Jump to content
COMBATSIM Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mgellis

Harpoon 3 scenarios for the HUD-4

Recommended Posts

As stated, I try all scenarios: good, bad or ugly (and even those made with the HUD4). I tried the latest scenario release and have encountered the same type of problem as I have found in every single HUD4 scenario: the predominant game problem encountered with the HUD4 is the fact that many, Many, MANY weapons fail to fire.

Against my better judgement, I will give you this bug report as a freebie because it is not the purpose and function of players to be testing your scenario when such problems are so obvious. As per my policy with HUD4 scenarios, I played until I encountered the first database bug and then stopped because they are 100% avoidable and preventable.

The database error lies with the RUR-5A Mod 4 (Mk46m5) missiles. It is easily replicated by ordering the destroyer found in this scenario (Rommel) to fire on any submarine. The database says that the weapons are rated for submarines, but they will not fire at the target at any combination of range or speed that I could find. If you find an instance whereby this weapon fires, I would be happy to test your findings. Just to be clear, the database version is HUD 4 V 1.1 beta 10 and the files are dated 24/03/2012 11:54:08a.m. The scenario is dated 24/10/2012 17:37h

Just to save time and pre-empt the usual stupidity, saying that I should simply find another weapon that actually works in order to attack the submarine is as stupid as telling me to find another game that works and play it. You may as well be telling players to find a database that works in order to fire that particular weapon because this weapon works in the PlayersDB and other functional databases without any such faulty limitations.

Equally stupid would be to tell me to launch the weapon in Bearing-Only-Launch mode as this is NOT a solution to this problem, but only a work-around to this particular HUD4 database bug.

Lastly, the lame excuse of, "It has been fixed and will be released at some unspecific date in the future" is absurd and unacceptable. The scenario was released today and I am trying this scenario today with the database available today and not some future date when the database may or may not be fixed.

Go ahead. Fix this problem. Put up or shut up. If you don't, I'm going to be relentless and continue making darned certain everyone knows just how buggy and problematic HUD4 scenarios are. You have no right to inflict your abuse on players with such faulty scenarios and databases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Mr. Hum does not seem able to discuss this matter in a civil manner, I will no longer respond to his comments.

Instead, I will focus on my original goal, which is simply to let people know when new HUD-4 scenarios are available, discuss ideas for scenarios, etc.

My experience with the HUD-4 has been very positive. My experience with the database editor, Gunny, has also been very positive. I hope people will try the HUD-4. I hope they will enjoy the scenarios that I and others have written for it. I hope they will offer feedback on these scenarios. I hope that, if they do discover errors, bugs, etc., they will post a report on harpgamer so the database editor can make improvements. I hope that all this leads to the Harpoon community enjoying more and better scenarios as the years go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Amazon.com there is a very interesting review of the book "House and Philosophy: Everybody Lies". It states:

"House, M.D." is a show about Dr. Gregory House, a brilliant but misanthropic diagnostician with a razor sharp wit and a contemptuous disregard for the feelings of others. House has little use for hospital rules or medical ethics. He openly rebels against any form of authority that would attempt to interfere with his ability to do what he thinks is best. He abuses his staff, insults his patients, manipulates his friends, alienates everyone who cares about him, ridicules anyone who disagrees with him, and takes pleasure in making others as miserable as he is. [...] Although he doesn't really care about his patients as human beings, he is an obsessive puzzle solver; and he will not rest until he has figured out what is wrong and how to treat it. You wouldn't want House as your family doctor. But, if you were dying of a mysterious illness, you would definitely want House on the case.

My guess is: either some people don't care if they die, or they do not realize they are already dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Mr. Hum does not seem able to discuss this matter in a civil manner, I will no longer respond to his comments.

Gotcha! Trapped by your own words. :)

I see that, once again, when you do not receive the answer you seek, you fall back onto your usual tactic. That's not going to work here. As promised, I will be relentless. You've been called out to either put up or shut up. Since you will neither put up nor shut up, I'll be on hand to make certain that everyone learns how badly HUD4 scenarios work.

