When attempting to lay out courses for my surface or sub groups using the "visual aids" of the map, I often find later that I have inadvertenly laid the course over a shallow or even a small land mass - which was unseen when laying out the course, even if I used rather extreme magnification.

 

I've also noticed that the visual indications of water depth often do not seem to be consistent with the depth reports at specific groups, that is for example, two groups may be near each other over a large area on the map where the water color is a consistent light blue, yet one group reports water depth as intermediate, while the other's report says VDeep.

 

So, my question is, how are the water depths and land locations actually determined in the GE... and do they have any correlation to the visual indications of water depth and land masses that appear on the Group Map?

 

If the visuals are unreliable for guaging water depth, is there any other good way of finding out the water depths at points along group courses as they are being laid out - so as to avoid shallows or land masses? This isn't a big issue in "blue water" (usually), but it tends to be a frequent problem when laying courses around islands or in coastal areas, or when approaching land (like at a beachhead or harbor). Is there a good way to determine depth for courses in such areas?

When attempting to lay out courses for my surface or sub groups using the "visual aids" of the map, I often find later that I have inadvertenly laid the course over a shallow or even a small land mass - which was unseen when laying out the course, even if I used rather extreme magnification. I've also noticed that the visual indications of water depth often do not seem to be consistent with the depth reports at specific groups, that is for example, two groups may be near each other over a large area on the map where the water color is a consistent light blue, yet one group reports water depth as intermediate, while the other's report says VDeep. So, my question is, how are the water depths and land locations actually determined in the GE... and do they have any correlation to the visual indications of water depth and land masses that appear on the Group Map? If the visuals are unreliable for guaging water depth, is there any other good way of finding out the water depths at points along group courses as they are being laid out - so as to avoid shallows or land masses? This isn't a big issue in "blue water" (usually), but it tends to be a frequent problem when laying courses around islands or in coastal areas, or when approaching land (like at a beachhead or harbor). Is there a good way to determine depth for courses in such areas?

 

The colors have no relationship to actual water depth. (Just as they have no relationship with the height of terrain). You can determine the water depth in any given area by clicking on that point. See the status bar at the bottom of your display.

The colors have no relationship to actual water depth. (Just as they have no relationship with the height of terrain). You can determine the water depth in any given area by clicking on that point. See the status bar at the bottom of your display.

 

Understood... but what about when you're laying down a course? I didn't see any way of determining elevation while in that mode - which is where I really need the info (considering how many of my ships and subs seem to run into stuff after the fact).

Understood... but what about when you're laying down a course? I didn't see any way of determining elevation while in that mode - which is where I really need the info (considering how many of my ships and subs seem to run into stuff after the fact).

 

You'll simply have to be careful when plotting courses that take ships or submarines into shallow waters or close to land. Especially where there are formation of multiple ships or submarines are involved.

FWIW, I recall reading somewhere that water depth in HC is a simple function of distance from shore: the further out, the deeper. There was apparently no effort to match the actual geography (hydrography?) whatsoever.

Understood... but what about when you're laying down a course? I didn't see any way of determining elevation while in that mode - which is where I really need the info (considering how many of my ships and subs seem to run into stuff after the fact).

 

You'll simply have to be careful when plotting courses that take ships or submarines into shallow waters or close to land. Especially where there are formation of multiple ships or submarines are involved.

 

 

Apparently so... yet it's kind of like shooting in the dark. The only method that I can think of would be to click on the map (in normal mode) numerous times in order to take "soundings", and somehow remember all those so that when I switch to course input mode, I can (hopefully) lay the course over the actual open water... but, boy, would that be a time-consuming process!

 

I recall back in the old days in the Scenario Editor, that you could run an analysis on the courses, and it would report any conflicts. Too bad that analysis isn't available in the GE; if it was, then at least the player would have the opportunity to detect and correct any "overland" course legs.

... water depth in HC is a simple function of distance from shore: the further out, the deeper.

 

That's correct.

Apparently so... yet it's kind of like shooting in the dark. The only method that I can think of would be to click on the map (in normal mode) numerous times in order to take "soundings", and somehow remember all those so that when I switch to course input mode, I can (hopefully) lay the course over the actual open water... but, boy, would that be a time-consuming process! I recall back in the old days in the Scenario Editor, that you could run an analysis on the courses, and it would report any conflicts. Too bad that analysis isn't available in the GE; if it was, then at least the player would have the opportunity to detect and correct any "overland" course legs.

