. I spent most of my life playing games that most people who claim to be "hardcore" gamers today would never consider playing because, well, they are just too "hardcore" for them.

 

Star Fleet Battles and Advanced Squad Leader take just a little more effort and devotion to play than any computer game. But, after decades of this for the last few years I just avoid any games that will take a lot of work, effort, time, or record keeping. Something like having to manually rename a file and keep track of which one it currently is, is exactly the kind of thing I just don't do anymore.

 

So I understand it isn't a huge issue, and I am not complaining. I, personally, have just "retired" from anything other than clicking an icon and playing the game. I think you need to play games for 35 years to truly understand what I mean, but there it is:-)

[donaldseadog]

I should explain that I am not a typical gamer. I was a "hardcore" gamer before computer games even existed. I spent most of my life playing games that most people who claim to be "hardcore" gamers today would never consider playing because, well, they are just too "hardcore" for them.

 

Star Fleet Battles and Advanced Squad Leader take just a little more effort and devotion to play than any computer game. But, after decades of this for the last few years I just avoid any games that will take a lot of work, effort, time, or record keeping. Something like having to manually rename a file and keep track of which one it currently is, is exactly the kind of thing I just don't do anymore.

 

So I understand it isn't a huge issue, and I am not complaining. I, personally, have just "retired" from anything other than clicking an icon and playing the game. I think you need to play games for 35 years to truly understand what I mean, but there it is:-)

I wouldn't be concerned, it takes a long time to get through all the in built scenarios of HCE, you can click and play for years I'd reckon before you got tired of it. Don't forget the instant action button, really cuts down on the button pushiing , I used it for ages.

[mavfin]

I should explain that I am not a typical gamer. I was a "hardcore" gamer before computer games even existed. I spent most of my life playing games that most people who claim to be "hardcore" gamers today would never consider playing because, well, they are just too "hardcore" for them.

 

Star Fleet Battles and Advanced Squad Leader take just a little more effort and devotion to play than any computer game. But, after decades of this for the last few years I just avoid any games that will take a lot of work, effort, time, or record keeping. Something like having to manually rename a file and keep track of which one it currently is, is exactly the kind of thing I just don't do anymore.

 

So I understand it isn't a huge issue, and I am not complaining. I, personally, have just "retired" from anything other than clicking an icon and playing the game. I think you need to play games for 35 years to truly understand what I mean, but there it is:-)

I wouldn't be concerned, it takes a long time to get through all the in built scenarios of HCE, you can click and play for years I'd reckon before you got tired of it. Don't forget the instant action button, really cuts down on the button pushiing , I used it for ages.

 

There's also a zillion 'commondb' scenarios out there that only require a newer commondb, too. You can just overwrite/update the commondb file once in a while, and still play old scenarios with it, as well as the new. Commondb isn't supposed to break old scenarios when it's updated. The only ones excluded once you take this into account is the custom DB scenarios like Cold War, World War, 50-to-65, etc., and as a percentage of total, they're pretty small.

[VictorInThePacific]

Kavik Kang ... hardcore SFB ... then you will be familiar with the term "fighter sea"?

 

Glory days, man, glory days.

 

Why, I remember the time ...

[Kavik Kang]

Kavik Kang ... hardcore SFB ... then you will be familiar with the term "fighter sea"?

 

Glory days, man, glory days.

 

Why, I remember the time ...

 

I literally know SFB as well as anyone, "fighter sea" must have been a local phrase used by you group. But I can imagine what you are referring too. FED CV launches 12 F-15's, 12 F-15's each launch six drones... you now have 84 more individual units to keep track of!

 

I don't think most people have a frame of referance to understand just how out-of-control SFB can get. In a big fleet battle like that it can wind up taking you 80 hours of play time to resolve what would be about 6 minutes of real-life action. As Maxwell Smart would say: "And loving it..." :-)

[VictorInThePacific]

Kavik Kang ... hardcore SFB ... then you will be familiar with the term "fighter sea"?

 

Glory days, man, glory days.

 

Why, I remember the time ...

 

I literally know SFB as well as anyone, "fighter sea" must have been a local phrase used by you group. But I can imagine what you are referring too. FED CV launches 12 F-15's, 12 F-15's each launch six drones... you now have 84 more individual units to keep track of!

 

I don't think most people have a frame of referance to understand just how out-of-control SFB can get. In a big fleet battle like that it can wind up taking you 80 hours of play time to resolve what would be about 6 minutes of real-life action. As Maxwell Smart would say: "And loving it..." :-)

 

Oh, no, one CVA does not a fighter sea make. You must think in grander terms. Much, much grander.

[Warhorse64]

Oh, no, one CVA does not a fighter sea make. You must think in grander terms. Much, much grander.

 

As in, perhaps, a combined Hydran/Federation assault on a Klingon starbase?

[Kavik Kang]

Oh, no, one CVA does not a fighter sea make. You must think in grander terms. Much, much grander.

 

As in, perhaps, a combined Hydran/Federation assault on a Klingon starbase?

 

Or just one Kzinti fleet:-)