Anyone following this thread will see it easily:

1) You ask folks to try your scenario

2) Problems are reported along with a solution

3) You ignore the report and the solution. Instead, you keep asking for 'help',

The general community experience with the HUD4 has been very negative. Those who actually try the HUD4 find it a waste of time due to the heaps of errors found within. The only logical choice is to ignore the HUD4 unless they have a surplus of time and enjoy the frustration of reaching dead-end bugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The database error lies with the RUR-5A Mod 4 (Mk46m5) missiles. It is easily replicated by ordering the destroyer found in this scenario (Rommel) to fire on any submarine. The database says that the weapons are rated for submarines, but they will not fire at the target at any combination of range or speed that I could find. If you find an instance whereby this weapon fires, I would be happy to test your findings. Just to be clear, the database version is HUD 4 V 1.1 beta 10 and the files are dated 24/03/2012 11:54:08a.m. The scenario is dated 24/10/2012 17:37h

This error does actually exist and has already been reported; Gunny is working on it. It should be fixed with the next release of the database.

This is a legitimate complaint. It is one of the real errors I have spotted over the months I've been using HUD-4 and it is quite annoying because the ASROC gives many Cold War ships a ranged weapon to use against submarines so it is likely to sometimes have an effect on gameplay.

Mind you, I still have no intention of putting up with rude behavior. As for the suggestion that Mr. Hum is somehow "The Dr. House of Harpoon," that argument might well describe his personality, but not his value to the health of the game. I have no doubt that Mr. Hum is a talented and tireless database editor, but there are plenty of people out there who could do what he does. And they could do it without being rude and divisive.

Is there a list of actual, specific errors and bugs identified for the HUD-4? (I saw there is one for ANW.) That's something that can be reported, looked at, fixed, etc. Then real progress can be made.

As for the complaint of "it's not my job to report errors," that may be true, but if the error is not reported, it cannot be fixed. So, again, one can be part of the problem or part of the solution. I use the HUD-4 because I happen to like it. My experience is that the number of actual errors is quite low. (Believe me, I am too lazy to have stuck with the HUD-4 if the number of errors was as high as has been suggested.) But I also use it because I believe by writing scenarios I can find the errors that do exist and help make it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, this thread is starting to remind me of this Star Trek episode:

http://en.wikipedia....ast_Battlefield

I look forward to devoting some time to Harpoon, but I'd rather make my own mind up about how to play it.

Mike, thank you for injecting a needed dose of sanity! Your analogy is excellent. Guilty, as charged. :)

And, yes, that's really all I wanted to do with this thread...announce and discuss scenarios. I am sure issues will crop up with the database from time to time, but when they do, let's find out what's wrong and provide the database editor and the others working on H3 with the feedback they need to make improvements. (I'm not one of the database editors, after all, although I have made a few suggestions that got incorporated into the database. I have no power to actually make changes in the HUD-4 or ANW; all I can do is pass on suggestions and feedback, and sometimes it is frustrating to have to wait for the next release of the database, but that's the way things are sometimes.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This error does actually exist and has already been reported; Gunny is working on it. It should be fixed with the next release of the database.

As stated previously, that excuse is pure nonsense and rates the same as AGSI's claim that bugs will be fixed in the 'next' release - for another $70. The scenario was released now, run now, and needs to work now, instead of some ficticious future date. If it only works with some hypothetical future release, then either don't release it or say when it should be played in the future i.e. "Do not Open until Christmas 2016"

Lastly, the lame excuse of, "It has been fixed and will be released at some unspecific date in the future" is absurd and unacceptable. The scenario was released today and I am trying this scenario today with the database available today and not some future date when the database may or may not be fixed.

This is a legitimate complaint. It is one of the real errors I have spotted over the months I've been using HUD-4 and it is quite annoying because the ASROC gives many Cold War ships a ranged weapon to use against submarines so it is likely to sometimes have an effect on gameplay.