 

If you are aware of the limitations, the process is actually very easy. And the 'scenario analysis' tool still exists in the SE.

Apparently so... yet it's kind of like shooting in the dark. The only method that I can think of would be to click on the map (in normal mode) numerous times in order to take "soundings", and somehow remember all those so that when I switch to course input mode, I can (hopefully) lay the course over the actual open water... but, boy, would that be a time-consuming process! I recall back in the old days in the Scenario Editor, that you could run an analysis on the courses, and it would report any conflicts. Too bad that analysis isn't available in the GE; if it was, then at least the player would have the opportunity to detect and correct any "overland" course legs.

 

If you are aware of the limitations, the process is actually very easy. And the 'scenario analysis' tool still exists in the SE.

 

Could you elaborate on the "very easy" process a bit? I guess I'm missing something there.

 

The analysis tool in the Scenario Editor is fine for the Scenario Editor, but what I'm needing is a way to lay out safe courses while actually playing - that is, if I'm in a game and needing to set a course, say, in the Phillipines - without crashing my ships and subs into the bottom all (er, well, any) of the time. Since the map features are not reliable references, and the depth reports (apparently) are only available in "normal mode", I guess I'm just not seeing how one can easily lay out an unobstructed course near land while in Course-entry mode... I don't know what to use as depth references in that mode. (?)

Could you elaborate on the "very easy" process a bit? I guess I'm missing something there. The analysis tool in the Scenario Editor is fine for the Scenario Editor, but what I'm needing is a way to lay out safe courses while actually playing - that is, if I'm in a game and needing to set a course, say, in the Phillipines - without crashing my ships and subs into the bottom all (er, well, any) of the time. Since the map features are not reliable references, and the depth reports (apparently) are only available in "normal mode", I guess I'm just not seeing how one can easily lay out an unobstructed course near land while in Course-entry mode... I don't know what to use as depth references in that mode. (?)

 

Well, as I said earlier, courses near land are always something to watch for. Unless you need to transit through a strait or other narrow body of water, however, it usually isn't an issue in most scenarios.

 

Also formations can cause trouble, because your units at the edge of the formation are going to be most likely to 'bump up' against land. I will 'shrink' my formation size to its smallest possible (i.e. main body 1 nm across) size before transiting through any area where I believe this to be a concern.

 

But, otherwise, its just a matter of using the zoom features to find the most sensible course. There really isn't any 'trick' to it.

Well, as I said earlier, courses near land are always something to watch for. Unless you need to transit through a strait or other narrow body of water, however, it usually isn't an issue in most scenarios.

 

Also formations can cause trouble, because your units at the edge of the formation are going to be most likely to 'bump up' against land. I will 'shrink' my formation size to its smallest possible (i.e. main body 1 nm across) size before transiting through any area where I believe this to be a concern.

 

But, otherwise, its just a matter of using the zoom features to find the most sensible course. There really isn't any 'trick' to it.

 

Yeah, all bets are off when it comes to any groups of ships coming close to land... it's almost a foregone conclusion that something is going to hit bottom.

 

But, in this case, I was referring to single-sub or single-ship "formations", where the unit was in the center ring. (I've noticed that such one-unit "formations" tend to have more problems when the unit is placed in one of the other rings (although I never really understood the reasoning for doing that anyway ) In any event, I'm trying to look at the simplest case here, where there is only one unit, in the center ring.

 

So, I'm still baffled: Since the map does not reflect actual depths, even zooming it isn't going to help that situation. So, it seems that you're really flying blind, as far as setting near-land courses goes - 'cause there really is no reliable reference to go by?

Yeah, all bets are off when it comes to any groups of ships coming close to land... it's almost a foregone conclusion that something is going to hit bottom.

 

Can't say I agree with that. I don't have a problem with formations.

 

But, in this case, I was referring to single-sub or single-ship "formations", where the unit was in the center ring. (I've noticed that such one-unit "formations" tend to have more problems when the unit is placed in one of the other rings (although I never really understood the reasoning for doing that anyway ) In any event, I'm trying to look at the simplest case here, where there is only one unit, in the center ring.

