Interested in H3-ANW ... but

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Gentlemen,

I want to get into hardcore modern naval warfare simulations and I'm not afraid of complexity. Looks like H3-ANW is what I need. However, I'm reading in this forum that the solitaire game is way better in version 3.6.X compared to version 3.9.X.

I would appreciate your feedback on these two questions:

1) If I get H3-ANW from Matrix, is the sim "downgradeable" to version 3.6.X?
2) Am I better off getting Larry Bond's Harpoon CE?

Thanks in advance!

Cheers,

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL:  Chelco

1) If I get H3-ANW from Matrix, is the sim "downgradeable" to version 3.6.X?
2) Am I better off getting Larry Bond's Harpoon CE?

If you search through this forum, you can see that a number of other ANW users have asked the same question regarding the possibility of switching to the older 3.6.x version.  Historically, AFAIK, all have been denied their requests.

Harpoon Classic Commanders' Edition (HCE) is a similar, but different game than ANW.  It is like the two sports, squash and racquetball.  Very similar in many ways (i.e. ball, racquet, and court), but they implement in different ways.  The best way to decide for yourself is probably to spend an hour with each of the demos.  You will likely find the one you prefer at the end of it.

There is a demo available for ANW.  It is now expired, but if you dial your system clock back to January 1, 2009, I think that you can still run it.

http://www.computerharpoon.com/public/Harpoon_3_Gouge_Demo_394.exe

http://www.harpgamer.com/downloads/HCEDemo-2009.042.zip

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Hi Herman,

Thanks for your response.

So, no 3.6.X version. [:(] Pity.

I can't make up my mind about how the specific issue of the creeping subs sinking a carrier almost uncontested affects the overall game play and challenge. I'm from Argentina and I was planning to play some of the Falklands scenarios out there.

Thanks for the heads up on LB's HCE. I still refuse to let ANW go off my mind, it looks more hardcore and detailed.

Cheers,

[navwarcol]

For what it is worth, several users perhaps have 3.6x still... I am unsure of how AGSI feels with regards to it, but if they do not mind, you may ask and get it from one of us (myself included) who have several different versions on several cpus. Also, I agree that it is in many ways the better AI, although some of the additions in 3.10 hopefully remedy that to an extent.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL:  navwarcol

For what it is worth, several users perhaps have 3.6x still... I am unsure of how AGSI feels with regards to it, but if they do not mind, you may ask and get it from  one of us (myself included) who have several different versions on several cpus.

I highly recommend that you don't do that.  I am not a representative of either AGSI or Matrix, but I remember that there have been several threads on this forum whereby others have tried to make the 3.6.x version available to others.  Unless you do a straight sale/transfer, I do not think that it will be considered legitimate.  There have been flames and legal threats, IIRC.

[navwarcol]

Ah, ok, warning heeded. That was why I included the disclaimer. I have been gone a LONG time with real life duties mostly since the war began, but before then, Don seemed very reasonable over at AGSI. However, it is their product, so I can understand somewhat..although having happy customers to me seems like good business.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Ey navwarcol! [:)]

Thanks for your response. From what I read in the forums, AGSI would not be thrilled about that type of arrangement. The previous version is not available directly from them.

To sum up the issue with the creeping subs (please bear with me because I am totally ignorant of naval warfare): it is just a problem of identification, so no OPFOR assets will shoot until positive ID is determined. Is that it?

Cheers,

[navwarcol]

That appears to be it, although, to be fair, usually what it is (since it worked fine in the prior version) is that in enhancing one particular item, something that is 'tweaked' causes a cascade effect, that throws something else off kilter. In this case, it probably WILL be fixed, because, as I said, it worked fine in the prior version.
To be honest, in real life wargames at sea, several times a submarine successfully approached into firing range of the inner circle, and in a real hostile situation, would have sunk carriers, etc..so, the ability to do this, alone, is NOT a 'bug'..but the ability to regularly do it, should be looked at.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

it is just a problem of identification, so no OPFOR assets will shoot until positive ID is determined. Is that it?

