Harpoon- Sea or Air simulation
Timo Talasmaa
that most scenarios (particularly the original GIUK
scenarios) emphasize the air battles too much.
Usually, the decisive battles are fought in the
first hours of the scenario. The planes do their
air strikes and the ships and carriers
have barely moved when the scenario is won. The
only thing to do is to just wait a few days game
time for the victory conditions to come true.
Generally, only when the available air assets are limited
or non-existent do I have to use the naval equipment.
I think that the scenario oriented approach makes
the player use some tactics that you would not use
in a campaign game (or the real thing). Like you
can waste a few squadrons of fighters as you
know there will be plenty left in the next scenario.
How do you other Harpoon players feel about this?
Timo
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/ ti...@mits.mdata.fi Timo Talasmaa, Helsinki, Finland /
/ O Fortuna, velut luna, statu variabilis, semper crescis, aut decrescis ! /
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Lars Martin Hansen
Since you will get new aircrafts/ships/subs in the next scenario, it's easier
to sacrifice a few fighters or a sub-group. However, I try my best to get
every plane safe home, even if it means aborting the attack or reducing my
ability to defend myself properly for a shorter period of time. The same goes
for ships and subs. Suicide attacks might be effective, but I has as my main
goal to lose as little equipment as possible.
I played "Fortress Keflavik" (GIUK) Yesterday, and the Soviets managed to sink
one OH Perry, since they were within range. After that, I bombarded them with
Harpoons from Orions, and later, with Tomahawks from the SAG. In the meantime,
my eagles were fighting of any Bombers even trying to get within range.
When the USSR BG had used all their SA-N-6s, my AntiRadar aircrafts had no
problems killing of the remaining ships.
The battle was won due to coordnation of air and sea forces...
In many cases, most battles are won in the air, by airforces, which is kinda
sad, since it's supposed to be a naval war simulation. But, since most
scenarios are about defending/attacking landbases, it's natural that airforces
are present, as they would in real-life.
There is a few thing I do miss about Harpoon, tho ...
1) Landbases doesn't repair themselves!
After getting it's radar damages, it's natural that someone would try to
repair it!
2) The SAMs at landbases doesn't get re-loaded!
When SAMs are fired, it would be natural that someone would try to re-load
the mounts
3) Air re-fueling!
It's kinda annying that an AWACS on patrol will have to land and be
"useless" for a long time, just because it needs re-fueling. The
introduction of the KC-135 would be greatly appreciated.
4) Individual preparation time on aircrafts.
Some might have gotten some damage, which might take more than 60 minutes
to fix. This way, your air capablilty would be slightly reduced.
5) There is no point 5.
6) Supplies at Landbases.
a) Ships/Subs may dock, and re-supply IF the base has whats needed
available.
b) There's a limit on armament for the aircrafts. One one given base, there
is only equipment for the aircrafts that is located there in the
begining of the scenario. Meaning, that if you ferry 2 flights of
Tomcats to somewhere where there was no Tomcats, you'll need to supply
the Base with Phoenix missiles, so you can arm the aircrafts.
7) Actual supplies on ships/aircrafts.
Having the possibility to load the Starlifter with actual supplies, and
transporting the supplies to where ever it's needed. This also implies that
you would have to be able to choose what cargo the aircrafts would carry.
ie, Tomahawks, Phoenix, Barracudas, SAMs for the LandBase ...
Ports will have to be re-supplied with ships ofcourse.
Adding the Logistics to the game would greatly increase the playability,
and the difficulty. It would require that you think more carefully about
what you are doing, and plan your attacks more carefully.
(some of these features might be implemented in a newer version of Harpoon
than I am using (I'm using a very very old version (too ashamed to say which)))
:)
--
Lars M. Hansen
AID, Grimstad, Norway.
ha...@hpx11.aid.no
"There are no bugs, only unrecognized features"
Timo Saarto
>I must agree with some of what Timo Talasmaa says in message #1428.
>Since you will get new aircrafts/ships/subs in the next scenario, it's easier
>to sacrifice a few fighters or a sub-group. However, I try my best to get
(..)
In fact, it is most annoying to lose a _single_ plane playing either side of this gam...
oops, simulation...
I find that Harpoon is more a simulation of laws of probability than actually a description
of naval warfare...of course, this is what in large scale everything is all about, but in
Harpoon one can achieve ridiculous results by "oversecuring" (please native English-speakers,
how would you rephrase that ?): best example would be sub attacks. Hardest part of the game
is always to sink NATO subs, either getting even the first contact before one is toast; or
even after a clear fix, get a decent shot at him (only the umpteenth torpedo will do the job).
So what do I do ? Send in 3-5 Helix's and have their loads dumped 50/50 on either side of the sub-
Voila', imperialists turn to canned fishfood. Realistic ? Sure, but it works. Same thing even with
Foxtrots / Tangos /Kilos. Only have one stay quiet and deep and have the other prowle out and about
teasing the Oberon or Trafalgar to the firing range of the other. Then dump everything in the water.
Again, in air battles, I get surprisingly "intelligent" results (equal losses if equal forces and
the same around) when running time compression to 1:30-1:1 min. I guess then the computer
Artificial dumbness has no trouble but to assume only the laws of probability, without some
stupid sounding points over "firing once in range" and so forth. The angle of aspect, radar usage
and other pointers within the combat parametres do seem to do decent job by themselves.