 

Single ship/sub formations are certainly easier. For more on why units in other formation zones behave the way they do, I suggest you read the Tactics 101: Naval Formations tutorial.

 

So, I'm still baffled: Since the map does not reflect actual depths, even zooming it isn't going to help that situation. So, it seems that you're really flying blind, as far as setting near-land courses goes - 'cause there really is no reliable reference to go by?

 

In real life, water depths would be considerably more complex than they are represented here. Here, it is a very simple function of how far from land you are. A few clicks of a mouse can tell you what to expect from what part of the map. It doesn't get any simpler than that. So, I have to say that I don't really understand why you're having trouble and I'm not sure I could do anything to explain it to you any better. Harpoon Classic has been this way for 20 years now. Are you sure you're even playing the same game as the rest of us? No offense, but I'm honestly just as baffled, but not about the same thing.

If in doubt, you can always use an old merchant captain rul of the thumb, Always leave 3 miles between the ship and the land, and add one extra mile per child in the family, and he had 7!

I think something is getting lost in the translation here...

 

Yeah, all bets are off when it comes to any groups of ships coming close to land... it's almost a foregone conclusion that something is going to hit bottom.

 

Can't say I agree with that. I don't have a problem with formations.

 

Um, you commented previously about the steps necessary to avoid having problems with groups around land... I was only agreeing with that.

 

But, in this case, I was referring to single-sub or single-ship "formations", where the unit was in the center ring. (I've noticed that such one-unit "formations" tend to have more problems when the unit is placed in one of the other rings (although I never really understood the reasoning for doing that anyway ) In any event, I'm trying to look at the simplest case here, where there is only one unit, in the center ring.

 

Single ship/sub formations are certainly easier. For more on why units in other formation zones behave the way they do, I suggest you read the Tactics 101: Naval Formations tutorial.

 

Well, I generally understand why the units in formation behave the way they do... here, I was only expressing that I don't really see much benefit in placing the single unit of a formation anywhere other than in the center ring - especially not in the context of trying to lay its winding course among islands, etc. Seems like that'd be just asking for more troubles.

 

 

So, I'm still baffled: Since the map does not reflect actual depths, even zooming it isn't going to help that situation. So, it seems that you're really flying blind, as far as setting near-land courses goes - 'cause there really is no reliable reference to go by?

 

In real life, water depths would be considerably more complex than they are represented here. Here, it is a very simple function of how far from land you are. A few clicks of a mouse can tell you what to expect from what part of the map. It doesn't get any simpler than that. So, I have to say that I don't really understand why you're having trouble and I'm not sure I could do anything to explain it to you any better. Harpoon Classic has been this way for 20 years now. Are you sure you're even playing the same game as the rest of us? No offense, but I'm honestly just as baffled, but not about the same thing.

 

Again, my point is that I know of no way to "know" where the land actually exists. The map gives you an idea that land is nearby, but reportedly cannot be relied on as far as determining exactly where the land is... so if you plot a course based on the map graphics, it's very likely that it will hit something.

 

This is further complicated by the difficulty in placing waypoints exactly where you'd like them (they "snap to" certain grid locations instead), so the course line between points may shift enough from the desired path that it will cause a conflict. Attempts to place more waypoints more closely together can help in some cases, but since you're placing them based on the map graphics, it's often the case that you don't even know that another waypoint is needed - in other words, the course line between waypoints may look fine on the map, but may actually pass over land as far as the GE is concerned. As an aside, I've even had cases where I'd plotted a course through "blue water", and had a ship run aground as the group traversed! Apparently, there was a shallow that did not show on the map at all, but doing "soundings" around the area of the grounded ship did report "Sea Level" in the immediate area where the ship was stuck.

 

The whole point is the question of what to use for references when laying out the courses - due to not being able to use the map features for this purpose.

