Weapon points vs Target points (Full Version)

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



Message

cchiang -> Weapon points vs Target points (7/29/2009 8:04:02 PM)

I'm playing a scenario called "Operation Shield" written by Herman : )
There is a Nuclear Power Plant with 400 dp.
I striked with F-4 wit 500-lb bomb with 15 dp...

Now, I bomb the target over and over... at least 20+ times. Still the target BDA says "Appeared Damaged".

How does Harpoon calculate this?

If I bomb the target 20 more times will the target be finally destroyed?



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Weapon points vs Target points (7/29/2009 8:20:03 PM)

You must damage the facility at least 50% of its damage capacity within 3 minutes to have a shot at destroying it. Then it is a percent chance based on the percent damage accumulated. 100% damage will destroy the facility nearly instantly.

The rub is that a failed destruction check removes the accumulated damage. I'm considering removing this as I don't see any real benefit to realism or gameplay. I do see, as Freek and others have reported, major downsides in how damage Victory Conditions interact with this damage model feature.

What says everyone else?

Thanks,



hermanhum -> Harpoon 3 [ANW] scenarios for the PlayersDB (7/29/2009 8:27:52 PM)

You might want to take a look at this thread regarding the new Ground Unit Damage calculations (at least before the thread was hijacked).
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2096000

You can also take a look at the AGSI Wiki page regarding Land Damage:
http://www.computerharpoon.com/wiki/main/index.php?title=H3ANW:390:Land_Damage_Model

In general I think that it means that land damage is no longer cumulative in ANW. As far as I can tell, it says that if you can't generate enough hits/damage at a certain point in time to overwhelm the facility, the land facility can repair itself. This makes them really, really hard to kill unless you swamp the thing with hits.

Thanks for trying out the scenario. [8D]



hermanhum -> Problem (7/29/2009 8:41:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

What says everyone else?

I think that you can see where Freek's and my sentiments lie. We are in favour of the previous cumulative damage calculation used in H2 and H3.



cchiang -> RE: Problem (7/30/2009 3:00:07 AM)

Thank you for the responses.

I don't think I'm going to be able to destroy that power plant : (

I'll play from the North Korean side now...



hermanhum -> Problem (7/30/2009 11:57:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cchiang

I'll play from the North Korean side now...

I would advise against it because it would be a very simple scenario. [:D]

The North Korean orders specifically state:
***** Warning ***** Warning *****

This side not playable in Solitaire

***** Warning ***** Warning *****

This scenario was designed for solitaire play from the Japanese side or for Multi-player. Pretty much nothing is going to happen if you play as the North Korean side unless there is a human in control of the Japanese forces as no orders have been pre-set for the Japanese units.



rsharp@advancedgamin -> RE: Problem (7/31/2009 6:07:03 AM)

Hi,

I plan on putting a new build tomorrow of 3.10 tomorrow. It will have the changes I spoke of in this thread and others. If you feel like trying this scenario in a beta release, then grab it tomorrow.

Thanks,



cchiang -> RE: Problem (7/31/2009 7:35:58 PM)

Awesome [:)]
I actually have been playing these scenarios in beta.




hermanhum -> Harpoon 3 [ANW] scenarios for the PlayersDB (7/31/2009 10:47:09 PM)

Can you elaborate on exactly which scenarios you are playing in ANW or Beta 3.10?  Normally, I cannot be bothered to even test them in ANW.  So, I just release mine as only tested for H3.  Other scenario writers will test in ANW, but I do not.

If you can specify which PlayersDB scenarios you have satisfactorily played in ANW, I would be willing to add them to the List of Scenarios Tested for ANW.



cchiang -> RE: Harpoon 3 [ANW] scenarios for the PlayersDB (8/6/2009 1:14:51 AM)

hmm.. I always thought ANW and 3.10 is the same (except one is a beta)... maybe I'm not getting this version thing down right.

I was playing 3.10 build 25 (now 26).
I used the players database.

The scenario that I played was Operation Shield. Haven't replay build 26 yet, but I didn't see the change made on the list of "fixes".
It usually takes me 1 week to complete a scenario.



hermanhum -> Harpoon 3 [ANW] scenarios for the PlayersDB (8/6/2009 3:06:56 AM)

No, I think you have it right.  3.9.4 is currently the latest publicly released version of ANW.  ANW 3.10 is the Beta version currently being tested.

All the PlayersDB scenarios have been synchronized with version 3.9.4   None have been re-made/synchronized for 3.10 Beta. 

The 3.9.4 scenarios should run in 3.10, but there are no guarantees.  i.e. you may be able to load and run a 394 scenario in 3.10 Beta without it crashing, but it might have many strange behaviours not previously seen in 394.

So, in your best opinion, does Operation Shield run well enough that you would consider it functional under the ANW 394 engine?  Thanks for the help.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4