Returning to the game - Need quick help

GAZZ

Recruit
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
I have been a Harpoon user since... well... since H2 came out, actually. Playing off and on. Migrated to H3 a few years ago... then drifted away.

I am now looking at purchasing the brand new H3 version and getting back into the game.

2 questions:

1. Is this version finally delivering on what could be called a stable, serious product? Or are we still dealing with a somewhat bootstrapped, "kind of working software"? At $70+, I am frankly concerned about all the bugs being reported!!!

2. Massive hesitation about databases. Is there a feature comparison available anywhere? What are the pros and cons? What does the H3 software come with anyway? I undertsand that one must match database and imported scenarios, but in my case, I like to build my own scenarios anyway, so if you start from scratch, should you start with the original H3 Db, the Player Db, or Db2000?? Very confusing.

Need input, please.

GA
 

Herman Hum

Composite Warfare Command
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
22
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
GAZZ said:
2 questions:

1. Is this version finally delivering on what could be called a stable, serious product? Or are we still dealing with a somewhat bootstrapped, "kind of working software"? At $70+, I am frankly concerned about all the bugs being reported!!!

2. Massive hesitation about databases. Is there a feature comparison available anywhere? What are the pros and cons? What does the H3 software come with anyway? I undertsand that one must match database and imported scenarios, but in my case, I like to build my own scenarios anyway, so if you start from scratch, should you start with the original H3 Db, the Player Db, or Db2000?? Very confusing.
As one of the fellows reporting all the bugs, I think that can confidently say that there have been many bugs fixed since the H2 version. You can see for yourself. There is a partial list of bugs addressed on SZO and another one on AGSI.

Unfortunately, there are many folks who keep describing it as a "work-in-progress". [Their words and not mine.] I tend to agree with that assessment. Although steps are always being taken forward, it is sometimes, "Three steps forward and two back." This is a personal observation, but it is shared by a few with whom I've spoken.

A preliminarly patch is about to be released, officially, v3.7.1. It does address a good many bugs, but it also seems to create a few see:

Behaviours Unchanged in the Beta Patch 3.7.1 .

After 3.7.1 is released, a second 'maintenance' patch has been planned, according to AGSI. This second patch will also be free of charge.

After that, I have been told that the next release will be v3.8. Matrix's position, as stated by David Heath, is that no decision has been made on whether the 3.8 version will entail a fee. My personal feeling is that it will.

Now, can you live with the current bug situation? That is a personal choice. However, I believe that there remains at least two game-killer bugs.

Target list ignored

ECM Boomerang - You gotta see this one to believe it. :laugh:

One kills solitaire play and the other kills Multi-player games, IMO. They are not CRASH bugs.

Except for the ECM Boomerang bug, I think that the state of the MP is actually better than the solitaire play level. So long as there is a human controlling units, any quirks or oddities can usually be handled. Unfortunately, the AI can only do as it is programmed to function. :upset:

Now, regarding the different databases, every database has a unique 'flavour'. Some databases cover different time periods like the Post-WWII Colonial era, the Cold War Era, WWII period, or the modern Missile-Age. Every database is a reflection of its editors. They are all worthy of inspection. The game comes with two database: Original DB [ODb] and ANWDb.

In fact, ANW has a launcher that is a real asset to the game. Many have told me that they would consider it a huge leap forward for it allows players to quickly and easily switch between the various databases. Play a WWII scenario and then play a Cold War scen right afterwards. :)

If you like designing scenarios, I recommend that you select a database that suits your needs. For example, different editors view the tactic of Strafing differently. One DB editor may eliminate it entirely as an option while another editor will allow for it. Because I am involved with the PlayersDB, I will suggest it since I believe that it allows for the greatest flexibility and accommodates the most needs. Of course, you may disagree after trying it, too! :D

Unfortunately, there is no ANW demo currently available. I hope that this long-winded discourse helps. :cool:
 

GAZZ

Recruit
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Many, many thanks

One really quick one: How about DB2000? Is that still viable, or getting dated (which lack of traffic on the Harpoon HQ site might suggest)?

GA
 

Herman Hum

Composite Warfare Command
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
22
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
DB2k is alive, kicking, and doing just fine. :)

It is only one of nearly twenty H3 databases currently being used.
 

Herman Hum

Composite Warfare Command
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
22
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
GAZZ said:
... I undertsand that one must match database and imported scenarios, but in my case, I like to build my own scenarios anyway,...
So, enlighten us. What scenarios have you built? Are they still around? Perhaps on sites like:



If you still have copies of them, SZO hosts a file archive that you can post them to, if you care to share.

