Firstly, all surface to air engagements are indeed handled automatically. Something most of us would like to modify eventually, but for now the decision to fire cannot really be manually controlled.

 

That is the problem okey,why is this implemented?? any chance someone will fix this anytime soon in a update?

 

My opinion is that the AI needs to be smarter before the player is given micro-management of SAMs capabilities. Of course I question whether the player should ever have the capability to micro-manage air defenses. There is no chance surface to air engagements will be made manual in the next 3 months (and unlikely in the foreseeable future).

Tell me why should the player not have the option to micro manage the air defenses??

I think that the option is more realistic and will have more game value..

Tell me why should the player not have the option to micro manage the air defenses?? I think that the option is more realistic and will have more game value..

 

Koevoet, I'm sure Tony will get around to answering your question in due course. With far more detail (code wise) than I ever could.

And I reiterate: In the situations that I was describing, to the best of my knowledge, all player's radars were active - because I had set all of the Group's radars active, and I was not able to manipulate the individual units' radars, and none of the units had suffered damage (that might have caused its radars to be inoperative) ... Sorry; re-reading the post has no magical effect on the actual behavior on my game.

 

I'm trying to be very patient with your gripes, JoeK. So let's do it again. To control an individual ship's sensors:

 

1. Make sure you've selected the ship formation (group) in the Group Map.

2. Click on the individual ship in the Unit Map. That's right, select the ship on the map.

3. Look at the top of your screen. Look for the 'Sensors' button. It should be right next to time compression.

4. Click the 'Sensors' button. It should not be grayed out.

5. You will get a pop up window that says 'Set Unit Sensors'.

6. Play with the sensor settings as desired.

7. Repeat as necessary.

 

If anyone has difficulty with these instructions, please let me know. JoeK, if after following these instructions, you are still having issues, please start a separate thread and we will pick the process apart piece by piece in painstaking detail. Yes, I'm willing to do that.

Oh, puhlease! I have no difficulty with your instructions, but the fact remains that regardless of where I click on the Unit map, the area under the main menu bar gets reduced to only three buttons (and one display): '-Slow', 'xSec', '+Fast', and 'Sensors'. As far as I've found, the 'Sensors' button remains grayed out at all times, regardless of what I click on in the Unit map. I don't see much point in pursuing this particular issue, for two reasons: First, it is apparently one of those things that "happens only on my installation", and second, it is a minor issue because I've been playing the game for literally years without ever needing it before - and probably wouldn't use it much even if I could; so, compared to other problems (such as invincible AI aircraft), it is trivial in regards to my own playability of the game.

 

Then you must be disregarding other players' reports of similar behavior - including some reported in this very thread. I've already offered elsewhere my best guesses as to probable causes of the behaviors that are (apparently) limited to my installation, but those guesses were categorically denied, so....?

 

This is where my patience starts to run real thin. No one else is reporting anything like you have reported. Not a single, solitary soul. After much prodding, you provided savegames that supposedly showed the problems you were reporting. We tried them. They didn't show anything like what you were reporting.

 

Furthermore, we are not disregarding anyone's reports of problems. Quite the opposite, and I take exception to your saying so. I expect you are also very alone in this respect. Our track record in helping folks with HCE issues - and conquering problems wherever possible or feasible - speaks for itself.

I have never questioned anyone's attention to problem reports in general; I do however, rather resent that most times when I report something, it is right off dismissed by "nobody else has these problems". First of all, that's untrue; case in point: This whole exhange originated when I mentioned that I had seen the same problem that the originator of this thread was discussing. You immediately dismissed my comments as just being more gripes, or whatever. This says to me that issues only have merit when somebody else reports them.

 

Now, I agree that it is possible that some issues that I've reported could be unique to my installation - for whatever reason (and we've discussed those possibilities elsewhere). But, even if there are some problems which truely are unique to my installation, that does not somehow translate to them being non-existent, nor should it cause disregard for problems which others do share, simply because I also report them.

 

Let me lay this out for you quite clearly. We welcome and invite bug reports. We request bug reports. There's a whole forum here dedicated to our efforts to have people report issues, try beta updates in an effort to find solutions, and even suggest ways to improve and advance this game.

 

If you want to help do that in a sensible fashion that doesn't antagonize and frustrate those efforts, that's great. If you cannot, please don't hang around here. I'd suggest you go over to Matrix and rant away about all of your HCE issues there, but apparently you believe there's some conspiracy against you over there too.

