The Wargame that Never Was
eddys...@hotmail.com
I recently finished reading Michael Palmer’s “The War that Never Was”
– an alternate history novel of the Third World War set in the late
eighties. http://www.amazon.com/War-That-Never-Was/dp/0743474511 - The
book focuses heavily on the naval and air aspects, less so on the
ground war – one could suspect due to the naval background of the
author but more likely I think due to the overall idea promoted by the
book that it was exactly these areas in which Nato needed to make the
difference. You can’t win a ground war in Germany without air
superiority and free shipping routes for US reinforcements to
arrive.
As always, reading a book triggers the urge to play a game set in that
era. But there isn’t any. Sure, there’s Harpoon, but I’m not crazy
enough to dive into that snake pit and there are a couple games in
development - there’s a Flashpoint : Red Storm (operational level) and
Modern Wars - Volume II (John Tiller’s Campaign Series brought to
WWIII) but no strategic level games which let you fight from the
arctic wastelands to the Indian ocean and from Vladivostok to Cuba
combining naval, air and ground forces. I even took a quick look at
the oldies - the Reforger series, Nato division commander and Germany
1985 and yup, one front at a time.
Even in the boardgame world, which has the classic Third World War
series by GDW and that unplayable monster from SPI whose name I can’t
recall it’s one front at a time, which is quite normal given the
limitations of boardgames.
Well, if a developer out there is looking for a first, here’s a niche
which afaik hasn’t been done before – and put me on the list for a
sale.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
> in that era. But there isn�t any. Sure, there�s Harpoon, but I�m
> not crazy enough to dive into that snake pit
Just try "Harpoon Classic: Commander Edition". The snake pit is only Harpoon
3/ANW
> but no strategic level games which let you fight from the
> arctic wastelands to the Indian ocean
Trey Marshall adapted GDW's "World War Three" for TOAW. It is available
either as separate scenarios or as a combined monster game (WWIII from
Northern Norway to the Gulf).
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Trey Marshall adapted GDW's "World War Three" for TOAW. It is available
> either as separate scenarios or as a combined monster game (WWIII from
> Northern Norway to the Gulf).
Whow - definitely taking a look at that one - just a look mind you
because there's no way I'm ever going to actually play it moving
hundreds of pieces for dozens of turns.
My "vision" of a WW3 game is more ... well ... the Panther Games
engine brought to a higher scale.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Ray O'Hara
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff32481a-6738-430e...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
.
Even in the boardgame world, which has the classic Third World War
series by GDW and that unplayable monster from SPI whose name I can�t
recall it�s one front at a time, which is quite normal given the
limitations of boardgames.
===============================================================
The Next War.
it was converted into a scenario in Toaw
Ray O'Hara
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f46b12b-8cb5-4500...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
WWIII would have have been fought in western Europe and the Mid-ast. China
would stay out and and Japan would have been a waste of resources for
Russia,
eddys...@hotmail.com
> WWIII would have have been fought in western Europe and the Mid-ast. China
> would stay out and and Japan would have been a waste of resources for
> Russia,
The book I mentioned above had in addition North Korea making one last
bid for control of the South, Libyan involvement resulting in an
African campaign and the main WP effort shifting from Germany to the
Turkish/Greek front in a last ditch effort.
What it also made clear was that given the high destructive power of
modern ordnance the war would be short – just 50 days in the book –
and would make for an excellent daily turn-based wargame as well
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
HermanH
<eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I recently finished reading Michael Palmer’s “The War that Never Was”
> – an alternate history novel of the Third World War set in the late
> book focuses heavily on the naval and air aspects, less so on the
> ground war – one could suspect due to the naval background of the
> author but more likely I think due to the overall idea promoted by the
> book that it was exactly these areas in which Nato needed to make the
> difference. You can’t win a ground war in Germany without air
> superiority and free shipping routes for US reinforcements to
> arrive.
>
> As always, reading a book triggers the urge to play a game set in that
> era. But there isn’t any. Sure, there’s Harpoon, but I’m not crazy
> enough to dive into that snake pit and there are a couple games in
> development - there’s a Flashpoint : Red Storm (operational level) and
> Modern Wars - Volume II (John Tiller’s Campaign Series brought to
> WWIII) but no strategic level games which let you fight from the
> arctic wastelands to the Indian ocean and from Vladivostok to Cuba
> combining naval, air and ground forces. I even took a quick look at
> the oldies - the Reforger series, Nato division commander and Germany
> 1985 and yup, one front at a time.
I understand the sentiment towards Harpoon. Too bad. I wrote an
entire 15 scenario battleset for that book. It really is an excellent
novel. It was originally set for release in about 1990 as "Blue Water
Navy", but the Soviet Union collapsed and I think that the publisher
got cold feet. I was ecstatic to learn of its release as "The War
that Never Was".
eddys...@hotmail.com
> It was originally set for release in about 1990 as "Blue Water
> Navy", but the Soviet Union collapsed and I think that the publisher
> got cold feet. I was ecstatic to learn of its release as "The War
> that Never Was".
Few people realize that the most momentous event of the last 2 decades
was not some islamo-fascists flying airplanes in the WTC but tens of
thousands of young East Berliners virtually tearing down the Berlin
wall in a single night.
It all went so fast it was unreal, almost a dream.
20 year anniversary coming up on November 9th - I hope it will be
remembered properly.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bostonmyk
game using their HTTR engine?
M
On Oct 13, 5:41 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
Andrew McGee
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff32481a-6738-430e...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
I recently finished reading Michael Palmer�s �The War that Never Was�
� an alternate history novel of the Third World War set in the late
eighties. http://www.amazon.com/War-That-Never-Was/dp/0743474511 - The
book focuses heavily on the naval and air aspects, less so on the
ground war � one could suspect due to the naval background of the
author but more likely I think due to the overall idea promoted by the
book that it was exactly these areas in which Nato needed to make the
difference. You can�t win a ground war in Germany without air
superiority and free shipping routes for US reinforcements to
arrive.
As always, reading a book triggers the urge to play a game set in that
era. But there isn�t any. Sure, there�s Harpoon, but I�m not crazy
enough to dive into that snake pit and there are a couple games in
development - there�s a Flashpoint : Red Storm (operational level) and
Modern Wars - Volume II (John Tiller�s Campaign Series brought to
WWIII) but no strategic level games which let you fight from the
arctic wastelands to the Indian ocean and from Vladivostok to Cuba
combining naval, air and ground forces. I even took a quick look at
the oldies - the Reforger series, Nato division commander and Germany
1985 and yup, one front at a time.
Even in the boardgame world, which has the classic Third World War
series by GDW and that unplayable monster from SPI whose name I can�t
recall it�s one front at a time, which is quite normal given the
limitations of boardgames.
Well, if a developer out there is looking for a first, here�s a niche
which afaik hasn�t been done before � and put me on the list for a
sale.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
SPI had 'World War III' which was supposedly strategic in scope, though only
on a single map. Tedious and unplayable, I'm sorry to say.
At an operational level the Soviet invasion of Western Europe was covered in
Fulda Gap (one map again) and The Next War (multi maps and, after some
sugery on the flawed original, quite good).
Andrew Mcgee
Bloodstar
Fuck you and your NATO.
As you are being nasty suddenly Russians are being more nice than
ussuall....
So be bastard if you want... Will tell Putin to drop A-Bomb on your house
:o))))
Dav Vandenbroucke
>Even in the boardgame world, which has the classic Third World War
>series by GDW and that unplayable monster from SPI whose name I can�t
>recall it�s one front at a time, which is quite normal given the
>limitations of boardgames.
>
There was Seapower and the State, a global naval game by Simulations
Canada. It's in the queue for reprinting by Omega Games.
Also, the Operation Dropshot games are global World War III games set
in eras from the 1950s to the 1980s. They're physically quite
small--not at all unplayable monster games.
Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net
Ray O'Hara
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8fa9dd1-1f42-44d9...@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
====================================================================
Libya is a ways from any help and Kaddafy isn't stupid.
and what of any value could they grab? they have all the nearby oil already.
NK could be dealt with by SK.
and 50 days eh? "home before the leaves fall"., "home for christmas", heard
that before.
Ray O'Hara
"Andrew McGee" <andrew_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:meWdnUTGY4yRSEnX...@bt.com...
>
> <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ff32481a-6738-430e...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> � an alternate history novel of the Third World War set in the late
> eighties. http://www.amazon.com/War-That-Never-Was/dp/0743474511 - The
> book focuses heavily on the naval and air aspects, less so on the
> author but more likely I think due to the overall idea promoted by the
> book that it was exactly these areas in which Nato needed to make the
> superiority and free shipping routes for US reinforcements to
> arrive.
>
> As always, reading a book triggers the urge to play a game set in that
> enough to dive into that snake pit and there are a couple games in
> Modern Wars - Volume II (John Tiller�s Campaign Series brought to
> WWIII) but no strategic level games which let you fight from the
> arctic wastelands to the Indian ocean and from Vladivostok to Cuba
> combining naval, air and ground forces. I even took a quick look at
> the oldies - the Reforger series, Nato division commander and Germany
> 1985 and yup, one front at a time.
>
> Even in the boardgame world, which has the classic Third World War
> recall it�s one front at a time, which is quite normal given the
> limitations of boardgames.
>
> Well, if a developer out there is looking for a first, here�s a niche
> which afaik hasn�t been done before � and put me on the list for a
> sale.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
>
> SPI had 'World War III' which was supposedly strategic in scope, though
> only on a single map. Tedious and unplayable, I'm sorry to say.
>
> At an operational level the Soviet invasion of Western Europe was covered
> in Fulda Gap (one map again) and The Next War (multi maps and, after some
> sugery on the flawed original, quite good).
>
> Andrew Mcgee
yes, who can forget the old "transit attack" rules.
Ray O'Hara
"Bloodstar" <george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:hb2mr1$h5a$1...@sunce.iskon.hr...
yeah, like the Poles and Czechs would have fought for Mother Russia.
and for years we heard about the 40,000 Soviet tanks, all the while they
failed to mention over 30,000 of them were WWII vintage T34/85s and JSIIIs.
DirkG
>
> SPI had 'World War III' which was supposedly strategic in scope, though
> only on a single map. Tedious and unplayable, I'm sorry to say.
>
I was going to mention that one, I bought it new in the 70s and still
have it. I only messed around playing it solitaire, but it was cool
seeing the current world power displayed in strength points. Kind of
sobering, and combined with a book I bought at the time called "Arms and
Strategy, The World Power Structure Today" by Lawrence Martin, which
gave an accounting of all the world's military forces, looked pretty
sobering to me then.
Bloodstar
> and for years we heard about the 40,000 Soviet tanks, all the while they
> failed to mention over 30,000 of them were WWII vintage T34/85s and
> JSIIIs.
I was just joking :)
I don't like Russians too much. Russian girls on the other hand are another
story. :)
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Eddy any indications that Panther will do modern or a Cold War themed
> game using their HTTR engine?
Sorry, I'm totally out of the loop regarding Panther Games and even if
I wasn't I would be bound by the NDA.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Libya is a ways from any help and Kaddafy isn't stupid.
> and what of any value could they grab? they have all the nearby oil already.
Yeah, saw that plot-hole too - I guess the author needed a Central-Med
enemy to prevent both US carriers in the Med to join up too soon
versus Syriah.
> NK could be dealt with by SK.
Have you checked recently how close Seoul is to the demilitarized
zone ? In this case the author's plot actually is that the Kremlin
didn't want NK to enter the war, but the guys in charge there saw it
as a golden opportunity with the US being distracted elsewhere. Made
more sense than the Libyan thing.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> yeah, like the Poles and Czechs would have fought for Mother Russia.
> and for years we heard about the 40,000 Soviet tanks, all the while they
> failed to mention over 30,000 of them were WWII vintage T34/85s and JSIIIs.
Quantity is a quality all on its own. And no matter how old, it's
still armour. At the time all our army had stored for me in case of
war was my trusted FNC assault rifle and a spot in the back of a
truck.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
<dav_and_frances_vandenbrou...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> There was Seapower and the State, a global naval game by Simulations
> Canada. It's in the queue for reprinting by Omega Games.
Will check it out. SimCan hmm. In case you didn't know : Matrix owns
the rights to make computer wargames based on their portfolio.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
HermanH
I think that Simulations Canada also had an interesting game called,
"Red Sky at Morning - Naval Strategy in the Modern Era". It simulates
war in the N. Atlantic and has absolutely no graphics. I'd call it an
early Harpoon. If Matrix has the rights to re-make SimCan games, it
could prove interesting.
Øystein Tvedten
Another interesting WWIII book is
The Third World War &
The Third World War: The Untold Story
By General Sir John Hackett.
Harold Coyle set his "Team Yankee" book in that fictional war as well.
�ystein
--
Roy Batty: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships
on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the
dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain. Time to die.
Vincenzo Beretta
> "Red Sky at Morning - Naval Strategy in the Modern Era". It simulates
> war in the N. Atlantic and has absolutely no graphics.
And "Grey Seas, Grey Skies" by Bill Nichols, now freely available on the
Apple II virtual emulator:
http://www.virtualapple.org/greyseasgreyskiesdisk.html
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Another interesting WWIII book is
>
> The Third World War &
> The Third World War: The Untold Story
>
> By General Sir John Hackett.
Got them both. They focus more on the land battles in Germany with the
naval action more in the background. Overall I like the Michael Palmer
book more because ... well ... I'm pretty much convinced that the
naval/air superiority battles would have been more important than the
land battles.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
Great year for wargaming, 2009; now we're recommending games that run on
an emulator for a PC introduced in 1977.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"BREAKING: Obama named Motor Trend's Car of the Year!"
- Ace of Spades
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <Q8iBm.5718$813.3...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> reck...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > I think that Simulations Canada also had an interesting game called,
> > > "Red Sky at Morning - Naval Strategy in the Modern Era". It simulates
> > > war in the N. Atlantic and has absolutely no graphics.
>
> > And "Grey Seas, Grey Skies" by Bill Nichols, now freely available on the
> > Apple II virtual emulator:
> >http://www.virtualapple.org/greyseasgreyskiesdisk.html
>
> Great year for wargaming, 2009; now we're recommending games that run on
> an emulator for a PC introduced in 1977.
Maybe that's the strength of wargames - like a good movie or a good
book, much of their quality doesn't diminish over the decades.
No doubt at all we will still be able to recommend HTTR to someone
asking for a good M-G game in twenty years time.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
dcdd0b...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > yeah, like the Poles and Czechs would have fought for Mother Russia.
> > and for years we heard about the 40,000 Soviet tanks, all the while they
> > failed to mention over 30,000 of them were WWII vintage T34/85s and JSIIIs.
>
> Quantity is a quality all on its own. And no matter how old, it's
> still armour. At the time all our army had stored for me in case of
> war was my trusted FNC assault rifle and a spot in the back of a
> truck.
I dislike the "quantity is a quality" argument. I've heard it for
years, and I'm not sure I've ever seen it actually work out.
Higher quality German forces made hash of a much larger Red Army ...
until Russian quality started to go up, and German quality came down
sharply. Tiny Israel regularly pasted everything a billion Arabs
surrounding them could fling at them. Saddam Hussein had tons more
troops, tanks, etc, than the Coalition forces in either Gulf I or II.
"Big army of conscripts, armed with Russian junk" vs "smaller highly
trained professional force armed with latest western gear" always seems
to turn out one way. I can't imagine why a NATO / WP matchup would have
been any different.
I think the most likely outcome of WW3 is described in great detail by
novelist Tom Clancy in RED STORM RISING; so long as NATO could keep the
sea lanes open, the Red Army would grind to a halt fairly quickly.
[And forget the WP satellite armies; a Pole or Czech might fight hard if
NATO forces *invaded Poland or Czechoslovakia*, but that's surpassingly
unlikely. The question is whether that same guy is fix bayonets and
charge into Germany. And East Germans fighting against their cousins in
Bonn? Forget it.
But games almost always get this part wrong; they just put a different
color on the counters for East German divisions, and they behave just
like Russians. Not.]
eddys...@hotmail.com
> "Big army of conscripts, armed with Russian junk" vs "smaller highly
> trained professional force armed with latest western gear" always seems
> to turn out one way.
Yeah, but in my case it was a "big army of conscripts, armed with
AK-47's in APC's vs small army of conscripts, armed with FNC's in
trucks" - not sure I like those odds.
> [And forget the WP satellite armies; a Pole or Czech might fight hard if
> NATO forces *invaded Poland or Czechoslovakia*, but that's surpassingly
> unlikely. The question is whether that same guy is fix bayonets and
> charge into Germany. And East Germans fighting against their cousins in
> Bonn? Forget it.
I'm not so sure - a "border incident" can always be created to make it
look like Nato invaded etc. Also, some NKVD troops in your rear giving
you the choice between advancing or a bullet in the head can also be
mighty convincing.
> But games almost always get this part wrong; they just put a different
> color on the counters for East German divisions, and they behave just
> like Russians. Not.]
Correct. They should fight *better* than Russian troops - they're
German after all :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
3f1a52...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > Great year for wargaming, 2009; now we're recommending games that run on
> > an emulator for a PC introduced in 1977.
>
> Maybe that's the strength of wargames - like a good movie or a good
> book, much of their quality doesn't diminish over the decades.
>
> No doubt at all we will still be able to recommend HTTR to someone
> asking for a good M-G game in twenty years time.
Emulators suck, though, even when emulating DOS; there's always some
niggling issue or other. The joystick doesn't work. What documentation
there is fails to include copy protection features. F keys are
monkeyfucked, or the original computer had keys modern ones don't.
So our future friend running Windows XVIII probably won't have an "XP
Compatibility" feature.
Giftzwerg
a2f7c1...@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > "Big army of conscripts, armed with Russian junk" vs "smaller highly
> > trained professional force armed with latest western gear" always seems
> > to turn out one way.
>
> Yeah, but in my case it was a "big army of conscripts, armed with
> AK-47's in APC's vs small army of conscripts, armed with FNC's in
> trucks" - not sure I like those odds.
Yeah, but in NATO COMMANDER, you guys were one of those "little"
counters that I kept around to briefly plug a hole here and there.
Usually didn't get shot up too badly.
[Oh, and has anyone mentioned NATO COMMANDER yet in this thread? Whee,
another great wargame from twenty years ago.]
> > [And forget the WP satellite armies; a Pole or Czech might fight hard if
> > NATO forces *invaded Poland or Czechoslovakia*, but that's surpassingly
> > unlikely. The question is whether that same guy is fix bayonets and
> > charge into Germany. And East Germans fighting against their cousins in
> > Bonn? Forget it.
>
> I'm not so sure - a "border incident" can always be created to make it
> look like Nato invaded etc. Also, some NKVD troops in your rear giving
> you the choice between advancing or a bullet in the head can also be
> mighty convincing.
>
> > But games almost always get this part wrong; they just put a different
> > color on the counters for East German divisions, and they behave just
> > like Russians. Not.]
>
> Correct. They should fight *better* than Russian troops - they're
> German after all :)
I'm simply questioning the willingness for any of these guys -
*including Russian troops* - to fight like suicidal demons so Leonid
Brezhnev could rule millions of annoying Frenchmen.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <a31963d9-1f42-4879-aa56-
> a2f7c1d0a...@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > > "Big army of conscripts, armed with Russian junk" vs "smaller highly
> > > trained professional force armed with latest western gear" always seems
> > > to turn out one way.
>
> > Yeah, but in my case it was a "big army of conscripts, armed with
> > AK-47's in APC's vs small army of conscripts, armed with FNC's in
> > trucks" - not sure I like those odds.
>
> Yeah, but in NATO COMMANDER, you guys were one of those "little"
> counters that I kept around to briefly plug a hole here and there.
>
> Usually didn't get shot up too badly.
Let me put another data-point in here regarding Nato "quality". Our
airforce - basically F-16 fighters *without* the ECM upgrade the US
planes got and Mirage 5 ground-attack aircraft - made in 1965. And we
were considered an *excellent* airforce compared to other minor Nato
countries.
> [Oh, and has anyone mentioned NATO COMMANDER yet in this thread? Whee,
> another great wargame from twenty years ago.]
Who can forget the cartoonish US general yelling into the phone on the
box cover ? :)
Played that game with a buddy who could afford a computer at the time.
And (wargame) software too was incredibly expensive.
> I'm simply questioning the willingness for any of these guys -
> *including Russian troops* - to fight like suicidal demons so Leonid
> Brezhnev could rule millions of annoying Frenchmen.
The plan was always to stop at the right bank of the Rhine - those
Ruskies weren't *that* stupid :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> And (wargame) software too was incredibly expensive.
A quick Google can show us just how expensive :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19460286/SSI-Spring-1985-Catalog
Inflation between 1985 and today is about 200% - so double those
prices to get an accurate idea
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Holdit
giftzw...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <a31963d9-1f42-4879-aa56-
> a2f7c1...@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > > "Big army of conscripts, armed with Russian junk" vs "smaller highly
> > > trained professional force armed with latest western gear" always seems
> > > to turn out one way.
