imho Brains states it well. What I'll add is...

 

* We'll deal with whatever level of detail can be given. You don't have the SE (well, you have your HC Gold SE and could make test scens there and run them in HCE) so we do what we can with your saved games.

 

* Sometimes saved games don't reproduce a problem but if you don't try, you won't know. Saved games after the fact are better than no saved game at all but there is little excuse not to have one before the fact with the iterative saving options (see beta tester manual in beta tester general forum).

 

* While it isn't neccessarily fair, reports with the proper backing, focused saved games/scenarios are going to tend to be addressed before reports without such collateral. Occasionally I chase down random reports but it is a huge time-sink, generally not as fun for me, and takes time away from reports that are well-formed and quickly addressable.

 

This thread, which began as a simple inquiry about how to more effectively manage the process of setting courses so as to avoid land, has now mushroomed into a life of its own, involving everything from opinions about what has, or has not, been designed into the game (or been removed from it), what is the nature (scope) of the player's role(s) in the game, what is the preferred (acceptable) way to play the game, wish list items, questions about behaviors of the game, etc. So, it's all gotten to be a muddle, and I'm more than a bit confused - especially now that people are demanding saved games in order to "prove" my positions on all this stuff.

 

I'm willing to take some time to produce more saved games (where possible and practical) for anything that is truly abnormal and thus needs to be invesitgated... but at this point, I'm not sure which of the matters that have been discussed here actually fall into this category - as opposed to things that are "normal" and I'm just not understanding them properly, or that are simply differences of opinion. So, please identify which issue(s) - if any - you believe are abnormal and actually need to be investigated via game saves, and I'll take a shot at capturing those.

 

* Many of the things you mention are 'big' issues better addressed in a re-write of the game. I support such a rewrite but there isn't a lineup of people behind me to make it happen. I'm not content with the game we have but cannot craft a new one alone. You could make yourself visible on IRC and become more involved.

 

Hmmm... Just curious: What do you see as the major issues that have arisen in this thread?

 

Obviously, I'm not "in the know" about the development efforts on the HCE game, but it sure puzzles me that Matrix is selling the game (well, to some of us, anyway), yet they don't support a development staff? Weird! I know that s/w developers typically have to put in a whole lot more hours than they get paid for... but at least companies keep a few on the staff.

 

What sort of help do you need, anyway? (I happen to know of one programmer who offered to help awhile back, but was summarily "blown off"... so I assume that you're not in need of that form of help?)

 

What is IRC?

* Many of the things you mention are 'big' issues better addressed in a re-write of the game. I support such a rewrite but there isn't a lineup of people behind me to make it happen. I'm not content with the game we have but cannot craft a new one alone. You could make yourself visible on IRC and become more involved.

 

Hmmm... Just curious: What do you see as the major issues that have arisen in this thread?

 

Obviously, I'm not "in the know" about the development efforts on the HCE game, but it sure puzzles me that Matrix is selling the game (well, to some of us, anyway), yet they don't support a development staff? Weird! I know that s/w developers typically have to put in a whole lot more hours than they get paid for... but at least companies keep a few on the staff.

 

What sort of help do you need, anyway? (I happen to know of one programmer who offered to help awhile back, but was summarily "blown off"... so I assume that you're not in need of that form of help?)

 

What is IRC?

 

It may be nitpicking but 'big' and major issues are quite a bit different to me. A major issue in my book would be a game crash or planes flying underwater. A 'big' issue is something like re-doing the Group and Unit displays to show depth curves for your plotting pleasure as well as providing an 'aground' checker and remediation button to further enhance your navigation.

 

We can always use programming help, thusfar nobody has shown enough interest or capability to make it happen. For the person who came closest I even spent time converting example code into a language he understands to aid in determining if he had the skills to join the gang. Sadly I haven't seen any results. In all fairness that gentleman did provide an analysis of needs to work on AI aircraft evasion and I did not follow-thru and write the interface for him but that was in large part due to not seeing him make use of the existing interface to build something, anything, that the players could use.

 

Matrix has made graphic design resources available to us and specifically would like the stick figure animations replaced. Brad, Akula, and I tend not to care about that but should eventually get around to it. They also do some support (though I'd rather they send support cases straight to us as they tend not to know each game enough to quickly help players) and of course bring their name and marketing savvy to the table. They play a role just like we do. Without them the game wouldn't sell as many copies as it sells so that makes them and AGSI happy (I suppose anyway). As for how or why it works, there would have been no continued HCE development without Brad, Akula, and myself. The original plan was for the programmer at the time (Fletcher) to do one maintenance patch after the initial release and then HC would disappear. But we kept pressing AGSI to let us continue with the game and eventually (this literally took years, multiple proposals throwing ourselves under the bus, etc.) AGSI gave the go ahead. We further polished HCE before it was released then pretty much took over the day to day care and feeding of the game and players so AGSI could focus on H3. We got our game, AGSI gets our proceeds to fund H3 development, everyone is happy, except maybe the confused customer when they realize their HC money is paying for H3 development (though in all honesty we receive a royalty, unrequested, that the three of us split and it is larger than we expected). Anyway...

