Bug Report (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare >> Harpoon 3 ANW Support



Message

Flankerk -> Bug Report (6/21/2006 7:32:23 PM)

Have tried a number of the enclosed scenarios with 3.7 and now also run a full test on a larger DB2000 scenario "Attack on the Fortress".
There are some apparent bugs present, I suspect a number are already being worked on.

Missiles do definitely wander, and its not an issue that looks to have anything to do with passive seekers and so forth. A group of 24 land attack Kitchen all homed on to a single hangar although aimed at several, I tried a full launch of 8 SS-N-12 against a four ship group, all targetted at the three rear ships. All eight instead attacked the lead ship and only the lead ship. The comments under the Dawn Patrol thread are correct, missiles can be observed making abrupt 90 degree turns to home on targets they were not fired on.

The navigation bug I believe is well known and likely being sorted already. Unfortunately when it occurs it is impossible to continue. So far i have had a 100% success rate in getting this to show [X(]

There seems to be a problem with group speeds after an attack. In essence if a ship in your group is struck its speed drops to represent the damage ( naturally enough ). However if it is sunk, or the ship detached the groups speed does not recover. This is not a problem for a player, they will need to monitor groups to ensure they have a full speed setting. However the AI doesn't look to notice as far as I can see. Hitting one ship for 90% damage won't therefore cause that ship to slowly drop back, the whole group will instead maintain formation with it.

Some missiles seem to be behaving oddly beyond the issue above. The AS-14 Kedge for example happily floated past every land target I aimed it at [:)]

I don't know if anything has been noted in the documentation but to get a helicopter to deploy dipping sonar you now have to hover at Vlow altitude. I'm pretty sure it used to be at low before ?



Flankerk -> RE: Bug Report (6/22/2006 8:41:43 PM)

I thought it might be useful to try out a number of variations on anti submarine scenarios, primarily because these do not suffer from the Navigation bug as far as I can see.

Generally speaking I could not find any bugs as such although there may be a database issue that is worth looking at.

During a trial of Reinforcing Northern Flank with the ODB an RN AI controlled submarine engaged my surface group. However I would estimate ( the group naturally enough never did locate the submarine ) that the torpedoes were being launched at a range in excess of 12 NM. At that range the seeker couldn't aquire a target and the spearfish simply entered various search patterns to no effect.

I then tried "watch that first step" rebuilt for the ADB. In this scenario I played as Russian player and essentially positioned two subs , an Alfa and a Victor III at the exit route the Ohio's were to take. Both were at halt for some considerable time.
Eventually two US Boomers showed up. I only got a detection as they fired. However again the engagement range was excessive, almost exactly 12NM. Again virtually all Mk 48 were expended without aquiring a target. One managed to sink the Alfa.

I know this issue came up a long time ago on HHQ and the best resolution proved to be to reduce torpedo launch ranges ( you can still fire BOL to a greater range if need be ). The shorter engagement ranges were also supported by publications such as Vego's book.
I also believe the sonar detection values are lower overall. The net result being that the AI tends to fire with a far greater chance of a kill, rather than revealing its position on a shot that will never make it to the target.

By way of comparison I tried out the DB2000 rebuilt scenario for Watch that first step and the torpedoes do seem to behave much better. Using the same tactics my Alfa managed to get into position, then some considerable time later blew up to a torpedo launch it did not detect. Later a Victor I detected a close range Torpedo launch, went active and detected what proved to be an Ohio at 4NM. A successful counter fire triggered the Victory Conditions at the cost of the Victor.

My suspicion is that the AI will pretty much always engage at a maximum range, even though the torpedoes will generally be unable to aquire a target. I don't know if there is a better solution than that adopted by DB2000 and offspring directly derived from it ?

For MP of course its not a problem[8D]

Next step Air Combat [:)]



witpqs -> RE: Bug Report (6/22/2006 11:52:37 PM)

I'm a little confused here, can you clarify for me? If I understand you folks correctly, the torpedo launch range is a separate setting from the torpedo's maximum range, which is also separate from the range(s) it's seeker head can acquire targets at. If I understand that, we have:

a) launch range
b) maximum range (torpedo expires)
c) seeker head range

If I got those right, are the following desirable:

1) Launch range is the 'normal' maximum range at which the torp will be launched.
2) The player can manually initiate a launch at up to the maximum range.
3) The AI will never choose to carry out #2 as a human player might choose to.
4) A Bearing Only Launch is outside this discussion, as range is a non-issue with a BOL.

I've written this out mostly to see if I understand correctly. It sounds like right now #2 is not allowed, and players must substitute #4. True?



