Victory Conditions for scenario *Tremors*

[Stalintc]

Hi there all,

I have just finished the scenario from the Coldwar Battleset.

All submarines apart from one have been destroyed (she got away )

All of my ships and the civilian vessels that needed taking to the ports are in port.

The victory conditons now tell me that the ships that needed protecting are not *ON STATION* im not sure what this means, I only interpreted the mission orders that I had to get the ships back to port without taking losses.

I noticed around each port there are three reference points that were loaded with the scenario, each with their port initials and ending with numbers 1 - 3 respectivley.

I looked at the position of my ships and they *appear* to be within the imaginary polygon that they depict?

What could be wrong?

Also where can I view victory condition without ending the mission? this would be useful when the mission briefing is not 100% about what it wants from you. Although in some cases this could provide spoilers

Thanks in advance.

(Unforunatley I have destroyed the savegame, so I cant give it to anyone. I considered the scenario to be a victory despite what the computer said [:)] )

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Stalintc

All of my ships and the civilian vessels that needed taking to the ports are in port.

The victory conditons now tell me that the ships that needed protecting are not *ON STATION* im not sure what this means, I only interpreted the mission orders that I had to get the ships back to port without taking losses.

I noticed around each port there are three reference points that were loaded with the scenario, each with their port initials and ending with numbers 1 - 3 respectivley.

I looked at the position of my ships and they *appear* to be within the imaginary polygon that they depict?

What could be wrong?

Also where can I view victory condition without ending the mission? this would be useful when the mission briefing is not 100% about what it wants from you. Although in some cases this could provide spoilers

I haven't played this scenario recently, but IIRC, I was able to win it in H3.6.3. I believe that you may have interpreted your orders incorrectly. Not only do you have to get your ships to port, you have to get them to the appropriate port. Take a look at the image attached.

This is an example of four such victory conditions. You can see from the White polygon that you need to get 1 ship there for 5 minutes and it must be either the Container Ship or the Bulk Cargo ship. If you sail a Tanker into the area, it will not fulfill the ViCond. I suspect that you have not followed the ViConds to the letter.

There is no way to determine the victory condition status in the middle of a game. The only way to do it is to 1) Save the Game, then 2) Resign. Of course, some folks might construe this as 'cheating', but it's only a game, after all. And, some orders are so badly written that it is really the only way to find out what your ViConds are. [;)]

[Stalintc]

Thanks for looking into that for me Herman.

I can assure you that was not clear in the briefing, all I was asked to do in the briefing was to escort all ships to port. Which is pretty vague if the ViConds are going to be that precise.

I also fail to see how that victory condition with the white rectangle in your picture is suppsed to be safe from subamrines?!?! there was a bloody submarine next to that area during the scenario. *pulls hair* lol[:D]

Still we live and learn. A little grating considering the time I spent on it, but never mind [8D]

Cheers again for clearing up that mystery so quickly. [:)]

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Stalintc

I also fail to see how that victory condition with the white rectangle in your picture is suppsed to be safe from subamrines?!?! there was a bloody submarine next to that area during the scenario. *pulls hair* lol[:D]

I think that was the point of the entire exercise. [:D]

A submarine was placed within your 'safe area'/objective so that you had to sweep the area before your precious merchant ships arrived. Don't worry, you are not the only one who has a difficult time understand the orders from some of the original scenarios. [;)]

[Stalintc]

Ahhh im glad im not the only one [:)]

Now thats better if it had been identified that was supposed to be a safe area that would have been brilliant. Oh well I consider it a victory as I followed the mission reqs how I saw them and I lost no transports and got them home which is a *major victory* in my eyes! it was above and beyond the call of duty!! [8D]

I wont feel so bad if I get it wrong like that in the future [:D]

Cheers

[ComDev]

Hi Stalintc,

I would suggest that you also check out all of the scenarios from the Harpoon3 CD that have been rebuilt with the DB2000 database. In addition to all the improvements that come with the DB2K database, the scenarios themselves have been extensively modified. You can get the scenarios here:

http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon3/origi ... index.html

The scenarios on this page are original Harpoon 3 scenarios from the CD-ROM rebuilt with the DB2000 database. Improvements include a corrected Order of Battle (OoB), greatly improved Artificial Intelligence (AI) behavior plus a number of other fixes that boost realism and overall gameplay. We have Don Gilman's permission to rebuild these scenarios. They are still (c) Advanced Gaming Systems Inc. (AGSI), and anyone who wants to play them must agree that there is no warranty expressed or implied to the fitness of the scenarios.