SZO file archives - Home of the Harpoon3 PlayersDB
 

GAZZ

Recruit
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Sure, but...

Good point. However, last time I really got into it was a few years ago, around 2001-2002, and I have no idea where they are anymore or even if they would still be playable. At the time, the Db I was using didn't even have variable ready times!!:surprise:

Usually, what I like to do is a little... strange. :rolleyes:

I set up fairly large sets, with a large initial inbalance between the two sides. I then play the weak side repeatedly, using the scenario editor on-and-off, progressively increasing the side i'm playing's resources to try to find out how much stuff needs to be added to that side until they have a good shot a winning. :clown: Sometimes I then switch side to see if I can do better than the AI.

Sounds hairy, but I like to explore the break points. One of the things I like is to test what adding a new weapon system, or a new sensor capability does to what happens.

Last time, I ended up in a complex set pitting the US (and a few surviving UK units) vs France and Germany in the UK around 2000. I started with a single carrier and associated battle group for the US, versus one carrier group and a battle group for France/Germany, who also got a lot of land based air and sensor assets. The US objective was to establish naval supremacy and clobber land-based ennemy assets located in the UK.

Then over time I increased the US side. In the end, I couldn't get anywhere on the US side with less than a second carrier group and other long range assets, including a couple satellites (which at the time were a bear to model!!:mad: ) It was a lot of fun, but because I really played it solo over a long period of time, I never really thought about saving a viable set for a third party to play (which would be one of the last, more balanced ones).

I'll be glad to be less selfish in the future however, if you think people might be interested.

So, you see why setting which Db to start with is critical to me. I can't get caught "in the middle" of the fun with a Db problem, or the whole thing collapses.

Anyway. As soon as I'm up and running again, I may try to set it up again and post it, just for kicks.

:bite: :bite: :bite:
 

Herman Hum

Composite Warfare Command
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
22
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
GAZZ said:
Usually, what I like to do is a little... strange. :rolleyes:

I set up fairly large sets, with a large initial inbalance between the two sides. I then play the weak side repeatedly, using the scenario editor on-and-off, progressively increasing the side i'm playing's resources to try to find out how much stuff needs to be added to that side until they have a good shot a winning. :clown: Sometimes I then switch side to see if I can do better than the AI.

Sounds hairy, but I like to explore the break points. One of the things I like is to test what adding a new weapon system, or a new sensor capability does to what happens.
You do know that you are talking mostly to a bunch of middle-aged men playing games on computers, don't you? "Strange", does not BEGIN to describe us... :clown:

I like your concept of design. In fact, why don't you post a bunch of scenario variants after you are finished. You can classify them as Easy, Moderate, or Difficult? I really love the difficult variety. I only wish all scenarios could be a desperate situation forcing me to play my best! :D

Freek Schepers and I have done something like this once with his PlayersDB. scenario Atlantic Convoys. After I made one side of the scenario and Freek tested it, he thought it might have been a bit too easy to win. So, I added some units and an additional side. Instead of trashing the previous version, we simply labelled one as Harder and one as Easier.

IMO, there is no such thing as a Bad scenario.
However, Broken is another matter. :yummy:
 

GAZZ

Recruit
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Herman Hum said:
I like your concept of design.
I hear you. I guess that I never thought of it as actually designing a final product, which is why it didn't occurr to me to clean it up at the end and post it.

Iwill next time.

:bite: :bite: :bite:
 

GAZZ

Recruit
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Herman Hum said:
a bunch of middle-aged men playing games on computers, don't you?
Actually, It's even worse than what you describe, as we seem to be a bunch of people insisting on playing a 20 years old, never quite finished and fully debugged game :clown: :clown: :clown:

I just purchased it today... which will be my third copy and fourth relapse.

Cheers

:ciao:
 

Herman Hum

Composite Warfare Command
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
22
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Welcome aboard, shipmate! :)

You have truly joined a crew of 'the damned'. :laugh:

Just a word of explanation. If you design a scenario using the ANW ScenEditor, it cannot be opened by owners of the H3.6.3 version. However, if you design a scenario with the older H3.6.3 ScenEdit, it can be re-opened by either ANW or H3.6.3 games.

AGSI advises you to only use the ANW ScenEdit to design scenarios for ANW. However, personally, I don't do it this way due to the number of behaviours encountered that simply do not exist in the H3.6.3 editor. This is not to recommend one version over another. This is simply to let you know of limitations found in both versions of ScenEdit.
 

GAZZ

Recruit
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Something tells me that you've got the problematic "behaviours" of the ANW editors listed somewhere.

Personally, as long as there is no functional problems or limitations, I have no problem working with the older version. Where would one go to download one?
 
Top