WestPac 2.0 Woes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition



Message

gbnf -> WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/17/2008 7:12:45 PM)

Let first say that I do like the new challenges that this games provides along with the prompt and nice responses from this forum. To be honest, the people on this forum a far more pleasant and mature than any forum I've dealt with in rpg's, fps's, or rts's. However, I have some issues/questions about the Westpac 2.0

1) I killed 41 ships, 1 sub, 1 AD Mobile, 1 armored, and 1 unarmored in this scenario. I didn't kill any friendlies, and I took out the only pirate base I could find. I made sure all the damn oil tankers made it through the area. In spite of all this I still did not meet the minimum conditions for victory. What didn't I do? I thought maybe some of the tankers didn't go through the correct route, but when I started the scenario over again, 1/2 of the tankers didn't have a course at all. So I put them on a course that would send them to the endpoint of the tankers that did already have course set in by the game. I then made sure the put the various AEW planes and helicopters on search patterns all over the map to make sure that I didn't miss any pirate bases or ships.

2) How does a ship run aground in water that has no land icon in front of it [&:]? This happened on the game scripted courses for the tankers. So I decided to make a course myself for these ships (once I finally got them back into the water). Again I get these damn "ship run aground" messages. I swear the tankers in that ran aground so many times that I'm sure I'm on Greenpeace's hit list for the rest of my life. The next time I redid the course I magnified the map the 128x’s to make sure there weren't any little islands/rocks that didn't show up on the lesser magnifications, but I didn't see anything different. So I tried another course that would be safer, and still get them to their destination point. Yet again I get that ship run aground message (are we seeing a pattern here?). I wondered if maybe the water in these areas were too shallow for the ship, but if that's the case then why are they traveling through this area to begin with? In spite of all this I got all the tankers to their original destination points, with some major tinkering of their courses.

3) How are you supposed to refuel the E-2 planes? I put then in the same patrol group and the refueling plane, but it did not refuel on it's on at 25% like the manual said. So I hit 'alt+r' to force it and I thought it worked. The report window said that it was arranging refuel, and 30 seconds later it said it was starting refuel. However, about 15 seconds later it said that refueling was finished and asked I wanted to send the refueling plane back to base. I checked the fuel for both planes and nothing had changed. It would not let me refuel again for this group. I tried this again with the other E-2 and got the same result. I made sure they were at the same altitude and loitering, but the fuel amount for the E-2 never went up and the fuel amount for the refueling plane did not go down. What am I missing?

4) If you return a plane with some of its weapons and more than the minimal amount of bingo fuel, does this shorten the ready time?



TonyE -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/18/2008 7:46:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gbnf

4) If you return a plane with some of its weapons and more than the minimal amount of bingo fuel, does this shorten the ready time?



This one I can answer [:)] Doing such a noble thing does not shorten the ready time. The shortest ready time is 30 minutes, which happens if you do not change loadouts and are at an installation that can do 30 minute turn arounds (which escapes me at the moment if that is all fixed land installations or not).

Changing loadouts should normally increase the ready time to 60 minutes at undamaged installations.




TonyE -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/18/2008 7:57:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gbnf

3) How are you supposed to refuel the E-2 planes? I put then in the same patrol group and the refueling plane, but it did not refuel on it's on at 25% like the manual said. So I hit 'alt+r' to force it and I thought it worked. The report window said that it was arranging refuel, and 30 seconds later it said it was starting refuel. However, about 15 seconds later it said that refueling was finished and asked I wanted to send the refueling plane back to base. I checked the fuel for both planes and nothing had changed. It would not let me refuel again for this group. I tried this again with the other E-2 and got the same result. I made sure they were at the same altitude and loitering, but the fuel amount for the E-2 never went up and the fuel amount for the refueling plane did not go down. What am I missing?



We'll really need a save for this. Refueling is not right yet in 2008.024, just better than it was in 2007.000. I've had some instances where my planes are reported as refueled instantly and in reality nothing changed except my tanker says it has already refueled some planes. I do like the manual use of Alt-r that you tried.

