Too Bad

[whippleofd]

Having been an avid "pooner" since I bought the paper copy back in '85 I have followed the release of H3 ANW with anticipation of eventually buying.

Normally I wait 12-15 months after a game comes out before buying due to the "its good enough, they’ll BETA test it for us" syndrome that is prevalent in the gaming industry.

Since H3 ANW is now over 24 months old, I sat down with my credit card today figuring the bugs that existed since 3.6.3 would have to be fixed by now.

Being the careful game consumer I am, brought on by the elitist attitude of the computer game retailers (It may not work, but you don't get your money back), I did some research before clicking on the "buy me" link.

An AI that won't shoot down recon planes nor launch offensive TLAM strikes to soften up the defenses prior to getting in F/A-18 range, the first two problems with the most recent "patch" I read about, was all I needed to hear.

It was sad to see that after all this time the game is still broken, and "work-a-rounds" don't make a game a good product.

It’s a shame, I'll check back at Christmas.

Whipple

[ruixilyy]

Hey, Whipple, I wander why you didn't look around in this forum and find other players' comments before you bought the game? It's always wise for someone to look some threads in the forum before buying a game.

[whippleofd]

ORIGINAL: ruixilyy

Hey, Whipple, I wander why you didn't look around in this forum and find other players' comments before you bought the game? It's always wise for someone to look some threads in the forum before buying a game.

Please re-read my post. It was my research that made me NOT buy the game.

Whipple

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Whipple

An AI that won't shoot down recon planes nor launch offensive TLAM strikes to soften up the defenses prior to getting in F/A-18 range, the first two problems with the most recent "patch" I read about, was all I needed to hear.

I don't know which situation is more tragic:
[ol][*] The fact that these problems were already known 25 months ago; before ANW was released, or

[*] The fact that even though they are now being investigated, that users actually have to fight tooth and nail with AGSI just to convince them that such obviously absurd behaviours are bad and undesireable in the first place.[/ol]It's like going into a hospital with massive chest pains and then needing to convince the doctor that heart attacks are bad.

Inability of AI to Launch TLAM strike
Mission craft attacking other unarmed craft

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Howdy Whipple,

Too bad indeed. Still, if you want to check out the game and not risk your hard earned dollars then try out the free demo

http://www.computerharpoon.com/usni/usn ... gouge.html

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Herman,

Does it still feel like you are fighting tooth and nail to be heard? We sought to change that and I believe all user's input is being acted on. Examples are the 3.9.x releases and the recent threads to discuss the technical issues.

I will say that we (AGSI) acted on some input late and too late for some customers. For that, I will take the blame.

[whippleofd]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Howdy Whipple,

Too bad indeed. Still, if you want to check out the game and not risk your hard earned dollars then try out the free demo

http://www.computerharpoon.com/usni/usn ... gouge.html

Howdy rsharp,

Thanks for the link, I missed it while researching.

Whipple

[ssclark]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Howdy Whipple,

Too bad indeed. Still, if you want to check out the game and not risk your hard earned dollars then try out the free demo

http://www.computerharpoon.com/usni/usn ... gouge.html

Unfortunately, I've been playing the demo, but have come across some frustrating problems. Like Whipple, I'm a long time Harpoon (the original for the PC as well as H2) fan whose been waiting to take the plunge on H3 ANW.

The problems I've come across have been in the tutorials in the demo. The first 3 were okay, but lessons IV and VI had some issues. And, the in-game instructions for some of the lessons are not very well done: they don't completely follow the action that occurs.

In IV, your FFG is supposed to auto shoot down an enemy plane (a Bear) that approaches, and eventually flies right over the ship. Despite my following the instructions to a T, the ship never fired by itself in 3 tries at the scenario. Yes, I had Weapons Free on and the radar active. I could manually shoot them down, but the AI never did. In each case, like 3-4 enemy a/c fly right over and the ship never fires on its own. Perhaps this is like the issue I've read about where the AI will not fire at enemy recon planes. The AI did fine at firing at incoming missiles.

In VI (air ops), the first thing the player is instructed to do is launch an AWACS plane from the "good guys" airbase. I ran the scenario 3 times and never could get the thing to launch. I launched every other plane (F-16's) from that base and all the a/c from the carrier (F-14, F-18's, and the Seahawk). The AWACS is pretty important. It would say OT/Launch, but never would. Next time I'd check back it would say "unassigned" or some such thing. I tried over and over to get the plane to launch.

Then, there was the F-18 with a Harpoon loadout that I ordered to attack the enemy surface ship. I watched as, instead of getting in range and launching the Harpoons, it flew right up on top of the ship and got shot down! So, next try I manually flew in missile range and launched the Harpoons.

