Matrix Games Forums

Sonobuoy mission cancels

Sonobuoy mission cancels on its own due to inability to deploy active sonobuoy and causes all other helo sonobuoy formation patrols to revert to Minimal loadout.

1. Run [under PDb] the "Gauntlet" test scenario included in this post, playing it from NATO side, with Staff Assistant enabled to handle Formation Patrols and 1:60s time compression
2. Sail group towards Narvik
3. Two sonobuoy patrols have been assigned to the group. One with (1) SH-60 SeaHawk and one with (1) Lynx
4. SeaHawk has both active and passive sonobuoys. Lynx has only active buoys.
5. SeaHawk formation patrol executes properly and lays assigned string of sonobuoys.

6.1) Lynx helo (with torpedoes) launches and reports, "Lynx is out of relevant ammo; ordered to land". This likely occurs because the AI can only drop passive buoys and the Lynx is only armed with active buoys.
6.2) A second Lynx is launched and the same message is repeated immediately. Both helos hover
6.3) The second SeaHawk helo on the deck gets changed to Minimal loadout
6.4) Both Lynx helos land, re-arm, and revert to Minimal loadout
6.5) After re-fueling, a second SeaHawk (without torpedo loadout) is launched with Minimal loadout to fulfill the Patrol zone previously assigned to a single Lynx.

7. When airborne SeaHawks run out of sonobuoys, a Lynx (with Minimal loadout) will launch to try and replace them, but they will just hover.
8. When the SeaHawks land to re-fuel, their torpedo loadout will be lost and the helos launch with Minimal loadout.

[NOTE: This is only ONE of the MANY problems I found while testing the simple "Gauntlet" scenario rebuilt for ANW from Harpoon Classic Commander Edition. Other problems include the already known but still dreaded:

Unarmed units not engaged

Unarmed units will not be engaged by AI units (sub or ship) on Plotted mission. This is due to the fact that the targets pose no 'threat' to the AI unit thus elicits no response. Once weapons are added to the targets, they are immediately attacked.

...which causes to the USSR planes to just orbit over Narvik, thus advertising their presence, instead of blasting the radars into the next time zone and then attack the NATO formation with almost no warning. That this can be done is demonstrated by the fact that, under the old 3.6.3, the USSR planes attack the land units at Narvik first, as they should - this behaviour was broken in ANW; to check this, run the "GautH3.scn" test scenario, included in the .zip, under 3.6.3.]

The fact that the AI is not using active sonobuoys on missions is well known, documented and discussed. I am sure the thread is still somewhere around here. As far as I know whether that is the way it should be or not is still under consideration, since real world practice is to only use passive sonobuoys for searching and only use actives to localise already detected contacts.

ORIGINAL: Shemar
As far as I know whether that is the way it should be or not is still under consideration, since real world practice is to only use passive sonobuoys for searching and only use actives to localise already detected contacts.

I agree passive is real life practice. However the bug report concerns the unwanted consequence of the AI executing real life practice, namely that the tropedo loadouts are lost and helo's revert to minimal.
No issue for the player side - who can rectify the loadout and use the helo's manually, this is another example of the AI/AO ability being impaired through an unwanted consequence of what is in principle good doctrine. And Harpoon (in solitaire mode) is only fun if the AI gives good opposition!

Freek

I agree Freek, but on the other hand, simply knowing about the behavior and as long as a scenario designer or player makes sure they do not assign Sonobuoy missions to aircraft that carry active-only ones, the problem will not be a factor.
 
I had a similar experience with the OP with assigning active-only equipped sonobuoy helos to a patrol zone in the formation editor and then spending hours trying to figure out a way to stop them from continuosly launching and aborting. I was pretty frustrated at the time because the formation editor patrol zones are not as easy to cancel as missions and finally I had to break up the formation and re-create it.
 
That day I learned to check the loadout for passive sonobuoys before assigning A/C to a patrol zone [:@]
 
The good news is I got over my frustration as I am sure the OP will also do [:D]
 
Having said all that, there is a publicly available site for Harpoon users to both check the status of existing bugs and report new ones at http://hud3.harpoon5.com/mantis/main_page.php

Well, in medium to big scenarios one could expect both realistic formations and loadouts (not being crippled by the facts that some loadouts cause unwanted and unnedeed results) and to leave some management to the AI - not to mention the basic fact of having the AI behave as advertised. Being conscious of a problem is not the same as "having it solved" - or we would already live in a better world.

Regarding "getting over my frustration", it is not a problem. Not with games with "Armored Task Force" and "Brigade Combat Team" on my HD (not to mention Dominions 3 and GalCivII) - all titles with whom I spent the rest of my off-work day and where my units, more or less, did what I asked to them in an acceptable rational way [:)] Pity for ANW.

