How much weapons is enough...

[Spearfish]

So this bug applies only to ANW? Do ScenEdit and DBEdit work exactly as game engine in Harpoon 3.6.3?

[hermanhum]

This problem is also present in H3 version of ScenEdit and (I think) Game Editor.  However, as with most known game problems, they are are not as severe in H3, IMO.

If you are familiar and comfortable with the ScenEditor functions, I can give some suggestions on how you might get around this problem and use the ScenEditor to test your scenarios.

[Spearfish]

Bye, bye Herman... [;)]

[FreekS]

Testing newly made scenarios is tricky and a Lot of work.
I usually Run the Szenarios in the SE just to observe if the missions i programmed
work, Air strikes are STOT etc. Often i delete all Sides except the One im Testing to See
If all Runs As i want.

I always Fellow that up by Testing each playable Side in the GE.
I always create my Scens in H3.6.3SE and Test in H3.6.3 As well in in ANW Version 4.9.6.

Regards
Freek

[Spearfish]

ORIGINAL: FreekS

I always Fellow that up by Testing each playable Side in the GE.
I always create my Scens in H3.6.3SE and Test in H3.6.3 As well in in ANW Version 4.9.6.

So scenarios created in Harpoon v3.6.3 SE runs flawlessly in Harpoon ANW v3.9.4 game engine and vice versa? What about both games compatibility and scenario conversion?

[FreekS]

My Experience is that scenario's built in H3.6.3 run in ANW. They don't run flawlessly by themselves, but there is a 'rebuild' function in the ANW SE
to convert H3 scens.

Scenario's made in ANW SE never run in 3.6.3. However, scenario's made in ANW SE do also NOT always function in later versions of ANW.

This is THE reason I build scenario's in H3.6.3, AGSI does not guarantee forward compatibility and I cannot afford the time to rebuild my scens with every ANW update (however rare these have become)

All existing scenario's also need a rebuild when the database is changed in any way. This is done for each update of the PlayersDB.

So in spite of not benefitting from some ANW features, I still design in H3.6 as untill now it has given me forward compatibility.

Freek

[Spearfish]

Maybe all this will change when Ultimate Edition is released...

[FreekS]

I doubt it. Ultimate edition is a nice name, but in my testing of 4.10 (which it is), this has not changed. Im not as good in searching old Posts as HH, but Agsi have stated more than once they are not interested in forward compatibility.

Freek

[Spearfish]

Do you mean 3.10?

I mean rather fact that all Harpoon versions will be available for every interested Pooner so the community won't be split or maybe even merge again.

BTW, I often read computer Harpoon is based on Harpoon miniature games family and more precisely on its so called paper rules designed by Bond & Carlson. As understand those rules are still improved with each new Harpoon board game version and now there is possibly Harpoon 5 paper rules set ready. So I have questions:

- Do those paper rules really represent modern naval warfare realistically enough as far as unclassified data allow this?
- How to play Harpoon board game?
- Will Harpoon 3 UE be fully compatible with Harpoon 5 paper rules set (no ASM armed balloons)?
- Where can I find detailed text description of this rules?
- Is Harpoon 3.10 beta patch still accessible for testing?

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: Spearfish
BTW, I often read computer Harpoon is based on Harpoon miniature games family and more precisely on its so called paper rules designed by Bond & Carlson. As understand those rules are still improved with each new Harpoon board game version and now there is possibly Harpoon 5 paper rules set ready.

The Harpoon 4.1 paper rules game can be acquired through Clash of Arms.

The Harpoon 5 version of this effort is presently in the works, and not yet publicly available.

[TonyE]

ORIGINAL: Spearfish
1 - Do those paper rules really represent modern naval warfare realistically enough as far as unclassified data allow this?
2 - How to play Harpoon board game?
3 - Will Harpoon 3 UE be fully compatible with Harpoon 5 paper rules set (no ASM armed balloons)?
4 - Where can I find detailed text description of this rules?
5 - Is Harpoon 3.10 beta patch still accessible for testing?

1. There are always simplifications to make the paper rules playable by mere mortals. This is particularly true for Harpoon 5 which in theory will be 'easier' to pick up and play than Harpoon 4.1. The paper rules guys have however been sharing the raw H5 models with some of the computer Harpoon people so you may get the best of both worlds.

2. Brad/CV32 handled this I think. There are quite a few resources for getting started with the paper rules, including the harpgamer.com forum and the admiralty trilogy yahoo group.

3. No, Harpoon 5 doesn't exist in entirety yet so the already finalized UE cannot possibly follow all of the H5 rules. Both computer games use portions of the version 3 and 4 paper rules and ANW uses some of those Harpoon 5 models and promises to use more going forward.

4. Brad/CV32 handled this again. Buy em from Clash of Arms, grab a copy from e-Bay, whatever works for you.

5. Shouldn't be since 3.10 final version already went to Matrix (well, unless some unexpected last-minute fix slides in; so far I haven't had to do that with HCE, can't speak to the ANW guys).

