Micro-management or game of command?

[MarkShot]

I just got finished playing a relatively small scenario (don't want to insert spoilers here). There were about 6-10 units on each side.

I just received a total victory as Red after couple of tries. However, to achieve such a victory required a great degree of micro-management and very little command at the high level:

(1) I had to dance in and out with my Mig-23s to take out the Nato ASW choppers without having my fast movers shot down by shipboard SAMs. Thus, it required by the second maneuvering to get a shot on the helos and full AB scoots to out run SAMs.

(2) Sub attacks were also micro-managed against enemy escorts to trying to strip the merchants of their protection. I also used my sub up close to illuminate the enemy warships so that I could fire a saturation attack with my SS-N-9s from my vulnerable PT boats without having to go active and risking exposing them to counter fire.

(3) Finally, having stripped away ASW assets and then escorts, I had my Mig-23s return to finish off the merchants. At which point, I was able to simply order a surface ship air strike.

Well, the reason I am writing this little posting is that, I thought HCCE was supposed to be the high-level game of command. However, I am convinced that no way could I have won this scenario without stepping into the role of each and every group precisely managing speed, course, action, and the exact moment. Simply having given broad stroke orders would have resulted in disaster.

So, is it the case that small scenarios play this way, but big ones allow you to focus on formations and broadstrokes or will larger battles also require me getting into the cockpit of the flight leader, the conn of subs, and the lead ship of groups? I ask, since I had understood that HCCE was the more high-level strategy member of the Harpoon family and H2/3 was the more detailed low-level member of the Harpoon family. However, this last game fit what I understand playing H2/3 should be like.

Comments?

Thanks.

[Stalintc]

Hi Mark, just to try and be helpful, here is how you may be able to go about things without having to micro-manage, there are places where you will have to, its the nature of Harpoon in places and cannot be avoided.

Alot of your problems can be solved using the course and orders at waypoint commands.

I'll try and apply this to the examples you gave.

1) This is very risky, and doing so effectively is a little beyond what the AI was meant to do, but you can do this a little bit more autonomously by the following:

- Plot waypoints into the group containing the helicopters and where you would like to hit them from, at the last waypoint before the ship group add an attack command which will take you through the process of the type of target in the group you wish to attack, when within range of a target it will prompt you to allocate weapons anyway.

- Pre-plot the egress route at full afterburner or whatever you wish to a safe loiter point outside the enemy SAMs.

- so once the attack runs through, you can call off further pursual of the attack at anytime, by making sure the MiG-23 group is highlighted hit course and delete the attack waypoint, the MiG-23's are now doing as you wish without a clickfest.

I applied this technique in my AAR I wrote for the air attack against a SAG for an insight.

You can imagine the problem if it was programmed for aircraft to stay out of SAM engagement zones, you may have a situation where you DO want to risk the aircraft to enter that engagement zone especially if you are commited to a ground attack. Its a bit of a double edged sword I know.

2) Understand what you are saying here. The attack can be performed in a very similar manner to above using the course orders method and since it does allow you to specify depth its perfect for you illumination problem, so you can tell the sub to go to peri to aquire the targets, then after a short time dive and move away.

- Pre-plot your course into the position you wish to perform the illumination

- At the illumination waypoint set a depth order to go to periscope depth and set sensors you wish to use to *ACTIVE*

- Add another waypoint close by, say for example 1nm, for that waypoint set an order to dive to deep and sensors *PASSIVE*

- Then from there add your egress route.

You sub will then perform the illumination procedure without any further input from you.

3) No answer for this one other than of course you must order the ship strike [:D] but im guessing this was not a problem but just finishing off the explaination.

You can play this game strategically, it is a matter of using all of the tools available to you to their fullest and since the game pauses while you are using these tools to pre-plan attacks etc, you have all the time in the world, there is no rush.