Actually, they all are as I deal in scientific fact and the immutable laws of physics and mathematics but it is nice to see that you think your agreement is necessary to validate a bug. However, you are right about the deleterious effect a faulty ASROC has on gameplay.

Mind you, I still have no intention of putting up with rude behavior. As for the suggestion that Mr. Hum is somehow "The Dr. House of Harpoon," that argument might well describe his personality, but not his value to the health of the game. I have no doubt that Mr. Hum is a talented and tireless database editor, but there are plenty of people out there who could do what he does. And they could do it without being rude and divisive.

I have no intention of putting up with dishonest people who claim that the HUD4 is functional when it so obviously is not and then piss and moan about wanting help while they are really just looking for validation. Nor will I tolerate those whose only qualification is to claim, "It didn't happen" when there are videos, test files, crash reports, and images that show otherwise. It is true that anyone can fix bugs, make videos, write scenarios, edit databases, and help players. The difference is attitude, willingness, and effort. Oh, there are plenty who go around boast how great they are, proclaim their self-importance, and bemoan how Harpoon would collapse without them, but when it comes right down to actually doing anything, there are few who answer the call (and none are from the HUD world.)

Is there a list of actual, specific errors and bugs identified for the HUD-4? (I saw there is one for ANW.) That's something that can be reported, looked at, fixed, etc. Then real progress can be made.

Pretty pointless since Guerin is neither willing nor competent to fix the single ASROC bug he's currently facing; a list would just be gilding the lily.

As for the complaint of "it's not my job to report errors," that may be true, but if the error is not reported, it cannot be fixed. So, again, one can be part of the problem or part of the solution. I use the HUD-4 because I happen to like it. My experience is that the number of actual errors is quite low. (Believe me, I am too lazy to have stuck with the HUD-4 if the number of errors was as high as has been suggested.) But I also use it because I believe by writing scenarios I can find the errors that do exist and help make it better.

Glad you agree that it is the task of the database manager to ensure his database actually works and for the scenario writer to do the same for his designs. So long as neither you nor Guerin are willing to perform your designated roles, it is superfluous to inflict your problems on the community of players. The fact that you openly admit your laziness towards testing is something that has already been apparent from your conduct within these fora, the scenarios you release, and does not help your case.

This error does actually exist and has already been reported

Your own words just keep digging your grave deeper by revealing:

1) Your bug report was made "ASROC won't fire" (Started by Mgellis, Nov 12 2011 03:13 PM)

2) Since then, you have *knowingly and deliberately* posted over 10 scenarios with subs vs. ships relying upon faulty non-functional ASROC

3) You have made no attempt to fix your scenarios

4) You have made no attempt to warn users of your problem

5) You continue to claim that HUD4 works and ask for unsuspecting human guinea pigs and victims

This intentional, wanton, and reckless disregard for the welfare of your users is the primary reason why you and HUD4 can never be trusted to do the right thing. If HUD were HiV, you would find yourself in serious hot water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no power to actually make changes in the HUD-4 or ANW; all I can do is pass on suggestions and feedback, and sometimes it is frustrating to have to wait for the next release of the database, but that's the way things are sometimes.)

Fixes to the HUD4 or game code would be nice, but are not necessary in order to write functional scenarios. Change the things you can and let others decide if they want to fix their own work. Regardless, I will keep everyone apprised on the current state of HUD4. If it is fixed, I'll make it known If it remains infested with bugs, I'll do the same so that everyone can make their own decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pason-2: “Channel Engagement”

Scenario by Ralf Koelbach.

AAR by Mark Gellis

Played on November 4, 2012

Pason-2 comes with HUE. It was prepared for the HUD-4 (v1.1 b10) simply by opening it in the scenario editor and rebuilding all platforms; the revised scenario was then saved.

Scenario seems to load properly. I made a point of keeping an eye out for database errors. In this scenario, I saw no problems with weapons firing, ships not having any fuel, or any other database errors. I may have missed something, but nothing that was vital to the scenario.

Looks like a nice, simple “search and shoot” scenario.