BTW: If we want to fall back to the old "it is a known bug" ot "it is a feature" kind of explanation (with the general aim to leave the problem as it is), then I would like to point how A) "Known bugs" do not fix by themselves, and B) A "feature" can be bad and unwelcomed. To correct both problems, unluckily, work is needed. Since this does seem to be the new direction for ANW - work more on *problems* and less on *explanations*! - this is a good time as any to fix - lets say - this one.

Oh, one last thing: are you going to write an official Appendix to the manual detailing al the needed "workarounds" and "obvious behaviours to avoid" to all the new players who consider the manual as a guide to the game as advertised (of course as a stopgap measure while there issues are worked on)? Because, you know, I'm pretty sure that at least a percentage of the costumers will simply spin up Harpoon ANW, after reading the manual, and left wondering what the heck is happening instead of what *should* be happening accordind to the official documentation. No one on this forum is an expert of the "known bugs" and "there are workarounds to this messed up feature" nuances of the game as it stands.

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

Well, in medium to big scenarios one could expect both realistic formations and loadouts (not being crippled by the facts that some loadouts cause unwanted and unnedeed results) and to leave some management to the AI - not to mention the basic fact of having the AI behave as advertised. Being conscious of a problem is not the same as "having it solved" - or we would already live in a better world.

Regarding "getting over my frustration", it is not a problem. Not with games with "Armored Task Force" and "Brigade Combat Team" on my HD (not to mention Dominions 3 and GalCivII) - all titles with whom I spent the rest of my off-work day and where my units, more or less, did what I asked to them in an acceptable rational way [:)] Pity for ANW.

BTW: If we want to fall back to the old "it is a known bug" ot "it is a feature" kind of explanation (with the general aim to leave the problem as it is), then I would like to point how A) "Known bugs" do not fix by themselves, and B) A "feature" can be bad and unwelcomed. To correct both problems, unluckily, work is needed. Since this does seem to be the new direction for ANW - work more on *problems* and less on *explanations*! - this is a good time as any to fix - lets say - this one.

Oh, one last thing: are you going to write an official Appendix to the manual detailing al the needed "workarounds" and "obvious behaviours to avoid" to all the new players who consider the manual as a guide to the game as advertised (of course as a stopgap measure while there issues are worked on)? Because, you know, I'm pretty sure that at least a percentage of the costumers will simply spin up Harpoon ANW, after reading the manual, and left wondering what the heck is happening instead of what *should* be happening accordind to the official documentation. No one on this forum is an expert of the "known bugs" and "there are workarounds to this messed up feature" nuances of the game as it stands.

hear hear - agree every word...

ORIGINAL: FreekS

I agree passive is real life practice. However the bug report concerns the unwanted consequence of the AI executing real life practice, namely that the tropedo loadouts are lost and helo's revert to minimal.

No issue for the player side - who can rectify the loadout and use the helo's manually, this is another example of the AI/AO ability being impaired through an unwanted consequence of what is in principle good doctrine. And Harpoon (in solitaire mode) is only fun if the AI gives good opposition!

Presently, the best way to describe the non-use of Active buoys is 'horribly dysfunctional'. While I don't think that many would disagree that passive buoys are best used for general search and active buoys for localization, the simple fact is that the AI can't seem to make the distinction. Of course, a human can always act correctly, but the AI is weak enough. It makes no sense to cripple it further.

The previous behaviour in H2/H3 was probably the best:
Drop passive buoys until they run out, then drop active buoys.

It may have not been perfectly realistic, but it was perfectly functional (at least over the 95th percentile, IMO). The logic was elegant, simple, and rock solidly stable in all situations for all scenarios.

The new ANW behaviour eliminating active sonar buoys was likely the product of an idea conceived in haste with little apparent discussion or afterthought to the potentially far-reaching implications.

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

Oh, one last thing: are you going to write an official Appendix to the manual detailing al the needed "workarounds" and "obvious behaviours to avoid" to all the new players who consider the manual as a guide to the game as advertised (of course as a stopgap measure while there issues are worked on)? Because, you know, I'm pretty sure that at least a percentage of the costumers will simply spin up Harpoon ANW, after reading the manual, and left wondering what the heck is happening instead of what *should* be happening accordind to the official documentation. No one on this forum is an expert of the "known bugs" and "there are workarounds to this messed up feature" nuances of the game as it stands.

I gave you a link to the official list of bugs that gets updated by the developers and anyone can have their input, either to add new bugs or to state their opinion on what bugs should have higher priority and what they think the ideal behavior will be. Short of waving a magic wand and making the bugs dissapear by themselves, there is no better way to handle bugs.

I have yet to see a bug free game. In addition to that H3 has a much more difficult task than most games, as in most games the level of abstraction is several orders of magnitude higher than what is expected of H3.