BTW, how come some of the Nukes have better chances of hit than the same weapon with conventional warhead ?
>I played "Fortress Keflavik" (GIUK) Yesterday, and the Soviets managed to sink
Good description of well executed and timed success in the game. I have as my strategy to
loiter all Orions (except for 1-2 sub patrols) above and about the Iowa BG; and put the A-7:s
HARM the Red fleet, followed as closely as possible with Harpoons of the Orions.
>sad, since it's supposed to be a naval war simulation. But, since most
>scenarios are about defending/attacking landbases, it's natural that airforces
>are present, as they would in real-life.
You said it bro'. Also however, this is a front-scale simulation, in which
all the forces do play a role. However, I can't help but wonder what has happened
to the infantries of our both countries: I'd sure as hell would expect a plane or
two fall from stingers/SA-7 fire now and then ...
>There is a few thing I do miss about Harpoon, tho ...
>1) Landbases doesn't repair themselves!
> After getting it's radar damages, it's natural that someone would try to
> repair it!
Fixed in 1.32
>2) The SAMs at landbases doesn't get re-loaded!
> When SAMs are fired, it would be natural that someone would try to re-load
> the mounts
As is this.
>3) Air re-fueling!
Again. But a clear fact.
>4) Individual preparation time on aircrafts.
> Some might have gotten some damage, which might take more than 60 minutes
> to fix. This way, your air capablilty would be slightly reduced.
No, but have you noticed that damage to the airfield DOES increase the turnaround-
time of the planes ?
>5) There is no point 5.
Norwegian humour ? :-)
>6) Supplies at Landbases.
> a) Ships/Subs may dock, and re-supply IF the base has whats needed
> available.
Exactly what do they resupply then ?
And the other way, I have always wondered that why did they include the docking at all
if that doesn't seem to have any use ??!? It would be great to get your subs
reloaded with torps...
> b) There's a limit on armament for the aircrafts. One one given base, there
This also is an addressed weakness. I can't believe that a squadron of Tomcats would
get enough Phoenixes in Saxa Vord to ward off a fleet of badgers along with their
support aircraft (pun intended but meant=)
>7) Actual supplies on ships/aircrafts.
> Ports will have to be re-supplied with ships ofcourse.
> Adding the Logistics to the game would greatly increase the playability,
No doubt of it.
My personal wish list:
- Along the lines of logistics you have described, supply management
Nato: from USA and Canada
Red: from Russia
And of course all the worries and trouble these bring along :-)
- Have some campaigning (outcome of your mission affects the next, and
assests you have available in the next mission)
- Human approach. Every time I sink Kiev/Kirov/Nimitz/Iowa I just look at the
picture and think that there goes another 6000 lives...
(OK, it is a game, but to put something in perspective.)
- Even small-scale infantry inclusion (most likely within supportive (LGB
guidance/ small-scale AA-work) role, if we want the game to remind within the
original context of being a naval game)
I guess I could the request for the RS-6000 to play this version 5 of Harpoon
when it comes out 1/2 :-)
But, I leave this to be commented.
Best regards,
Timo.
--
--
Timo Saarto ::: I THINK ::: Voice: 90/555554
Ulvilantie 29/1 B 18 ::: I MUST ::: EMail: timo....@hut.fi
00350 HELSINKI ::: BE A MUSHROOM ::: tsaarto@vipunen
Somehow I am always left alone in the dark and being fed with lots of horseshit
gil...@decvaxrobins.af.mil
Lars,
Lars, you need to distinguish between tactical vs. strategic, realism
vs. playability. Everything that I've read about Harpoon, both board game and
PC version emphasize the tactical nature of the design. Trying to emulate
reloading in port, etc. is beyond the scope of the game.
Adding air refueling is a valid request. I understand 360 wants to do
this but they're running into the DOS stone wall.
Resupply: It would nice to model this to make things more difficult,
but, again, tradeoffs are always made. By adding the detail that you and others
request, the game would rapidly approach a complexity level that would make
it unplayable - kind of like real life :).
-chg
Wiley
(deleted)
>- Have some campaigning (outcome of your mission affects the next, and
> assests you have available in the next mission)
>
I pray every day to the computer game gods that the Harpoon 2 development team
will include some sort of campaigning mechanism in Harpoon 2. The limited focus
of the scenario does not encourage the player to think about the grand scheme
of things. It is tempting to send your units in mass suicide raids that will
accomplish the goal of the scenario, but in reality would be a huge tactical
error. A campaign game option would be a superb addition to a pretty damn good
game.
Jason Shantz, SFU CompSci/History jsh...@sfu.ca
==============================================================================
"I think, in all probability, Wilma Flintstone is the most desirable woman who
ever lived."
Scott D. Young
>BTW, how come some of the Nukes have better chance to hit than the same
>weapon with conventional warhead?
A nuclear warhead solves a lot of targeting problems. Just put it near
(within a mile or so) the target, and it's considered a hit. The reason
that the hit percentage is only 95% is that, maybe the rocket motor
malfunctions, or something...like the Tomahawk that hit the hotel by
mistake.
Scott