I know you play COTR and HTTR, hence your avatar [:)] I do aswell, and I have to say that they are strategicaly perfect and I love them with virtually no micro-management involved, with Harpoon and the way it works there are some limitations and compromises have to be made, so I can understand the impression you get from it.

Dont take my post as an attack, im just trying to make some suggestions so you get the best from HCE and can play the way you would like to [:)]

If this is useful and I can be of further help with this sort of thing, please dont hesitate to ask.

Cheers

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
Well, the reason I am writing this little posting is that, I thought HCCE was supposed to be the high-level game of command. However, I am convinced that no way could I have won this scenario without stepping into the role of each and every group precisely managing speed, course, action, and the exact moment. Simply having given broad stroke orders would have resulted in disaster.

So, is it the case that small scenarios play this way, but big ones allow you to focus on formations and broadstrokes or will larger battles also require me getting into the cockpit of the flight leader, the conn of subs, and the lead ship of groups? I ask, since I had understood that HCCE was the more high-level strategy member of the Harpoon family and H2/3 was the more detailed low-level member of the Harpoon family. However, this last game fit what I understand playing H2/3 should be like. Comments?
Thanks.

Not much I can add to what Stalintc has already said, other than to say I think HCE is pretty 'well rounded'. [;)]

[MarkShot]

Hi, I appreciate your help. Just trying to understand if I am approaching the game properly, since I haven't been at H3/HC that long. Even if that game did take a lot of micro-management, it was fun.

But since you mentioned HTTR/COTA, then you know from time to time, we get noobs who are just approaching the game wrong (like they were still trying to play some turn/hex chess board style game). So, I was just checking if perhaps, I was trying to exercise too much control. In playing the Blue side of that scenario, it pretty much is sufficient to build the formation patrols/orders and from there set the group's orders, then run the scenario with just a few adjustments.

Perhaps, I have stumbled on the age old distinction in most games between playing the attack and playing the defender. Often without a hiearchical AI (such as HTTR/COTA), attack will require more work and involvement in order to create the necessary conditions.

Thanks again!

[Stalintc]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Hi, I appreciate your help. Just trying to understand if I am approaching the game properly, since I haven't been at H3/HC that long. Even if that game did take a lot of micro-management, it was fun.

But since you mentioned HTTR/COTA, then you know from time to time, we get noobs who are just approaching the game wrong (like they were still trying to play some turn/hex chess board style game). So, I was just checking if perhaps, I was trying to exercise too much control. In playing the Blue side of that scenario, it pretty much is sufficient to build the formation patrols/orders and from there set the group's orders, then run the scenario with just a few adjustments.

Perhaps, I have stumbled on the age old distinction in most games between playing the attack and playing the defender. Often without a hiearchical AI (such as HTTR/COTA), attack will require more work and involvement in order to create the necessary conditions.

Thanks again!

Hey no problem!

I understand what you mean, and yes Harpoon will require a different approach. I think the beauty of things here is that it does in some cases allow you total control, so you have to option to interfere with as much as or as little as you like (Well I tell a lie some things just have to be interfered with sometimes) to get the results you are looking for.

Excellent news that you are having fun, I expect when you bed into Harpoon and manipulating the tools for your own purposes you will find your niche way of doing things.

Many people who play Harpoon have their own quirky ways of doing things in the game, and thats great, it means you can find your own way to play [;)] I myself are one of those strange people who play on 1x time compression for the whole of a scenario for an example.

I hope you can find a scenario you enjoyed enough to post one of your excellent AAR's which I got great enjoyment from reading in the HTTR and COTA forum!

Cheers

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: Stalintc
I myself are one of those strange people who play on 1x time compression for the whole of a scenario for an example.

Stalintc is one of those folks who will grow a 'Das Boot beard' while playing a scenario just for the realism effects. [:D]

[darknite]

I'm a micromanager.  I don't trust the game to carry out much of anything beyond get to a waypoint and loiter.  The Staff Note feature is great as it reminds me of tasks during large games with multiple fronts.  I also use it to get 'realistic' sortie rates as well.