 

As far as playing the same game as everyone else, yeah, I've wondered about that myself! I have seen a fair number of unexpected behaviors that either don't exist for others - or at least, that they've never noticed. I do tend to "stress" the system, though: I use most of the range circles; I'm ansey if I don't have every available a/c in flight, and often with many groups having complex couses laid in... I task the ASW a/c especially hard in that regard, often having extensive search courses plotted concurrently for every available ASW a/c. And when launching missile attacks, I often send successive volleys before being prompted to do so - meaning there can be lots of missile groups in the air at times... along with everything else that's going on. So, I suppose it's possible that something is running out of memory, or getting "stomped", or whatever... FWIW, most of such "oddities" turn up only after I've been playing a game for several days... so perhaps it's some sort of "progressive" gremlin.

 

On the other hand, maybe it's just me: At work, I always ended up being tasked with testing stuff - because I could always manage to find the unexpected ways of doing things that caused the prototypes to "break".

Um, you commented previously about the steps necessary to avoid having problems with groups around land... I was only agreeing with that.

 

I understand, though you had also made the comment that this happens to you almost constantly. I'm simply saying that it almost never happens to me.

 

Well, I generally understand why the units in formation behave the way they do... here, I was only expressing that I don't really see much benefit in placing the single unit of a formation anywhere other than in the center ring - especially not in the context of trying to lay its winding course among islands, etc. Seems like that'd be just asking for more troubles.

 

Okay, so you understand formation zones and all that. Good. I think I stated earlier that when transiting narrow bodies of water, I try and shrink my own formations to their lowest common denominator. So, moving on ...

 

Again, my point is that I know of no way to "know" where the land actually exists. The map gives you an idea that land is nearby, but reportedly cannot be relied on as far as determining exactly where the land is... so if you plot a course based on the map graphics, it's very likely that it will hit something.

 

Again, this has not been my experience. If we know that water depth is a function of distance from land, and the land certainly is readily determined from the map graphics, and we know that we can find out water depth at any particular point by clicking on the map at that point, then setting a course to avoid running aground is an achievable task.

 

This is further complicated by the difficulty in placing waypoints exactly where you'd like them (they "snap to" certain grid locations instead), so the course line between points may shift enough from the desired path that it will cause a conflict. Attempts to place more waypoints more closely together can help in some cases, but since you're placing them based on the map graphics, it's often the case that you don't even know that another waypoint is needed - in other words, the course line between waypoints may look fine on the map, but may actually pass over land as far as the GE is concerned.

 

I recall the 'snap' behavior in laying courses that you mention, but since the zoom feature was considerably expanded many versions ago, I can't recall it being a problem anymore, except maybe at very high zoom. I have not seen the 'waypoints over land in the GE' issue you mention, though I suppose its possible if a person was laying courses at low zoom in areas of constricted waters. But then, why would anyone want to do that?

 

As an aside, I've even had cases where I'd plotted a course through "blue water", and had a ship run aground as the group traversed! Apparently, there was a shallow that did not show on the map at all, but doing "soundings" around the area of the grounded ship did report "Sea Level" in the immediate area where the ship was stuck.

 

There are some very small islands on the maps that do not show until you really zoom in. (Proximity to land aside). Otherwise, I am not aware of any 'shoals' on the maps. Can you point to a specific scenario or map location?

 

The whole point is the question of what to use for references when laying out the courses - due to not being able to use the map features for this purpose.

 

I understand, and it seems my only reply is that beyond practise and experience, I don't know if there is anything available to help you.

 

As far as playing the same game as everyone else, yeah, I've wondered about that myself! I have seen a fair number of unexpected behaviors that either don't exist for others - or at least, that they've never noticed. I do tend to "stress" the system, though: I use most of the range circles; I'm ansey if I don't have every available a/c in flight, and often with many groups having complex couses laid in... I task the ASW a/c especially hard in that regard, often having extensive search courses plotted concurrently for every available ASW a/c. And when launching missile attacks, I often send successive volleys before being prompted to do so - meaning there can be lots of missile groups in the air at times... along with everything else that's going on. So, I suppose it's possible that something is running out of memory, or getting "stomped", or whatever... FWIW, most of such "oddities" turn up only after I've been playing a game for several days... so perhaps it's some sort of "progressive" gremlin. On the other hand, maybe it's just me: At work, I always ended up being tasked with testing stuff - because I could always manage to find the unexpected ways of doing things that caused the prototypes to "break".

 

Okay.