 

IRC is Internet Relay Chat, one of the first methods of meeting up and doing real-time text chatting on the Internet. It is where we get a lot done in terms of exploring the games, strategizing, fixing bugs, and generally ranting about any topic that arises. In terms of what you'd probably get from it: more answers to the "why is it this way" questions, more discussion on the "why isn't it this way" questions, and a better understanding of who we are. I'm sure you've read other threads where I indicate how participation drives me to a large extent and IRC is the single best way to get me moving . Anyway, there are Java applet->IRC links at http://www.harpgamer.com and I wrote a small Windows IRC client you can get from http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=281 . If you try it out and nobody is actively around, schedule a time via PM here on the forum and eventually we'll all get connected.

 

Other 'big' issues you raised in the topic:

1. A desire to choose which command level to inhabit while playing the game. Traditional game design says you aim for one level of command and one level only. Since we've never had that in Harpoon not everyone can easily be made happy. As such, it is a big issue to provide an even remotely capable AI, let alone a multi-tiered AI that would allow you to choose to operate at different levels such as theater commander, strike group commander, jet jockey, or all of the above.

 

2. Well, pretty much every other issue you raised in this thread besides water depth centers around various functions of the AI be it the opposing side AI or your own helper AIs.

It may be nitpicking but 'big' and major issues are quite a bit different to me. A major issue in my book would be a game crash or planes flying underwater. A 'big' issue is something like re-doing the Group and Unit displays to show depth curves for your plotting pleasure as well as providing an 'aground' checker and remediation button to further enhance your navigation.

 

Since this is the "official" subject matter of this topic, let me comment briefly:

 

Ideally, it would be good to have some means to verify the validity of a course while it's being set. Off-hand, I can think of several possible ways to accomplish this - without, of course, considering the programming requirements/issues - because I have no way of knowing what those may be. Usefulness of each varies, so there may be a trade-off between that versus the programming considerations.

 

One way would be to have a "mouse hover" type of thing that would report the water depth at the point that you place a waypoint in course-setting mode. (Of course, this wouldn't help with the course segments between waypoints, but at least the player could compensate by placing more waypoints in questionable spots).

 

A similar theme might be to to have a continuously-updating "mouse hover" display that follows the mouse cursor as it moves around (during course-setting mode). This might be more helpful than the method above for "exploring" possible courses, before actually setting waypoints.

 

An alternative, perhaps less useful, might be to have the course-plotter test each waypoint as it is placed, and report any "errors" - such as aground if either ships or subs are in the group, or "snorkel" or higher if subs are involved. Probably - although not necessarily - the attempt to set an invald waypoint could be rejected in case of a depth error.

 

Of course, the "course validation" check (a la the Scenario Editor) could be implemented, either after an entire course has been entered, or "on-the fly" after each waypoint is entered. This would be a more thorough validation than the other methods, but probably also would involve more coding than the other methods.

 

And regardless of any checks or displays that might be provided during course-setting, it would be nice if the sub's or ship's "artificial navigator" would automatically avoid obstacles during normal movement - or at least issue a warning of any impending grounding or breaching, as applicable... so that the group could be micro-managed as needed to compensate for the threat.

 

Anyway, just some thoughts about possible "player aids"...

 

 

We can always use programming help, thusfar nobody has shown enough interest or capability to make it happen. For the person who came closest I even spent time converting example code into a language he understands to aid in determining if he had the skills to join the gang. Sadly I haven't seen any results. In all fairness that gentleman did provide an analysis of needs to work on AI aircraft evasion and I did not follow-thru and write the interface for him but that was in large part due to not seeing him make use of the existing interface to build something, anything, that the players could use.

 

I personally know three programmer types, two of which are currently unemployed (this area sucks for tech employment), but only one who is into Harpoon - as far as I'm aware, anyway. Unfortunately, the 'Pooner is the one who I mentioned before as already having attempted to get involved... I don't know the details of what happened with him, but I think it's safe to say that his offer to help is no longer on the table after apparently having been given the "bum's rush" in response to his interest in getting involved. Of the other guys, I can't say whether they have any interest in the game, but they might be interested in doing some code development... I can ask when I see them again. I don't know what language(s) are used for the game, but I believe the one guy does some version(s) of C, and the guy I used to work with I know did VB.net, and perhaps others. I know his resume said that he once worked as a developer/tester with Microsoft. If any of these folks might be of help, let me know and I'll broach the possibility.

 

 

Matrix has made graphic design resources available to us and specifically would like the stick figure animations replaced. Brad, Akula, and I tend not to care about that but should eventually get around to it. They also do some support (though I'd rather they send support cases straight to us as they tend not to know each game enough to quickly help players) and of course bring their name and marketing savvy to the table. They play a role just like we do. Without them the game wouldn't sell as many copies as it sells so that makes them and AGSI happy (I suppose anyway). As for how or why it works, there would have been no continued HCE development without Brad, Akula, and myself. The original plan was for the programmer at the time (Fletcher) to do one maintenance patch after the initial release and then HC would disappear. But we kept pressing AGSI to let us continue with the game and eventually (this literally took years, multiple proposals throwing ourselves under the bus, etc.) AGSI gave the go ahead. We further polished HCE before it was released then pretty much took over the day to day care and feeding of the game and players so AGSI could focus on H3. We got our game, AGSI gets our proceeds to fund H3 development, everyone is happy, except maybe the confused customer when they realize their HC money is paying for H3 development (though in all honesty we receive a royalty, unrequested, that the three of us split and it is larger than we expected). Anyway...

 

Thanks for explaining that... I was totally baffled about the structure of the development/marketing "teams" for HCE. I'm sure glad that HCE didn't bite the dust! And I'm glad that you get something out of it all!

 

BTW, What was that bit about "stick figure animations"?