> >
> > Yeah, but in my case it was a "big army of conscripts, armed with
> > AK-47's in APC's vs small army of conscripts, armed with FNC's in
> > trucks" - not sure I like those odds.
>
> Yeah, but in NATO COMMANDER, you guys were one of those "little"
> counters that I kept around to briefly plug a hole here and there.
>
> Usually didn't get shot up too badly.
>
> [Oh, and has anyone mentioned NATO COMMANDER yet in this thread? Whee,
> another great wargame from twenty years ago.]
>
You mean the one that used to run on the Commodore 64?
Holdit
--
"Madame, they told me you were ugly; they did not exaggerate."
- Napoleon
Øystein Tvedten
>
> [And forget the WP satellite armies; a Pole or Czech might fight hard if
> NATO forces *invaded Poland or Czechoslovakia*, but that's surpassingly
> unlikely. The question is whether that same guy is fix bayonets and
> charge into Germany. And East Germans fighting against their cousins in
> Bonn? Forget it.
I think the East Germans would fight the West Germans. When it comes to
ideaology, being the same race/nation has never been a hinderance.
Look at South/North-Vietnam and South/North-Korea. Both fought wars
against their counterparts with no qualms.
As for the standard of the WP satellite armies, your thoughts do mirror
that of Hackett in his "The Third World War: The Untold Story", when
he has a rundown of the various sides in his setting. (And seeing as
he used to command the British Army on the Rhine before he wrote his
WWIII books, I figure he might have a tiny clue about it).
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <MPG.253f8cb677e312ff989...@news-east.giganews.com>,
> giftzwerg...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <a31963d9-1f42-4879-aa56-
> > a2f7c1d0a...@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
>
> > > > "Big army of conscripts, armed with Russian junk" vs "smaller highly
> > > > trained professional force armed with latest western gear" always seems
> > > > to turn out one way.
>
> > > Yeah, but in my case it was a "big army of conscripts, armed with
> > > AK-47's in APC's vs small army of conscripts, armed with FNC's in
> > > trucks" - not sure I like those odds.
>
> > Yeah, but in NATO COMMANDER, you guys were one of those "little"
> > counters that I kept around to briefly plug a hole here and there.
>
> > Usually didn't get shot up too badly.
>
> > [Oh, and has anyone mentioned NATO COMMANDER yet in this thread? Whee,
> > another great wargame from twenty years ago.]
>
> You mean the one that used to run on the Commodore 64?
IIRC it was available for multiple platforms - the usual suspects
Commodore 64, Atari ST, Apple II
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Holdit
6aa448...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> On 14 okt, 14:51, Holdit <holdi...@SPAMindigoPLEASE.ie> wrote:
> > In article <MPG.253f8cb677e312ff989...@news-east.giganews.com>,
> > giftzwerg...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
>
I remember that one well. Particularly the frustration when trying to
obtain a nuclear release...
Other good games I remember from then were Combat <something> which was
a top-down tactical real-time WW2 and later land combat game. I think
you could command up to a couple of companies with APCs support weapons
tanks etc.
The game I played most back then on the C64 was Silent Service, which
was actually a cracking WW2 Pacific sub sim. Alright, you could duke it
out on the with Japanese destroyers *and win!*, and there were, IIRC,
only three types of merchant ship, but if sure kept you coming back for
more. The fact that starting a new game involved reloading the game from
tape (and hit-and-mainly-miss affair) made you very very careful aboutt
he risks you took in getting that tonnage.
The most addictive game I played around that time was a non-wargame
whose name I can't remember and which have tried to find on the web
without success. I think it came free with a magazine and may have been
called "Frustration" or something similar. It consisted of manoeuvring a
disc over a number of squares. When the disc moved onto a square, that
square would explode after about a second, taking your disk (life) with
it. Your "life" was also lost if you moving into empty space where there
were no squares. The objective was to keep your disc on the move,
exploding every square on the screen in order to progress to the next
level. Not as easy as it might sound, for you could very easily get the
sequence wrong and end up with unexploded squares that you could no
longer reach. Subsequent levels added squares that had to be moved over
once in order to prime them and again in order to actually explode them.
Resting places and teleport spots were also thrown in. I can remember
many times having to map out the route with a dry-wipe marker on the TV
screen...
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> The game I played most back then on the C64 was Silent Service, which
> was actually a cracking WW2 Pacific sub sim.
Played that one on my first IBM XT – 4.77 Mhz – must have demolished
the “D” (Dive) key on my keyboard a couple of times by hitting it so
hard :)
Enemy ships were just 2-3 pixels on your sonar screen but you could
make out their heading and speed and your torpedoes showed up on it
too so after you had spend sufficient time with the game you could see
whether or not they were going to miss. After a while you would really
husband those few torpedoes you had and sometimes slow down a tanker
by hitting it just once, then wait until dark, catch up to it and
finish it off with your deck gun. The destroyers usually followed the
main convoy leaving the lone tanker as easy prey. You could really
rack up the tonnage that way.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bostonmyk
Red Storm Rising (Microprose) was a great cold war naval game/sim. Not
sure if it came before Gilman's Harpoon 1.x but the similarities are
there.
Bostonmyk
Sorry Eddy wasn't looking for inside info just have you tagged as
somebody that knows whats coming.
M
Giftzwerg
hold...@SPAMindigoPLEASE.ie says...
> > > Yeah, but in my case it was a "big army of conscripts, armed with
> > > AK-47's in APC's vs small army of conscripts, armed with FNC's in
> > > trucks" - not sure I like those odds.
> >
> > Yeah, but in NATO COMMANDER, you guys were one of those "little"
> > counters that I kept around to briefly plug a hole here and there.
> >
> > Usually didn't get shot up too badly.
> >
> > [Oh, and has anyone mentioned NATO COMMANDER yet in this thread? Whee,
> > another great wargame from twenty years ago.]
> >
>
> You mean the one that used to run on the Commodore 64?
Yep. I had the pre-floppy-disk version that loaded from a cassette
tape.
Vincenzo Beretta
> "little" counters that I kept around to briefly plug a hole here and
> there.
Which, interestingly, is the same use that Tom Clancy makes of Belgian
troops in Red Storm Rising.
Usually didn't get shot up too badly.
> [Oh, and has anyone mentioned NATO COMMANDER yet in this
> thread? Whee, another great wargame from twenty years ago.]
I still have it somewhere. I kept almost all of the old Microprose games due
to the sheer value of the manuals.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 14, 3:12 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 13 okt, 17:55, Bostonmyk <boston...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eddy any indications that Panther will do modern or a Cold War themed
> > > game using their HTTR engine?
>
> > Sorry, I'm totally out of the loop regarding Panther Games and even if
> > I wasn't I would be bound by the NDA.
>
> somebody that knows whats coming.
No problem - I didn’t think you did – and never mind the NDA, I’ve got
this self-imposed strict rule to never blabber in here about info
which was given to me off the record. But if you want wild speculation
and totally unfounded rumors then I’m your man :)
In some ways I think many pc wargame developers have become too
secretive, afraid of the dreaded “is it done yet” and “vapourware !”
posts in webforums. I admit that it is a case of striking a good
balance, but over the last year too many games have appeared out of
nowhere. I’m not saying there’s a positive correlation between that
and the (subjective) declining quality, but it won't help either to
bring a game on the market without ever having sounded-out what the
forumites think of the main concepts.
Yes, I’m looking at Operation Barbarossa here again – sorry, can’t
help myself.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Holdit
hold...@SPAMindigoPLEASE.ie says...
> In article <72526af3-a4e4-41c7-8c7e-
> 6aa448...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
> says...
> > On 14 okt, 14:51, Holdit <holdi...@SPAMindigoPLEASE.ie> wrote:
> > > In article <MPG.253f8cb677e312ff989...@news-east.giganews.com>,
> > > giftzwerg...@hotmail.com says...
> > >
> The most addictive game I played around that time was a non-wargame
> whose name I can't remember and which have tried to find on the web
> without success. I think it came free with a magazine and may have been
> called "Frustration" or something similar. It consisted of manoeuvring a
> disc over a number of squares. When the disc moved onto a square, that
> square would explode after about a second, taking your disk (life) with
> it. Your "life" was also lost if you moving into empty space where there
> were no squares. The objective was to keep your disc on the move,
> exploding every square on the screen in order to progress to the next
> level. Not as easy as it might sound, for you could very easily get the
> sequence wrong and end up with unexploded squares that you could no
> longer reach. Subsequent levels added squares that had to be moved over
> once in order to prime them and again in order to actually explode them.
> Resting places and teleport spots were also thrown in. I can remember
> many times having to map out the route with a dry-wipe marker on the TV
> screen...
>
I had a second look and changed my search strategy and located the
details in about five minutes. Duh. (Searched Google images instead and
checked out the thumbnails that looked close).
It was actually called "Sensitive" - I must have confused the name with
the emotion most frequently experienced while playing it.
Here it is:
http://www.lemon64.com/?mainurl=http%
3A//www.lemon64.com/reviews/view.php%3Fid%3D485
Giftzwerg
@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, bost...@gmail.com says...
> Red Storm Rising (Microprose) was a great cold war naval game/sim. Not
> sure if it came before Gilman's Harpoon 1.x but the similarities are
> there.
RSR is, to my mind, an absolutely shining example of pure gameplay; the
designers of RSR were complete geniuses at taking out all the bullshit
that got in the way, and leaving in all the cool stuff.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> > Yeah, but in NATO COMMANDER, you guys were one of those
> > "little" counters that I kept around to briefly plug a hole here and
> > there.
>
> Which, interestingly, is the same use that Tom Clancy makes of Belgian
> troops in Red Storm Rising.
>
> Usually didn't get shot up too badly.
All fine and dandy. But has any of those authors / developers ever
seen the Belgian army in those days from the inside as I did ?
I can assure you what may have looked impressive on paper wasn't when
you *really* knew what was going on. Planes which were there on paper
were IRL simply cannibalized for spare parts - and not just one or two
but fully half of our TO&E.
In the usual "protecting your lower behind" manner I'm pretty sure the
real situation *never* got reported upstairs.
Oh, sure, things were most likely not very much different in many WP
countries, but could you really gamble on the other guy being just as
incompetent in such matters ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
> > [And forget the WP satellite armies; a Pole or Czech might fight hard if
> > NATO forces *invaded Poland or Czechoslovakia*, but that's surpassingly
> > unlikely. The question is whether that same guy is fix bayonets and
> > charge into Germany. And East Germans fighting against their cousins in
> > Bonn? Forget it.
