Matrix Games Forums

Just curious why were changes made to ECM modelling ?
I understand that a. it is complicated,hence it must be simplified
b. to be more compliant with paper edition

however did the old way not work and surely what is too complicated for a pen and paper game does not mean that it cannot be modeled using the processing power of the computer. I have read a lot of grumbling about this on boards and have not seen any reply with regards to reasoning behind the decision

Howdy,

ECM was incompletely modeled and overly complicated ( I refer to the code ). We went with something more consistent and compliant. We are talking with the paper rules folks to increase the detail with ECM but I can tell you that is not the first thing up for change.

[Deleted by Admins]

ORIGINAL: VCDH


Anyway the full meat of the changes can be read in the wiki article. Hope this helps. If you have any more questions please don't hesitate to ask.

Later
D

The database manual says to visit the address;-

http://mediawiki.advancedgaming.biz/ind ... _Utilities

Which doesn't actually allow any ECM work sheets to be downloaded.

Dale, right now DB editors can't do ECM.

The manual (again db supplied with the patch) advises DB editors to "set the flag for the radar type". This is the first time I've heard a mention of them being functional.

And the 4.1 paper rules for ECM are for paper use. The reason for slavishly following them, when they are clearly flawed, has not been adequately explained.

"The code was complex" - code is by its very nature complex. It worked. What was the real issue?

I speculate that the real reason - the real world modelling goes in Harpoon Pro. All the commercial stuff goes into ANW. Hence the "Commercial Product" disclaimer in the About Harpoon option.

I would like to see a disclaimer disproving or denying that speculation I just made.

ORIGINAL: BurntFingers

The database manual says to visit the address;-

http://mediawiki.advancedgaming.biz/ind ... _Utilities

Which doesn't actually allow any ECM work sheets to be downloaded.

Dale, right now DB editors can't do ECM.

The manual (again db supplied with the patch) advises DB editors to "set the flag for the radar type". This is the first time I've heard a mention of them being functional.

And the 4.1 paper rules for ECM are for paper use. The reason for slavishly following them, when they are clearly flawed, has not been adequately explained.

"The code was complex" - code is by its very nature complex. It worked. What was the real issue?

I speculate that the real reason - the real world modelling goes in Harpoon Pro. All the commercial stuff goes into ANW. Hence the "Commercial Product" disclaimer in the About Harpoon option.

I would like to see a disclaimer disproving or denying that speculation I just made.

Ok I'll throw in my bit here. From what I know about the Computer version of Harpoon and something rarely mentioned, is that this version of Harpoon is a licensed product.

This means AGSI pay the owners (Bond et al) a fee and are in some measure limited in how far they can "stray" from the minis rules. The current ECM change is an example of this.

I agree that maybe we could do a lot more with the processing power available, unfortunately the new minis ECM rules are not complete so a decision was made to what could best be described as, "starting from a common point". To this end the PC and Minis versions are currently in synch.

Is a better ECM model and implementation to the game coming? Yes. Could it be implemented for 3.9? No. I can't see why DB Editors can't set ECM systems up. Also setting a radar type flag is not a great issue and helps determine the jamming effectiveness internally. ECM systems must have frequencies set that cover the radar they are attempting to jam. The ECM system itself needs a value for "Search Output" as a measure of the systems ESM detectability, rather than jamming effectiveness. Radars should also have a value specificed where appropriate to indicate their ECCM capability (resistance to jamming). This value is set by adding a value to the radar sensor's passive output value.

I can't comment on the claims of the old system being left for the Pro users. Personally I don't agree with the decision to change. I do however understand that we are governed in a large degree by the arrangement between the creators of the system and the company that produces this version of the Harpoon game. I'm serious here AGSI is not totally responsible for all of the changes that are made to the system to reflect minis rulings. Larry Bond owns the system and as he has pointed out elsewhere only he speaks for the game. We all have to keep in mind that we are playing Harpoon and what the "CNO" says goes...

Cheers

Darren

P.S. I know Larry answers his mail. If people wanted to state a case I'm sure he be happy to hear you out, being mature adults and all. [:)]

ORIGINAL: BurntFingers

I would like to see a disclaimer disproving or denying that speculation I just made.

Did some thinking over the weekend, and some reading.

First, a grab of what we're talking about



Next, a quote from the Harpoon 2 manual (bottom page 28);-

ECM Types
Originally, a more detailed ECM model was intended for Harpoon II. Circumstances prevented its implementation however. Though these checkboxes
can be marked, they have no game effect.

So, the sensor types are there from long ago. I can't really complain about them being there, or being implemented (which was the plan from H2 back in the early 90s.)

But I most certainly CAN complain about the lack of documentation.

C'mon, you could at least explain what the flags mean to radar noobs.

The Advanced Manual says you just have to set the flags for the ECM jammer, not for each radar. Which begs the question - how the hell does the game know what kind of radars are which?

As I understand things, you can just ignore the flags and put an individual ECCM figure in the Passive Radar Detect field (unused by radars). Is this true? If so, it's a bit half arsed - the flags are in use but aren't being used as they were intended.

I'll leave the H3 Pro question aside... although I might just take it up with "our Lazza".