terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (06/06/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <16085@cbnews.ATT.COM> baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin.) writes: > >What *is* ludicrous here is the idea (and this has happened to me in >the game, too) that MAD could be an effective source of initial detection! >MAD is a localization/tracking tool, NOT a search tool. A searching S-3A/B >wouldn't even have its MAD boom extended during the search phase, except >to calibrate the system. A searching P-3C always has his boom extended >(it is fixed), but no one is looking at the display until a submarine has >been detected and at least somewhat localized using other methods (almost >always passive sonobuoys). MAD is then used as a "mark on top" indication >for use in actually launching a torpedo or NDB (Non-Directional Bomb :-) >attack. > I have found several such ludicrous ideas in Harpoon. That is the price you pay for over-simplification. In reference to MAD I believe the problem is caused in part because the game makes little distinction between detection, localization, and classification. Consequently all three are tied up in the search rules, although classification is sort of included in the passive sonar information rules. As pointed out above, MAD is used for a final confirmation of position before ordnance is released. Consequently it should not be treated as part of the search rules, but Harpoon has no where else to put it. I imagine that part of the problem is that many (if not all) of the playtesterd were naval officers, at least I recognize a couple of names. These people probably KNEW that MAD was not used for searching and simply never tried it. I have seen this phenomena before, where playtesters had too much domain knowledge, and simply didn't try things differently if the rules allowed. Anybody who is seriously interested in modern naval warfare should look at some minature rules; Warship Commander II, and Sub Commander. Although very dense, they have a wealth of detail that is glossed over in Harpoon. After playing both, I call Harpoon a game instead of a simulation. For example in Harpoon you simply launch an SSM, although you may have the option of BOL(Bearing Only Launch). In WCII, you have to select a window size for the warhead seeker. It effective recreates the targeting tradeoff; the more precise you know the target location, the more smaller you can make the seeker window, reducing the probability of homing on the wrong target. BOL launch then is fired using the largest window size. Sensors are also classified by their ECCM(resistance to countermeasures). ECM techniques are universally applicable against different types of radars. For example Monopulse radars are much less susceptible to most countermeasures. Also sensors have to acquire the target every turn which is more realistic. In Harpoon if you get lucky and establish a long rang contact, you know the enemy position for the rest of the game. In WCII, you may get a single turn with long range contact, and then it disappears. Was it an actual return, or simply a ghost? I spent many a night staring at a radar CRT trying to decide exactly that. Harpoon is a good game, but don't expect it to measure up to reality. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu