HarpGamer Launches H3DB Project

[CV32]

The H3DB Project

HarpGamer's Fred Galano is heading up the effort to revise and update Darren Buckley's HUDII to make it a viable source of data for the H3 simulation. The HUD database system has its origins in the early days of Harpoon II. Darren developed and maintained HUDII during the Harpoon II years and now we are looking to build on that excellent foundation with the H3DB project for Harpoon III.

You can expect to see several features and trends in the H3DB that reflect the design philosophy Fred and the team have envisioned. Among them:

* No need to rebuild scenarios using this DB; a policy of "Never delete - Only append" will apply.
* Simplicity: Using the Harpoon Paper Rules system of "generational" ESM and ECM for example.
* Convenience: Sort by Country and Sort by Platform Type enabled for ease of Scenario Design.
* Commonality with HCDB: Platforms to track with their HCDB mirrors, thereby making it easier to create the same scenario in both versions of the game.

The H3DB will implement a number of such concepts as development proceeds. If you are interested in joining the project, or in otherwise contributing to it, please choose the "Learn more about the H3DB Project" link in the H2 & H3 Section at HarpGamer DB Share. We will respond via email as soon as we are able. Please tell us something about your Harpoon, and in particular, DB editing experience when completing the Mail Message section. While not an absolute prerequisite, familiarity with at least one of the game's Platform Editors would be desirable.

[Herman Hum]

Can this thread be used for H3 players to make suggestions on what might make a better DB? Sort of like a Wish list?

Of course, the final decision will be made by the DB team but this might be a nice area for discussion. What say you, H3DB team?

[Ivan Rapkinov]

As long as it doesn't degenerate into a "my DB is better than yours" thread ;) I'm easy.

when I get home I'll see about setting up a sticky for suggestions. Likewise, I'll set one up for DB2000 :)

[HercMighty]

What is the perceived benefit from:


* Simplicity: Using the Harpoon Paper Rules system of "generational" ESM and ECM for example.

I for one is a details person, the more complicated (as long as it is done right) the better. Just curious as to why this would be better, and I am not one for saying it won't be either.

Regards

[Ivan Rapkinov]

some people (myself included at times) prefer ease of play to details.

only having to remember 4 types of ESM/ECM for example frees up a lot of game time. I wouldn't want to use the term beer'n'pretzels, but that's how I would categorise it off hand.

[Rookster]

What is the perceived benefit from:


* Simplicity: Using the Harpoon Paper Rules system of "generational" ESM and ECM for example.

I for one is a details person, the more complicated (as long as it is done right) the better. Just curious as to why this would be better, and I am not one for saying it won't be either.

Regards

There may be no benefit whatsoever for a person who describes himself as you do. The only way to know will be to take it for a spin when it's available and see how it plays. If you like it, fine. You will have found another database to add to your Harpoon collection. If you don't like it, also fine, it will have only cost you some time in downloading and setup, and now you will know first hand for yourself that this is not for you.

As for you question about it being better, I am fairly certain the post you read does not make any claims about the just under way H3DB being better than this or that db. Such comparisons would not make sense, given the early stage of this project's development. And down the line, when things have come together more fully, we will dilligently avoid making any such claims, and conversely will avoid responding to those who do, be it in favor or against any particular brand of db. For us, the bottom line is that they all can be fun, so let's not lose sight of that. Play what you find works for you is the only advice I can offer. :)

[Reckall]

I believe that it is importat to remember here, for those new or not totally into Harpoon 3, that in the game you do not have to "marry" a single database. You can keep different folders for different databases and the scenario designed for them. Then, using the HarpIni utility, one can choose which DB to use for his gaming session before launching H3.

Each database reflects a different philosophy, or "take" on modern warfare. Remember that we do not really have historical references on the scale of WWII or the American Civil War for modern naval warfare - the Falklands War being the biggest conflict to involve battle between modern platforms. So, much "interpretation" about what would have happened in a real WWIII on the sea is needed.