These issues make it pretty hard for me to drop $$ for the game. But, I'll try to run the rest of the tutorial missions and a couple of the others before I decide for sure.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: ssclark

In IV, your FFG is supposed to auto shoot down an enemy plane (a Bear) that approaches, and eventually flies right over the ship. Despite my following the instructions to a T, the ship never fired by itself in 3 tries at the scenario. Yes, I had Weapons Free on and the radar active. I could manually shoot them down, but the AI never did. In each case, like 3-4 enemy a/c fly right over and the ship never fires on its own. Perhaps this is like the issue I've read about where the AI will not fire at enemy recon planes. The AI did fine at firing at incoming missiles.

This is indeed caused by the unarmed nature of the Recon planes and will supposedly be changed when the next patch is released. Mission craft attacking other unarmed craft

ORIGINAL: ssclark

In VI (air ops), the first thing the player is instructed to do is launch an AWACS plane from the "good guys" airbase. I ran the scenario 3 times and never could get the thing to launch. I launched every other plane (F-16's) from that base and all the a/c from the carrier (F-14, F-18's, and the Seahawk). The AWACS is pretty important. It would say OT/Launch, but never would. Next time I'd check back it would say "unassigned" or some such thing. I tried over and over to get the plane to launch.

This is caused by the fact that the Sentry needs a larger runway than the one included in the scenario and is due to improper/lack of testing, IMO.

ORIGINAL: ssclark

Then, there was the F-18 with a Harpoon loadout that I ordered to attack the enemy surface ship. I watched as, instead of getting in range and launching the Harpoons, it flew right up on top of the ship and got shot down! So, next try I manually flew in missile range and launched the Harpoons.

This problem with the F6 intercept button has also been discussed here: Newbie Q - Tutorial 4 Except for a bunch of folks trying to 'explain the problem away', I didn't see any concrete plans for actually fixing the function and returning it to its previous functional condition.[/quote]

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Does it still feel like you are fighting tooth and nail to be heard? We sought to change that and I believe all user's input is being acted on. Examples are the 3.9.x releases and the recent threads to discuss the technical issues.

Well, at least people haven't been banned (yet) for talking about bugs, so that's an improvement.

However, when a problem like the active sonobuoy issue is reported:
Sonobuoy blues (and reds, and greens...)

And the response from a beta test member boils down to:
[ol][*] change the database
[*] change the scenarios
[*] change the way you play[/ol] fb.asp?m=1814983

It does not leave much room for optimism. IMO, problems of this magnitude and simplicity are 'gimmes'. When even the newest noob player can pick them out (yet they never fail to elicit an argument from other noobs in the beta test group), there is a problem.

Of course, this isn't meant to silence discussion because every issue has two sides, but to spend 2-3 pages arguing over the most basic problems makes even the most patient user wonder if he's just playing the role of Sisyphus.

[barniewhittle]

[/quote]


The problems I've come across have been in the tutorials in the demo.


[/quote]

... reinforces my view that at least the tutorial in the demo needs to work 'as it says on the tin' ... at least change the instructions on the tin if you can't change the contents. The tutorial not working sends all the wrong messages to newcomers / prospective new customers. Thought this would have been a basic piece of marketing.... That said I admire Russell's humility, the new freedom to comment and Herman's return ... he seems to me to talk a lot of objective common sense.... I look forward - loyally - to this game eventually reaching its potential [:)]

[ssclark]

ORIGINAL: b whittle

The problems I've come across have been in the tutorials in the demo.


[/quote]

... reinforces my view that at least the tutorial in the demo needs to work 'as it says on the tin' ... at least change the instructions on the tin if you can't change the contents. The tutorial not working sends all the wrong messages to newcomers / prospective new customers. Thought this would have been a basic piece of marketing.... That said I admire Russell's humility, the new freedom to comment and Herman's return ... he seems to me to talk a lot of objective common sense.... I look forward - loyally - to this game eventually reaching its potential [:)]

[/quote]

Agreed. I'm really sad that the tutorials are in such a poor state. It certainly gives me the impression that the game is broken in some ways...certainly not what you'd want a demo to do.

[ssclark]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: ssclark

In IV, your FFG is supposed to auto shoot down an enemy plane (a Bear) that approaches, and eventually flies right over the ship. Despite my following the instructions to a T, the ship never fired by itself in 3 tries at the scenario. Yes, I had Weapons Free on and the radar active. I could manually shoot them down, but the AI never did. In each case, like 3-4 enemy a/c fly right over and the ship never fires on its own. Perhaps this is like the issue I've read about where the AI will not fire at enemy recon planes. The AI did fine at firing at incoming missiles.