I have tried my best to comply with "proper bug reporting procedures", as I understood them. If I have still failed to do that, then I apologise, and will certainly try to correct any errors as they are brought to my attention. But, what I do not understand is how I am allegedly the cause of all the "antagonize and frustrate" situations here. I am certainly not the only person who reports concerns, issues, and potential bugs, nor the only one who has ever expressed frustration with certain aspects, nor the only one who has ever requested a feature or an "adjustment", nor attempted to discuss tactics and methods that would help "work around" some of the unfortunate realities of the simulation process. As far as ranting, it seems to me that you rant whenever I so much as post a suggestion to another poster about what work-arounds I have found helpful (as at the beginning of this thread), and it makes me wonder why. Such response semes entirely inconsistent; for example, what bearing do "all my other game problems" really have on the topic that we were trying to discuss here, anyway?

Oh, puhlease! I have no difficulty with your instructions, but the fact remains that regardless of where I click on the Unit map, the area under the main menu bar gets reduced to only three buttons (and one display): '-Slow', 'xSec', '+Fast', and 'Sensors'. As far as I've found, the 'Sensors' button remains grayed out at all times, regardless of what I click on in the Unit map. I don't see much point in pursuing this particular issue, for two reasons: First, it is apparently one of those things that "happens only on my installation", and second, it is a minor issue because I've been playing the game for literally years without ever needing it before - and probably wouldn't use it much even if I could; so, compared to other problems (such as invincible AI aircraft), it is trivial in regards to my own playability of the game.

 

I am actually genuinely interested (whether you believe it or not) in finding out why you have this problem and no one else seems to. Why is your 'Sensors' button grayed out? Are you telling us now that you don't want to investigate it? Do you want to try and find a solution to the problem or not?

 

I have never questioned anyone's attention to problem reports in general; I do however, rather resent that most times when I report something, it is right off dismissed by "nobody else has these problems". First of all, that's untrue; case in point: This whole exhange originated when I mentioned that I had seen the same problem that the originator of this thread was discussing. You immediately dismissed my comments as just being more gripes, or whatever. This says to me that issues only have merit when somebody else reports them.

 

Firstly, the original poster (OP) had a question about why he was getting a message that "surface to air attacks are handled automatically". You chimed in that your air defenses were more or less impotent, regardless of what you do. Very different issues.

 

Secondly, it has nothing to do with some secret agenda to disregard gripes from JoeK. Its just that your particular gripes are not reported by anyone else, getting further information from you is like pulling teeth, the problems do not appear to be reproducible elsewhere, and admittedly, I think your attitude generally sucks. Which makes tech support all the more painful, at least from my perspective.

 

Now, I agree that it is possible that some issues that I've reported could be unique to my installation - for whatever reason (and we've discussed those possibilities elsewhere). But, even if there are some problems which truely are unique to my installation, that does not somehow translate to them being non-existent, nor should it cause disregard for problems which others do share, simply because I also report them.

 

For one, I do not particularly believe that your issues are unique to your installation. Unless you're tweaking it somehow, and I don't believe that to be the case, your issues just don't pan out anywhere else. If we can't reproduce your issues, one of two things are true: (1) either the issues do not really exist; or (2) you're not playing the same game as everyone else. I am at a loss to discern which is the case, which makes it just as frustrating for me as for you. Believe me.

 

I have tried my best to comply with "proper bug reporting procedures", as I understood them. If I have still failed to do that, then I apologise, and will certainly try to correct any errors as they are brought to my attention. But, what I do not understand is how I am allegedly the cause of all the "antagonize and frustrate" situations here. I am certainly not the only person who reports concerns, issues, and potential bugs, nor the only one who has ever expressed frustration with certain aspects, nor the only one who has ever requested a feature or an "adjustment", nor attempted to discuss tactics and methods that would help "work around" some of the unfortunate realities of the simulation process.

 

Some of this is true. You are not the only person who has ever reported an issue. Of course not. There is an Issue Tracker and a subforum with plenty of discussion. But, curiously, many of your particular issues cannot be reproduced. Why is that, I have to wonder.