XLegion -> GAME WILL NOT START (6/23/2006 12:25:36 AM)

Ok, this is the 'first buyer to Harpoon III's worst nightmare'. I downloaded the game via digital download and at 4 hours dial up I guess I did pretty good. I installed the game but as it was doing so I got an error message which said "irsetup" "A sharing violation occurred while accessing an unamed file".

The game apparently installed though but this is what I have noted.

autorun click: I get a "could not find data file" message

H3launch.exe: I get the screen and I can set up the parameters and it seems to accept them

SETUPEXE: I can access this and successfully tested all of the audio parameters

HARPOON3.EXE: Game does not start but for an instant I an see a window that looks like it is blank

Ok, where do I go from here. I went to the Windows XP properties and selected Windows 95 and eventually all of the other options too but they did not work.


Technical help please. After all that work downloading this is a major dissappointment.

Gilbert Collins
Ottawa, Ontario



hermanhum -> RE: Bug Report (6/23/2006 7:28:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm a little confused here, can you clarify for me? If I understand you folks correctly, the torpedo launch range is a separate setting from the torpedo's maximum range, which is also separate from the range(s) it's seeker head can acquire targets at. If I understand that, we have:

a) launch range
b) maximum range (torpedo expires)
c) seeker head range


You have them right. It might be a little more clear if you refer to them as:

1) Max Launch Range
2) Fuel Range Limit
3) Seeker Head range

quote:

If I got those right, are the following desirable:

1) Launch range is the 'normal' maximum range at which the torp will be launched.
2) The player can manually initiate a launch at up to the maximum range.
3) The AI will never choose to carry out #2 as a human player might choose to.
4) A Bearing Only Launch is outside this discussion, as range is a non-issue with a BOL.

I've written this out mostly to see if I understand correctly. It sounds like right now #2 is not allowed, and players must substitute #4. True?


I'm not certain that I follow the description. The range ring shown on a map displays the Maximum range that the weapon is currently allowed to fire.

However, just because a target appears within the range ring does not mean that it will fire. The AI makes a "no escape" envelope calculation before it fires. This means that if the firing platform is trying to engage a target that is running directly away from it, the firing unit might be required to get VERY close before it is allowed to launch. Conversely, I have seen situations whereby I was allowed to fire at targets outside of my range circle because they were travelling directly towards me at a high rate.



witpqs -> RE: Bug Report (6/23/2006 9:34:27 AM)

Understood.

Okay - so it sounds like perhaps the real issue is a faulty 'no escape' calculation being performed that is allowing all the torps to be wasted at extreme range?



hermanhum -> RE: Bug Report (6/23/2006 9:48:29 AM)

No, I do not believe that to be the problem.

Currently, in the ANWDb, the Max firing range for the 65-76 torpedo is 53.4 nm while the Fuel range is the same (53.4nm)

In PlayersDb, the Max firing range is 7.7 nm while the fuel range is about 50nm.

In DB2k, the Max firing range is 7 nm while the fuel range is about 50nm.

So, the calculation is the same. However, in ANWDb, the target can close to, say, 40nm and then be considered in the No-Escape envelope. The torpedo will launch and then run a full distance of 50nm.

With the reduced Max Firing range for PlayersDb and other third-party DBs, these torpedoes probably fire at about 6-7nm (depending on the speed of the target). The torpedoes will still run a full 50nm. This means that even the fastest ships will likely be caught before the torpedo runs out of fuel.

When ships are engaged at a range of 40nm, they quite often detect the torpedo and can quickly run outside the 50nm range.

You can do the math. If a ship capable of running 30-35 knots is engaged at a range of 6.5nm by a 40kt torpedo, it is not likely to escape if the torpedo has a chase range of 50nm.

However, if that same torpedo is fired at 40nm, the 5kt speed advantage is probably going to mean that it won't win the race.



witpqs -> RE: Bug Report (6/23/2006 11:08:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

When ships are engaged at a range of 40nm, they quite often detect the torpedo and can quickly run outside the 50nm range.



Then the calculation is wrong. Or is the term 'No-Escape Envelope' a misnomer? Or, do I understnad the term wrong and 'no-escape' only gets calculated at the current speed and current heading?

At any rate, it sounds like the interface should allow a human player to launch at up to Fuel Range, but with a warning message if Max launch Range and/or No-Escape Envelope are exceeded. I assume that IRL a ship's captain can do that?



mikmykWS -> RE: Bug Report (6/23/2006 11:17:53 PM)

Witqs the human can fire up to fuel range by boling the torpedo.