An example I feel very close to this kind of problem is the "Carrier before WWII" one. A "realistic" wargame about sea warfare in the '30s would have relegated the CV to support mode - it was the practical experience during the war that showed how this was not the case. And even after Taranto not everybody agreed - it took Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea and Midway to demonstrate that many old doctrines were obsolete. We (luckly) do not have a modern Coral Sea or Midway to rely on, so much is based on personal interpretation, and expressed as such in a Database.

On the other hand, not many games allow to tweak their systems so precisely as Harpoon does, so to allow to everybody to express his vision of modern naval warfare. This makes each foray in a game with a new database alike to reading the textbook of a good theoretician - an interesting and learning experience even when we do not agree, and this is truly one of the strenghts of this game :)

[Rookster]

Can this thread be used for H3 players to make suggestions on what might make a better DB? Sort of like a Wish list?

Of course, the final decision will be made by the DB team but this might be a nice area for discussion. What say you, H3DB team?
Speaking as only one member, and not having confered with the rest of the team, I can only say that we will be happy to receive player input whenever we see it, wherever we see it, and as long as time permits us to look, understand, and reply. That said, it should be noted that time is always an issue when it comes to our beloved hobby, so to keep things running as efficiently as possible, we have established a Database Discussion Forum over at HarpGamer, where the kinds of discussions you propose will take place throughout the project's development and implementation. Putting up something similar here might have value, or might be viewed as redundant, but whatever the decision, we will do our best to keep players in the loop as this project moves forward.

[Herman Hum]

I've got to agree with many of the points raised by Freek and Jan. I also find the Custom Ready Times, ECM, country/year information, AI support units, variety of units, completeness, and similar cruise/burner speeds to be significant advantages of the existing databases. I would hope that these features could be incorporated into the new H3DB.

I also see some things that might be useful towards a new H3DB.

For the purposes of discussion, I suggest the following:

1) Alter many of the naming systems.

http://i136.exs.cx/img136/4856/shipinfo3pe.th.gif (http://img136.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img136&image=shipinfo3pe.gif)

Why are we stuck on classifying ships/subs by their pennant numbers? Why can't we use the Type classification [FF, DD, CG,...] before the pennant numbers. Most of the systems are very confusing when searching for specific vessels. I propose that the USN/NATO designation for ships be used for all vessels and that the designation used by other navies be placed in a secondary role. This way, all carriers start with CV and their other name could be BAK or R-#.

Also, the DB editor manual claims that many database fields are not supported and thus serve no purpose. Would it be possible to replace fields like Crew, Displacement, and Length with information that might be of use to the player? I don't know if these serve any purpose past the calculation of the Damage points for the vessel and possibly the length of time that the vessel floats when it is destroyed. Could some of these fields be replaced by data like fuel range?

2) Much of the information presented is not in a format commonly understood or useful to the regular player, IMO. For example, when searching for a weapons system, is a player going to be looking for a P-500 Bazalt or is he going to start by looking with the more common designation of SS-N-12 or Sunburn?

http://i136.exs.cx/img136/5154/weaponsinfo8xo.th.gif (http://img136.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img136&image=weaponsinfo8xo.gif)

Also, the information displayed in the weapons data window is often not useful. There is no way that a player can find out what the minimum/maximum weapons release altitudes are. Also, some DBs have a maximum launch range but the weapon actually has fuel for much longer range of travel. There is now way to know these details without leaving the game and using the PE. Is there some way in which we can show this information to the player?

3) How about making different weapons only available to the AI? These weapons could simulate different ranges/release altitudes so that the AI has more flexibility. Currently, the AI is often restricted by the weapons parameters and, sometimes, cannot perform its mission due to the weapons data like release altitude.

4) The classification according to country is nice but this only helps the designer. The player still has problems differentiating between variants. Could more information can be included in the visible portion of the name and not be hidden?

5) I hope that the H3DB can allow for more specialized platforms. If a designer needs a specific platform for his scenario, it would be nice if the H3DB can accommodate him. So long as he is making a scenario for the community to enjoy, I would hope that all effort could be extended to help him complete his scenario. Of course, the person requesting a new platform would bear the responsibility of doing the requisite research so that the burden does not fall on the DB team. Perhaps a tag or other descriptor could be placed to tell others that this platform is a special request for a specific designer. This way, other designers would be aware that the platform is special to one designer and might not be philosophically congruent to the other platforms in the H3DB.