Excerpt from ReleaseNotes.txt (a boring but informative read on what we think we change with each build)
2007.023
- Chg:0000 GE Refueling manually will now replace any existing refueling
events that haven't started to transfer fuel. The aim is
to prevent an inability to manually refuel (i.e. the command
is given but no refuel occurs until much later).

The current release notes are also posted to http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2395 (i.e. there you will see changes made since the version you have (so you can see what was changed after 2008.024).





CV32 -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/18/2008 4:28:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gbnf
3) How are you supposed to refuel the E-2 planes? I put then in the same patrol group and the refueling plane, but it did not refuel on it's on at 25% like the manual said. So I hit 'alt+r' to force it and I thought it worked. The report window said that it was arranging refuel, and 30 seconds later it said it was starting refuel. However, about 15 seconds later it said that refueling was finished and asked I wanted to send the refueling plane back to base. I checked the fuel for both planes and nothing had changed. It would not let me refuel again for this group. I tried this again with the other E-2 and got the same result. I made sure they were at the same altitude and loitering, but the fuel amount for the E-2 never went up and the fuel amount for the refueling plane did not go down. What am I missing?


Well, there is the issue of the E-2C Hawkeye Group II aircraft being used in that scenario being incapable of in-flight refueling. Sorry, couldn't resist. [:D] [:'(]



SmittyG -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/19/2008 3:39:09 AM)

"4) If you return a plane with some of its weapons and more than the minimal amount of bingo fuel, does this shorten the ready time?"

My observation is that when a plane lands at a undamaged location (ship or airbase), it takes an hour to re-arm and refuel no matter what fuel and weapons it landed with. If the base is damaged, it takes longer. It apears to be 1 hour divided by 1 - percent damage ( expressed as a decimal). ... eg. 10% damage results in refuel time of 1hr / (1-.10) = 1/.9 ~ 1.11 hours.

If you change the loadout of a plane, it changes the ready status to 30 minutes, if the current ready status is less than 30 minutes. Otherwise there is no change.

Smitty



gbnf -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/19/2008 10:23:35 PM)

I have emailed 2 saved games from this scenario showing the refueling and running aground problems. I could get an F-16 to refuel midair, but not the E-2. I still have no clue why ships are running aground when there isn't any land mass in front, or near the ship. Also, I found 4 more ships to kill during the 6th or 7th time I tried this scenario, but I still didn't qualify for the minimum victory conditions. Hopefully you guys can find out what I'm missing or doing wrong.



TonyE -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/20/2008 1:53:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gbnf

2) How does a ship run aground in water that has no land icon in front of it [&:]? This happened on the game scripted courses for the tankers. So I decided to make a course myself for these ships (once I finally got them back into the water). Again I get these damn "ship run aground" messages. I swear the tankers in that ran aground so many times that I'm sure I'm on Greenpeace's hit list for the rest of my life. The next time I redid the course I magnified the map the 128x’s to make sure there weren't any little islands/rocks that didn't show up on the lesser magnifications, but I didn't see anything different. So I tried another course that would be safer, and still get them to their destination point. Yet again I get that ship run aground message (are we seeing a pattern here?). I wondered if maybe the water in these areas were too shallow for the ship, but if that's the case then why are they traveling through this area to begin with? In spite of all this I got all the tankers to their original destination points, with some major tinkering of their courses.


Just like a car may be able to pass under a low bridge but a semi truck gets stuck. Even if there isn't land, sometimes the water is shallow. So big ships like super tankers don't have to hit land to run aground. Experience playing the game and running aground will eventually result in you having a good idea of where the water depth changes. HCE at present uses a very simplistic model where water depth is based entirely upon distance from land (so you won't have a deep ocean trench or a contental plate with sand-bars 100nm out).




TonyE -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/20/2008 2:18:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gbnf
3) How are you supposed to refuel the E-2 planes? I put then in the same patrol group and the refueling plane, but it did not refuel on it's on at 25% like the manual said. So I hit 'alt+r' to force it and I thought it worked. The report window said that it was arranging refuel, and 30 seconds later it said it was starting refuel. However, about 15 seconds later it said that refueling was finished and asked I wanted to send the refueling plane back to base. I checked the fuel for both planes and nothing had changed. It would not let me refuel again for this group. I tried this again with the other E-2 and got the same result. I made sure they were at the same altitude and loitering, but the fuel amount for the E-2 never went up and the fuel amount for the refueling plane did not go down. What am I missing?