>
> I think the East Germans would fight the West Germans. When it comes to
> ideaology, being the same race/nation has never been a hinderance.
> Look at South/North-Vietnam and South/North-Korea. Both fought wars
> against their counterparts with no qualms.
Ideology? Bah. It took East Germans about .000005 nanoseconds to turn
the Berlin Wall into a mountain of souvenirs when the Communists lost
their mojo; as it turned out, there were only about 17 ideologically-
committed commies in the whole country.
I think the worst problem the East German Army would have presented NATO
forces would have been whole divisions of defectors and surrenders to
process.
> As for the standard of the WP satellite armies, your thoughts do mirror
> that of Hackett in his "The Third World War: The Untold Story", when
> he has a rundown of the various sides in his setting. (And seeing as
> he used to command the British Army on the Rhine before he wrote his
> WWIII books, I figure he might have a tiny clue about it).
Just a tad.
And Hackett's scenario runs fairly congruent with Tom Clancy's later
novel, absent only the nuclear climax ... and in this I think Clancy had
the better of him.
There used to be a saying / joke that NATO's plan for WW3 was, "fight
like hell for three days ... then blow up the world," but I never
subscribed to that. No Russian premier was going to use nukes to take
Frankfurt at the cost of losing Moscow, and no American president was
going to lose New York to keep Hannover out of Soviet hands.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> and no American president was
> going to lose New York to keep Hannover out of Soviet hands.
Given the reputation the Hessians acquired in the American
Revolutionary wars one might suspect the US president nukes Hannover
first :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
e1db36...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > Which, interestingly, is the same use that Tom Clancy makes of Belgian
> > troops in Red Storm Rising.
> >
> > Usually didn't get shot up too badly.
>
> All fine and dandy. But has any of those authors / developers ever
> seen the Belgian army in those days from the inside as I did ?
>
> I can assure you what may have looked impressive on paper wasn't when
> you *really* knew what was going on. Planes which were there on paper
> were IRL simply cannibalized for spare parts - and not just one or two
> but fully half of our TO&E.
> In the usual "protecting your lower behind" manner I'm pretty sure the
> real situation *never* got reported upstairs.
>
> Oh, sure, things were most likely not very much different in many WP
> countries, but could you really gamble on the other guy being just as
> incompetent in such matters ?
I think it's arguable that even the *Soviet* Army was probably much,
much less strong than it appeared to be to outside eyes, and that's
something most game designers get wrong. Western observers demonstrated
a tremendous ability to overestimate all things Soviet.
Bostonmyk
> In article <4e125cc4-613c-4aa9-950c-
> e1db36462...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
Nobody really knows what the result might have been but think that's
really part of the selling point of these games. It might also be the
last time for a long time where mass tank battles may have taken place
baring places like the Horn of Africa etc.
Bostonmyk
I'm involved in a couple of projects and mum is the word because the
wargaming (particularly naval wargaming) crowd seems to eat its young
if given the opportunity. Best to keep your mouth shut until you can
at least think you'll get some return on investment (money or fun).
M
M. Ziegler
> Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> [And forget the WP satellite armies; a Pole or Czech might fight hard if
>> NATO forces *invaded Poland or Czechoslovakia*, but that's surpassingly
>> unlikely. The question is whether that same guy is fix bayonets and
>> charge into Germany. And East Germans fighting against their cousins in
>> Bonn? Forget it.
>
> I think the East Germans would fight the West Germans. When it comes to
> ideaology, being the same race/nation has never been a hinderance.
> Look at South/North-Vietnam and South/North-Korea. Both fought wars
> against their counterparts with no qualms.
>
> As for the standard of the WP satellite armies, your thoughts do mirror
> that of Hackett in his "The Third World War: The Untold Story", when
> he has a rundown of the various sides in his setting. (And seeing as
> he used to command the British Army on the Rhine before he wrote his
> WWIII books, I figure he might have a tiny clue about it).
>
> �ystein
I remember the DDR Grenztruppen in the 70s and 80s, when I was on duty
at the East German border, often together with US Army patrols.
The Grenztruppen didnt talk to us. They showed us theirs backs, when we
tried to talk. They were trained to fight against the NATO. And the most
part of the National Volksarmee would have done the same. Probably
harder than the Russians.
Michael
M. Ziegler
> On 13 okt, 23:28, Dav Vandenbroucke
> <dav_and_frances_vandenbrou...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>> There was Seapower and the State, a global naval game by Simulations
>> Canada. It's in the queue for reprinting by Omega Games.
>
> Will check it out. SimCan hmm. In case you didn't know : Matrix owns
> the rights to make computer wargames based on their portfolio.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
I played a game called Red Lightning from SSI on my ATARI ST over 20
years ago. It had all the NATO divisions and brigades. 3 German Corps
and 2 US Corps were the main forces to stop the WP until reinforcements
from the US arrived.
Michael
HermanH
<eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 okt, 12:44, oyste...@ifi.uio.no (Øystein Tvedten) wrote:
>
> > Another interesting WWIII book is
>
> > The Third World War &
> > The Third World War: The Untold Story
>
>
> Got them both. They focus more on the land battles in Germany with the
> naval action more in the background. Overall I like the Michael Palmer
> book more because ... well ... I'm pretty much convinced that the
> naval/air superiority battles would have been more important than the
> land battles.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
I, too, liked the Palmer novel more for the focus on the naval side.
It just seemed more... personal. Although you won't play Harpoon, I'm
sure that you can relate to these scenarios we made for it.
1.0 Mugging the
Forrestal
2.0 Operation RINOK-CAD
3.0 Knife-Fight
4.0 Bagel Station
5.0 Spanish Omelet
6.0 A Tale of Two Carriers - Part 1
7.0 A Tale of Two Carriers - Part 2
8.0 Plight of the Moskva
9.0 Lock-On
10.0 Soviet Indian Ocean Squadron
11.0 Turkey Trots to Water
12.0 Operations Plan 220-90
13.0 Hemphill's Ordeal
14.0 Get the Tbilisi
15.0 Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors
I only read one of Hackett's books and can't remember which one it
was (I think it was the first one). Can anyone quickly tell me the
difference between the two?
Giftzwerg
> I remember the DDR Grenztruppen in the 70s and 80s, when I was on duty
> at the East German border, often together with US Army patrols.
> The Grenztruppen didnt talk to us. They showed us theirs backs, when we
> tried to talk. They were trained to fight against the NATO. And the most
> part of the National Volksarmee would have done the same. Probably
> harder than the Russians.
Hmmm. Isn't it likely that East German *border guards* were drawn from
the ranks of committed party members, picked due to loyalty and in a
special circumstance where a non-fully-committed man could defect with
vastly greater ease than any member of the national army?
Or that defection - or even a significant breaking of regulations -
might earn them and / or their families a ticket to the gulag?
In other words, Bad Population Sample error. It's like gauging the
willingness of Soviet citizens to escape to the west by examining
defection rates among KGB officers or embassy staff living in London and
Washington.
Giftzwerg
> > Will check it out. SimCan hmm. In case you didn't know : Matrix owns
> > the rights to make computer wargames based on their portfolio.
> I played a game called Red Lightning from SSI on my ATARI ST over 20
> years ago. It had all the NATO divisions and brigades. 3 German Corps
> and 2 US Corps were the main forces to stop the WP until reinforcements
> from the US arrived.
One of Norm Koger's first efforts, IIRC. Played the heck out of it on
my 286.
Giftzwerg
@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...
> I only read one of Hackett's books and can't remember which one it
> was (I think it was the first one). Can anyone quickly tell me the
> difference between the two?
The first book was specifically about the ground war in Europe. The
second filled in the rest (stuff like Central America, etc.). Although
they dovetailed fairly well, I always thought Hackett should have had
them edited into one larger, unified volume, much like Francis Ford
Coppola merged GODFATHER and GODFATHER II into the miniseries THE
GODFATHER SAGA.
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> I, too, liked the Palmer novel more for the focus on the naval side.
> It just seemed more... personal. Although you won't play Harpoon, I'm
> sure that you can relate to these scenarios we made for it.
>
> 1.0 Mugging the
> Forrestal
Ha, the Badgers coming in unseen from over the North Pole due to the
Hawkeye watching the sector developing engine trouble - it felt a bit
forced as a story because it sorta required all the planets aligning
for it to happen. Shades of Midway too.
> I only read one of Hackett's books and can't remember which one it
> was (I think it was the first one). Can anyone quickly tell me the
> difference between the two?
The second one was sort of an update on the first - taking into
account new political and technical developments - they're 75%
identical for the rest - I got the first (or the second - can't
remember) on the cheap that's why I have both.
Went upstairs to have a hands-on look, couldn't find them, vaguely
remembered I had lend them out years ago .. to my dad. Mental note :
never lend out books, not even to family :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Ray O'Hara
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8cf0cdcf-e4ff-4b27...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 okt, 03:48, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Libya is a ways from any help and Kaddafy isn't stupid.
>> and what of any value could they grab? they have all the nearby oil
>> already.
>
> Yeah, saw that plot-hole too - I guess the author needed a Central-Med
> enemy to prevent both US carriers in the Med to join up too soon
> versus Syriah.
>
>> NK could be dealt with by SK.
>
> Have you checked recently how close Seoul is to the demilitarized
> zone ? In this case the author's plot actually is that the Kremlin
> didn't want NK to enter the war, but the guys in charge there saw it
> as a golden opportunity with the US being distracted elsewhere. Made
> more sense than the Libyan thing.
>
> Greetz,
yes I know how close Seoul is to the border. It fell quite quickly in the
Korean war. but the ROK army is much better now than it was in 1950.
NK doesn't have the infrastructure to maintain a war. everything goes into
the army.
and if history has taught us anything its not what you have at the start but
what you can replace.
>
> Eddy Sterckx
Bostonmyk
> In article <15bc1475-bb31-49bd-9a8d-4d89c10d4564
>
> > Red Storm Rising (Microprose) was a great cold war naval game/sim. Not
> > sure if it came before Gilman's Harpoon 1.x but the similarities are
> > there.
>
> RSR is, to my mind, an absolutely shining example of pure gameplay; the
> designers of RSR were complete geniuses at taking out all the bullshit
> that got in the way, and leaving in all the cool stuff.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "BREAKING: Obama named Motor Trend's Car of the Year!"
> - Ace of Spades
How about M1 Tank Platoon?
Speaking of hasn't Steel Beasts/Steel Beast's Pro kind of morphed into
something beyond its original sim design. Command looks to be above
platoon? Anybody that has this know?