 

 

IRC is Internet Relay Chat, one of the first methods of meeting up and doing real-time text chatting on the Internet. It is where we get a lot done in terms of exploring the games, strategizing, fixing bugs, and generally ranting about any topic that arises. In terms of what you'd probably get from it: more answers to the "why is it this way" questions, more discussion on the "why isn't it this way" questions, and a better understanding of who we are. I'm sure you've read other threads where I indicate how participation drives me to a large extent and IRC is the single best way to get me moving . Anyway, there are Java applet->IRC links at http://www.harpgamer.com and I wrote a small Windows IRC client you can get from http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=281 . If you try it out and nobody is actively around, schedule a time via PM here on the forum and eventually we'll all get connected.

 

I wasn't even aware of that. I suspect that my "windows of availability" are so hap-hazard that it'd be really difficult to make and keep any chat appointments... but I'll take a look and see if it makes any sense for me.

 

Other 'big' issues you raised in the topic:

1. A desire to choose which command level to inhabit while playing the game. Traditional game design says you aim for one level of command and one level only. Since we've never had that in Harpoon not everyone can easily be made happy. As such, it is a big issue to provide an even remotely capable AI, let alone a multi-tiered AI that would allow you to choose to operate at different levels such as theater commander, strike group commander, jet jockey, or all of the above.

 

OK, this one puzzles me a bit: First, my impression is that HCE (and its predecessors) are basically "theatre level" games - as evidenced by the player controlling multiple force groups within an area with a common strategic objective. Thus, my assumption that the player is first and foremost supposed to be acting as the theatre commander. As mentioned earlier, it's also really nice to be able to operate at those other command levels when desired - and that aspect adds a lot to the enjoyment potential of the game. The only "problem" that I see with the current state of affairs is that there are times during any game when the player needs to be operating as the theatre commander, but is distracted from this by being forced to deal with lower-level command issues. The puzzling part - from my perspective - is that the need for micro-managing is a relatively recent development... I mean, in the past (as recently as HCG, I think), the player's groups have enough "smarts" that they could be relied upon to carry out basic orders, while reasonably well fending for themselves as far as conducting attacks or defending themselves. For some reason - that escapes me - the player's groups have lost this ability in HCE... so it seems (from my viewpoint) that if the ability was restored, then the former inherent ability to operate reasonably successfully as a theater commander - without ever having to micro-manage individual groups and units - would exist again - and life would be good all 'round. So that's the aspect that perplexes (and bugs) me.

 

 

2. Well, pretty much every other issue you raised in this thread besides water depth centers around various functions of the AI be it the opposing side AI or your own helper AIs.

 

Back to the question of game saves to demonstrate any of these issues, do you see any that need to be demonstrated? As I mentioned in the past, I was under the assumption that most of this stuff was "known behavior"... but if not, let me know and I'll see what I can "catch".

We can always use programming help, thusfar nobody has shown enough interest or capability to make it happen. For the person who came closest I even spent time converting example code into a language he understands to aid in determining if he had the skills to join the gang. Sadly I haven't seen any results. In all fairness that gentleman did provide an analysis of needs to work on AI aircraft evasion and I did not follow-thru and write the interface for him but that was in large part due to not seeing him make use of the existing interface to build something, anything, that the players could use.

 

I personally know three programmer types, two of which are currently unemployed (this area sucks for tech employment), but only one who is into Harpoon - as far as I'm aware, anyway. Unfortunately, the 'Pooner is the one who I mentioned before as already having attempted to get involved... I don't know the details of what happened with him, but I think it's safe to say that his offer to help is no longer on the table after apparently having been given the "bum's rush" in response to his interest in getting involved. Of the other guys, I can't say whether they have any interest in the game, but they might be interested in doing some code development... I can ask when I see them again. I don't know what language(s) are used for the game, but I believe the one guy does some version(s) of C, and the guy I used to work with I know did VB.net, and perhaps others. I know his resume said that he once worked as a developer/tester with Microsoft. If any of these folks might be of help, let me know and I'll broach the possibility.

 

Maybe you should ask the one who is into Harpoon what went wrong, if it was with us or someone else, and carry on from there. Point of order as well, a Pooner is someone who has won the Pooner award (http://www.harpoonpages.com/poonervote/pooner-Intro.php), a Harpooner is someone who plays Harpoon. As for the other two, if they have interest then cerrtainly broach the subject with the understanding that it is purely a hobby endeavour, the reward being a name in the credits and maybe some feel good reward for helping players if they do that too.

 

BTW, What was that bit about "stick figure animations"?

 

Hit, area defense, etc. animations.

 

 

IRC is Internet Relay Chat, one of the first methods of meeting up and doing real-time text chatting on the Internet. It is where we get a lot done in terms of exploring the games, strategizing, fixing bugs, and generally ranting about any topic that arises.

I wasn't even aware of that. I suspect that my "windows of availability" are so hap-hazard that it'd be really difficult to make and keep any chat appointments... but I'll take a look and see if it makes any sense for me.

 

Other 'big' issues you raised in the topic:

1. A desire to choose which command level to inhabit while playing the game. Traditional game design says you aim for one level of command and one level only. Since we've never had that in Harpoon not everyone can easily be made happy. As such, it is a big issue to provide an even remotely capable AI, let alone a multi-tiered AI that would allow you to choose to operate at different levels such as theater commander, strike group commander, jet jockey, or all of the above.