That is exactly what is happening within the game. The AI will often be lashing the subsurface contact with active sonar. Unfortunately, active sonar is unable to determine whether a contact is hostile or not even though it is able to return precise location data. Until sub contact fires or increases speed and noise/acoustic signature, the AI is unable to positively classify it as hostile. Sadly, once it fires, it is too late and your carrier will have 3-4 torpedoes already inbound. [;)]

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Thanks, gents.

I would consider any sub near my inner circle as hostile, shoot first and ask questions later. But then again, I know nothing about modern naval warfare. [:D]

A bit off topic: how does it work in real life? Is a carrier group always aware of the position of friendly subs?

Cheers,

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

I would consider any sub near my inner circle as hostile, shoot first and ask questions later. But then again, I know nothing about modern naval warfare. [:D]

A bit off topic: how does it work in real life? Is a carrier group always aware of the position of friendly subs?

And you say that you are a complete noob to Naval warfare?! That is exactly how/why 3.6.x works! All subsurface contacts are considered hostile (guilty until proven innocent [;)]).

I think that NavWarCol also hit the nail on the head. When they tried to 'enhance' the ASW behaviour in ANW by requiring positive identification prior to engagement, they failed to recognize that it is simply not possible. That might be the reason why all subsurface contacts (including the AI's own subs) were attacked in the 3.6.x versions.

Sure, this lead to potential blue-on-blue combat. However, this just meant that the scenario designers had to pay special attention to "de-confliction" of subsurface assets. I spoke with one former submariner who told me of the extreme measures undertaken to ensure that blue-on-blue does not occur.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Just to be clear, the AO (sorta like AI but dumber) operates with the automatic side ID when it is a computer controlled side. Not for the formation patrols or mission patrols of the side you control.

People have provided samples to me before but I'll ask again for a new round because there are several variables here. I've made patrolling craft more concerned about subs of any posture, including unknown, in previously builds. I'll see what's stopping them from pulling the trigger.

I believe the subs should be engaged until proven friendly. I'll look into this more tomorrow.

Thanks,

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Thanks for the responses.

I've got H3ANW yesterday afternoon, installed it last night and tried it a bit this morning before leaving for work.
I liked what I saw. [:)] Looks like I'm going to have a blast (pun intended) with this simulator.

As for the IDing of subs within the inner circle: as soon as the sub fires, it gets IDed and most of the times destroyed, doesn't it?

Cheers,

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

As for the IDing of subs within the inner circle: as soon as the sub fires, it gets IDed and most of the times destroyed, doesn't it?

That is correct. Usually, as soon as the sub fires, the AI is immediately able to classify the sub as hostile due to its actions. Unfortunately, once the sub fires, it is already (probably) too late for the AI units/targets. The lethality and accuracy of the weapons ensures destruction of the most Highly Valued Units (i.e. carriers, transports, etc).

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Hi Herman,

Thanks!

I see. The question is: would you sacrifice a sub for a HVU?

It's sorta like cold war, nuke-based mutually assured destruction, ain't it? [:'(]

I am still reading the manual, but in the final score (victory conditions) does the player get punished for loosing units?

Cheers,

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

I see. The question is: would you sacrifice a sub for a HVU?

It's sorta like cold war, nuke-based mutually assured destruction, ain't it? [:'(]

I am still reading the manual, but in the final score (victory conditions) does the player get punished for loosing units?

I think that the primary 'weapon' of a submarine is its stealth. Once a sub is known to be in the area, its lifespan is probably pretty limited.

The question of trading a sub for a carrier or a transport full of Marines is subjective. If you need the Marines to invade/occupy an enemy base, it is worth far more than an aircraft carrier. However, if the submarine is able to send position reports to headquarters so that massive regiments of Backfire bombers can attack the formation, then the life of the submarine (as a reconnaissance asset) might outweigh the perceived value of the 'return' for attacking the formation.

The ViConds (Victory Conditions) are determined for each scenario individually. In some scenarios, the designer might penalize the player for losing assets. Or, he might demand that the sub survive in order to fulfill the player's ViConds. Unless the scenario writer specifically sets Victory Conditions requiring survival of certain units, losses do not matter.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Thanks Herman,

Point well taken.

From the simulation background that I'm coming from (mostly land warfare) I understand your point of view.