FWIW it does seem to be at least the best looking Cold War themed tank
sim there is/was.
HermanH
<eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ha, the Badgers coming in unseen from over the North Pole due to the
> Hawkeye watching the sector developing engine trouble - it felt a bit
> forced as a story because it sorta required all the planets aligning
> for it to happen. Shades of Midway too.
I think that a significant shortcoming of most wargames is their
inability to simulate real life problems like breakdowns. Temporary
lapses like engine failure probably play a greater role in real life
operations than folks would like to acknowledge. I'm not sure if I
want to see ships and planes falling apart the moment they are used
(like they are in War in the Pacific), but a little variability would
likely yield an exponential number of interesting situations.
Giftzwerg
4afd35...@m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, bost...@gmail.com says...
> > > Red Storm Rising (Microprose) was a great cold war naval game/sim. Not
> > > sure if it came before Gilman's Harpoon 1.x but the similarities are
> > > there.
> >
> > RSR is, to my mind, an absolutely shining example of pure gameplay; the
> > designers of RSR were complete geniuses at taking out all the bullshit
> > that got in the way, and leaving in all the cool stuff.
> How about M1 Tank Platoon?
How about it? I *loved* that game.
> Speaking of hasn't Steel Beasts/Steel Beast's Pro kind of morphed into
> something beyond its original sim design. Command looks to be above
> platoon? Anybody that has this know?
>
> FWIW it does seem to be at least the best looking Cold War themed tank
> sim there is/was.
Have they gone 3D yet? The version I have - elderly, admittedly - was
the last holdout.
Giftzwerg
@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...
I'm curious here. Just about every HARPOON scenario I've ever played -
like 99% of them - has been a hypothetical.
You're an expert on HARPOON. How many *historical* scenarios built for
the various implementations of the HARPOON system bear any relation to
reality? Or yield ostensibly valid historical results?
Giftzwerg
giftzw...@hotmail.com says...
Oops. I mean, "ASSUME you're an expert on HARPOON."
Asking everyone.
Dav Vandenbroucke
>Will check it out. SimCan hmm. In case you didn't know : Matrix owns
>the rights to make computer wargames based on their portfolio.
I did, actually. I have Flashpoint: Germany. A good game for fog
of war and lack of control.
Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net
Bostonmyk
> In article <MPG.253ff9dafa95cf8b989...@news-east.giganews.com>,
> giftzwerg...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > In article <01c62e99-1d0b-482e-af57-c5f45ce5cb47
> > @v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, herman...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > > Ha, the Badgers coming in unseen from over the North Pole due to the
> > > > Hawkeye watching the sector developing engine trouble - it felt a bit
> > > > forced as a story because it sorta required all the planets aligning
> > > > for it to happen. Shades of Midway too.
>
> > > I think that a significant shortcoming of most wargames is their
> > > inability to simulate real life problems like breakdowns. Temporary
> > > lapses like engine failure probably play a greater role in real life
> > > operations than folks would like to acknowledge. I'm not sure if I
> > > want to see ships and planes falling apart the moment they are used
> > > (like they are in War in the Pacific), but a little variability would
> > > likely yield an exponential number of interesting situations.
>
> > I'm curious here. Just about every HARPOON scenario I've ever played -
> > like 99% of them - has been a hypothetical.
>
> > You're an expert on HARPOON. How many *historical* scenarios built for
> > the various implementations of the HARPOON system bear any relation to
> > reality? Or yield ostensibly valid historical results?
>
> Oops. I mean, "ASSUME you're an expert on HARPOON."
>
> Asking everyone.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "BREAKING: Obama named Motor Trend's Car of the Year!"
> - Ace of Spades
Depends. Both are operational with different levels of detail and I
think the HCCE gets away with more because it's models scope are
generally the same whereas with Harpoon 3 you may have a hyper
realistic weather model you have a poor gun model. In terms of
outcomes you can run some of Hughes's salvo models vs. Harpoon and
get similar results however there just isn't enough real data in your
control group to really know. Fact part of AGSI's update to the
product is rolling back to more generational type models to be more
inline with the paper game. I'm not sure exactly why they've done this
as obviously a computer can handle a few more calcs than we can and
certainly doesn't lend itself to accuracy/fidelity.
In all fairness though I haven't touched a version since one or two
patches past ANW release and looking at Herman's current bug list that
has proven to be a wise decision.
I do see now you can "take over" units. Wonder what the calculation is
for that? Wanna bet hit or miss? :)
Bostonmyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgzGGqEOu68&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh43j4MUT7s&feature=player_embedded
M
On Oct 14, 4:03 pm, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <2baf2188-87c1-47d2-a4f7-
> 4afd352b2...@m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, boston...@gmail.com says...
Ray O'Hara
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a31963d9-1f42-4879...@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On 14 okt, 13:51, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Big army of conscripts, armed with Russian junk" vs "smaller highly
> trained professional force armed with latest western gear" always seems
> to turn out one way.
Yeah, but in my case it was a "big army of conscripts, armed with
AK-47's in APC's vs small army of conscripts, armed with FNC's in
trucks" - not sure I like those odds.
> [And forget the WP satellite armies; a Pole or Czech might fight hard if
> NATO forces *invaded Poland or Czechoslovakia*, but that's surpassingly
> unlikely. The question is whether that same guy is fix bayonets and
> charge into Germany. And East Germans fighting against their cousins in
> Bonn? Forget it.
I'm not so sure - a "border incident" can always be created to make it
look like Nato invaded etc. Also, some NKVD troops in your rear giving
you the choice between advancing or a bullet in the head can also be
mighty convincing.
> But games almost always get this part wrong; they just put a different
> color on the counters for East German divisions, and they behave just
> like Russians. Not.]
Correct. They should fight *better* than Russian troops - they're
German after all :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border incidents only fool the home front.
old T34/885s weren't very mechanically reliable when new, 40 years on they'd
be worse.
the East Germans were a wild card. they could be the Pacts best troops or
they might change sides, one can never tell with the gerries.
Game designers love to give units the best/latest stuff.
look at TOAW Barbarossa scenarios, most will have the Pnzr Divs equipped
with MkIIIs and IVs with nary a 35T OR 38T in sight whereas they were half
the German tanks at the start.
Ray O'Hara
""�ystein" Tvedten" <oyst...@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:wyw3a5m...@padme.ifi.uio.no...
> Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [And forget the WP satellite armies; a Pole or Czech might fight hard if
>> NATO forces *invaded Poland or Czechoslovakia*, but that's surpassingly
>> unlikely. The question is whether that same guy is fix bayonets and
>> charge into Germany. And East Germans fighting against their cousins in
>> Bonn? Forget it.
>
> ideaology, being the same race/nation has never been a hinderance.
> Look at South/North-Vietnam and South/North-Korea. Both fought wars
> against their counterparts with no qualms.
>
> As for the standard of the WP satellite armies, your thoughts do mirror
> that of Hackett in his "The Third World War: The Untold Story", when
> he has a rundown of the various sides in his setting. (And seeing as
> he used to command the British Army on the Rhine before he wrote his
> WWIII books, I figure he might have a tiny clue about it).
>
> �ystein
Hackett had a political agenda, that was to get more funding for the army.
that's why Pentagon officials always mentioned the 40,000 soviet tanks and
the "Sverdlovsk cruiser threat?"
the 4 Sverdlovsks were 17,000 cruisers, much largeer than any USN cruisers
in service, a fact played up but they neglegted to mention they were aremed
with 12 6'inch guns and no missles.
Russian tanks used grain alcohol as hydralic fluid. russian tank crew
routinely drank it.
the Pact would have been lucky to reach the iron curtin never mind reach the
rhine
Ray O'Hara
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e125cc4-613c-4aa9...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
the west wasn't really expecting the Belgian Army to go it alone.
smr
I remember getting those glossy CIA "State of the Reds" type magazine
things back in the 80's where they would gin up pictures and paintings
of what they thought the Sovs had coming into development. Space
shuttles that were armored and could blow up ours in no time,
T-90something tanks that were lethal to the Abrams... a bang up job of
trying to scare up more funds for the mil-ind complex. Scared the shit
out of me as a war-obsessed Cold War baby.
Odd that precisely none of that shit ever saw production in real life.
--
smr
BP
<andrew_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>SPI had 'World War III' which was supposedly strategic in scope, though only
>on a single map. Tedious and unplayable, I'm sorry to say.
Ah, but we used to have such fun making up our own rules using the SPI
WWIII map! And since my best friend and I both had the game, we even
made up a PBM version to play while we were in college in different
cities (no, not PBEM, this was PBM in 1983).
BP
HermanH
> In article <01c62e99-1d0b-482e-af57-c5f45ce5cb47
>
> > I think that a significant shortcoming of most wargames is their
> > inability to simulate real life problems like breakdowns. Temporary
> > lapses like engine failure probably play a greater role in real life
> > operations than folks would like to acknowledge. I'm not sure if I
> > want to see ships and planes falling apart the moment they are used
> > (like they are in War in the Pacific), but a little variability would
> > likely yield an exponential number of interesting situations.
>
> I'm curious here. Just about every HARPOON scenario I've ever played -
> like 99% of them - has been a hypothetical.
>
> You're an expert on HARPOON. How many *historical* scenarios built for
> the various implementations of the HARPOON system bear any relation to
> reality? Or yield ostensibly valid historical results?
Very true, IMO. There just haven't been all that many situations
where the Cold War went Hot. However, there are a few historical
scenarios. The best example might be the Falklands and a number of
scenarios have been written (both historical and hypothetical) and
there is a historical record for comparison.
The Exocet attack resulting in the loss of the Sheffield is a good
case in point. I've tried various iterations of that situation and I
invariably shoot down the Super Etendards detailed to attack the task
force. In real life, the commander was busy with a call from UK
MinDef when the attack occurred (and other human factors). The fact
that the games allow you nearly omniscient control of virtually
everything means that you will almost never suffer from surprise.
In this case, the Harpoon paper rules might better simulate this
attack since special rules can be implemented to delay a human
response to inbound missiles. Of course, this isn't possible with
computer Harpoon.
Bostonmyk
Not to mention not being able to turn individual sensors on and off
but only groups (air,surface,sonar) of them which is a big problem if
you consider ESM detection. You might also note that without
realistic ready times (like in HCCE) you can pretty much generate
hundreds of sorties a day which pretty much eliminates the need for
the staying power of a surface Navy. Speaking of surface ships have
you ever noticed something off about rates of fire with surface guns?
You know like there really is none:) There are huge logical problems
like these all over the place and none have ever been addressed...and
I'm noticing they don't appear in your buglist either. Duh!