OK, this one puzzles me a bit: First, my impression is that HCE (and its predecessors) are basically "theatre level" games - as evidenced by the player controlling multiple force groups within an area with a common strategic objective. Thus, my assumption that the player is first and foremost supposed to be acting as the theatre commander. As mentioned earlier, it's also really nice to be able to operate at those other command levels when desired - and that aspect adds a lot to the enjoyment potential of the game.

That's what I'm saying, the precedent has been set for multiple levels of control, it can't be removed now. Take the scenario of all scenarios, Gauntlet, small group engagement that defined the computer game. That is how some people view(ed) the game from day 1. I view it as a venue for huge engagements. The two cannot be reconciled by a single level of command.

 

Outside of an annoying 'feature' or two added by programmers other than me I don't agree that micromanagement has been increased. The nature of many of the newer scenarios has changed to dictate more micromanagement (also a factor of how the scenario writers are choosing to confound the player) but again I don't agree that the game has regressed as you suggest in these matters. So we'll just have to disagree there.

 

2. Well, pretty much every other issue you raised in this thread besides water depth centers around various functions of the AI be it the opposing side AI or your own helper AIs.

Back to the question of game saves to demonstrate any of these issues, do you see any that need to be demonstrated? As I mentioned in the past, I was under the assumption that most of this stuff was "known behavior"... but if not, let me know and I'll see what I can "catch".

I don't think I can answer that safely so I'll just re-point to Brains' little mantra about how to make this all go more smoothly.

Maybe you should ask the one who is into Harpoon what went wrong, if it was with us or someone else, and carry on from there.

 

OK... but I think I'll have to plan my approach very carefully! I've known the guy since we were in junior high, and he's generally pretty easy-going... but whatever happened must've punched a "hot button", because he was not a happy camper! (It was one of the few times I've heard him turn the air blue - and that was days after the event occurred!)

 

 

Point of order as well, a Pooner is someone who has won the Pooner award (http://www.harpoonpages.com/poonervote/pooner-Intro.php), a Harpooner is someone who plays Harpoon.

 

Noted. Sorry for the misuse; I wasn't aware of the distinction.

 

 

As for the other two, if they have interest then cerrtainly broach the subject with the understanding that it is purely a hobby endeavour, the reward being a name in the credits and maybe some feel good reward for helping players if they do that too.

 

OK. Besides, it'll give me an excuse to reconnect with 'em.

 

 

 

OK, this one puzzles me a bit: First, my impression is that HCE (and its predecessors) are basically "theatre level" games - as evidenced by the player controlling multiple force groups within an area with a common strategic objective. Thus, my assumption that the player is first and foremost supposed to be acting as the theatre commander. As mentioned earlier, it's also really nice to be able to operate at those other command levels when desired - and that aspect adds a lot to the enjoyment potential of the game.

 

That's what I'm saying, the precedent has been set for multiple levels of control, it can't be removed now...

 

I wasn't suggesting any suppression of multiple levels... just to eliminate the new impediments to operating at theatre level...

 

 

Outside of an annoying 'feature' or two added by programmers other than me I don't agree that micromanagement has been increased. The nature of many of the newer scenarios has changed to dictate more micromanagement (also a factor of how the scenario writers are choosing to confound the player) but again I don't agree that the game has regressed as you suggest in these matters. So we'll just have to disagree there.

 

Just to clarify what I mean, I'm thinking of things that now preclude the ability to order an action and then safely leave "hands off". For example, attacking plane groups used to return to base on their own after completing an attack; now they just loiter within the AAW range of the target - and usually get wiped out. And if plane groups used to fire only some of their missiles at a target, they'd then withdraw to a safe range until time for another volley... now they fire and just keep flying at the target (where they get shot down, often before their own missiles arrive!) And in the old days, it appeared that the player's air groups would take some basic measures to evade the AI's AAMs, but now they don't seem to do anything in response to being attacked. And ship or sub groups in the past, when ordered to close and attack a target, would issue a weapons allocation popup when they got in range of the target... but now they just report "no course set" when they reach the attack point (at which time, it's sometimes too late). And, in the old games, air groups that reached the end of their course with no terminating order, would shortly report that they had no orders... nowdays, such groups fly on until they reach bingo fuel, then they report no orders - which is pointless by then.

These aspects, and perhaps other similar ones, now force the player to constantly tend the friendly groups - a situation that didn't exist in older versions to my knowledge. This isn't really a regression, because I don't recall any of this stuff existing in the past; instead it's a new development - that unfortunately isn't an improvement, from the standpoint of facilitating the theatre commander role. If you feel these observations aren't accurate, I'm curious how your view differs and/or what the actual situation is.

 

Thanks!

These aspects, and perhaps other similar ones, now force the player to constantly tend the friendly groups - a situation that didn't exist in older versions to my knowledge. This isn't really a regression, because I don't recall any of this stuff existing in the past; instead it's a new development - that unfortunately isn't an improvement, from the standpoint of facilitating the theatre commander role. If you feel these observations aren't accurate, I'm curious how your view differs and/or what the actual situation is.

 

Thanks!

It ain't easy being the guy at the top who takes the final can! Even worse when you don't think the guys under you know their job! It happens, eh.

Seems to me a lot of your points are perhaps items for the wish list. If you haven't yet wondered through that part of the harpgamer world, I'd suggest have a look and start your own. You might even find a lot of your items there in one form or another.