6) As most countries can be identified with 1-3 letters, I hope that this system can be adopted, too. The DB can be categorized according to country but this feature is absent from the GE and thus it would be helpful to have this information displayed to the player.

Cheers,
Herman

Positives
+ CRT
+ ECM model
+ country/year specific loadouts (saves huge research)
+ Special units (spy, intelligence officers, weather balloons)
+ SAM by country/year (research on this is very tough)
+ different commercial shipping units with different speed, size (hides them better)
+ preprogrammed loadouts by country/year
+ Completeness
+ variety of ground units
+ plane cruise speeds the same (500knot= easy planning)
+ variable damage point ground units (ammo dump, hardened/fortified ammo dump)

Negatives
- Ground radar names (not indicating country/year makes research hard)
- all neutral ships have same radar (too easy ident)
- AI controlled subs on missions go too slow (2-5 knt)
- mines and sweepers not functional
- finding small warships (P, FF) and special ships hard in namelist
- damage model of guns (ship to ship, airguns to ship)
- Plane burner speeds (Mig 31/25 the only ones at 1200+?)
- visual model ship to ship does not work

[VCDH]

I'm going to point out a few limitations of the various Harpoon3 Databases. Please keep in mind that I'm going on my 10 years experiance as a DB guy. I am not involved with the H3DB as I have my own ADB to work on.


Why are we stuck on classifying ships/subs by their pennant numbers? Why can't we use the Type classification [FF, DD, CG,...] before the pennant numbers. Most of the systems are very confusing when searching for specific vessels. I propose that the USN/NATO designation for ships be used for all vessels and that the designation used by other navies be placed in a secondary role. This way, all carriers start with CV and their other name could be BAK or R-#.

Couple of reasons why this isn't done. First off there is a limit in the number of characters in the naming filed of the DB.

You cannot use a NATO/USN designation because there is no such thing. Under the US designation system a carrier gets the desgination CV (or CVN). The NATO designation system uses the term R to designate it's carriers.

There is a large amount of information available on the web to decipher the designation systems. Haze Gray being probably the best.

Also, the DB editor manual claims that many database fields are not supported and thus serve no purpose. Would it be possible to replace fields like Crew, Displacement, and Length with information that might be of use to the player? I don't know if these serve any purpose past the calculation of the Damage points for the vessel and possibly the length of time that the vessel floats when it is destroyed. Could some of these fields be replaced by data like fuel range?

DB surgery takes time and time means money. As things stand right now there are other issues that AGSI has to tackle that are considered more important. Basically what the customer wants, the customer gets. However displacement and length are important as they determine the size of the platform indicated ingame.

2) Much of the information presented is not in a format commonly understood or useful to the regular player, IMO. For example, when searching for a weapons system, is a player going to be looking for a P-500 Bazalt or is he going to start by looking with the more common designation of SS-N-12 or Sunburn?

Again most, if not all of this information is now generally available on the internet. I have the Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems here and while I find it a good book it's a shade expensive (about $225 CDN). In the ADB I try and put both designation systems in place, as long as there is room. If a platform has more than 30 characters in it's name, it will crash the game.

Also, the information displayed in the weapons data window is often not useful. There is no way that a player can find out what the minimum/maximum weapons release altitudes are. Also, some DBs have a maximum launch range but the weapon actually has fuel for much longer range of travel. There is now way to know these details without leaving the game and using the PE. Is there some way in which we can show this information to the player?

The limitations of the GUI for H3 are well known. The is extensive GUI replacement work in process for TNH. I've seen some of the early prototypes of the work.

As for finding some of the more arcane information about DB platforms, I find it easiest if the DB editor is open at the same time you're playing the game. That way, if you have any problems then you can quickly look it up in the editor. This would have been a problem back in the day with the lower end computer systems but with modern high speed systems, this is now moot.

I also have my reference books handy.

3) How about making different weapons only available to the AI? These weapons could simulate different ranges/release altitudes so that the AI has more flexibility. Currently, the AI is often restricted by the weapons parameters and, sometimes, cannot perform its mission due to the weapons data like release altitude.