Not that the 4 people still playing the games would notice....Anyways
probably picking on AGSI a bit much as nobody has really stepped up
to compete with them enough to drive some innovation. Hope they can
hang when it happens though.
Back to thinking about M1 Tank Platoon and RSR.
M
Giftzwerg
13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...
> > > I think that a significant shortcoming of most wargames is their
> > > inability to simulate real life problems like breakdowns. Temporary
> > > lapses like engine failure probably play a greater role in real life
> > > operations than folks would like to acknowledge. I'm not sure if I
> > > want to see ships and planes falling apart the moment they are used
> > > (like they are in War in the Pacific), but a little variability would
> > > likely yield an exponential number of interesting situations.
> >
> > I'm curious here. Just about every HARPOON scenario I've ever played -
> > like 99% of them - has been a hypothetical.
> >
> > You're an expert on HARPOON. How many *historical* scenarios built for
> > the various implementations of the HARPOON system bear any relation to
> > reality? Or yield ostensibly valid historical results?
>
>
> Very true, IMO. There just haven't been all that many situations
> where the Cold War went Hot. However, there are a few historical
> scenarios. The best example might be the Falklands and a number of
> scenarios have been written (both historical and hypothetical) and
> there is a historical record for comparison.
>
> The Exocet attack resulting in the loss of the Sheffield is a good
> case in point. I've tried various iterations of that situation and I
> invariably shoot down the Super Etendards detailed to attack the task
> force. In real life, the commander was busy with a call from UK
> MinDef when the attack occurred (and other human factors). The fact
> that the games allow you nearly omniscient control of virtually
> everything means that you will almost never suffer from surprise.
Yeah, but the Argies were dancing The Mashed Potatoes all over the
English task force; they knocked off six other ships, mostly with
regular ol' bombs, didn't they? What an embarrassment.
So HARPOON should probably be jiggered to make British ships far less
effective at air defense, at least during this period.
> In this case, the Harpoon paper rules might better simulate this
> attack since special rules can be implemented to delay a human
> response to inbound missiles. Of course, this isn't possible with
> computer Harpoon.
An AWACS or two might have been a good idea, too.
HermanH
> In article <4f509f23-6213-46de-b0f5-91e75ceef379@
> > The Exocet attack resulting in the loss of the Sheffield is a good
> > case in point. I've tried various iterations of that situation and I
> > invariably shoot down the Super Etendards detailed to attack the task
> > force. In real life, the commander was busy with a call from UK
> > MinDef when the attack occurred (and other human factors). The fact
> > that the games allow you nearly omniscient control of virtually
> > everything means that you will almost never suffer from surprise.
>
> Yeah, but the Argies were dancing The Mashed Potatoes all over the
> English task force; they knocked off six other ships, mostly with
> regular ol' bombs, didn't they? What an embarrassment.
>
> So HARPOON should probably be jiggered to make British ships far less
> effective at air defense, at least during this period.
>
I wouldn't totally agree with that sentiment, either. Sure, the UK
aerial defence is a bit better than it was in real life, but Freek
Schepers has been quite masterful with his re-creation of the
historical Falkland situations. He was able to show that massed
attack by planes coming in at very low altitude DO stand a decent
chance of overwhelming the UK SAM defences of the time. The 30nm
radar horizon just doesn't allow much time for the defenders to react
well enough. Perhaps the Argentines have a bit more coordination in
the scenarios than they actually had, but it does seem to at least be
possible to re-create losses similar to those sustained by British.
IIRC, the Argies used smaller raids of 4-12 planes. With Freek's
scenarios, he came in with about 24 planes / wave and enough usually
survived to deal some pretty extensive damage to the task force
ships. Thus, I think that the game gave a fair (but certainly not
perfect) simulation of that particular battle. Alertness, reaction
time, and other human factors could not be simulated within the game.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> but Freek
> Schepers has been quite masterful with his re-creation of the
> historical Falkland situations.
Can anyone recommend a Falkland war book which covers both the land
and naval portion equally well and in detail and for both sides ?
> Alertness, reaction
> time, and other human factors could not be simulated within the game.
The "oh, shit" factor tends to be forgotten a lot in wargames - all
units usually act as if they're automatons :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bostonmyk
Ragnar Emsoy's for Harpoon 3.6 and below seems a bit smarter as he had
two sources that were actually there...although the games shortcomings
really put the kabosh modeling Sheffield's hit etc.
Bostonmyk
Eddy I've always liked Max Hasting's Battle for the Falklands.
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Falklands-Hastings-Simon-Jenkins/dp/0393301982
Bostonmyk
> I wouldn't totally agree with that sentiment, either. Sure, the UK
> aerial defence is a bit better than it was in real life, but Freek
> Schepers has been quite masterful with his re-creation of the
> historical Falkland situations. He was able to show that massed
> attack by planes coming in at very low altitude DO stand a decent
> chance of overwhelming the UK SAM defences of the time. The 30nm
> radar horizon just doesn't allow much time for the defenders to react
> well enough. Perhaps the Argentines have a bit more coordination in
> the scenarios than they actually had, but it does seem to at least be
> possible to re-create losses similar to those sustained by British.
Early warning was generally not provided by the ships themselves but
AEW or other sources. In most case the arrival wasn't a surprise and
the real challenge was setting up the destroyer/frigate pairs to
engage a high speed, low targets which British missiles wheren't
really good at. The 30nm horizon with the ships radars wasn't a huge
factor until the music actually started and then it was just an
engagement parameter.
> IIRC, the Argies used smaller raids of 4-12 planes. With Freek's
> scenarios, he came in with about 24 planes / wave and enough usually
> survived to deal some pretty extensive damage to the task force
> ships. Thus, I think that the game gave a fair (but certainly not
> perfect) simulation of that particular battle. Alertness, reaction
> time, and other human factors could not be simulated within the game.
Okay but what are you really looking at here? I'm sure if the Argie's
could put up 50 aircraft they would have been far more successful and
you probably don't need to sim/model to learn that...but the fact is
they couldn't and pairs and fours was it. Fact name me one 24 aircraft
squadron in Argie service at the time? How about finding a ways what
was actually used/existed could be successful?
Yes I agree that human factors aren't available in the Harpoon games.
I would be nice if you perhaps added that kind of stuff to your
buglist if you're interested in improving Harpoon.
Giftzwerg
@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, bost...@gmail.com says...
> Early warning was generally not provided by the ships themselves but
> AEW or other sources. In most case the arrival wasn't a surprise and
> the real challenge was setting up the destroyer/frigate pairs to
> engage a high speed, low targets which British missiles wheren't
> really good at. The 30nm horizon with the ships radars wasn't a huge
> factor until the music actually started and then it was just an
> engagement parameter.
<laughter>
What were the expectations of the guys who designed the air defense
system? That enemy planes would proceed along at 8,000 feet and make an
EZ target of themselves? Of *course* attackers will come in low; this
has been SOP since 1914.
And I dunno how many Argentine warplanes were available in the naval
attack role, but the ones they scratched together potted *seven* ships;
that's one more than the Japanese lost at Midway.
Jeebus.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> And I dunno how many Argentine warplanes were available in the naval
> attack role, but the ones they scratched together potted *seven* ships;
> that's one more than the Japanese lost at Midway.
>
> Jeebus.
Modern combat is much more deadly than WWII era combat.
The funny things is that the one thing I clearly remember from that
age was that the British public clearly considered itself at war with
the Argentinian Junta and not with the Argentinian people.
Ozzie Ardiles, Argentinian international and star player of Tottenham
was still getting cheered on by British supporters, despite the war.
The other thing I remember is that story where they fired an Exocet
from the back of a truck and hit a British ship - talk about making do
with what you got :)
Then there was Thatcher looking waaaaay tougher than those Junta
generals. One just knew who was going to blink first.
Ok, that's it - just ordered the book :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > And I dunno how many Argentine warplanes were available in the naval
> > attack role, but the ones they scratched together potted *seven* ships;
> > that's one more than the Japanese lost at Midway.
> >
> > Jeebus.
>
> Modern combat is much more deadly than WWII era combat.
The British, though, were trying to do naval warfare "on the cheap," and
were caught without (a) decent AWACS and (b) enough CAP resources to
mark out a meaningful air defense.
Betcha a good many British tars wished ARK ROYAL and EAGLE were still
around.
Bostonmyk
> In article <aa5f61f0-94d8-4af3-8274-9dd2122154e0
>
> > Early warning was generally not provided by the ships themselves but
> > AEW or other sources. In most case the arrival wasn't a surprise and
> > the real challenge was setting up the destroyer/frigate pairs to
> > engage a high speed, low targets which British missiles wheren't
> > really good at. The 30nm horizon with the ships radars wasn't a huge
> > factor until the music actually started and then it was just an
> > engagement parameter.
>
> <laughter>
>
> What were the expectations of the guys who designed the air defense
> system? That enemy planes would proceed along at 8,000 feet and make an
> EZ target of themselves? Of *course* attackers will come in low; this
> has been SOP since 1914.
Gifty early soviet ASM's wheren't sea skimmers but had a parabolic
flight path. The threat was view as being Soviet AS series of missiles
not French sea skimmers. Needless to say after this the French and
Chinese couldn't keep Exocets/Silkworms on their shelves. Hindsight
20/20 kinda thing...
>
> And I dunno how many Argentine warplanes were available in the naval
> attack role, but the ones they scratched together potted *seven* ships;
> that's one more than the Japanese lost at Midway.
>
> Jeebus.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "BREAKING: Obama named Motor Trend's Car of the Year!"
> - Ace of Spades
They still fly many of those aircraft today and is a great example of
why even old airpower is such an effective combat multiplier.
Recently read this book..
http://www.amazon.com/WAR-DOG-Fighting-Peoples-Mercenary/dp/1932033092
which is not really on airpower specifically although tells a pretty
good tale about the impact one Hind gunship had on the tide of entire
conflict... Great read too btw!
M
Giftzwerg
467b62...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, bost...@gmail.com says...
> > > Early warning was generally not provided by the ships themselves but
> > > AEW or other sources. In most case the arrival wasn't a surprise and
> > > the real challenge was setting up the destroyer/frigate pairs to
> > > engage a high speed, low targets which British missiles wheren't
> > > really good at. The 30nm horizon with the ships radars wasn't a huge
> > > factor until the music actually started and then it was just an
> > > engagement parameter.
> >
> > <laughter>
> >
> > What were the expectations of the guys who designed the air defense
> > system? That enemy planes would proceed along at 8,000 feet and make an
> > EZ target of themselves? Of *course* attackers will come in low; this
> > has been SOP since 1914.