13:01. I set up a simple zig-zag course up and down, north and south, across the mouth of the English channel (the scenario is set in 1992 and assumes the Soviet Union did not collapse), just to make myself a bit harder to target.

At 13:15, I put up a Seasprite. My first pair of flying eyes. I already have a couple of passive surface contacts, so I’ve got things to look at. The first one, close by, to the SE, is probably a merchant but I will make sure. I keep the chopper low and passive. I tweak the course to close on the contact.

At 13:43, the first contact it is identified as a Ro-Ro, and neutral. I will now turn northeast towards the other contact, which is more suspicious.

13:57…it is now clear that some of these ships are Soviet. I have an Azov and a Sovremenny. I am now going to use the chopper to get a better fix before I launch missiles. I put the chopper Very Low (11 m) to keep it hidden.

14:20. I have another clear identification, a Slava, but no clear fix on her position yet.

At 14:24, it’s clear a Grisha is in the group, too.

At 14:35, I’ve got a Bingo warning for the chopper’s fuel and it is heading home. I did get a clear fix on one ship but no ID. At least I know where they are, though. I will launch another helicopter and get a better fix.

14:41, I’ve got a Lynx 88 in the air, at VL, heading to the cluster of contacts.

15:30, I have a clear fix on an Azov…still “yellow,” but there is only one navy with an Azov, so I’m firing. Letting the chopper hover. Firing 15 anti-ship T-hawks.

15:50. Chopper on Bingo. Something (maybe the Slava?) just got clipped got clipped with missiles, but no clear data. I’m putting up another Seasprite and keeping everyone at passive. As far as I know, no one knows where I am yet.

At 16:42, I see an air contact! But it’s slow; it must be another chopper. I now have multiple ship contacts with clear identification and clear fixes on location. Firing more T-hawks.

At 16:50, Skunk 91 is still a mystery…I am closing on it. Wait…it’s an Udaloy.

17:05. I have lost another SeaSprite, but I know now where a lot of the bad guys are. And I’m still passive Emcon.

17:58. I am now setting an intercept course for the Soviet battle group. I think I’ve killed a couple of the smaller ships, but I cannot tell.

18:48. I am sending out another chopper at Very Low to get more clear information.

19:02. Chopper destroyed.

19:22. Putting up another chopper but sending it around and behind…perhaps I can avoid the cruisers and their SAMs? Again, keeping it passive and very low. If I can get them in Harpoon range before they know exactly where I am, I’ll have a real advantage.

20:01. Helicopter at Bingo and heading home. Sending another one up on roundabout southern course. No clear fix this time, but he lived.

21:25. Got a hard fix on a Grisha and a Tarantul. Firing Harpoons.

21:29. The helicopter is reporting hits on both the Soviet ships. Only two left and I’ve almost got a hard fix on position. Firing Harpoons now! A massive volley. But they’re shooting at me now, I think. Going Active and Weapons Free to deal with incoming missiles.

21:33. More harpoons at Azov. Both sides taking hits from missiles. I have only one damaged ship, though, the Rommel, and my SAMs are keeping their other missiles down.

21:36. I’m swinging the Seasprite by the cruiser to see - - chopper destroyed at 21:37:16!

21:38. Firing more Harpoons at the remaining Soviet destroyer; the cruiser is no longer moving.

21:45. Firing my last five Harpoons at the destroyer. Only one hit, but it is enough. He’s dead in the water.

Victory conditions achieved 21:59:55.

I seem to have fired on a neutral ship by accident! Tsk! I suspect the captain of the Kinkaid will be cleared, though, considering the circumstances (I can also “document” that I never fired if I did not have a clear ID on an enemy ship; the hit on the merchant has to be due to a navigation error on the missile or the ship just getting in the way by accident).

As for the cost, one damaged warship and four helicopters lost in exchange for two cruisers, two destroyers, one light frigate, and two missile boats, and seven helicopters. A definite win, although not without casualties.