This is indeed caused by the unarmed nature of the Recon planes and will supposedly be changed when the next patch is released. Mission craft attacking other unarmed craft

ORIGINAL: ssclark

In VI (air ops), the first thing the player is instructed to do is launch an AWACS plane from the "good guys" airbase. I ran the scenario 3 times and never could get the thing to launch. I launched every other plane (F-16's) from that base and all the a/c from the carrier (F-14, F-18's, and the Seahawk). The AWACS is pretty important. It would say OT/Launch, but never would. Next time I'd check back it would say "unassigned" or some such thing. I tried over and over to get the plane to launch.

This is caused by the fact that the Sentry needs a larger runway than the one included in the scenario and is due to improper/lack of testing, IMO.

ORIGINAL: ssclark

Then, there was the F-18 with a Harpoon loadout that I ordered to attack the enemy surface ship. I watched as, instead of getting in range and launching the Harpoons, it flew right up on top of the ship and got shot down! So, next try I manually flew in missile range and launched the Harpoons.

This problem with the F6 intercept button has also been discussed here: Newbie Q - Tutorial 4 Except for a bunch of folks trying to 'explain the problem away', I didn't see any concrete plans for actually fixing the function and returning it to its previous functional condition.

[/quote]

Is that right about the "good guys" runway?? Sheesh. I used to playtest alot in the past (Talonsoft's civil war line and then East Front/West Front...most recently GMT's Glory III bordgame). Sure, bugs get through, but that's a showstopping mistake that is evident in the first 5 minutes of playing the scenario.

I could live with the others, I guess, b/c they just require a bit more micromanaging, though even that might be a problem in much bigger scenarios with a/c all over the place.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: ssclark

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: ssclark

In VI (air ops), the first thing the player is instructed to do is launch an AWACS plane from the "good guys" airbase. I ran the scenario 3 times and never could get the thing to launch. I launched every other plane (F-16's) from that base and all the a/c from the carrier (F-14, F-18's, and the Seahawk). The AWACS is pretty important. It would say OT/Launch, but never would. Next time I'd check back it would say "unassigned" or some such thing. I tried over and over to get the plane to launch.

This is caused by the fact that the Sentry needs a larger runway than the one included in the scenario and is due to improper/lack of testing, IMO.

Is that right about the "good guys" runway?? Sheesh. I used to playtest alot in the past (Talonsoft's civil war line and then East Front/West Front...most recently GMT's Glory III bordgame). Sure, bugs get through, but that's a showstopping mistake that is evident in the first 5 minutes of playing the scenario.

I agree that it is a pretty blatant oversight. IMO, it would take no more than 30 mins to test every Tutorial scenario all the way through each time a patch is released because I've done it and this is how long it would take me (and I'm just an amateur tester). A professional who did it repeatedly would probably take far less time.

The PlayersDB version of the Tutorial sessions have already corrected these errors. Unfortunately, this is no help to Demo users because, the last time I checked the Demo, it was hard-wired to only run the USNI database. So, you can't even DL a third-party database that works unless you've already bought the game.

If you'd like to try our versions, you can get the Complete Harpoon ANW Library, but I don't think they'll run on the latest demo release.

[ssclark]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: ssclark

ORIGINAL: hermanhum




This is caused by the fact that the Sentry needs a larger runway than the one included in the scenario and is due to improper/lack of testing, IMO.

Is that right about the "good guys" runway?? Sheesh. I used to playtest alot in the past (Talonsoft's civil war line and then East Front/West Front...most recently GMT's Glory III bordgame). Sure, bugs get through, but that's a showstopping mistake that is evident in the first 5 minutes of playing the scenario.

I agree that it is a pretty blatant oversight. IMO, it would take no more than 30 mins to test every Tutorial scenario all the way through each time a patch is released because I've done it and this is how long it would take me (and I'm just an amateur tester). A professional who did it repeatedly would probably take far less time.

The PlayersDB version of the Tutorial sessions have already corrected these errors. Unfortunately, this is no help to Demo users because, the last time I checked the Demo, it was hard-wired to only run the USNI database. So, you can't even DL a third-party database that works unless you've already bought the game.

If you'd like to try our versions, you can get the Complete Harpoon ANW Library, but I don't think they'll run on the latest demo release.

Could you explain this a little bit more to me? What is the PlayersDB? The USNI database? What is tweaked?