[Spearfish]

ORIGINAL: TonyE

1. There are always simplifications to make the paper rules playable by mere mortals. This is particularly true for Harpoon 5 which in theory will be 'easier' to pick up and play than Harpoon 4.1. The paper rules guys have however been sharing the raw H5 models with some of the computer Harpoon people so you may get the best of both worlds.

I see - computer is more powerful than human mind in calculations so computer Harpoon rules can be more complicated than paper rules and thus more realistic. I hope ANW/HUE game will follow this way by implementing as much technical details as possible into naval warfare modeling!

ORIGINAL: TonyE

2. Brad/CV32 handled this I think. There are quite a few resources for getting started with the paper rules, including the harpgamer.com forum and the admiralty trilogy yahoo group.

I'll look at those sites.

ORIGINAL: TonyE

3. No, Harpoon 5 doesn't exist in entirety yet so the already finalized UE cannot possibly follow all of the H5 rules. Both computer games use portions of the version 3 and 4 paper rules and ANW uses some of those Harpoon 5 models and promises to use more going forward.

So I suppose ANW designers want to standardize all those rules coming from three different Harpoon board games in the future.

ORIGINAL: TonyE

5. Shouldn't be since 3.10 final version already went to Matrix (well, unless some unexpected last-minute fix slides in; so far I haven't had to do that with HCE, can't speak to the ANW guys).

Yes, it it not available now. However not troublesome since HUE release is close.

[Little Beavers]

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

I only attacked this cruiser with Western weapons to be more in line with reality. So my premiere anti-ship weapons were Harpoons, SLAM-ERs, HARMs, JSOWs, JASSMs carried mainly by carrier based aviation. In every test results were quite similar: I launched 50-100 missiles in salvos from two directions. In return BCGN "Petr Veliky" launched about 150 SAMs in defense. After reading AALog files I must say most often "Petr Veliky" was able to shot down all incoming vampires or several (usually less than ten) vampires finally hit her. All other results were quite rare.

Volume of fire is a major factor in this game as there is no accounting for the azimuth of the fire control radar. This gives the ship instant 360 degree coverage regardless of the number of axis of attack. In reality, the ship may be able to handle two different axis of attack but not three. Still, 7 or 8 Harpoon hits should be enough to put the ship out of action. My version of the paper rules says that the ship has about 500 dp, and that the Harpoon has a 45 dp warhead. Even 7 hits would damage the ship significantly.

ORIGINAL: Spearfish
If that is true it seems now US anti-ship missiles are not very deadly. Probably Harpoon 3 ANW portrays present situation quite well because weapons like Harpoons and SLAM-ER even being sea-skimmers are subsonic designs and not very stealthy. On the other hand quite VLO weapons like JSOW and JASSM fly to target at middle altitudes and thus are easy to spot by shipborne radars.

I think it's speed related in that the longer you can track the target, the more chances you have to hit it. I've had more success sinking high value units using LGBs than missiles. Normally I would use the A-6 but I've used other aircraft just to see what might happen. Most of the time I've been able to skirt under the radar, drop the bombs and egress long before anyone left alive on the flaming datum knew we were there.

ORIGINAL: Spearfish
Quite ironically I discovered another easy method to disable this monster. First I launched TALD decoys from A-6Es or F/A-18s at him what triggered insane SA-N-6 salvos wasting almost all of her long range missiles stockpile. Later I sent planes with LGBs ot L-JDAMs flying at very high altitude outside SA-N-9 and CADS-N-1 range and dropped dozens of those weapons on Petr Veliky. It turned out SA-N-9 and SA-N-11 missiles cannot engage bombs and CADS-N-1 cannons are in fact ineffective being able to shot down only several guided bombs. As a result rain of my bombs fell on Petr Veliky and sunk her very fast.

Electronic support is important too but I find that it's just as important to screen your incoming weapons as it is your shooters. This isn't something the game does very well IMHO.

ORIGINAL: Spearfish
Maybe I discovered some great tactics to sink powerful ships today? [:D]

Maybe. I don't know how realistic it would be to use GBUs to sink a target like that. Almost all major Russian systems have optical backups which renders jamming useless when the targets enter visual range. Aren't JSOWs and JASSMs incapable of attacking moving targets?

[Spearfish]

ORIGINAL: Little Beavers

In reality, the ship may be able to handle two different axis of attack but not three.

In reality it depends heavily on particular ship's radar and missile systems.

ORIGINAL: Little Beavers

Maybe. I don't know how realistic it would be to use GBUs to sink a target like that. Almost all major Russian systems have optical backups which renders jamming useless when the targets enter visual range. Aren't JSOWs and JASSMs incapable of attacking moving targets?

Those optical backups cannot acquire target themselves but can only track it i.e. target has to be spotted by acquisition radar before its data are sent to tracking unit. No toys like Glaive thermal detection known from Roland SAM system fount there. Also those Soviet optoelectronic sights work only in visual, not infrared band.

As for JSOW and JASSM - AGM-154C and AGM-158 both have terminal IIR seekers and the latter also two-way datalink. Do not forget about fancy SDB-II glide bomb, too.