DN

[MarkShot]

Yep, I really like the staff note feature. I had requested that such a facility be added to COTA quite a while ago. It would fit in very well with order delays, since you must always issued order 1-4 hrs ahead of the anticipated need. For example, you want to withdraw (break contact) under the cover of darkness. So, you should issue the orders 2-3 hours before the Sun actually sets so that everyone gets moving as soon as darkness falls and the shooting begins to die down. Of course, usually it is not that hard to issue orders at the right time, but sometimes the heat of battle will cause you to neglect something that required your sign off.

Great feature.

PS: When I first saw it, I misunderstood it. I thought it was like SH2's (Silent Hunter 2) note where effectively you can put your own hand written entry into the ship's log.

[Shark7]

To answer the original question, you don't really *have* to micromanage Harpoon. However, the same AI you are playing against will be the AI that executes your orders, so you might not always be pleased with the results.

Just to give you an example, I will at times let the AI handle air intercepts for me. And almost every time, I end up with a 1:1 kill ratio when doing so. So yes it works, but no I'm not really thrilled with the results. However, if I will do just enough in course and speed adjustments (particularly following a Fire-and-Forget AAM strike), I can end that particular engagement in my favor.

Basically, just play it the way that best suits you.

[TonyE]

I happen to think every wargame designer should read "The Art of Wargaming".  One of the author's main points is to create the game for a certain level of command, be it fleet admiral or gunner.  Harpoon does not adhere to that advice and leaves a very mixed gamut of roles the player must hold.  On the plus side, perhaps in the end that means more players get what they want, more control than they would get as a fleet commander. 

[darknite]

Good point, TonyE.

Actually I find that scenario design is key to my enjoyment of HCE.  Mega-Scenarios requiring micromanagement on multiple fronts frustrate me as I literally cannot be everywhere at once.  Tiny scenarios can be fun but the line of making them challenging versus too simple or impossible to complete is difficult to find.  That leaves operational-scale scenarios as my favorite.

DN

[Johnus]

Most gamers, especially those of an historical bent, like myself, pay lip service to the view that a game should simulate a specific level of command, and that everything below that level (and above it) should be out of one's control. Whenever a design accomplishes this, such gamers, myself included, feel cheated and out of control and "what's the point if I'm just a bystander."

Having options is ideal. Nevertheless the designer should know that, at crunch time, the player will take over whatever control he can to get the win, historical accuracy be damned.

[MarkShot]

Tony,

Regarding the book. Most wargames also have a natural number of units for which they play well. If you go below that number, then the scenario lacks complexity and depth. If you go above that number, then the player is rapidly overwhelmed by the work load. A good example of such a game is the Combat Mission series. And I suspect that Harpoon behaves similar. So most wargames experience complexity scaling for the player which is at best linear and and at worst exponential.

This is what makes Panther Game's engine and approach so special. The game implements a true hiearchical chain of command. The player may issue orders at any level within the command structure from the platoon level to the division level. This makes the game much more scalable than most. You can double or triple the number of units in a scenario and the work load increase the player experiences is not that much, since the player will just command at a higher level. So, the player instead of giving orders to 4-5 companies will give orders to 4-5 battalions. Like in the real world, management studies show that 7 is the optimal number of subordinates to manage. So, PG's game engine scales logarithmically as the scenario grows.

A similar type approach was also attempted with the Take Command War3D engine designed by Adam Bryant. However, War3D was a lot less sophisticated in its AI than PG's engine. Also, one sees that beside the AI agents handling the scaling much better in PG's engine, by its very nature a 2D map/counter game is tends to be more scalable than a 3D photo realistic/map/sprite game.

To some extent Harpoon (and probably more so H3) also has a hiearchical AI, but rather than being fully general, it is mainly just two levels: unit and the group/mission.

Well enough chatting about game engine design ... one my favorite past times, but I got other stuff to get done ...