As for how to deal with the bugs as a player, that is much more a matter of life outlook than it is a matter of the actual bugs. My outlook on life is to take things as they are and have my fun instead of expect prefection. I am not going to let a waitor getting my order wrong ruin my night out, or a bad behaved driver on the road ruin my day and I am certainly not going to let bugs ruin my gaming time. Frankly, if the bugs are bothering you so much that they make your gaming experience unpleasant, you should not be playing it.

ORIGINAL: Shemar

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

Oh, one last thing: are you going to write an official Appendix to the manual detailing al the needed "workarounds" and "obvious behaviours to avoid" to all the new players who consider the manual as a guide to the game as advertised (of course as a stopgap measure while there issues are worked on)? Because, you know, I'm pretty sure that at least a percentage of the costumers will simply spin up Harpoon ANW, after reading the manual, and left wondering what the heck is happening instead of what *should* be happening accordind to the official documentation. No one on this forum is an expert of the "known bugs" and "there are

workarounds to this messed up feature" nuances of the game as it stands.

I gave you a link to the official list of bugs that gets updated by the developers and anyone can have their input, either to add new bugs or to state their opinion on what bugs should have higher priority and what

they think the ideal behavior will be. Short of waving a magic wand and making the bugs dissapear by themselves, there is no better way to handle bugs.

Yup, I know about this cool scheme: I have to go to a non-Matrix site somewhere (instead of, let's say, the OFFICIAL HARPOON 3 ANW SUPPORT FORUM, AKA *here*) and re-input bugs *there* (that I've already reported *here*) so that the game I have already paid for *here* will work as advertised.

Also, this new site seems to only have problems already reported to HarPlonkHQ.com [ http://tinyurl.com/4vnsg2 ] since the 'Official' Mantis used by the AGSI developers ( http://mantis.advancedgaming.biz ) remains inaccessible.

I have yet to see a bug free game. In addition to that H3 has a much more difficult task than most games, as in most games the level of abstraction is several orders of magnitude higher than what is expected of H3.

Me too. But I have seen games that work. And having a *working* ANW is the aim we all hope for here, not the quest for some abstract perfection.

Instead of playing ANW, I played BCT Commander - the Iraq 91 scenario (I'm not promoting a game by another company here - only giving a comparison with something I just experienced).

My Cavalry brigade had to breach three Iraqi defense belts, made of AT ditches and minefields and defended by mechanized units. The artillery fired covering smoke for the engeneering units while they breached the obstacles, and then the leading M1s and Bradleys raced through the breaches and fanned out to engage the enemies on the other side - while the rest of the brigade followed and set up for the next "leapfrogging" move.

Sometimes it was hairy, and IMHO, the M1A1 losses were too high, but at the end I saw a victory of the US forces.

What I *didn't* saw was:

- Engeneers unable to breach obstacles due to "a known bug"
- The suggestion to "find other ways to reach the other side of the defense belt" as a "workaround"
- Bradleys not firing AT missiles after the first volley due the unability to reload TOW ammo.
- The suggestion to use Bradleys as "one-shot AT weapons" and then as troop carriers only.
- The suggestion of "avoid using obstacles and minefields in user-made scenarios", so as to avoid "known problems".
- The need to explain that "no game is bug free".

Is this example sufficient to explain the difference between a *working* game and ANW? If not, I have many more examples from different working games, ranging from "Conquest of the Aegean" to "Galactic Civilizations II". Take your pick.

As for how to deal with the bugs as a player, that is much more a matter of life outlook than it is a matter of the actual bugs. My outlook on life is to take things as they are and have my fun instead of expect prefection. I am not going to let a waitor getting my order wrong ruin my night out, or a bad behaved driver on the road ruin my day and I am certainly not going to let bugs ruin my gaming time.

Which begs the question: "why would anyone even bother with the bug/beta testing if that is their outlook on life?"

However, I'm pretty sure that you can pay full price for an accommodation in Paris and find the water tap not working and cockroaches in the bed - and have fun anyway because you are "not looking for perfection". But I feel compelled to warn you: not everybody has your same outlook on life, exp. when people *pay* for a service or a good. Keep this in mind, if you will ever set up an hotel in Paris.

Anyway, I'll concede that having a scenario with a strong ASW component and, thirty seconds into it, discovering that ASW is broken, will not ruin *your* personal game time.

Oh, before I forget about it: is this "no one is entitled to expect a perfect game!" idea the official nail on the coffin for the [begin quote from Matrix's front page] "new community-focused development initiative. [end quote from Matrix's front page]?

Because, you know, the score for me is currently:

One problem -- found
One explanation about how to "get along with it" -- received.

Frankly, if the bugs are bothering you so much that they make your gaming experience unpleasant, you should not be playing it.