 

As far as ranting, it seems to me that you rant whenever I so much as post a suggestion to another poster about what work-arounds I have found helpful (as at the beginning of this thread), and it makes me wonder why. Such response semes entirely inconsistent; for example, what bearing do "all my other game problems" really have on the topic that we were trying to discuss here, anyway?

 

Simply put, because we have had virtually no success in solving any of your gripes, issues or problems, whatever you want to call them. And there is no rational explanation why. Whenever we have tried to work through them, we either hit a brick wall or you disappear from the scene. Returning only to gripe about one unresolved (for you) issue or another does nothing to help.

 

If you want, you can start a new thread for your own specific list of issues and we can tackle them (again) one at a time. But jumping into another thread and mixing it up when all of your 'bug history' is well known to us, doesn't help anyone, least of all yourself, and well, frankly, it won't be tolerated.

 

The ball's in your court, JoeK. I am willing to help you figure out what the heck is going on in your HCE installation, if its possible to do so. We can do it sensibly, maturely, methodically. But since only HG Staff are paying the bills around this joint, it will be on our terms, or not at all. Fair enough?

he guys let's keep it cool here,we'we all got one thing in common we all love Harpoon and we all want to enjoy Harpoon to the most...

but this tread is getting a bit mixed up with different things and gets confusing, so make different topic for different things and dont feel offended by someones remarks..

What i do think is that harpoon CE still has an alive community and with that aim really happy

<Sigh!> At the risk of further hijacking this thread, let me attempt to respond to your comments:

 

I am actually genuinely interested (whether you believe it or not) in finding out why you have this problem and no one else seems to. Why is your 'Sensors' button grayed out? Are you telling us now that you don't want to investigate it? Do you want to try and find a solution to the problem or not?

Yes, I'd like to find the problem... but past history indicates the process involves a lot of work with no return (other than having my subsequent posts called rants and gripes and so forth). As I said before, this particular issue is of much less consequence to my use of the game than are some of the prior issues, and so I'd think that any effort would be better spent addressing those other issues instead. But, at this point, I'm feeling frustrated, and not particularly willing to go through all that effort again for such a small issue.

 

 

Firstly, the original poster (OP) had a question about why he was getting a message that "surface to air attacks are handled automatically". You chimed in that your air defenses were more or less impotent, regardless of what you do. Very different issues.

 

My apologies: Apparently I confused this thread with the other one posted the same day. However, referring to that one, my point stands.

 

Secondly, it has nothing to do with some secret agenda to disregard gripes from JoeK. Its just that your particular gripes are not reported by anyone else, getting further information from you is like pulling teeth, the problems do not appear to be reproducible elsewhere, and admittedly, I think your attitude generally sucks. Which makes tech support all the more painful, at least from my perspective.

I spent quite a bit of time and effort to create, test/verify, and submit game saves that demonstrated the problems that I reported - with the only response being, "The problems you claimed don't happen here". Considering that, if my attitude really does suck, then perhaps you can understand why it does. By the way, what information have I withheld?

 

For one, I do not particularly believe that your issues are unique to your installation. Unless you're tweaking it somehow, and I don't believe that to be the case, your issues just don't pan out anywhere else. If we can't reproduce your issues, one of two things are true: (1) either the issues do not really exist; or (2) you're not playing the same game as everyone else. I am at a loss to discern which is the case, which makes it just as frustrating for me as for you. Believe me.

Well, there is at least one other possibility - which I've mentioned before: That is, somehow, something got mucked up with my installation and/or with local system services that the game uses. Clearly, there are some rather bizzare behaviors involved in this case. Not sure what you mean by "tweeking it", but as far as I know, it's a "straight up" installation.

 

Some of this is true. You are not the only person who has ever reported an issue. Of course not. There is an Issue Tracker and a subforum with plenty of discussion. But, curiously, many of your particular issues cannot be reproduced. Why is that, I have to wonder.

Well, assuming that these issues really do not exist elsewhere, then (to me) the answer is obvious: There is something about my installation, system, or whatever, that is subtly but consistently affecting the game operation here. I mean, it's not causing any overt errors or crashes, but there are certainly many odd manifestations affecting operations (as you know).

 

Simply put, because we have had virtually no success in solving any of your gripes, issues or problems, whatever you want to call them. And there is no rational explanation why. Whenever we have tried to work through them, we either hit a brick wall or you disappear from the scene. Returning only to gripe about one unresolved (for you) issue or another does nothing to help.