Wish list items can end up being implemented, I guess the more time the coding guys have to attend to the sharp end of development the sooner they do, that's my guess anyway.

HCE has certainly changed since my encounter with the old DOS harpoon version 1, and I agree that in some ways behaviour of units isn't always better, but I'm convinced the game as a whole is a huge improvement. I don't know if the 20th anniversary package is available yet, but if you get it and start running through games in the older version working up to the current, I don't think you want to go back to the old for too long, other than for nostalgia, 'least I don't.

Don.

We can always use programming help, thusfar nobody has shown enough interest or capability to make it happen. For the person who came closest I even spent time converting example code into a language he understands to aid in determining if he had the skills to join the gang. Sadly I haven't seen any results. In all fairness that gentleman did provide an analysis of needs to work on AI aircraft evasion and I did not follow-thru and write the interface for him but that was in large part due to not seeing him make use of the existing interface to build something, anything, that the players could use.

 

I personally know three programmer types, two of which are currently unemployed (this area sucks for tech employment), but only one who is into Harpoon - as far as I'm aware, anyway. Unfortunately, the 'Pooner is the one who I mentioned before as already having attempted to get involved... I don't know the details of what happened with him, but I think it's safe to say that his offer to help is no longer on the table after apparently having been given the "bum's rush" in response to his interest in getting involved. Of the other guys, I can't say whether they have any interest in the game, but they might be interested in doing some code development... I can ask when I see them again. I don't know what language(s) are used for the game, but I believe the one guy does some version(s) of C, and the guy I used to work with I know did VB.net, and perhaps others. I know his resume said that he once worked as a developer/tester with Microsoft. If any of these folks might be of help, let me know and I'll broach the possibility.

 

Maybe you should ask the one who is into Harpoon what went wrong, if it was with us or someone else, and carry on from there ... As for the other two, if they have interest then cerrtainly broach the subject with the understanding that it is purely a hobby endeavour, the reward being a name in the credits and maybe some feel good reward for helping players if they do that too.

 

I have not been able to contact one of these guys; he seems to have left the area - or something. I'll keep trying, though. The other guy said that he has enough on his plate with work and family and he declined to participate.

 

The guy who had the "problem" is available (being currently unemployed), but it looks like that situation would be better discussed off-forum - because of the circumstances. I will say that he remains somewhat upset about the matter, even after all this time.

Somewhere during this thread, Joe mentioned difficulty in pausing the game. For example, if a message pops up, you can't access the game menus. Between messages, you may not have time to move the mouse.

 

First of all, bear in mind that, whenever ANY window, other than the 5 main ones, is open, the game IS paused.

 

But aside from the fact that there apparently now is a real "pause" function, that allows you to actually do stuff when the clock is stopped, may I recommend learning how to use the keyboard commands? One such possibility is to use CTRL-t, which immediately brings up the time compression menu. To be VERY specific, suppose the game is motoring along at any high time compression when YOU GET AMBUSHED !!! The first indication will be a message like "Group xxx has been AMBUSHED !!!" The thing to do is to do nothing at first. Meditate for a few minutes if necessary. Flex your fingers to prepare them for the upcoming task. Read the message carefully. Understand the message. Press down the left CTRL button with your right thumb. Place a convenient finger from your right hand over the t key. Place a convenient finger from your left hand over the ESC key. Now, in rapid sequence, press ESC, then t.

 

Unfortunately (from my perspective), Harpoon is not a turn-based wargame, because I prefer to think my moves through in detail. It often functions like a RTS game. APM can be a real issue. Some scenario designers deliberately overload you. So I don't play monster scenarios. But I will never be able to play even a fraction of the available scenarios anyway.

Just to clarify what I mean, I'm thinking of things that now preclude the ability to order an action and then safely leave "hands off". For example, attacking plane groups used to return to base on their own after completing an attack; now they just loiter within the AAW range of the target - and usually get wiped out. And if plane groups used to fire only some of their missiles at a target, they'd then withdraw to a safe range until time for another volley... now they fire and just keep flying at the target (where they get shot down, often before their own missiles arrive!) And in the old days, it appeared that the player's air groups would take some basic measures to evade the AI's AAMs, but now they don't seem to do anything in response to being attacked. And ship or sub groups in the past, when ordered to close and attack a target, would issue a weapons allocation popup when they got in range of the target... but now they just report "no course set" when they reach the attack point (at which time, it's sometimes too late). And, in the old games, air groups that reached the end of their course with no terminating order, would shortly report that they had no orders... nowdays, such groups fly on until they reach bingo fuel, then they report no orders - which is pointless by then.

These aspects, and perhaps other similar ones, now force the player to constantly tend the friendly groups - a situation that didn't exist in older versions to my knowledge. This isn't really a regression, because I don't recall any of this stuff existing in the past; instead it's a new development - that unfortunately isn't an improvement, from the standpoint of facilitating the theatre commander role. If you feel these observations aren't accurate, I'm curious how your view differs and/or what the actual situation is.

 

These are all valid points, and indeed could be considered valid criticisms of Harpoon.

 

But perhaps there is some misunderstanding of what the game is intended to do, and what the player is supposed to do. In any case, the player should figure out what the game will do, and take that into account.