Brad was correct, the E-2 in question cannot be in flight refueled and that is why it doesn't work. The game however is not being clear about that and should really say (no planes in this group can be refuelled in flgiht, or something to that effect).

I think you'll find the F-16 would have refueled eventually, much later than 25% bingo fuel though.




gbnf -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/20/2008 2:28:36 AM)

So I guess I will be off the EPA's and Greenpeace's christmas list for a while [:D].  I guess I can understand why it happened when I made the course (although it kinda sucks that it will be hit or miss when the water looks the same color regardless of depth) but why do they run aground when they are following the pre-charted course?  I only made courses for the tankers that didn't have any, and I tried to follow the computer charted courses as close as I could.  At least until those went aground and then it became random courses.  Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the game quite a bit, I am just have some trouble understanding the nuances that are probably obvious to you vets.



TonyE -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/20/2008 4:17:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gbnf

So I guess I will be off the EPA's and Greenpeace's christmas list for a while [:D].  I guess I can understand why it happened when I made the course (although it kinda sucks that it will be hit or miss when the water looks the same color regardless of depth) but why do they run aground when they are following the pre-charted course?  I only made courses for the tankers that didn't have any, and I tried to follow the computer charted courses as close as I could.  At least until those went aground and then it became random courses.  Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the game quite a bit, I am just have some trouble understanding the nuances that are probably obvious to you vets.


Two less Christmas cards you'll have to send next year too [;)]. They run aground when following the pre-plotted course because there wasn't enough testing done by the scenario author and anyone else testing to notice the problem. The group movement check in the SE doesn't say anything is going to run aground and normally that check is accurate. Nuances, that was kind, I'm more pessimistic and call it learning the quirks of the game. I'm glad you are enjoying it though. You may want to skip over WestPac 3.0 (if you were going to play them in order), 2.0 and 3.0 were the first scenarios added to the battleset back in 2003 or so. The rest are much newer and in theory more thoroughly tested. 3.0 is a rather neat smaller scenario though, definitely one to play at some point.







TonyE -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (3/20/2008 5:25:30 AM)

Took a look at both of your saves in regards to Victory Conditions, getting the super tankers onto station you were still aways away from doing, even if you had (I managed to get them into position before time ran out), the other victory condition for the Blue side cannot be satisfied.  It specifies killed two Red ships of the LCU subtype, there are none of those in the scenario.  We'll get the scenario whipped into shape for the next patch (TonyE looks innocently at CV32 [&o]).




TonyE -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (5/14/2008 11:21:46 PM)

Thanks gbnf, the changes to the scenario (victory conditions and blue paths) have been updated and tested for the next patch.




Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (5/15/2008 2:00:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TonyE

Thanks gbnf, the changes to the scenario (victory conditions and blue paths) have been updated and tested for the next patch.




WHEN? [:D]



TonyE -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (5/15/2008 5:45:57 PM)

Vince, you ought to know the answer to that by now.  I'm not supposed to talk about any potential release dates.  Let's leave it at not soon enough to make me break that rule. 



CV32 -> RE: WestPac 2.0 Woes (5/15/2008 5:47:47 PM)

I was going to say, 'we're aiming for 2012 so that if it arrives earlier, everyone will be happy'. [:D] [:'(]



hermanhum -> Patch for Harpoon Commander's Edition (5/16/2008 2:08:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TonyE

I'm not supposed to talk about any potential release dates. Let's leave it at not soon enough to make me break that rule.


The first rule about the HCE Patch release date is, "You don't talk about HCE Patch release date..."



mack2 -> RE: Patch for Harpoon Commander's Edition (5/26/2008 4:32:12 PM)

The devs have to design a new super computer, one so powerful that life itself will be part of it's operation matrix. Then and only then can the issue of "Patch Release Date" be contemplated.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5776367