New Community Scenario development and Testing Forum

[danrh]

Hi folks,
just to let you know that a new forum, dedicated to to testing an development of new scenarios has been added at the Harpooners Point Forums (http://www.harpoonhq.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=25). This new forum allows players to download the scenario directly and provide feedback at the same location. The aim is to streamline the process fo getting the scenario finalised and posted on the main HHQ scenario page. It should remove current bottleneck s in the process and also help to ensure that we continue to provide quality scenarios that people want to play. Check it out and start playing. Who knows you might be inspired to build your own scenarios for the rest of us to play. Remember the Harpoon series is only as strong as the community participation

cheers

Daniel

[Sunburn]

And the scenarios are already flowing by the boatload :D

Great start!

[emsoy]

:D :D :D


The response from the community has been overwhelmingly positive, and both scenario designers and players are extremely pleased :D


__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

[Herman Hum]

I tested this from both sides and found that the same ViCond is broken on both sides. After the ships reach their first destination, one of the ViConds activates. However, when they reach their second destination, the ViCond is not triggered. I took a look in the SE and found that neither of the sides has any units selected for this ViCond so it is impossible to trigger.

The use of the Exclusion zone around China is very nice. It protects their AEW and EW assets. However, I think that you might consider moving the EW planes back just a bit because, as the Japanese player, I was able to kill them with very long range Sparrow shots.

Also, one of the helos on the Japanese TF starts with a minimal loadout. Not a big deal, but I don't know if it is intentional or not.

[Herman Hum]

In the past, Klaus has only asked for loss reports so I'll keep my comments brief.

Tested from the USAF side first. Some general comments:

1) The SRBM strike on Doha was nice. I was able to defeat it and only lost a barracks building.
2) The Nahid is nicely positioned as an AEW asset.
3) The Marine force had to fight for their very lives since my fighters could not arrive to support them. The CG ran out of missiles very quickly.
4) My FFG was quickly sunk by the onshore battery and the LPD Ogden sustained heavy damage along with the CG (50%).
5) The USMC helos were able to soak up many of the Iranian SAMs and AAMs so that my strikers could get through to the target.
6) I only needed the first wave to win.
7) The plentiful EW assets probably kept the AI totally blind throughout the game.

Suggestions:

A) That's a lot of EW. I almost felt sorry for the AI.
B) I don't think that "Detoxicate" is a word. I believe that you might be looking for "De-Toxify". :)

Losses:

Iran - Bayandor, Saam, 2 Houjian, 2 Jet Ranger, 26 Phantom, 11 Tomcat, 5 Flogger, 8 Sea Cobra, 14 Fencer, 1 HQ SA-10b, 1 TPS-43, 1 Reactor, 1 Power station, 1 SAM battalion, 1 Parvin
USAF - Barracks
USMC - 2 Firescout, 2 Harrier
USN - FFG Underwood, 2 SeaHawk

Re-test as USMC

1) It was really interesting to see the SRBM shut down the airfield and thus cut me off from any aerial support.

Losses:

Iran: Gayandor, Saam, 19 Phantom, 2 Houjian, 6 Tomcat, 6 Flogger, 2 Jet Ranger, 8 Fencer, 8 Sea Cobra, 1 Rapier battery, 1 Reactor, 1 SA-10b Battalion
USAF: Sentry, Compass Call, 4 Falcon, 1 Eagle
USN: FFG Underwood, 2 SeaHawk
USMC: No losses

Re-Test as the USN

1) The strikers are nicely time with the SEAD missions.
2) Heckuva time finding the sub. LHD Essex had to eat a torpedo in order to have the Kilo reveal itself.

Losses:

Iran: Bayandor, 2 Houjian, 1 Saam, 11 Tomcat, 9 Flogger, 25 Phantom, 2 Jet Ranger, 8 Sea Cobra, 9 Fencer, 1 Reactor, 1 Power station, 10 Frogfoot, 1 C3CM, 1 Kilo
USAF: Barracks, Sentry, 7 Falcon, J-Star, 2 F-15E, 2 F15C, 1 Command Solo
USMC: 2 SeaHawk, 2 Firescout, 2 Harrier, 3 Super Stallion, 7 Super Cobra, 3 Sea Knight
USN: CG, 2 SeaHawk

[Herman Hum]

As before, only reporting on losses.

Tried this from the NATO side first and played through to the end. When time expired, I had destroyed 7 submarines without a loss. All inbound cruise missiles were destroyed but I was not granted Victory. The Game only recorded 4 of the 7 destroyed submarines so I guess that this bug within the Victory Condition evaluation process is still present.