As Herman mentioned the AI was wasting torps by firing at max range (if target is at 49nm and range is 50nm it can run 2 miles exceeding the range of the weapon) so the db guys made some fixes to help the AI. Doesnt' inhibit what the human can do just need to bol.

Probably would be nice if it worked a little differently granted.[:)] But it works.

My guess its on the list for the ANW database. Dale's done some pretty amasing stuff with it already.





hermanhum -> RE: Bug Report (6/23/2006 11:50:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Then the calculation is wrong. Or is the term 'No-Escape Envelope' a misnomer? Or, do I understnad the term wrong and 'no-escape' only gets calculated at the current speed and current heading?

At any rate, it sounds like the interface should allow a human player to launch at up to Fuel Range, but with a warning message if Max launch Range and/or No-Escape Envelope are exceeded. I assume that IRL a ship's captain can do that?


I suspect that you are correct when the term 'no-escape' is used. I don't think that it was meant to mean, "Absolutely No-Escape". I think that it is more likely that the calculation indicates that the probability is very high.

For example, in other games, this 'no-Escape envelope' simply means that the weapons will fire at 80% of maximum range. For Air-to-Air engagements, players are still able to escape if they turn around and run on Afterburners. [Personally, I would think that 67% is more appropriate, but that is just my opinion.]

At any rate, there are problems finding out about "Absolute no-escape". I don't think that it is fair or realistic for the AI to know the maximum speed of the target, either.

Your suggestion to allow the player to fire at up to max range can already be used. If the player is using the ANWDb, this is simply a BOL shot, I think, since the Max firing range and Fuel range are the same.

For wire-guided torpedoes in other DBs, you can fire them BOL and then give them a course correction so that they don't activate until they reach the end of the waypoint. That waypoint can be well past the fuel range, too. I don't know how to do the same with torpedoes like 65-76 that don't have guidance wires, though.



witpqs -> RE: Bug Report (6/23/2006 11:52:29 PM)

Thanks.

I understand about BOL'ing, but I'm thinking that there is a difference because the torps (most that we are talking about) are wire-guided. The difference (I think - I'm not a navy professional) is that the BOL launched torp will pick up what it does after the activation point, while the wire guided torp can be continually guided by the launching sub until close to the target (provided the wire holds up).

Now, my own preference is for as close as practicable to reality for Harpoon. So, if in real life the deal is to BOL it, then I'm fine with that. But if in real life the sub can do a really long range launch and guide to a specific target (unless/until the wire breaks) then I would really like that ability.

And, if I understand the database change issues correctly they help the AI but cause the human player to rely even more on bearing only launches (because the range for target specific launches is reduced).

I realize that the evolution of Harpoon has been and will be a long-term process. Over the long term I prefer 1) realistic capabilities, 2) staff/crew/AI assistance to facilitate # 1 in the game environment, and 3) a user interface toward the same end.

I've had all the Harpoons (never bought Classic as I considered it a republication). I was waiting on H4 but was very leary of the stated emphasis on 3D graphics because I thought it would take resources away from the important aspects of the game. It may be a blessing in disguise that H4 was cancelled. I'm hoping the AGSI/Matrix partnership leads to great things for computerized Harpoon.



witpqs -> RE: Bug Report (6/23/2006 11:58:11 PM)

hermanhum,

Okay, now I understand the no-escape terminology correctly to be 'no escape at current velocity (course+speed)'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Your suggestion to allow the player to fire at up to max range can already be used. If the player is using the ANWDb, this is simply a BOL shot, I think, since the Max firing range and Fuel range are the same.

For wire-guided torpedoes in other DBs, you can fire them BOL and then give them a course correction so that they don't activate until they reach the end of the waypoint. That waypoint can be well past the fuel range, too.


This is really what I am looking for. If I understand what you wrote, then H3ANW already has what I suggested. It's been few years since I picked up H3, so I still need to get back up to speed.

quote:


I don't know how to do the same with torpedoes like 65-76 that don't have guidance wires, though.


Right - I only meant my comments to apply to wire-guided torps.

Thank you.



HaroldHutchi -> RE: Bug Report (6/24/2006 1:28:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flankerk
I know this issue came up a long time ago on HHQ and the best resolution proved to be to reduce torpedo launch ranges ( you can still fire BOL to a greater range if need be ). The shorter engagement ranges were also supported by publications such as Vego's book.