This is a nice little scenario. Good pacing and suspense. Good action. Hard to win if you’re not careful, not too hard if you’re very cautious, as suggested in the orders. Good work, Ralf, and thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Assault on Zion,” from the HUD3 GC1 battleset

AAR by Mark Gellis

Taking the Israeli side…looking for PLO boats…must sink them before they do bad things…

This scenario was prepared for the HUD-4 (v1.1 b10) simply by opening it in the scenario editor and rebuilding all platforms; the revised scenario was then saved.

Scenario seems to load properly. I made a point of keeping an eye out for database errors. In this scenario, I saw no problems with weapons firing, ships not having any fuel, or any other database errors. I may have missed something, but nothing that was vital to the scenario.

I did notice in the rebuilt scenario in the scenario editor that there were some odd behaviors, such as the air base disappearing whenever I switched to “display groups,” but showing up fine as its separate elements and with group and elements listed properly in the Order of Battle window. It did not seem to affect gameplay in any way, though. I am sure there is an interesting technical reason for this odd behavior, but as it did not affect playing the game I’m not going to worry about it.

6:00…scenario starts

I have three Saar 4 missile boats and four aircraft—a Hawkeye and 3 A-4s at Haifa. I’m putting up my Hawkeye and 2 A-4s up from Haifa. I’m leaving one A-4 in reserve. I’m sending the Hawkeye a little northwest of the Reshev…going active…wow, lots of contacts…I’m looking for the ones that seem to be heading towards Israeli ships…and I will send A-4s to look at them…

6:14. Swinging the Hawkeye by two ships nearest to my missile boats, worth the risk here…they are both Neutral. There are two fast-moving contacts to the north, so I’m sending an A-4 to check them out.

6:21. First contact is a dhow, neutral, going after second contact to the north. I have spotted another fast-moving contact to the West and am sending another A-4 to check it out.

6:23. The second northern contact is hostile and my A-4 takes him out without even waiting for me to give him orders—weapons free and all that. The A-4 is ordered to return to base because it has fired off all its weapons. I try to send it to do a little more scouting (it has plenty of fuel left) but it ignores my orders and goes home. I am not sure if this counts as "bug" or not, and I have no idea if it is caused by something in the database or in the game engine.

6:39. The contact to the West turns out to be hostile and the second A-4 sinks it and goes home.

6:40. I start searching the region with the Hawkeye, checking out as many contacts as I can. This continues until 7:13, when the third hostile contact identifies itself as hostile by shooting the Hawkeye down. Ack!

7:15. Harpoon missiles from the Yafo sink the third hostile contact.

8:14. Victory conditions achieved 8:14. I sank all three jihad ships and Haifa did not suffer any attacks.

On examining the scenario in the editor later on, it is interesting that the jihad had Osa II missile boats (who was stupid enough to sell these things to terrorists!?) and that both Syria and Egypt also had their own Osa II missile boats in the region. Doubtless, this is a trap being set for players; if one sees the terrorists have Osa II boats but simply starts to shoot at anyone who has an Osa II, you would end up hitting neutral ships and getting in trouble for it.

To sum things up, I would say this was a fun scenario, but perhaps not challenging enough. With three A-4s, it is too easy to find and sink all three jihad ships before they can get a shot on either Israeli missile boats or targets in Israel. I lost my Hawkeye, but that was just stupidity on my part. I should have kept the Hawkeye at a distance and used the A-4s to check out any specific suspicious contacts.

Thoughts? Observations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This scenario was prepared for the HUD-4 (v1.1 b10) simply by opening it in the scenario editor and rebuilding all platforms; the revised scenario was then saved.

Sorry...forgot to mention, for people unfamiliar with the scenario editor for Harpoon 3 ANW, this is a very simple process. You just use Edit --> Scenario Rebuild --> Rebuild All Units. So it's just one command. It's designed to make updating a scenario from one version of a database to a newer version of the same database simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in the command sequence for the scenario editor which solves the aforementioned bugs within the HUD4 scenarios.