If they can be imported into the full game, I might still buy it. Still on the fence but leaning to the new Grigsby ACW game at this time. I want to buy/dl one next week.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: ssclark

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

The PlayersDB version of the Tutorial sessions have already corrected these errors. Unfortunately, this is no help to Demo users because, the last time I checked the Demo, it was hard-wired to only run the USNI database. So, you can't even DL a third-party database that works unless you've already bought the game.

If you'd like to try our versions, you can get the Complete Harpoon ANW Library, but I don't think they'll run on the latest demo release.

Could you explain this a little bit more to me? What is the PlayersDB? The USNI database? What is tweaked?

If they can be imported into the full game, I might still buy it. Still on the fence but leaning to the new Grigsby ACW game at this time. I want to buy/dl one next week.

A database is similar to a dictionary. The database contains all the units/platforms needed to 'write' and play a scenario. A scenario can only be played with the database that it was written for. Databases, like dictionaries, cover different languages/countries/time periods. So, you can't read a French document with a German dictionary very well nor can you play a scenario made with the PlayersDB while the USNI [United States Naval Institute] Database is loaded in your game. [;)]

The PlayersDB is a third-party database (not supported by the developers and publishers). It can be imported into the retail version of ANW and is the most commonly used database for ANW. Some of the unique features of the PlayersDB are:
[ol][*]Ships, planes, and subs have been indexed by country for your convenience

[*]Players can now see the launch altitude of the weapons. No more guessing at the launch parameters.

[*]Numerous special weapons and special platforms for designers.

If you would like to see a special capability or platform for your scenario, let us know and it will be added for you. There is ample room for specialty units and player requests. One player has already been accommodated. He wanted to try Soviet Sub-Launched Land Attack missiles from Charlie-class SSGNs so we modified the torpedo tubes to allow him to test this new feature.

[*]Old versions of the DB will be retained.

This is the only certain way to guarantee compatibility. Once a scenario is built, IT STAYS BUILT unless or until the author decides that he wants to adapt it to a newer version. This means that the scenario will play EXACTLY as the author intended.

[*]Pre-constructed installations.

Over 110 fully pre-constructed bases and installations for scenario designers to insert with the single click of a mouse. No need to hunt down 40+ individual facilities before adding them to a scenario.

[*]Comprehensive descriptions.

Detailed text for subs, ships, aircraft, and weapons.

[*]Loadout ready times displayed. [/ol]
ANW has a number of official databases that come with the game when purchased. The USNI database is exclusive to the Demo. The retail game includes 2 databases: OriginalDB and ANWDb. They each have their own related scenarios.

[Dimitris]

Herman neglected to mention the defining unique feature of the PDB, so like a good buddy of his I will complement him:

8. The PlayersDB was formed as a shameless rip-off (follow link) of the DB2000 database, the DB which kept Harpoon alive in the "lean years" before it was picked up by Matrix for re-publishing. No attribution whatsoever was made to the DB2000 author at the time and none has been made since.

This message is for informative purposes only. No "splitting of the community", "hurting of ANW sales" or any other fanciful excuse of the PDB apologists is intended. Thanks [:)]

[FransKoenz]

There we go again!!!!!! [:@]

I thought that you guys wanted to be leaved alone with your db2k?????
Then do us a favour and do your blabla-talk on HarpoonHQ, or, even better, come and put your topic on the SS Nostrumus-section of HarplonkHQ [where such a topic belongs].

Some mothers have them ......... [>:]

Cheers,
Frans [aka Taitennek]

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Taitennek

There we go again!!!!!! [:@]

I thought that you guys wanted to be leaved alone with your db2k?????
Then do us a favour and do your blabla-talk on HarpoonHQ

That's okay. No one else believes the trash, either. (Especially since it was already de-bunked. see [Myth]

With over 280,000 PlayersDB scenarios downloaded in the last 12 months alone, the PlayersDB has proven itself the unequivocal players' favourite.

That's more downloads than the entire 10 yr existence of the Y2kDB. [:D]

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Herman neglected to mention the defining unique feature of the PDB, so like a good buddy of his I will complement him:

8. The PlayersDB was formed as a shameless rip-off (follow link) of the DB2000 database, the DB which kept Harpoon alive in the "lean years" before it was picked up by Matrix for re-publishing. No attribution whatsoever was made to the DB2000 author at the time and none has been made since.

This message is for informative purposes only. No "splitting of the community", "hurting of ANW sales" or any other fanciful excuse of the PDB apologists is intended. Thanks [:)]

If its actual purpose is to give to the public a clear, "informative" picture of the poster to the community, then congratulations: it pulls the feat in the best possible way [:)]