 

a) When you assign orders to a group, certain parameters such as altitude and speed must be considered. Direction alone is not enough. And even these 3 basic parameters are hardly sufficient. Probably, it "used to be" the case that the GE would choose parameters that would be reasonably good in most cases. But with the present version of the game, it looks like the game will simply not set many of the parameters, and it may choose ones that you don't like. However, if we are aware of this, then the solution is pretty simple (at least for some of the parameters). The idea is that, when you assign a group course, you should also assign more detailed orders for each waypoint AT THAT TIME. The most important one will be the final waypoint. And you really should check your groups after launch to ensure that the parameters are what you want. After some experience, you will know which groups you can safely ignore. What should your group do when it has no more orders? The present default seems to be that the group will simply continue its last order. After a while, it will request further orders. It may be that that "a while" is longer than it used to be. But it still happens (I think). Of course, you could assign "loiter" orders to the final waypoint ...

 

It needs to be recognized that units with "attack" orders will almost certainly do something suicidal or risky after delivering at least part of their ordnance. So the player really does need to manually control each attack group before and after the terminal phase.

 

But is it really the case that they should automatically RTB? Most likely, for most purposes, and most players, this would be the "best" option. But there are a number of situations where this would not be the case.

 

Since the player needs to manually control a great deal of the game, this limits the size of playable scenarios to what you can effectively control.

 

But I haven't really noticed that there is a problem, because I was always controlling all of the critical functions myself anyway.

But, the downside is that in order to be successful in the game, you can't be only an upper-level commander, and you are forced to micro-manage each group or even each unit - because if left to their own control, then they have a strong tendency towards self-destructive actions. Some of the more prominent examples:

 

- Of course, all of the stuff we've been discussing here about micro-managing sub and surface groups and units - lest they run aground or "expose" themselves.

- Aircraft will run themselves out of fuel if you don't keep constant tabs on each one - especially difficult with mixed groups.

- You have to micro-manage almost all aspects of aircraft re-fueling operations, or it simply doesn't happen.

- Aircraft won't attack SAM or AAA sites unless you manually fly them right up to the site, and only then issue the attack order.

- Aircraft won't take evasive action on their own during an engagement, so if you don't micro-manage them, then most likely they'll get shot down in the process of conducting an attack; for example:

-- If left to its own control, an aircraft group that is attacking a surface target may launch some of its missiles, but then just keep flying right at the target (where it's likely to get shot down)

-- After expending all of its anti-surface weapons, an air group will just "park" over the target - but if the target hasn't been destroyed, it'll likely continue shooting down the planes.

-- After a group launches its missiles at an air target, it'll continue moving directly at the target - and right into any return fire, without evading.

-- Recon groups make no effort to avoid detected interceptors

- Land units require constant attention, as they can't be ordered to close and engage, but must be moved in manually and then ordered to engage at the "right moment".

 

It would be better if the individual groups had some minimal "intelligence" or "canned tactics" which would allow them to engage and/or evade in a more realistic fashion on their own, without needing manual intervention. Perhaps we need a "switch" to set each group to "manual" or "automatic" control, in order to accommodate the need for automatic control in furball conditions, while allowing manual control for "fun" situations. (?)

 

Some of Joe's points are valid, but some are not.

 

a) Running aground - outside my experience.

 

b] My experience has been that aircraft have a tendency to RTB well before they are "low" on fuel. You should get several requests from such groups. I actually had one situation where the plane left the action without permission, although on reflection, it must have been that I gave the RTB order without being aware of it. Planes do NOT drive off into the sunset and crash for lack of fuel - unless you ignore all the RTB requests and personally send them on a suicide mission. This includes cranking up the throttle after they have been sent back to base.

 

The exception is with mixed groups. If you group units with different fuel consumption rates, you are asking for trouble.

 

c) The automatic refueling routines are quite robust. Fundamentally, you need a group containing an aircraft "low" on fuel and capable of IFR, and a tanker with fuel, and the game takes care of the rest. The problems that most people report are that the tankers deliver fuel before it is wanted. There are certain other tanking problems, and I have reported on some, but for most purposes, the procedure works automatically, and is much simplified from real life.

 

d) To attack a ground unit, first locate the unit (solid lock), then creep your plane into range (because, most likely, you outrange it by a short distance only), then blast it. The ground unit may be part of a ground group, so you have to know its "name" before you can shoot it. Study my AAR report "Thanh Hoa Bridge" in the Matrix forum. Oh, you're attacking with iron bombs? Ave Caesar, moriture te salutant.

 

e) There are several aspects to evasive action by aircraft. Some of this has already been factored into the hit probabilities, and you can't control it. Large-scale maneuvering is entirely up to the player. The specific sub-points Joe raises are correct; the game does that intentionally. They are all generally suicidal options, and could have been better chosen. But presumably the game designers decided to not put any resources into these aspects of the game, because the player would be controlling those things anyway. Harpoon is a TINY game. And it does an awful lot of important stuff for a minimal computing cost. The downside is that you are strictly limited in the size of playable scenarios (some people will disagree).

 

f) Recon groups do not flee from threats. Correct. That's your responsibility.

 

g) Land units. Ah yes, land units. My only experience with land-land battles is the WestPac introductory scenario. The instructions tell you to take your M1s and close on some ground units and destroy them. Seems to me, the M1s should win. Problem is, every time I tried it, I lost. Solution: Attack enemy land units with airplanes. Harpoon is not a game of ground combat, and should not be thought of as such.

Unfortunately (from my perspective), Harpoon is not a turn-based wargame, because I prefer to think my moves through in detail. It often functions like a RTS game.