 

If you want, you can start a new thread for your own specific list of issues and we can tackle them (again) one at a time. But jumping into another thread and mixing it up when all of your 'bug history' is well known to us, doesn't help anyone, least of all yourself, and well, frankly, it won't be tolerated.

 

The ball's in your court, JoeK. I am willing to help you figure out what the heck is going on in your HCE installation, if its possible to do so. We can do it sensibly, maturely, methodically. But since only HG Staff are paying the bills around this joint, it will be on our terms, or not at all. Fair enough?

I don't get it: What do you mean about me disappearing from the scene? Also, it certainly wasn't my intent to revisit all these (old) issues in this thread; I didn't bring them up here.

 

So, what do you propose - that we haven't already tried? Apparently, the issues here don't manifest elsewhere, so I have no idea what other angle to attack it from... short of sending you my computer (which, incidentally, is not an option! ) Seriously though, I had since assumed there just was no practical fix for those particular issues, and figured that I'd just have to "live with them"... at least until it all came back to roost here.

I spent quite a bit of time and effort to create, test/verify, and submit game saves that demonstrated the problems that I reported - with the only response being, "The problems you claimed don't happen here".

 

And we likewise spent quite a bit of time and effort trying to figure out what was going on with your particular problems, but to no avail. Usually when someone reports an issue and submits a savegame, the problem is readily apparent. Not so in your situation. And I cannot explain why. Nor can you, it seems. So maybe we're flogging a dead horse here.

 

Well, assuming that these issues really do not exist elsewhere, then (to me) the answer is obvious: There is something about my installation, system, or whatever, that is subtly but consistently affecting the game operation here. I mean, it's not causing any overt errors or crashes, but there are certainly many odd manifestations affecting operations (as you know).

 

I don't profess to be knowledgeable about the inner workings of computer code, registries, and installations, but I am told and I believe that problems with your installation of the program would not ever manifest themselves in weird things like invincible AI aircraft. It just doesn't happen. Rather, you would experience the overt errors and crashes you mention, and apparently that is not happening to you.

 

Also, it certainly wasn't my intent to revisit all these (old) issues in this thread; I didn't bring them up here ... I had since assumed there just was no practical fix for those particular issues, and figured that I'd just have to "live with them"... at least until it all came back to roost here.

 

Well, that's the kicker right there. If we cannot discern and solve your problems, then we are NOT willing to continue to have you interject in other folks' threads and repeat your issues. Its disruptive, unproductive, and frankly, its irritating as heck. No one wants to hear about issues that only you can see. So, to repeat what I said earlier, either you create a thread that lists your specific issues and we go through the process (painstaking as it might be) of tackling each one, as best we can, OR you take them elsewhere. I cannot be more clear.

My opinion is that the AI needs to be smarter before the player is given micro-management of SAMs capabilities. Of course I question whether the player should ever have the capability to micro-manage air defenses. There is no chance surface to air engagements will be made manual in the next 3 months (and unlikely in the foreseeable future).

Tell me why should the player not have the option to micro manage the air defenses??

I think that the option is more realistic and will have more game value..

 

This time there is no code reason... It is my feeling that the player can already 'game' the system too much. Allowing the player to manually allocate SAMs and AAA would imho take that ability much farther and harm the playability and realism of the game. In the event we add multiplayer and/or a more intelligent AI I'll be much more easily convinced to allow micro-management of SAMs. You might say for me it is a matter of play balance and allowing manual allocation would tip the balance even farther in the direction of the player.

What i do think is that harpoon CE still has an alive community and with that aim really happy

 

Hehe, it is very alive in this thread!

My opinion is that the AI needs to be smarter before the player is given micro-management of SAMs capabilities. Of course I question whether the player should ever have the capability to micro-manage air defenses. There is no chance surface to air engagements will be made manual in the next 3 months (and unlikely in the foreseeable future).

Tell me why should the player not have the option to micro manage the air defenses??

I think that the option is more realistic and will have more game value..

 

This time there is no code reason... It is my feeling that the player can already 'game' the system too much. Allowing the player to manually allocate SAMs and AAA would imho take that ability much farther and harm the playability and realism of the game. In the event we add multiplayer and/or a more intelligent AI I'll be much more easily convinced to allow micro-management of SAMs. You might say for me it is a matter of play balance and allowing manual allocation would tip the balance even farther in the direction of the player.