I'm aware of the range limitation. I use it in the ADB as well [;)]

The whole point of the ANW DB is to give the user that kind of flexibility with torpedo ranges, especially with regards to surface ships. While a 5nm range limitation for torpedos would be great for the AI, we plan on using the ANW DB as a Multi-Player DB. The whole advantage of submarines is their stealth, and once they are detected they are at the mercy of aircraft and ships with their superior sensors and weapons.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

Later
D



My thoughts are to keep the longer ranges seen in the Data Annexes of H4/High Tide.



witpqs -> RE: Bug Report (6/24/2006 9:25:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum


For wire-guided torpedoes in other DBs, you can fire them BOL and then give them a course correction so that they don't activate until they reach the end of the waypoint. That waypoint can be well past the fuel range, too. I don't know how to do the same with torpedoes like 65-76 that don't have guidance wires, though.


I didn't see any reference to this in the manual (I could have missed it - I was re-reading since I've read the manual in the past). Will the wire guided torps ask for way points upon BOL launch, will I have to select them after launch and issue movements like to a TF, or is there some other way to issue waypoint orders to them?



hermanhum -> RE: Bug Report (6/24/2006 10:05:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I didn't see any reference to this in the manual (I could have missed it - I was re-reading since I've read the manual in the past). Will the wire guided torps ask for way points upon BOL launch, will I have to select them after launch and issue movements like to a TF, or is there some other way to issue waypoint orders to them?


To issue orders to BOL-fired wire-guided torpedoes, you do it in pretty much the same way you would for task groups. Select BOL firing point, fire them, then select them and issue their waypoint orders.



Flankerk -> RE: Bug Report (6/24/2006 10:17:50 PM)

The problem with the longer ranges is that torpedoes are usually classed in virtually all databases with the two speed settings.

If the AI is free to do so it will basically allocate weapons as long as it is in range which is pretty much what you'd expect. The trouble with torpedoes is that the long range shots usually are inneffective because of their seekers, plus the torpedoes are then travelling at the lower speed settings.

Using the example mentioned above the type 65 will travel at about 54NM at 30 knots while at half that range will do the distance at 50 or so knots. Clearly the closer range shot is the more dangerous. Again this was debated a fair bit on HHQ and all indications are that the extended ranges of torpedoes are to run down an evading target/make repeat attacks.

The type 65 cannot be plotted as effectively on a BOL lauch as it is not wire guided.

DB2000 effectively adopts a closer range shot. ADB and the original DB follow that a longer range shot is possible, albeit at reduced effect. Neither really effect MP. For DB2000 you can take a longer ranged shot using a BOL, in ADB or ODB you aren't restricted by the range in any event. For a long ranged shot you plot its course until it aquires a target of its own.

As far as I can gather without downloading the PDB they simply follow the same values as DB2000.

My personal preference is clearly for the reduced ranges, they make submarine encounters much more claustrophobic and the AI is far more lethal.
Having a submarine open fire on a task force at 20 or so nautical miles also stretches realism for me.

Having said that, many of these decisions are essentially down to the database author, and scenarios can readily be written to balance either view.



witpqs -> RE: Bug Report (6/24/2006 11:18:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum


To issue orders to BOL-fired wire-guided torpedoes...


Thanks.



witpqs -> RE: Bug Report (6/24/2006 11:22:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH


In this sense, the question perhaps should be rephrased to ask: "Should torpedo ranges be fixed to force the player close on the target?"



This is the way I read your question anyway. I think that a better answer is to work on the AI. Especially without knowing the AI's inner workings, I'm uncertain what approach would be either best or most practical, but I'm sure there are various possibilities.

Before really going too far down that road, maybe you already know whether working on the AI for this kind of issue is just impractical?




hermanhum -> RE: Bug Report (6/24/2006 11:32:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flankerk

As far as I can gather without downloading the PDB they simply follow the same values as DB2000.

My personal preference is clearly for the reduced ranges, they make submarine encounters much more claustrophobic and the AI is far more lethal.
Having a submarine open fire on a task force at 20 or so nautical miles also stretches realism for me.


PlayersDB follows a model similar to many of the other third-party DBs. We took:

1) the speed of the torpedo,
2) maximum speed of a probable contact, and
3) assumed that the torpedo was fired at a target from maximum range
4) torpedo was detected IMMEDIATELY upon launch by the target (which begins immediate evasion),

What would the maximum firing range be that would allow for the torpedo to catch the target before it ran out of fuel? We think that our calculations have been pretty good. When those monsters are fired, they usually catch their target. Whether they hit or miss is another question. [8D]



Flankerk -> RE: Bug Report (6/25/2006 12:08:40 AM)

Sorry I should have differentiated between the ANW DB and the ADB, the latter using the reduced ranges effectively.