I don't like the unreal and ridiculous, click fest, RTS games, but Harpoon is actually a real RTS game because the game scale is designed to be near real

And yes, as in reality, you can't control everything in a big scenario, because in the real world a little ship in the map margin has his own local command, managing the incoming situations.

You can find this capability in Harpoon 2/ANW and derivatives, but I don't like Harpoon 2, I want all the historic replayability, control of the simulation capability, and game flavour for me

But, the downside is that in order to be successful in the game, you can't be only an upper-level commander, and you are forced to micro-manage each group or even each unit - because if left to their own control, then they have a strong tendency towards self-destructive actions. Some of the more prominent examples:

 

- Of course, all of the stuff we've been discussing here about micro-managing sub and surface groups and units - lest they run aground or "expose" themselves.

- Aircraft will run themselves out of fuel if you don't keep constant tabs on each one - especially difficult with mixed groups.

- You have to micro-manage almost all aspects of aircraft re-fueling operations, or it simply doesn't happen.

- Aircraft won't attack SAM or AAA sites unless you manually fly them right up to the site, and only then issue the attack order.

- Aircraft won't take evasive action on their own during an engagement, so if you don't micro-manage them, then most likely they'll get shot down in the process of conducting an attack; for example:

-- If left to its own control, an aircraft group that is attacking a surface target may launch some of its missiles, but then just keep flying right at the target (where it's likely to get shot down)

-- After expending all of its anti-surface weapons, an air group will just "park" over the target - but if the target hasn't been destroyed, it'll likely continue shooting down the planes.

-- After a group launches its missiles at an air target, it'll continue moving directly at the target - and right into any return fire, without evading.

-- Recon groups make no effort to avoid detected interceptors

- Land units require constant attention, as they can't be ordered to close and engage, but must be moved in manually and then ordered to engage at the "right moment".

 

It would be better if the individual groups had some minimal "intelligence" or "canned tactics" which would allow them to engage and/or evade in a more realistic fashion on their own, without needing manual intervention. Perhaps we need a "switch" to set each group to "manual" or "automatic" control, in order to accommodate the need for automatic control in furball conditions, while allowing manual control for "fun" situations. (?)

 

Some of Joe's points are valid, but some are not.

 

a) Running aground - outside my experience.

 

b] My experience has been that aircraft have a tendency to RTB well before they are "low" on fuel. You should get several requests from such groups. I actually had one situation where the plane left the action without permission, although on reflection, it must have been that I gave the RTB order without being aware of it. Planes do NOT drive off into the sunset and crash for lack of fuel - unless you ignore all the RTB requests and personally send them on a suicide mission. This includes cranking up the throttle after they have been sent back to base.

 

The exception is with mixed groups. If you group units with different fuel consumption rates, you are asking for trouble.

 

c) The automatic refueling routines are quite robust. Fundamentally, you need a group containing an aircraft "low" on fuel and capable of IFR, and a tanker with fuel, and the game takes care of the rest. The problems that most people report are that the tankers deliver fuel before it is wanted. There are certain other tanking problems, and I have reported on some, but for most purposes, the procedure works automatically, and is much simplified from real life.

 

d) To attack a ground unit, first locate the unit (solid lock), then creep your plane into range (because, most likely, you outrange it by a short distance only), then blast it. The ground unit may be part of a ground group, so you have to know its "name" before you can shoot it. Study my AAR report "Thanh Hoa Bridge" in the Matrix forum. Oh, you're attacking with iron bombs? Ave Caesar, moriture te salutant.

 

e) There are several aspects to evasive action by aircraft. Some of this has already been factored into the hit probabilities, and you can't control it. Large-scale maneuvering is entirely up to the player. The specific sub-points Joe raises are correct; the game does that intentionally. They are all generally suicidal options, and could have been better chosen. But presumably the game designers decided to not put any resources into these aspects of the game, because the player would be controlling those things anyway. Harpoon is a TINY game. And it does an awful lot of important stuff for a minimal computing cost. The downside is that you are strictly limited in the size of playable scenarios (some people will disagree).

 

f) Recon groups do not flee from threats. Correct. That's your responsibility.

 

g) Land units. Ah yes, land units. My only experience with land-land battles is the WestPac introductory scenario. The instructions tell you to take your M1s and close on some ground units and destroy them. Seems to me, the M1s should win. Problem is, every time I tried it, I lost. Solution: Attack enemy land units with airplanes. Harpoon is not a game of ground combat, and should not be thought of as such.

 

A few assorted comments:

 

b] Those behaviors are generally different from what I see, particularly in the case of what happens when the group goes beyond the end of its pre-set course, for example I regularly see cases where the air groups continue for a hundred miles or so beyond the end of their course - without ever a Staff Announcement or anything - until they reach the BINGO fuel announcement.

 

I don't recall an air unit ever returning to base without being ordered to do so - except in a few instances where some group types will still automatically return after completing their attacks (which is itself inconsistent with the current norm).

 

Running out of fuel on the "overspeed" return-to-base run is the "fault" of the player; my only point is that it would be very helpful if the Staff Assistant would report when such groups reach BINGO - rather than just letting them run out and crash. With everything else going on, it is very easy to forget about one or more such groups who are on their RTB dash, so having that little BINGO alert would be a BIG help.

 

Because of the issues with mixing different a/c types (or even same a/c types with different loadouts/ranges) into one group, I almost always avoid mixed groups. Although this prevents the use of certain advantages that mixed groups can confer, and adds to the workload by having additional (separate) groups to manage, in general, it prevents more major issues than benefits lost.