I agree completely with Tony on this. My main goal when designing scenarios is to give that poor old AI a chance against the average player.

My opinion is that the AI needs to be smarter before the player is given micro-management of SAMs capabilities. Of course I question whether the player should ever have the capability to micro-manage air defenses. There is no chance surface to air engagements will be made manual in the next 3 months (and unlikely in the foreseeable future).

Tell me why should the player not have the option to micro manage the air defenses??

I think that the option is more realistic and will have more game value..

 

This time there is no code reason... It is my feeling that the player can already 'game' the system too much. Allowing the player to manually allocate SAMs and AAA would imho take that ability much farther and harm the playability and realism of the game. In the event we add multiplayer and/or a more intelligent AI I'll be much more easily convinced to allow micro-management of SAMs. You might say for me it is a matter of play balance and allowing manual allocation would tip the balance even farther in the direction of the player.

I agree completely with Tony on this. My main goal when designing scenarios is to give that poor old AI a chance against the average player.

I'd have to agree here too, as much as I WANT to manage my assets as best I think, when you see the oponent AI (artificial intelligence is being very kind I think) blundering along (well in some of the situations such as aircraft use) you kind of feel like your cheating. Sometimes you just have to let things go badly (even though you see a better way of doing it) just so as to keep it meaningful.

This is a tactis or strategy game - micro management shouldn't be the key aspect (I might cop flack here 'cause that's were the 'trill' resides). At one time in my life I thought I'd like to be an admiral of the fleet, not worried about when joe blow torches the afterburner but thinking about allocation of ships to targets and target priorities etc.

There are shoot em up games that are 100% micro management and they bore me like a soap opera.

So long as its even between me and the opponent the less micro management the better for me.

PS, I've picked up some interesting things about unit radar and SAM firing, built a scenario to see how it works and now I'm back to 'breakout' ( I love a good wolloping) to really test it out.

PSS Only harpoon generates this sort of dialogue, thanks guys.

Don Thomas

JoeK, we're going to take this discussion off channel (as you are already aware), and try and deal with it sensibly there.

 

To the rest of you folks, I apologize for this banter having taken HarpGamer into an area where we sorta promised to ourselves not to let it stray. It is not what we are about. Carry on.

oke now with JoeK aside we can continue with this topic

 

let me see if i can explain the following..

 

i have a scenario where i have tree ships in this setting(all radars on):

 

- a mechant ship

 

-a karel doorman frigate (The Karel Doorman is carrying VLS RIM-7M)

 

and a zeven provincien frigate (LCF).(the LCF carries a Smart-L radar and SM2 blockIIIA missiles)

 

(both frigates from the Netherlands)

 

the formation of this group is:

 

mechant in the middle,the LCF 8 nm from the merchant to the west and the karel doorman 1nm east of the merchant

 

enemy surface group 50 nm to the east.

 

the scenario evolves like this:

 

the enemy surface group launches it's SSM's (targeted at the merchant) to witch the LCF answers with it's salvo SM2's,not all the SSM get shot down,the surviving missiles overfly the karel doorman and hit the merchant,sadly the merchant sinks.

 

when i checked the karel doorman's ammo and i saw that it only fired it's 76 mm gun,wich means that the karel doorman's SAM's never fired on the incomming missiles while the SSM's almost overflew my frigate.

 

 

now game balance or not,this doesnt feel right and i hope that someone will agree with me.

I agree that it doesn't "feel" right, but ... Sea Sparrows are point defense missiles, and it may be that the game will only use them for defense of the platform they're mounted on. The other possibility is that, IIRC, the engangement cycle for SAMs in the game gets run every 30 seconds. It could be that the surviving SSMs reached their target before the start of the next engagement cycle, and thus there was no time for the Sparrows to be launched.

I agree that it doesn't "feel" right, but ... Sea Sparrows are point defense missiles, and it may be that the game will only use them for defense of the platform they're mounted on. The other possibility is that, IIRC, the engangement cycle for SAMs in the game gets run every 30 seconds. It could be that the surviving SSMs reached their target before the start of the next engagement cycle, and thus there was no time for the Sparrows to be launched.

iam afraid your'e right,ill just have to change tactic's.

i wont use frigates with only point defense missiles as shotgun escorts anymore (hugging a high value target with a escort ship carrying only essm's)