>
> Gifty early soviet ASM's wheren't sea skimmers but had a parabolic
> flight path. The threat was view as being Soviet AS series of missiles
> not French sea skimmers. Needless to say after this the French and
> Chinese couldn't keep Exocets/Silkworms on their shelves. Hindsight
> 20/20 kinda thing...
I'm not talking about missiles. I'm talking about bombers.
And, lest we forget, the lion's share of the damage to British ships in
the Falklands was via iron bombs - and the damage would have been vastly
worse if the Argies had fused them properly; most of their bombs didn't
explode. IIRC, only SHEFFIELD and ATLANTIC CONVEYOR were sunk by
Exocets.
Good thing the Argies didn't have a couple of squadrons of Stringbags.
> > And I dunno how many Argentine warplanes were available in the naval
> > attack role, but the ones they scratched together potted *seven* ships;
> > that's one more than the Japanese lost at Midway.
> They still fly many of those aircraft today and is a great example of
> why even old airpower is such an effective combat multiplier.
Speaking of "old," the British were also lucky that their sub was able
to sink the old USS PHOENIX. Fifteen 6/47s pack quite a wallop when the
target is made out of aluminum.
Bostonmyk
> In article <495bab4a-7618-487d-b05a-
> 467b62a98...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, boston...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > > > Early warning was generally not provided by the ships themselves but
> > > > AEW or other sources. In most case the arrival wasn't a surprise and
> > > > the real challenge was setting up the destroyer/frigate pairs to
> > > > engage a high speed, low targets which British missiles wheren't
> > > > really good at. The 30nm horizon with the ships radars wasn't a huge
> > > > factor until the music actually started and then it was just an
> > > > engagement parameter.
>
> > > <laughter>
>
> > > What were the expectations of the guys who designed the air defense
> > > system? That enemy planes would proceed along at 8,000 feet and make an
> > > EZ target of themselves? Of *course* attackers will come in low; this
> > > has been SOP since 1914.
>
> > Gifty early soviet ASM's wheren't sea skimmers but had a parabolic
> > flight path. The threat was view as being Soviet AS series of missiles
> > not French sea skimmers. Needless to say after this the French and
> > Chinese couldn't keep Exocets/Silkworms on their shelves. Hindsight
> > 20/20 kinda thing...
>
> I'm not talking about missiles. I'm talking about bombers.
I was talking about the British SAMS. Assumption was they'd be
operating under the auspices of Strike Fleet Atlantic which sported a
buttload of US carriers and fighters. Iron bombing ships was assumed
to be out of the picture and replaced by the Soviet SSM strike complex
(which included Badger and Backfires shooting supersonic heavy weight
SSM's). Didn't assume they'd have to go it alone against a up until
the junta US client though...
If you really want to get into this stuff alot has come out about the
some of the Soviet Missile designs including that many where hardened
against CIWS etc (Titanium shells etc). They knew their business and
for the most part thats why SAMS designers took them seriously and
perhaps ignored other things.
> And, lest we forget, the lion's share of the damage to British ships in
> the Falklands was via iron bombs - and the damage would have been vastly
> worse if the Argies had fused them properly; most of their bombs didn't
> explode. IIRC, only SHEFFIELD and ATLANTIC CONVEYOR were sunk by
> Exocets.
>
> Good thing the Argies didn't have a couple of squadrons of Stringbags.
Google an Argentine Pucara:)
>
> > > And I dunno how many Argentine warplanes were available in the naval
> > > attack role, but the ones they scratched together potted *seven* ships;
> > > that's one more than the Japanese lost at Midway.
> > They still fly many of those aircraft today and is a great example of
> > why even old airpower is such an effective combat multiplier.
>
> Speaking of "old," the British were also lucky that their sub was able
> to sink the old USS PHOENIX. Fifteen 6/47s pack quite a wallop when the
> target is made out of aluminum.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "BREAKING: Obama named Motor Trend's Car of the Year!"
> - Ace of Spades
and sunk it with a WWII era heavy weight torpedo as well:)
Giftzwerg
@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, bost...@gmail.com says...
> > I'm not talking about missiles. I'm talking about bombers.
>
> I was talking about the British SAMS. Assumption was they'd be
> operating under the auspices of Strike Fleet Atlantic which sported a
> buttload of US carriers and fighters. Iron bombing ships was assumed
> to be out of the picture and replaced by the Soviet SSM strike complex
> (which included Badger and Backfires shooting supersonic heavy weight
> SSM's). Didn't assume they'd have to go it alone against a up until
> the junta US client though...
<shrug>
Pretty stupid assumption, though, and that's kinda my point; no one in
the Admiralty appears to have imagined that they would ever again be
called upon to operate off a hostile coastline against an enemy armed
with good ol' bombs without American heavies backing them up.
> If you really want to get into this stuff alot has come out about the
> some of the Soviet Missile designs including that many where hardened
> against CIWS etc (Titanium shells etc). They knew their business and
> for the most part thats why SAMS designers took them seriously and
> perhaps ignored other things.
This explanation seems way too "Goldilocks" for my tastes; the Brits
were unable to defend against low-tech, 1950s-era bombers toting iron
bombs *and* high-tech, sea-skimming guided missiles.
I guess their air defense would have been "just right" against a bunch
of mid-tech Russian stuff? The Happy Medium?
[And I wish to hell that my pilots in HARPOON were as good with iron
bombs as the Argies...]
> > Good thing the Argies didn't have a couple of squadrons of Stringbags.
>
> Google an Argentine Pucara:)
Didn't they even score a bomb hit with a (!) C-130? Musta shoveled it
out the ramp.
Bostonmyk
> In article <75296372-2689-4815-b552-fff5ea8ba629
>
> > > I'm not talking about missiles. I'm talking about bombers.
>
> > I was talking about the British SAMS. Assumption was they'd be
> > operating under the auspices of Strike Fleet Atlantic which sported a
> > buttload of US carriers and fighters. Iron bombing ships was assumed
> > to be out of the picture and replaced by the Soviet SSM strike complex
> > (which included Badger and Backfires shooting supersonic heavy weight
> > SSM's). Didn't assume they'd have to go it alone against a up until
> > the junta US client though...
>
> <shrug>
>
> Pretty stupid assumption, though, and that's kinda my point; no one in
> the Admiralty appears to have imagined that they would ever again be
> called upon to operate off a hostile coastline against an enemy armed
> with good ol' bombs without American heavies backing them up.
Same could happen today. The Israeli navy had their johnson's knocked
in by what was essentially the same technology for almost the same
reason including mimicking the tactical screwups (if whats been
reported is true). Navies pay a much larger price for mistakes than
any other service.
>
> > If you really want to get into this stuff alot has come out about the
> > some of the Soviet Missile designs including that many where hardened
> > against CIWS etc (Titanium shells etc). They knew their business and
> > for the most part thats why SAMS designers took them seriously and
> > perhaps ignored other things.
>
> This explanation seems way too "Goldilocks" for my tastes; the Brits
> were unable to defend against low-tech, 1950s-era bombers toting iron
> bombs *and* high-tech, sea-skimming guided missiles.
As you mentioned though this is battle proven. Lots of bomb hits and 2
out of 5 exocet shots (IIRC). If Argie bombs fuzing problems had been
solved there would have been alot more losses. I think unexploded
bombs were pulled from one or two of the queens famous that would have
been at the very least mission killed had they gone off.
> I guess their air defense would have been "just right" against a bunch
> of mid-tech Russian stuff? The Happy Medium?
Yeah but ultimately nobody really knows. Answering this question btw
has probably been Harpoons selling point since inception.
> [And I wish to hell that my pilots in HARPOON were as good with iron
> bombs as the Argies...]
Have captain database jimmy those percentages in your direction then:)
Or..wait for a game that acknowledges basic physics and CEP while
being complete transparent to the user. Herman have you added this to
your bug list btw??
>
> > > Good thing the Argies didn't have a couple of squadrons of Stringbags.
>
> > Google an Argentine Pucara:)
>
> Didn't they even score a bomb hit with a (!) C-130? Musta shoveled it
> out the ramp.
I'll look tonight. Its been done in Africa a bunch of times over the
last decade (think in Ethiopia-Eritrea or Sudan).
Thanks
M
HermanH
> Speaking of "old," the British were also lucky that their sub was able
> to sink the old USS PHOENIX. Fifteen 6/47s pack quite a wallop when the
> target is made out of aluminum.
I remember Freek telling me of something he learned while writing his
scenarios. The British sub fired Mk 8 torpedoes instead of the 'more
modern' Mk 24 Tigerfish because of the (supposed) long re-load time of
the Tigerfish and because the skipper wasn't confident about the
reliability of the Tigerfish. Pretty interesting since it was the
primary British weapon for most of the Cold War. :-)
HermanH
You wouldn't believe how one guy tried to 'simulate' this in his
scenario. A lot of guys have written different interpretations about
the Exocet attack on the Sheffield, but Ragnar Emsoy's was one of the
most 'innovative'.
The Etendards would appear and I (and most everyone else) would shoot
them down. A little while later, the Sheffield would just *Blow UP*.
The player would be energetically searching the radar screen for the
cause, but could never find one. Upon later examination after the
game with the Scenario Editor, the player would find out that Ragnar
Emsoy had created a special invisible unit to blow up the Sheffield
in case the Exocet attack failed. That way, it would not matter how
well you executed a defence or what you did in that scenario. The
result would always be the same
At that point, most players just said "Screw it" with this guy and his
ridiculous scenarios since the result was pre-ordained. It didn't
matter what you did, you were going to end up with the same result.
HermanH
> In article <75296372-2689-4815-b552-fff5ea8ba629
> [And I wish to hell that my pilots in HARPOON were as good with iron
> bombs as the Argies...]
>
This raises a good point regarding the bravery of pilots and their
representation in wargames.
You are right that the Harpoon pilots are pretty single-minded. They
attack, and Attack, and ATTACK relentlessly with total disregard for
losses. There have been instances like this in war (i.e. Torpedo 8 at
Midway), but is this usually a fair simulation of what real attack
squadrons would do?
I would think that many attack formations would abort the mission if
60%-80% of their planes were destroyed, but is it just my
imagination? I understand that many of the Argentine attacks turned
back by losses sustained from the UK CAP.
How many other games simulate (or try to) aborted strike missions? I
am learning WiTP AE and it at least has some strike missions abort
before they launch their attack due to enemy opposition (I think).