2 Yankee Notch, Victor III, Echo II, Alfa, Delta III, Victor II

Tested from the Warsaw Pact side and won while only losing an Echo II SSGN.

[Herman Hum]

No problems encountered. I was able to activate victory conditions for the loss of the 3 ships in the screening force. FFG, 2FS.

I noticed a small anomaly. I don't know if the DB that I was using might be slightly mis-matched, but the Phantom recon aircraft from South Korea launched with only their minimal loadouts. They did not even have the Defensive jammer pod AN/ALQ-119 loaded.

The furious airbattle was interesting to watch even if I was not able to participate or have any effect on it.

[Herman Hum]

No problems except some of the Iranian patrol boats appeared to get 'stuck' in the inlets when they try to go around the Strait of Hormuz. I'd recommend putting in Nav Zone(s) so that they can avoid the dead-end bays.

The Intelligence report is a nice twist. You warn the player that the Iranian air force is not a factor and then they prove to be a Major Factor. Excellent job of dis-information.

You selection of Sparrow missiles for the Tomcats is a nice choice. It forces the player to confront the Iranian air force on even terms, basically.

The George Washington CVBG is nicely surrounded by SSM-toting assets. Also, the restriction from attacking the oil platforms-cum-islands was a nice touch. Instead of being allowed to 'shoot the archer', I was forced to 'shoot the arrows'. Every last SAM was expended from this CVBG and many of my strikers had to play at being fighter pilot first before releasing their ordnance.

Lastly, those SA-5s are a very nasty surprise. Never expected to see them in the Gulf. The did an excellent job of suppressing my AEW and CAP operations within the Gulf. ViConds were achieved for the loss of 4 Hornets.

[MikMyk]

Okay Herman,

Made some updates and I think the others have too. You may be about two days behind as Calum discovered the VC area a day or two ago. This section is about developing and building scenarios so you're going to find errors (kinda the point). Anyways go ahead and grab the newest updates and you are going to need the latest db as well.

Completed scenarios (out of testing, done, finito) are found here:

http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon3/scenarios/

[MikMyk]

I tested this from both sides and found that the same ViCond is broken on both sides. After the ships reach their first destination, one of the ViConds activates. However, when they reach their second destination, the ViCond is not triggered. I took a look in the SE and found that neither of the sides has any units selected for this ViCond so it is impossible to trigger.

Got it thanks.

The use of the Exclusion zone around China is very nice. It protects their AEW and EW assets. However, I think that you might consider moving the EW planes back just a bit because, as the Japanese player, I was able to kill them with very long range Sparrow shots.

Interesting you should point that out. Turn out Sparrows were broken as in couldn't fire. The reason is outlined in this string.

http://www.harpoonhq.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1817&start=20

So not really sure how you were able to fire them in that version. Maybe it was the AAM-3s'?


Also, one of the helos on the Japanese TF starts with a minimal loadout. Not a big deal, but I don't know if it is intentional or not.

Fixed

[Herman Hum]

Interesting you should point that out. Turn out Sparrows were broken as in couldn't fire.

So not really sure how you were able to fire them in that version. Maybe it was the AAM-3s'?
I used 6.5.24 and they definitely fired. However, the Sparrows on the Phantoms malfunctioned. The Sparrows from the Eagles were just fine.

[MikMyk]

I used 6.5.24 and they definitely fired. However, the Sparrows on the Phantoms malfunctioned. The Sparrows from the Eagles were just fine.

Could be your problem as well. This scenario was and is built with 6.5.25 (three versions over the past week). If you used 6.5.24 the scenario definitely should have crashed as some major changes have been made. If you look in the string you see a link for the right DB which I've been updating as they come.

Anyways from experience I think you ran or eyeballed the scenario in the editor as it is the only way it would have ran without a major assertation error. So for future reference you may want to try the GE as well just to make sure because as you know oddities can occur. It most likely would have crashed within several minutes of game play.

Thank you for the time you put in. I had a really good time this week with the guys working with this. I certainly learned alot and continue to get alot of out the game and people involved. It is an amazing hobby :laugh:

[danrh]

I used 6.5.24 and they definitely fired. However, the Sparrows on the Phantoms malfunctioned. The Sparrows from the Eagles were just fine.

Yep the APG-66J of the F-4EJ Kais was not listed as a valid director for the AIM-7Fs. The F-15J/AIM-7M combo was unaffected.

Daniel