Hello all. I would like to start the discussion about how we can together find a way to bring the HCDB2 up to date. I could provide a long list of platforms that need to be created or updated, but that's not a good use of space here right now. And players creating and sharing their own databases "willy nilly" will confuse the process and intimidate newer players. So I think one centrally administrated database remains the only solution. The big question is who would be willing to take this on? Brad, I cannot thank you enough for all the work you have put in over the years, and I understand that you probably won't want to do this.  But as military technology advances, this game with the current database will start to become irrelevant for current events. And this brings on an even bigger question, how many people still want to play this game? Will it be worth the effort? So Brad, Tony, Don, Enrique, what's your advice? And to all of the newer players, and ones that don't post much, would you approve? Let's get talking.

For me the game is relevant, purchased Command CMNO but not very interested on it.

About the DB, not problem on centralize it or a new start (in fact my personal DB is very modified, including decoys and countermeasures in many platforms).

Also, in a current times DB probably we need less platforms (less in service types of aircraft, ships and submarines in I think every country).

"And this brings on an even bigger question, how many people still want to play this game? "

 

That's something I sometimes wonder. Certainly the download of new scenarios isn't what it used to be but there is still obvious interest. Also time will tell but the Steam addition to the equation might well bring a new surge. 

I think HC is still a unique simulation, where the new programs are more a game.

Taking into account current limits to database size when pondering this question I've wondered whether there's now a need to start a new (series 3?) DB from a more recent start date - an issue is that many nations still use quite old platforms. The main issue to my mind is the sheer size of the job of starting from scratch.

Just few hours ago, in a FB group: 

Well I guess it shows for those interested in naval simulation if they haven't 'played' the latest HC then HC97 is pretty impressive. 

One direction I'd wondered if a small well organised team or a single person were to start a new database they could target a particular currently interesting region, maybe even a single  modern scenario, and build up from there.

Remembering that the intellectual property rights in the current hcdb2 (and most of the other db we use) belong to Brad (quite rightly in my opinion due to the huge work in creating them) the start from scratch direction is a big undertaking. 

One avenue that is a bit clumsy and only in my view useful for small additions is the use of exportdll units that modify the loaded database. These can be produced eg for a set of scenario ( abit like doing a custom battleset) so as to update existing platforms with modernised or customised variants but doesn't work well if introducing a totally new item (platform sensor or weapon). I've used it with I'd say 80% effectiveness to eg modify a submarine into a one way autonomous semisubmerged drone. It works well to alter available loadouts of aircraft or mounts\weapons on ships from avaialble weapons\mounts\sensors etc. Eg a modified japanese ddg  simulate a hypothetical australian new gen frigate. As I said though it is somewhat clumsy and restricted and doesn't really progress to cover totally new items of technology.

´Just another problem is the limitation of 4096 or so entries by type. Begin a DB, as 2026-2036 and after be limitated by that and start again from zero!

4 hours ago, broncepulido said:

´Just another problem is the limitation of 4096 or so entries by type. Begin a DB, as 2026-2036 and after be limitated by that and start again from zero!

I'm assuming the date range includes the active platforms in various nations so I think that sounds good, in line with what brad was doing when he created hcdb2 as the update of the first general hcdb.

 

The ceiling limitations to the current DB structure are, in large part, what put an end to ongoing work on HCDB2 (and any of my other DB work).

One potentially quick solution would be to break it down by having a DB focus on a smaller period of time, but even there you face potential obstacles.

Consider, for example, that in 2026 we still have aircraft built in the 1950s and 1960s still playing important roles in modern conflicts.

BUFF, anybody?

 

22 hours ago, CV32 said:

The ceiling limitations to the current DB structure are, in large part, what put an end to ongoing work on HCDB2 (and any of my other DB work).

One potentially quick solution would be to break it down by having a DB focus on a smaller period of time, but even there you face potential obstacles.

Consider, for example, that in 2026 we still have aircraft built in the 1950s and 1960s still playing important roles in modern conflicts.

Would a feasible approach be to focus on a time and region, prune plus grow the hcdb2 db, and embed into a dedicated battleset?  

Don

On 3/17/2026 at 6:52 PM, donaldseadog said:

Would a feasible approach be to focus on a time and region, prune plus grow the hcdb2 db, and embed into a dedicated battleset?  

Don

 

Yeah, in general I think that as long as the annex ceilings exist, more focus is better.

For example, e.g. a battleset that focuses on the Persian Gulf from 1990 to 2002.

And its usually easier to be backward looking in historical context when developing a DB (and a battleset that employs it) than trying to predict the future.

On 3/24/2026 at 4:26 AM, CV32 said:

 

..snip...

And its usually easier to be backward looking in historical context when developing a DB (and a battleset that employs it) than trying to predict the future.

Thinking of current russian-ukraine war and where we were immediately before, that is a very accurate observation.