 

 

c) My main concerns with re-fueling are the difficulties in arranging rendezvous between tanker groups and receiver groups, and controlling when the refueling occurs. It's kind of ironic too, because the automatic timing of the refueling act is one area where "manual" control would be useful - yet it is one of the few aspects of the game that is handled automatically.

 

 

d) In some of the demo scenarios, "dumb bombs" are the only ordnance that is available and allowed to be used against bases and their attachments.

 

 

e) My only wishes in this situation are that:

1. If an air group does not expend all of its applicable weapons in a volley, then the option would be offered to have it "retreat and re-attack", or "loiter and re-attack", or set new orders, etc.

2. additional options (such as RTB, set new course, etc.) would be offered in the pop-up once the air group expends all of its applicable weapons.

 

 

f) Well, yes... but if one must micro-manage such things, it would make life easier if there were at least some Staff Alerts or option pop-ups that would help with this micro-management (as are offered in certain other situations).

 

 

g) Agreed. My main puzzlement was why the "operation" of the land units is different from they way that all the other game units work.

b] Those behaviors are generally different from what I see, particularly in the case of what happens when the group goes beyond the end of its pre-set course, for example I regularly see cases where the air groups continue for a hundred miles or so beyond the end of their course - without ever a Staff Announcement or anything - until they reach the BINGO fuel announcement.

 

I don't recall an air unit ever returning to base without being ordered to do so - except in a few instances where some group types will still automatically return after completing their attacks (which is itself inconsistent with the current norm).

 

Running out of fuel on the "overspeed" return-to-base run is the "fault" of the player; my only point is that it would be very helpful if the Staff Assistant would report when such groups reach BINGO - rather than just letting them run out and crash. With everything else going on, it is very easy to forget about one or more such groups who are on their RTB dash, so having that little BINGO alert would be a BIG help.

 

c) My main concerns with re-fueling are the difficulties in arranging rendezvous between tanker groups and receiver groups, and controlling when the refueling occurs. It's kind of ironic too, because the automatic timing of the refueling act is one area where "manual" control would be useful - yet it is one of the few aspects of the game that is handled automatically.

 

f) Well, yes... but if one must micro-manage such things, it would make life easier if there were at least some Staff Alerts or option pop-ups that would help with this micro-management (as are offered in certain other situations).

 

Regarding:

 

b] If you want groups to notify you the instant they reach the end of their orders, I can't help you with that. (However, it has been my experience that such groups will, before very long, automatically call in for new orders. Perhaps it takes them longer than in Harpoon Classic; I haven't analyzed this. But they do call in, 100% of the time. Incidentally, there is a staff option "ignore no movement orders". I presume that you have NOT selected this?) But if you want groups to loiter when they run out of orders, that is easy to set up. While you are assigning a course, just before you close that menu, and presumably when the last waypoint is selected, bring up the "speed" menu and select "loiter". This is the default when you launch to patrol, but not otherwise. Works like a charm.

 

Is it possible that the current default is that RTB after firing only happens when the platform in question has exhausted 100% of its firepower? Otherwise it loiters or continues the attack run.

 

The game gives you several prompts to RTB with units that are "low" on fuel. However, after you have refused all of them, or if you have accepted any of them, I believe that unit will issue no more prompts. Or maybe it's simply a question of being at 5% bingo?

 

Pilot to senior officer: Sir, I'm low on fuel. Returning to base at cruise.

 

Senior officer to pilot: Use full afterburner! We need you back here ASAP!

 

Pilot: Sir, I don't have enough fuel for that ...

 

Senior officer: Use full afterburner, dammit!

 

Pilot: Sir! Yes, Sir!

 

c) See http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2165704 for an example of some of the detailed calculations that you may need to make for refueling. Bear in mind that real pilots have to do this sort of thing, and much more, all the time.

 

To have manual control over when refueling happens, recognize that the automatic refueling is triggered when a tanker is in a group with a unit that is "low" on fuel. You can manually control the grouping aspect. In Harpoon, it is possible to get your fuel on the fly, as it were, but that is hardly realistic. In real life, both planes need to be real close to each other over an extended period of time, and that's a pretty tricky maneuver. The Harpoon process already glosses over much of this.

 

f) Assuming you have that staff option set, you will always be informed of new "threats". If your plane cannot defend itself, assume that it will be ambushed, and provide a contingency.

g) Agreed. My main puzzlement was why the "operation" of the land units is different from they way that all the other game units work.

 

Whoo hoo, one I can answer

 

Land unit operation is different due to the short distances involved. HC uses group center to group center distances for many targeting operations and when unit spacing tends to be greater than weapon range group center to group center calculations make for a game of groups chasing each other in tight little circles and never firing (funny as it may be to watch). So Land operations have to be micromanaged. The AI has the upper hand as it can check if units are in range every second. The player tends not to like to do that. Sure it screams for some staff assistance (and for a while we did let friendly ground units auto-fire on enemy ground units) but the manual route can work now and again. I can destroy a T-72 or two with the M-1s in WestPac 1.0 pretty regularly but I lose in the end too and bring in aircraft.

For me the best land forces scenario is Stalintc's Philippine Crunch:

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=297

 

Small air and naval forces in support of a realistic land target, the land target must be occupied by the land forces to win.

I play it sometimes for relax, and to test modified land platforms (in my personal DB I've transformed the generic MBT and AFV in historic types, also the artillery units).

And it's a very tricky scenario