Strictly speaking the PDB doesn't follow a model similar to DB2000 , it uses the same values. I.E the range, PK and so forth are exactly the same. I believe this is true for the vast majority of its torpedoes.

If you hadn't gathered torpedo effectiveness has been a bugbear of mine for some time [:)].
I had planned on posting an AAR for Mikes scenario Waking the Bear to DB2000, however it would have been a short one ! My subs had to move further offshore than I normally do having won the scenario a few times previously. The soon to be sorted nav bug caused me to deviate more than normal and frankly I took a complete pounding.
I lost two submarines pretty much before the game had really started.
I think the reduced ranges certainly make the AI more effective, but most scenarios can always be designed to prove a challenge.
Anyone who fancies a difficult scenario would do well to win on Mike's Kuril Salient or Quinton's Race for Iceland. Both winnable but both in my opinion a genuine challenge.

Either is worth a try if you are concerned about the effectiveness of the AI.



hermanhum -> RE: Bug Report (6/25/2006 12:25:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flankerk

Strictly speaking the PDB doesn't follow a model similar to DB2000 , it uses the same values. I.E the range, PK and so forth are exactly the same. I believe this is true for the vast majority of its torpedoes.


Strictly speaking, this is incorrect.

Not even close. The facts simply do not support the allegation. Here is the example we are talking about: Type 65-76 Torpedo from the PlayersDB and the DB2k.

[image]http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/5223/y2kdbtype65766xu.th.gif[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/18146/CCDD8F571F284A0DB2A20155A74DEB35.gif[/image]



Flankerk -> RE: Bug Report (6/25/2006 12:40:32 AM)

So apart from that one example what values are used by PDB compared to DB2000 ?



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Bug Report (6/25/2006 1:04:08 AM)

Having tried both single player with third-party DBs and MP with the original one, now, I can say that both kind of games have their merits (not that this is a big discovery [;)] ) My suggestion would simply be to create a MP Database and a SP one geared for realistic behaviour by the AI. But I honestly do not know the amout of work involved by the DB maintainers. However, looking at the offer by the community as of Jun, 2006, I'll keep third party DBs for single player and the original one for MP - at least for some time. The offer of the original scenarios for MP is GARGANTUAN, so I do not see reasons to switch to others DBs in my MP games just now (I'm alread open for the extemporary experiment in MP with a third party DB, however).

Regarding being visited by the federals, according to some sources Tom Clancy himself was visited by the FBI when he published "The Hunt for the Red October", and to explain how he had got all that "sensitive infos" found in the book he showed his copy of Harpoon among the other references [8D]



hermanhum -> RE: Bug Report (6/25/2006 1:08:55 AM)

Since some folks are blessed with so much time on your hands, why don't you go ahead and do a platform-by-platform analysis / comparison. 

Just be sure to do a thorough job.  There are several thousand platforms in either database. 

I am sure that the community would be thankful for your efforts.  [;)]



Flankerk -> RE: Bug Report (6/25/2006 1:21:04 AM)

As requested I have looked into the issue further regarding the treatment of torpedoes in the databases.

Of the initial batch looked into there seem to be striking similarities.

Mark 46
Mark 48
53-65M
53-68N

The values used for DB2000 in respect of the above look to have been copied into PDB
[ both range and PK] . I find no such similarities in other Databases.

I'm not clear how many other platforms you'd wish to be listed ?




hermanhum -> RE: Bug Report (6/25/2006 1:23:22 AM)

Go ahead and present all the data.  Cross sections, engines, warhead, sensors,

By all means.  Everyone wants to see this stuff.



hermanhum -> RE: Bug Report (6/25/2006 1:34:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flankerk

As requested I have looked into the issue further regarding the treatment of torpedoes in the databases.

<< snip >>

I'm not clear how many other platforms you'd wish to be listed ?


The original request was:

quote:

Since some folks are blessed with so much time on your hands, why don't you go ahead and do a platform-by-platform analysis / comparison.

Just be sure to do a thorough job. There are several thousand platforms in either database.


The request is quite clear. ALL of the platforms. Planes, Subs, Ships, Weapons, engines, Sensors... Bring it all on. To compare 4 entries out of 10,000 is simply inaccurate and statistically whimsical.

Just be certain to also document each and every entry that bears no similarity between the two databases, too. That way, everyone can see for themselves that there may be 4 similar entries and 9,996 dis-similar entries.

Game on! [&o]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8908691