I notice that you have yet to repair the problems found and reported within your scenarios:

http://community.com...20#entry5147586

This bug within the the ScenEditor command corrupts the entire scenario when the Re-build All Units Command is used in HUE.

All land units re-named to default

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Taking of Sakhalin, from the HUD3 GC1 battleset

AAR by Mark Gellis

I am taking the role of Japan. It is 1994 and I have to escort amphibious ships to a landing point on Sakhalin. The Russians, not surprisingly, are eager to stop me. They have a task force in the area and some submarines, including an Oscar, according to my intelligence briefing. I have my task force, a trio of submarines, and about 20 aircraft at Sapporo.

Before starting, I set up patrol missions for the submarines, as I am playing at full realism and will not be able to control them otherwise. I’m sending all three on sub hunts.

This scenario was prepared for the HUD-4 (v1.1 b10) simply by opening it in the scenario editor and rebuilding all platforms; the revised scenario was then saved.

Scenario seems to load properly. I made a point of keeping an eye out for database errors. In this scenario, I did observe one database error that might have affected gameplay; it will be discussed in detail later in this AAR.

20:00. Set course for task force. I’m going to hug the coast and hope that helps. Sending up a Hawkeye and a P-3.

20:09. Putting up two Eagles and…Vampire! Vampire! I’ve got incoming missiles headed for my task force. I’m going to full active sensors on the task force. My SAMs are already firing at the incoming group of missiles. Where the hell did they come from!?

20:13. Missiles are downed. RIM-66s seem to handle them fine.

20:15. More planes ready at Sapporo.

20:18. Another pair of incoming missiles, fired by something to the west. Both missiles downed by 20:19 by SAMs.

20:21. More incoming missiles and an air contact. Sending F-15 s to look at the air contact.

20:24. More missiles down and more missiles coming in from the West—it has to be the Oscar that has been reported in the area in my intelligence briefing, but where is he?

20:37. The contacts have been ID’d as hostile and the Eagles are taking them down. More missiles incoming! If I did not have a Kongo in this task force, I would probably be dead already.

20:41. J-Eagles splash one bogie. Incoming missiles destroyed by SAMs. Eagles are out of missiles, so I’m putting up two more and two F-4s with SO loadouts. And now there are more incoming missiles!

20:50. The barage of incoming cruise missiles seems endless, but my SAMS are handling them.

20:58. More missiles down and no ships hurt.

21:00. I have lost track of my subs. They’re on patrol and I wish them good hunting.

21:07. Another air contact to the northwest…sending Eagles to check it out.

21:11. Eagles returning to base. Low on fuel. But now the bogies that ran away are coming back. Sending two of my F-4s after them. They’ve got Sparrow-Ms, too, so they can double as interceptors.

21:22 Two unidentified contacts close by. I’ve got F-4s looking hard at them. One bogie is hostile and fires but its missile does not hit my F-4. Instead, it is shot down. Closing on other bogie. ID’d as a Flanker and shot down with an AIM-7M. The victorious F-4s are going home. No other bogies in sight right now.

21:27 Two more bogies are up. Sending Eagles to look at them.

21:45. Sending a P-3 to patrol the passage between Japan and Sakhalin. Good place to put a submarine.

21:48. Bogies hostile…F-15s taking them on. The F-15s start to head back to base. A curious bit of game behavior is that the AI will sometimes decide it is time for an aircraft to come home even if it has a bit of fuel or ammunition left. I am not sure what causes this. One can order the aircraft to do something else, but its default instructions are now to head home and one has to “nag” it a little to keep it on any other task. In this case, a bit of fancy flying lets me maneuver the F-15 into range of one of the bogies and take it down with its last missile.

22:29. Got a bogie headed towards my task force. No clear ID. If he gets too close to my ships, I will down him and face a board of inquiry later if I have to.

22:34. Bogie is hostile and firing missiles at the task force. He stays out of range so I cannot get him with a SAM. No ships hit, though.