Forza4Life
> On Oct 14, 5:20 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 14 okt, 12:44, oyste...@ifi.uio.no (Øystein Tvedten) wrote:
>
> > > Another interesting WWIII book is
>
> > > The Third World War &
> > > The Third World War: The Untold Story
>
>
> > Got them both. They focus more on the land battles in Germany with the
> > naval action more in the background. Overall I like the Michael Palmer
> > book more because ... well ... I'm pretty much convinced that the
> > naval/air superiority battles would have been more important than the
> > land battles.
>
> > Greetz,
>
> > Eddy Sterckx
>
> I, too, liked the Palmer novel more for the focus on the naval side.
> It just seemed more... personal. Although you won't play Harpoon, I'm
> sure that you can relate to these scenarios we made for it.
>
> 1.0 Mugging the
> Forrestal
> 2.0 Operation RINOK-CAD
> 3.0 Knife-Fight
> 4.0 Bagel Station
> 5.0 Spanish Omelet
> 6.0 A Tale of Two Carriers - Part 1
> 7.0 A Tale of Two Carriers - Part 2
> 8.0 Plight of the Moskva
> 9.0 Lock-On
> 10.0 Soviet Indian Ocean Squadron
> 11.0 Turkey Trots to Water
> 12.0 Operations Plan 220-90
> 13.0 Hemphill's Ordeal
> 14.0 Get the Tbilisi
> 15.0 Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors
>
> I only read one of Hackett's books and can't remember which one it
> was (I think it was the first one). Can anyone quickly tell me the
> difference between the two?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
herman, the second book was basically a retelling of the first one
with emphasis on other theaters not covered in the first book...and it
covers the nuking of minsk...the first book covered the nuking of
birmingham
Bostonmyk
Yes Eddy you should hate Ragnar Emsoy because people didn't like his
scenario:)
This kinda stuff has played a role in Harpoon as well.
Giftzwerg
@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, bost...@gmail.com says...
> > Pretty stupid assumption, though, and that's kinda my point; no one in
> > the Admiralty appears to have imagined that they would ever again be
> > called upon to operate off a hostile coastline against an enemy armed
> > with good ol' bombs without American heavies backing them up.
>
> Same could happen today. The Israeli navy had their johnson's knocked
> in by what was essentially the same technology for almost the same
> reason including mimicking the tactical screwups (if whats been
> reported is true). Navies pay a much larger price for mistakes than
> any other service.
Is there are HARPOON "what-if" that postulates a US Navy attempt to re-
take the island group?
> > > If you really want to get into this stuff alot has come out about the
> > > some of the Soviet Missile designs including that many where hardened
> > > against CIWS etc (Titanium shells etc). They knew their business and
> > > for the most part thats why SAMS designers took them seriously and
> > > perhaps ignored other things.
> >
> > This explanation seems way too "Goldilocks" for my tastes; the Brits
> > were unable to defend against low-tech, 1950s-era bombers toting iron
> > bombs *and* high-tech, sea-skimming guided missiles.
>
> As you mentioned though this is battle proven. Lots of bomb hits and 2
> out of 5 exocet shots (IIRC). If Argie bombs fuzing problems had been
> solved there would have been alot more losses. I think unexploded
> bombs were pulled from one or two of the queens famous that would have
> been at the very least mission killed had they gone off.
From what I can glean, the British would have been beaten quite easily
if each Argentine bomb that scored a hit had gone off.
Scary.
> > I guess their air defense would have been "just right" against a bunch
> > of mid-tech Russian stuff? The Happy Medium?
>
> Yeah but ultimately nobody really knows. Answering this question btw
> has probably been Harpoons selling point since inception.
Or should have been.
> > Didn't they even score a bomb hit with a (!) C-130? Musta shoveled it
> > out the ramp.
>
> I'll look tonight. Its been done in Africa a bunch of times over the
> last decade (think in Ethiopia-Eritrea or Sudan).
I got interested and found this resource. Is it correct?
http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm
Giftzwerg
@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...
But wasn't the Tigerfish primarily developed for ASW use?
I can almost see a sub driver using an older weapon for a target from
1942.
HermanH
> In article <5bd6c292-3d9f-4bdd-8157-603496d1df61
> Is there are HARPOON "what-if" that postulates a US Navy attempt to re-
> take the island group?
Freek's been reading this thread. I hope that he does make that "What-
if" scenario. The closest he's come so far is to postulate a 4-sided
confrontation involving the Argentines, UK, CVBG Eisenhower, and
Russians operating out of Angola.
HermanH
> In article <5bd6c292-3d9f-4bdd-8157-603496d1df61
> Is there are HARPOON "what-if" that postulates a US Navy attempt to re-
> take the island group?
HermanH
> In article <8b2ce643-4522-47a1-8d84-cfc2d14c0e03
>
> > > Speaking of "old," the British were also lucky that their sub was able
> > > to sink the old USS PHOENIX. Fifteen 6/47s pack quite a wallop when the
> > > target is made out of aluminum.
>
> > I remember Freek telling me of something he learned while writing his
> > scenarios. The British sub fired Mk 8 torpedoes instead of the 'more
> > modern' Mk 24 Tigerfish because of the (supposed) long re-load time of
> > the Tigerfish and because the skipper wasn't confident about the
> > reliability of the Tigerfish. Pretty interesting since it was the
> > primary British weapon for most of the Cold War. :-)
>
> But wasn't the Tigerfish primarily developed for ASW use?
>
> I can almost see a sub driver using an older weapon for a target from
> 1942.
You are close. The homing system was simplified with the capability
to attack ships not being included in the Mod 0 weapon. I think it
was done this way just to get the weapon out of the lab and deployed.
"Early models suffered from poor reliability - only 40% of the Mod 0
ASW model performed as designed. The torpedo depended in large part on
the remote control system but the weapon tended to dip during launch,
severing the control wire. The Mod 0 failed its initial fleet
acceptance trials in 1979 but was nevertheless issued to the fleet in
1980. The Mod 1 anti-ship model also experienced problems, though a
redesigned version passed sea trials in 1978 and was issued the
following year. When HMS Conqueror sank the ARA General Belgrano
during the 1982 Falklands war she used more than 50 year old, but far
more reliable, Mark 8 torpedoes rather than the Tigerfish which she
also carried. In a test carried out after the war two of five Mod 1
Tigerfish fired at a target hulk failed to function at all and the
remaining three failed to hit the target."
Bostonmyk
> On Oct 15, 11:50 am, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <75296372-2689-4815-b552-fff5ea8ba629
> > [And I wish to hell that my pilots in HARPOON were as good with iron
> > bombs as the Argies...]
>
> This raises a good point regarding the bravery of pilots and their
> representation in wargames.
>
> You are right that the Harpoon pilots are pretty single-minded. They
> attack, and Attack, and ATTACK relentlessly with total disregard for
> losses. There have been instances like this in war (i.e. Torpedo 8 at
> Midway), but is this usually a fair simulation of what real attack
> squadrons would do?
Well honestly Harpoon's logic is simply attack.... Its scripted and
there are no points of decision along the way.
Looks like they added parameters to their standard mission sets which
baring an actual AI is a good step forward. What it does to the
support paradigm is another ball of wax....
I've never seen an air sim or naval sim with a moral model. Thanks
Herman! Adding it to a couple of lists.
> I would think that many attack formations would abort the mission if
> 60%-80% of their planes were destroyed, but is it just my
> imagination? I understand that many of the Argentine attacks turned
> back by losses sustained from the UK CAP.
Pilots probably have a great idea about whats going on with the rest
of their groups/wings now (Link 22 and all:) but in 1982 comm and
situational awareness were alot different particularly with BVR
missiles, jamming, ESM, SIGINT etc. filled environment. You'd be very
lucky to know the percentage of your group lost other than your
wingman or flight. Not sure how this would fit into an operational
level game either...something to think about though.
> How many other games simulate (or try to) aborted strike missions? I
> am learning WiTP AE and it at least has some strike missions abort
> before they launch their attack due to enemy opposition (I think).
and here we thought you were obsessed with only Harpoon. :) Lucky them.
Bostonmyk
> In article <5bd6c292-3d9f-4bdd-8157-603496d1df61
>
> > > Pretty stupid assumption, though, and that's kinda my point; no one in
> > > the Admiralty appears to have imagined that they would ever again be
> > > called upon to operate off a hostile coastline against an enemy armed
> > > with good ol' bombs without American heavies backing them up.
>
> > Same could happen today. The Israeli navy had their johnson's knocked
> > in by what was essentially the same technology for almost the same
> > reason including mimicking the tactical screwups (if whats been
> > reported is true). Navies pay a much larger price for mistakes than
> > any other service.
>
> Is there are HARPOON "what-if" that postulates a US Navy attempt to re-
> take the island group?
No but suspect your idea will be Michael Palmered soon:)
Probably tons of Falklands themed scenarios around including some
modern what ifs. Think one of the best added a US Ticonderoga class
cruiser (block 0 non VLS type).
> > > > If you really want to get into this stuff alot has come out about the
> > > > some of the Soviet Missile designs including that many where hardened
> > > > against CIWS etc (Titanium shells etc). They knew their business and
> > > > for the most part thats why SAMS designers took them seriously and
> > > > perhaps ignored other things.
>
> > > This explanation seems way too "Goldilocks" for my tastes; the Brits
> > > were unable to defend against low-tech, 1950s-era bombers toting iron
> > > bombs *and* high-tech, sea-skimming guided missiles.
>
> > As you mentioned though this is battle proven. Lots of bomb hits and 2
> > out of 5 exocet shots (IIRC). If Argie bombs fuzing problems had been
> > solved there would have been alot more losses. I think unexploded
> > bombs were pulled from one or two of the queens famous that would have
> > been at the very least mission killed had they gone off.
>
> From what I can glean, the British would have been beaten quite easily
> if each Argentine bomb that scored a hit had gone off.
>
> Scary.
Yeah and probably knocked one of the bigger Cold Warriors out of
office. A far cry from what Churchill actually got away with:)
Different world though.
> > > I guess their air defense would have been "just right" against a bunch
> > > of mid-tech Russian stuff? The Happy Medium?
>
> > Yeah but ultimately nobody really knows. Answering this question btw
> > has probably been Harpoons selling point since inception.
>
> Or should have been.
>
> > > Didn't they even score a bomb hit with a (!) C-130? Musta shoveled it
> > > out the ramp.
>
> > I'll look tonight. Its been done in Africa a bunch of times over the
> > last decade (think in Ethiopia-Eritrea or Sudan).
>
> I got interested and found this resource. Is it correct?
>
> http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm
Yeah looks right just eyeballing Max's book to your list. Keep in mind
though I've spent most day with my head in VMWare so just a little
fuzzy.