You can get the latest database here:

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

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters : By the Players, For the Players

[Stalintc]

Much appreciated

I will go and get the database and as many scenarios as possible, my library of harpoon databases and scenarios is growing at an insane rate! [8D]

[Stalintc]

Wow now that was alot of scenarios to download[8D]

Geez im never going to be able to say *there are not enough scenarios for this game* ever!

Thanks for that link!

[ComDev]

If you want even more scenarios you can go here:
 
http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon3/overview.htm
 
The HarpoonHQ site has no less than four database sections to cover the 1939 - 2015+ timeframe [:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]
 
There are about 300 scenarios available, which should be enough to keep you busy for a while... It may also be worth pointing out that we (the HarpoonHQ) hold the community's highest and strictest scenario quality standards... which is something we are quite proud of I might add [8D]
 
And, if you haven't already, it might be a good idea to sign up to the HarpoonHQ's forum, Harpooner's Point. This is the largest Harpoon forum on the web. It has more than 2000 members and is also one of the very few forums out there that are 100% troll-free.
 
http://www.harpoonhq.com/phpBB2/
 
Enjoy!

[Stalintc]

Good god MORE?!?! Harpoon seems to have more scenarios than any strategy\tactical games ive ever played.

I will add them to my hitlist, plus im quite impressed that there are two falklands war battlesets that Herman mentioned to me before, im quite interested in playing through that conflict. Being British and all [:D]

I will go register in those forums too for sure.

To honest I have not been playing Harpoon long, but im totally overwhelmed by the amount of scenarios\databases\help that surrounds it. Im none the less amazed [&o]

[ComDev]

Hehe yes there's a lot... [:D] [:D] [:D]
 
Some of us have been working actively on Harpoon2/3 scenarios and databases for 10-12 years now... [&o]

[FransKoenz]

This is the largest Harpoon forum on the web. It has more than 2000 members and is also one of the very few forums out there that are 100% troll-free.

Don't forget to mention that your Forum is ruled by self-opinionated people.
As soon people come with critics/comments on par example scenario-design, they are banned. The policy is following the rules by the rear-admirals of HHQ without questioning. No wonder that there are no trolls over there......and the real trolls don't use their own forum to troll, they simply trolling on other forums [was that not a reason why you were banned from SZO in the past?]

Question: you talk about realism in your topic regarding the behaviour of ARM-missiles.... how realistic is a weather-balloon with an KGB -agent on it, or hidden units to ensure that the player never wins from the AI [Clash of the Titans]?

By the Players, for the Players??????? [:D][:D][:D]
Give me a break!!!!!!![:@]

[mikmykWS]

What forum doesn't have people that have their own opinions Franz?

Anyways this is not the place to take up your grievance about getting punted off a forum. This is the forum to talk about Harpoon 3.7. There are enough forums around to chat and interact and from the venom in your post its probably better that way. You'll be okay.

[Stalintc]

This was a thread about victory conditions.... I appreciate people have opinions, but please have the common courtesy to leave it from a thread which is trying to get somewhere and provide useful information..

I am saying that in the nicest way possible so please dont take offence [:)]

Edit - Mike I clicked the reply button and it now says this is in reply to you, but I assure you it is not. It is a general comment [:)]

[ComDev]

Ah yeah, someone's trying to start another flamewar... Didn't you read Mr. Heath's mail, Tattleneck? And just in case anyone wondered, both Tattleneck and Herman are permanently banned from the HarpoonHQ forum for obvious reasons...

It is also funny to note that Turtlehead would bring up the AI-control platforms that we have implemented in the DB2000 database... These units prevent the player from cheating in certain scenairos (which is why Tattleneck hates them so much...) and help force certain events to match the overall storyline (a certain ship is sunk etc).