23:15. More bogies going after task force. I’m shooting down missiles and getting a couple of them, too, but not as many as I want. My task force is still okay, though.

00:15. I’ve been having the P-3 drop sonobuoys in the channel but no contacts so far.

03:03. More air contacts. Putting up two Eagles.

03:22. Contacts are hostile. Hostile bogies splashed with AIM-7Ms.

03:56. New air contact to the west of the task force, which is now nearly at the channel between Sakhalin and Japan.

04:09. Eagles splash another bogie.

05:43. Sub contact in channel and not where one of my patrolling subs should be. Hostile? Sending the Orion to check him out.

07:15. Various air contacts appear, but do not get close to task force anymore.

08:17. I sent a pair of F-15s to investigate two air contacts. Both were hostile. Both are destroyed, but I have lost one F-15 to their missiles.

08:42. Hostile sub spotted. I know he is hostile because he is shooting at me! I am returning fire. Oh, no! The dreaded database ASROC error has reared its ugly head! Some ASROCs do not fire properly in the HUD-4. It is very annoying! However, the error has been reported to the database editor and the editor thinks he has the problem solved and the fix will be in the next release of the database. Meanwhile, I have no intention of giving up just because one weapon does not fire! I’ll shoot back with anything I’ve got, and I’ve got a Kongo-class destroyer with VLS ASROCs that are NOT affected by the database error. And I’ve got other ships with other torpedoes. I’m sinking this sub! Four torpedoes on their way, baby!

8:48. A destroyer, Yamagumo, appears to have been sunk by torpedoes from the sub. But the sub appears to have been sunk, too, so it’s an even trade.

8:54. Oh, no! One of my amphibious ships, the Ojika, is sinking, too! One of the torpedoes fired by the enemy sub must still have been running. In retrospect, as the sub fired its torpedoes before I was able to shoot back, the failure of some of the ASROC weapons was probably academic in this case. My two ships probably would have been sunk no matter what I did.

12:00. Surface contacts spotted to the West. Sending F-4s with missiles to investigate.

12:30. Ships hostile and firing. I’m firing with missiles and trying to get out of there!

12:40. All four F-4s lost! At least one of the ships in this task force have some serious SAM capability.

22:22 I’m getting close to the target area and suddenly another of my ships, the Umigiri, is sinking! I’m not sure what hit it. Submarine?

I search for the submarine, but to no avail. And he keeps shooting at me. By 0:600 of the next morning, I have lost all but three of my ships.

I am not surprised at 20:00 that I learn I have not achieved the victory conditions. I did sink the one submarine and I shot down about eight enemy aircraft (including Flankers and a Tu-95), but I lost several aircraft and more than half of my task force. The high command is not going to be very happy with me. I’ll probably get a choice between seppuku and having to watch the live action version of Sailor Moon.

Although I lost, I liked this scenario. It’s got some sneaky surprises in it and you need to really need to be on your ASW game to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new H3/ANW scenario is available at Harpgamer...

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/files/file/774-operation-andes-wind-2017/

Operation Andes Wind (2017)

A few years in the future...a military coup has put a junta hostile to the United States in power in Chile. American citizens need to be evacuated before they can be detained and used as hostages. An amphibious task force, and two other ships, must complete this mission while protecting themselves against Chilean forces.

Comments and feedback on storyline, tactics, choice of units, design, etc. welcome.

No errors were spotted in the posted version of the scenario (I would not have posted it if I thought there were errors), but if I did miss something, please document it so I can pass the information on to the database editor. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments and feedback on storyline, tactics, choice of units, design, etc. welcome.

No errors were spotted in the posted version of the scenario (I would not have posted it if I thought there were errors), but if I did miss something, please document it so I can pass the information on to the database editor. Thanks.

Tried to run this scenario and immediately stopped it as soon as this previously reported bug was encountered, as per the established doctrine regarding HUD4 scenarios and database bugs.

I notice that you have yet to repair the problems found and reported within your scenarios:

http://community.com...20#entry5147586

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried to run this scenario and immediately stopped it as soon as this previously reported bug was encountered, as per the established doctrine regarding HUD4 scenarios and database bugs.