This is a question for specific DB editors. Personally I see no need at the moment. Getting the AI to do what you want simply requires good work in the scenario creation process. I've taken 3 months to release a scenario because I wanted the AI to what i wanted.

4) The classification according to country is nice but this only helps the designer. The player still has problems differentiating between variants. Could more information can be included in the visible portion of the name and not be hidden?

Read above about the 30 character limitation in the naming fields.

5) I hope that the H3DB can allow for more specialized platforms. If a designer needs a specific platform for his scenario, it would be nice if the H3DB can accommodate him. So long as he is making a scenario for the community to enjoy, I would hope that all effort could be extended to help him complete his scenario.

Again that's up to the specific DB author. Personally speaking I have no problem doing it as long as that platform is used in the scenario and the platform requested is nothing too far out of the ordinary. Asking me to create a modified Perry class FFG with AEGIS and SS-N-19s is going to get you nowhere. Mind you that some DB guys might allow that. But that's the personal preference of the DB author. It's important to note that the DB is required for the scen to exist and that working together is essentional.

- visual model ship to ship does not work

Fixed in 3.7. I know. I did the testing for it.

Later
D

Dale Hillier
AGSI RD&T
Harpoint Admin

http://www3.nf.sympatico.ca/daleh/avatars/vcdh.jpg

[Rookster]

We have just concluded a site update to add H3 Scenario and AAR pages to the HarpGamer website. At the same time, we've posted Fred's H3DB-050323 release along with 2 HC scenarios he rebuilt for H3, his own Cold North scenario, and Mark Gellis's JAPFISH scenario. Also new to the H3 Scenario Page are two previously authored, original HUD2 scenarios by Kelly Crawford, Kurils and Okinawa II.

On the HC front, Brad has released HCDB-050327 and this is also incorporated into the website update. Work continues on the PE User's Guide Appendix for Ships, and I expect to upload Jan Masterson's update of Joe Lanza's PE DB Worksheets, along with a Guide to HC Hotkeys within the next day or so.

The #Harpgamer IRC Channel continues to have an active group of participants, and there's something going on there almost any hour of the day or night. We encourage you to stop by and say hello, and perhaps join in some of the game related conversations we are regularly seeing there. We've also got some plans for a few scenario based competitions on IRC (more on this in the weeks ahead), so now is an excellent time to get familiar with how the IRC channel works. Our Java based Chat link is simple to use, and for you IRC pros out there, your dedicated client will no doubt be your preference. Either way, we hope to see you there soon! :D

[Herman Hum]

Thanks for changing the designations so that folks can find things easily without need to play/design while surrounded by a mountain of reference books and other computer aids. :cool:

[JRyan]

I have added the harpgamer to my IRC list.

[Herman Hum]

Cold North for H3DB

Hey Fred,

I took the Cold North scenario out for a run with the H3DB_050413. Thanks for re-writing the Harpoon Classic file for Harpoon 3 players. However, I need to report some behaviour when I played. Just some observations for you to consider:

1) The Sea Harrier expends no fuel when it goes to Full Thrust. I looked in the Platform Editor and see that there is a "zero" for the boost thrust fuel consumption rate. I think that must be at least 1 or greater. I was able to run around on Full the entire time without using up my endurance.

2) I can manually fire the AGM-84 SLAM from the Orions and they hit the ships, but when I set it up on automatic mission to attack the ground facilities, the missiles never hit. Could the fuel be a factor?

3) The missiles from the MiGs work as do the AMRAAM. I cannot say if all of them work but the LR Alamo managed to kill an Orion and 4 Harriers! :-)

4) Do you have any intention of implementing longer Aircraft ready times? The ability for the player to return and re-arm within 30 minutes is pretty critical in this scenario, IMO. Of course, this is not a criticism of how the H3DB is designed

5) I managed to kill some of the escorts from repeated ALARM hits. Again, this not meant as a criticism, but is this ability intentional? Or should ARMs only destroy the Radar?

6) I was able to release CB.755 from 15,000m. Do you want to allow for this?

7) Many of the buildings appear as Comm facilities instead of structures.

Thanks for putting the scenario together and I hope that this helps in the development of the H3DB,