Strangely enough, in spite of Turtlehead's repeated attacks on our work, he and his buddy Herman Hum have happily copied each and every single one of these units from the DB2000 into their PlayersDB database...

Lemme quote a earlier post made by Sunburn, that shows how the AI-control units in the database that they claim to have "created on their own" even match the internal ID# from the DB2000:

ORIGINAL:  Sunburn
Another interesting comparison:

I see an AWFUL LOT of common things between the DB2000 (a project that has been running since 1996) and the PlayersDB (a DB that appeared out of nowhere last year). In contrast, I see very few common things between the PDB and either the HUD-2 or the original H2AE DB.
The PoK differentiation argument is shallow. Creating the multiple DB records is the hard part (be it by legitimate or illegitimate copying or from scratch). Once that is done, batch-modifying the PoK values is trivial; in fact, it's a 2-minute SQL-script job.

[FransKoenz]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

What forum doesn't have people that have their own opinions Franz?

Anyways this is not the place to take up your grievance about getting punted off a forum. This is the forum to talk about Harpoon 3.7. There are enough forums around to chat and interact and from the venom in your post its probably better that way. You'll be okay.

That you use the word "venom" is very surprising. How would you describe your own reactions when people are reporting bugs? You even are not capable to give normal answers in topics. Par example...... Herman Hum is only reporting strange behaviours and you are consequently reacting like it is a personal attack on you.

So when this is a forum to talk about Harpoon 3.7, and you are representing AGSI, you better come with straight answers instead of passing the matter with ridiculous comments, just because you do not like the person who's making the comments.
ANW is a very expensive game when you look at quality vs. prize. And if we have to pay for future patches as well, you better ensure to improve that game for our money [my euros are bug free] instead of swindling customers with a product which has prematurely released.

Ciao
Frans Koenz.

P.S. I advise all potential customers to wait until Version 4.7 is available, More game for your money!

[mikmykWS]

Well to be honest it is slightly annoying when its posted in the wrong place because in my experience if the guys know whats going on they address the problem. Posting bugs on other pages, websites etc. makes it real hard for those guys to find problems. Herman sure is helpful but he needs to get abit better about putting things where they will be found with a touch less grandstanding. I mean lets be honest... what real value is posting stuff if its not going to be found or your purposefully insulting the developers. This game is after all a work in progress and has never been touted as anything less.

Sorry Franz really. You seem very upset and hope that someday you won't be. Harpoon really is a great game and do hope you eventually purchase it.

Now can we get back to those VC's.

[FransKoenz]

ORIGINAL:  Sunburn
Another interesting comparison:

I see an AWFUL LOT of common things between the DB2000 (a project that has been running since 1996) and the PlayersDB (a DB that appeared out of nowhere last year). In contrast, I see very few common things between the PDB and either the HUD-2 or the original H2AE DB.
The PoK differentiation argument is shallow. Creating the multiple DB records is the hard part (be it by legitimate or illegitimate copying or from scratch). Once that is done, batch-modifying the PoK values is trivial; in fact, it's a 2-minute SQL-script job.

What do you expect Ragbag? That we give the E-2 Hawkeye [example] a wingspan of at least 60 meters to avoid accusions of plagiarism? The units in the database are based on info of existing units. We don't create them. And creating a Database is not your exclusive domain. Everybody who can work with the Database-builder can create a database of its own, based on existing military equipment. You are only whining because we did have the guts to present PlayersDB as an alternative for DB2000.
Finally this: we started our project because you purposely used your Database to sabotage scenarios because they weren’t build according the HHQ-designing rules.
Shall we publish that list again to prove that? [We prove things, you are only accusing]

[Stalintc]

Please I very respectfully ask that this commences in another thread.

I created this thread to discuss victory conditions and my lack of understanding of them in a particular scenario, and I really do wish for it to stay that way. This is not helping me one bit..

I understand that everyone has an opinion and wishes to voice it, but im politley asking if it could not be done in a thread which is intended to get to a useful conclusion.

Thank you

Please do not take offence try and see what im trying to say.

[mikmykWS]

So stalintc..

Just let the guys know in the bug forum. I'm sure they'll fix the text and make the orders abit clearer. To be honest the scenario is 10 years old (maybe older). I always kind of liked the hunt in that one