The issue with the RUR-5A Mod 4 (Mk46m5) missile has already been reported. Of course, there shouldn't be any of those in this scenario (the American DDG and the CG both use a VLS system and I don't think the RUR-5A can be loaded in it), so I'm not sure how the error even cropped up this time. At what point did the error occur?

Does anyone have any other feedback about the scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue with the RUR-5A Mod 4 (Mk46m5) missile has already been reported. Of course, there shouldn't be any of those in this scenario (the American DDG and the CG both use a VLS system and I don't think the RUR-5A can be loaded in it), so I'm not sure how the error even cropped up this time. At what point did the error occur?

Does anyone have any other feedback about the scenario?

The link was wrong. It should have been:

the predominant game problem encountered with the HUD4 is the fact that many, Many, MANY weapons fail to fire.

http://community.combatsim.com/topic/30240-harpoon-3-scenarios-for-the-hud-4/page__st__20#entry5147556

Because of that oversight, I'll give you your third (and final) freebie. It's not the job of any player to test a database or scenario. The database bug is the inabilty of the MH-60S Knighthawk to fire the AGM-114A missiles at any ship under any speed, altitude, range, or circumstance. The fact that these ASROC and MH-60S bugs are so easily found with just the most superficial testing is simple testament to the incredible bugginess of HUD4.

My time has been wasted thrice finding bugs that were discovered within minutes. I will not be wasting any more time pointing out such glaringly obvious database errors especially since any more efforts yield no results. If I have my time wasted encountering them, you can spend your own time actually hunting them down yourself. (a.k.a testing)

Once again, I will pre-empt the usual stupid excuses of:

1) It has been reported (since it isn't a fix)

2) It will be fixed in the future (since the scen was released for play
TODAY
)

3) Find another weapon that actually works (since it isn't role of a player to need to
FIND
something that actually works)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The error with the MH-60 has been reported. That was a good catch. Thanks.

It is interesting to note how problems are reported as though you discovered them through your own efforts.

It is probably worthwhile to summarize at this time.

Tried this scenario and ran into the same weapons-will-not-fire problems as found in:

Anyone running this scenario and finding that some of their weapons will not release, do not despair. You are not doing anything wrongly; it's a database error over which no player has any control.

1) The reported database base problems were proven to be 100% accurate and true in all instances.

2) None of the reported database bugs have been corrected within the HUD4 database.

3) Every HUD scenario is afflicted and none of the reported database bugs have been corrected for any of the associated scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...It's not the job of any player to test a database or scenario....

My time has been wasted thrice finding bugs that were discovered within minutes. I will not be wasting any more time pointing out such glaringly obvious database errors especially since any more efforts yield no results. If I have my time wasted encountering them, you can spend your own time actually hunting them down yourself. (a.k.a testing)...

I've never thought it was anyone's job to test my scenarios, but Harpoon is a community (at least, the Harpooners I know feel that way). We talk to each other. We help each other out. We share ideas and techniques.

For example, I'm not a database editor. I have no official connection to Harpoon. I'm just another player. It's not my job to help, either, but I like Harpoon, and I do not mind helping out when I can by writing scenarios, reporting any bugs I catch, etc. It's just not a big deal to me. And I do test my scenarios, but I know that with something as complex as Harpoon that I might miss something, so I try not to get upset if someone finds a bug or an error that I missed. I report it and do whatever else I can to solve the problem. It's not my job. I just do it because I like to.

If you feel that playing my scenarios is a waste of your time...you know, you don't have to play them. You've made it clear that you don't like the HUD-4 and you've said you aren't interested in helping improve it. Frankly, it seems a little silly for you to keep playing my scenarios if you're only doing it to see how soon you can quit.

I'd like to get back to some real content here. Has anyone had a chance to play the whole scenario? If so, what did you think? Did you like the concept? How challenging was it? What could be done to make future scenarios better and more interesting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×