For example I specifically remember an massive online tank battle (Steel Beasts ProPE) in which side A used a couple of supply-train, un-armored trucks to reconnoiter side B's forward line of troops. The guys of side A were desperately trying to infiltrate, regroup behind enemy lines and then rush to the objective in a massive blow. The ruse worked like a charm: in all the confusion of the battle, side B maneuvered too many units to counter the perceived threat and their positions were revealed while they blew the helpless trucks to smithereens. Side A capitalized on that and were able to both attrit side B and find un-contested avenues of approach. It turns out side B was composed of mostly real life, professional Wehrmacht armor officers and they were not amused. Side B's argument was that side A used the trucks in a suicidal mission that no driver would ever be asked to carry. The event caused a lot of name-calling and finger pointing. I don't think they talk to each other anymore.[:'(]

My point is: if the above battle was played with Call of Duty, I would say side A won. But in a simulation like Steel Beasts ProPE (used by many armies in the world for tactical training), did side A really won?

Furthermore, if a man talks alone in the woods and no woman is there to listen, is he still wrong? [:'(]

Sorry for the cheap philosophical rant. Slooow day at work.

I know you feel strongly about this and by no means I'm trying to be confrontational. I am just making conversation here.

Cheers,

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

... side A used the trucks in a suicidal mission that no driver would ever be asked to carry. The event caused a lot of name-calling and finger pointing. I don't think they talk to each other anymore.[:'(]

There is also plenty of name-calling, finger-pointing, and tantrums in Harpoon, too. Take a look at this thread, for example: AAR: Franco's Folly

What it comes down to is that someone played a game in a way that someone one else considered a game exploit (even though there are plenty of real world examples of the behaviour).

Personally, I tend to take a more pragmatic move. There are tons of things that games like Harpoon simply cannot simulate. You could spend all day listing the game limitations of SBProPE and Harpoon. I prefer to look at the capabilities within each game. I remember the military maxim: [blockquote]Don't prepare for what you think the enemy will do. Plan for what the enemy is capable of doing.[/blockquote]
I think that the Wehrmacht officers failed to anticipate what was theoretically possible. Unless there are morale/leadership-type checks in games, then units tend to act much braver than a normal person might expect. However, there are plenty of real war examples of suicidal bravery, too.

Once you feel comfortable with ANW, you can try some MP games and then you will find out how differently the game plays when you have a smart and cunning bastage on the other side of the screen instead of an AI that is just too stupid to defend itself. [8D]

Check out the AARs for some real Oscar Sierra moments in our MP sessions: tm.asp?m=1280607

[navwarcol]

A couple of parting points here.
Chelco, and Herman[:)] I believe that most German officers (at least, current ones) would prefer you referred to them as "Bundeswehr" Officers rather than "Wehrmacht" Officers, as the Wehrmacht no longer exists and holds connotations many would prefer to forget [:)]
It is true that the mission (and, in Harpoon, the scenario designer) determine whether it is worth it to lose a sub. In real life, at least, if there is considered to be an active ASW threat, generally, the areas in the path of, say, a carrier battlegroup, would have been sanitized very heavily. However, opfor doctrine usually aimed to knock out carriers, around which most US strategy was based. So, it is nearly a given, that, in the cold war, a Soviet commander would gladly trade a submarine for a carrier. The question, however, has many possible variations. Most carriers can survive torpedo hits, so, it is not a given, you will sink it. It is not even a given, you will hit it. And on the other side of the coin, it IS very likely that by firing, you will (as the sub) be sunk, and quickly. It is a 'game' of high risk, where you are always trying to make the correct choice. Generally, also, an 'unknown' contact of ANY kind is presumed hostile if the situation is a wartime situation. In fact, back when I was spending a lot of time writing scenarios for training purposes, I played with the idea of a "Tom Clancy" like first strike. In his books, he had the Japanese submarines attack US carriers during an exercise. I tried to set up situations like that, where an unknown sub could get close enough in...it was quite difficult, but possible. It should be that way. We should not assume it is a bug, just because a sub can gain firing position.
Russell, a few posts above, and Dale, are both saying that ANY unknown contact is IDed by the AI side..if that is the case, perhaps it is working as it should, and there are just some very lucky sub drivers out there. My own testing has been limited to a couple of scenarios. I may design one of my own during the holidays, and see.