Which, surprisingly, is what I'm *already* doing, and suggesting to others to do, too. But I certainly hope that this is not the official Matrix attitude towards bugs and bug-fixing in general.

I am going to avoid quote fests and verbal diarrhea, just some short points as I'd rather be playing than having these pointless arguments.
 
- Nothing I say is 'official'. I have no idea where you got that notion. Beyond confirming some bugs (and plenty more as bogus bugs or duplicates) I have no relation to Matrix or AGSI whatsoever. I really don't care about your personal issues with ANW or Matrix or AGSI or anybody else. I speak as a Harpoon player, as a computer gamer of over 25 years in the hobby and as a computer programmer of over 20 years and I don't represent anybody but myself.
 
- Just because I can enjoy the game fine despite some bugs does not mean I don't care about having them fixed. In fact I put a lot more work into doing something actually useful in fixing bugs than complaining.
 
- I have never played precious version of Harpoon, so coming from a completely neutral standpoint I have to say I have no real complaints about the game. Sure it has bugs but nothing that ever prevented me from playing the game and having fun. Therefore it is my personal opinion that a group of people just enjoy making noises from the peanut gallery, just like with every other gaming community. Engaging said group into any kind of meaningful argument is pointless.
 
- Call me crazy but if you are no playing the game, you put an awful lot of energy into arguing about a game you don't play.
 
- The whole 'game I paid for' and 'plays as advertised or as described' are argument laughable when one is talking about the computer gaming industry. As far as value for money goes, Harpoon offers far far better ratio than most games in existence.
 
Feel free to go into another quote fest, but since I am sure you will have nothing new to say (everything you say here has been repeated by you already so it's getting boring) I won't bother any further.

ORIGINAL: Shemar

I am going to avoid quote fests and verbal diarrhea

It is called "aswering questions about concerning issues with a game" in other forums - but fine with me.

just some short points as I'd rather be playing than having these pointless arguments.

They are called "underlying the issues a game has on its official technical forum so that the developers are aware of them and can fix them" in other forums - but if you like to play a broken game, fine with me.

- Nothing I say is 'official'. I have no idea where you got that notion.

I'm really glad that there was a misunderstanding, here, because nothing of what you said gave me good vibes.

- Just because I can enjoy the game fine despite some bugs does not mean I don't care about having them fixed. In fact I put a lot more work into doing something actually useful in fixing bugs than complaining.

I can sympathize with you: I, too, put a lot of work into helping a group of people to compile and test a list of bugs for ANW (the "a lot" part coming by the sheer number of them). My concept of such work doesn't include "hey, so your ASW helos in a MODERN NAVAL WARFARE GAME don't perform ASW missions well - so what?" but I concede that your personal mileage may vary. I'm sure that, out there, there is a Napoleonic game where artillery doesn't fire that you will be able to enjoy very much.

- I have never played precious version of Harpoon, so coming from a completely neutral standpoint I have to say I have no real complaints about the game. Sure it has bugs but nothing that ever prevented me from playing the game and having fun. Therefore it is my personal opinion that a group of people just enjoy making noises from the peanut gallery, just like with every other gaming community.

Sure: I have almost every Matrix game, but since my time is limited, I put all their names in an hat, and ANW came up. This is why I complain about bugs in ANW only. Either that, or ANW is exceptionally broken (well, it happens) *and* exceptionally *so whatted*?

Engaging said group into any kind of meaningful argument is pointless.

Expecially if one doesn't engage in any *specific* argument in the first place.

- Call me crazy but if you are no playing the game, you put an awful lot of energy into arguing about a game you don't play.

Call me crazy, but I have a game I would like very much to play, since I like both the genre and the system, that already "benefitted" (for the lack of a better word) from some patches - and that stilll manages to turn out broken in unbeliveabily basic areas every time I spin it up.

But about that, as of the last month, I got a promise: that the community input will now be heard more. Does this gives you some hints about why "I'm putting some energy into trying - within my powers - to get such game back into shape"?

- The whole 'game I paid for' and 'plays as advertised or as described' are argument laughable when one is talking about the computer gaming industry. As far as value for money goes, Harpoon offers far far better ratio than most games in existence.

Actually no. Since we are dusting off medals, here, as a professional game reviewers since 1989, I have seen a lot of games, and, as far as value for money goes, every single one of them that worked gave more value for money than ANW.

Feel free to go into another quote fest, but since I am sure you will have nothing new to say (everything you say here has been repeated by you already so it's getting boring) I won't bother any further.

Translation: "Lacking any basic argument to counter the specific issues the other side brought up, I'll fold". Fine.

I love the constant reminders to stay the hell away from here. Very amusing. [8|]

Your firm purpose to do that starting after this last post, I guess [8|]