xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (11/22/90)
Could some kind soul please email me the Harpoon thread...I read it with
interest but didn't have the game...now I have the game but don't have the
notes...they seem to have expired at my site.
Many Thanks!
NT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project
\X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov
|
Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own. xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (11/29/90)
Well...I've blown quite a few hours playing this great game...but has anyone
else noticed just how easy it is to win? The only thing that has been tough
are the sub scenarios. And those work real odd. Playing the US side it is
dammed difficult to win against a computer soviet sub. For some reason it
appears that they detect US subs about the same time the reverse occurs. Add
the standoff torpedo and I never get within firing range.
I've tried sprint and creep, just creeping and even full stop (I noted that
some victor was steaming past sosus almost in a beeline for a LA class) but
they seem to pick me up at 1 CZ anyway. I've tried random zig zags, speed
changes, depth changes to ruin their target solution but almost every time I
get that infernal "Torpedo Contact detected on passive sonar". Come on...I've
been able to do damned well at Red Storm Rising in 1998 with a Permit class at
ultimate level and this game is killing me with a Victor II against a LA.
Just what am I doing wrong? Any hints? My guess is that their detection
algorithm uses that flat detection figure no matter what speed or noise level
my subs are emitting. +/- 15% for anecholic coating etc. Given that maybe I
should always be steaming around at 19 knots. I recall in the board game that
there is some minus for creeping (what 5%?) but that hardly seems good enough
with soviet sonars rated high...
NT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project
\X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov
|
Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own. felixh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Felix Hack) (11/29/90)
Re: Harpoon Sub Ops,
I too have obliterated the computer opponent in every scenario EXCEPT
those involving just subs on my side. I believe there are two major factors
at work causing the difficulty:
1. The game data (in this case for sonar effectiveness) is based on the
Harpoon boardgame data as of last year, whereas this summer a new
updated data annex was published which strongly downgraded all sonars.
Where a typical submarine sonar might have a passive detection range
of 15 miles in the current computer game, the new data downgrades it
to maybe 6 miles.
Also, almost all convergence zones were degraded by 1 in the new
data. Here's a specific comparison:
USA BQQ-5 Old Passive Range: 25 miles Old CZ 2
New " " : 10 " New CZ 1
As you can see the reductions are large. Right now the US LA sub
has a better sonar than the Victor II you're trying to engage, so
you can hear him at 2 CZ, (with towed array) while he can't. But
he CAN hear you at 1 CZ, and has a weapon to do something about it
(SSN15/16) while you don't. If you can get inside the 1st CZ you
should be OK since Mk48 torps greatly outrange Soviet ASW torps
in the game. Problem is you have to survive a lot of SSN16s first.
2. The ASW system of the computer game is based on that of the board
game, and it is flawed. The essential problem is that there are
detection rolls every half minute, not whenever conditions that
affect sonar contact probabilities change. Sure, creeping reduces
your chances of being detected, but the odds don't drop to zero.
It may take you a time on the order of tens of minutes to cross
a hostile CZ at slow speeds. During that time the enemy gets
on the order of 50 detection attempts. Even if the chances are
only 5% (they're usually higher) simple rules of probability
dictate that you will be picked up. After that the chances for
staying detected rise (at least in the boardgame) so you'll have
a hard time breaking track.
The miniatures game Warship Commander seems to have a better ASW
system in its Sea Command module (long out of print). Instead of
fixing detection ranges and playing with the probabilities, it
uses a variety of factors to determine a basic detection range for
some situation (noise, sonar type, etc). A random element is
used to modify the range up or down, and it is then compared to
the true range to see if detection occurred.
You can see how Harpoon's system has problems, how does it make
sense to let some detection influencing factors alter the odds of
detection and others alter the range? It seems that the Warship
Commander approach of a unified system makes more sense.
Felixxrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.235413.14604@agate.berkeley.edu>, felixh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Felix Hack) writes... ^ ^ Re: Harpoon Sub Ops, ^ I too have obliterated the computer opponent in every scenario EXCEPT ^those involving just subs on my side. I believe there are two major factors ^at work causing the difficulty: ^ ^ 1. The game data (in this case for sonar effectiveness) is based on the ^ Harpoon boardgame data as of last year, whereas this summer a new ^ updated data annex was published which strongly downgraded all sonars. ^ Where a typical submarine sonar might have a passive detection range ^ of 15 miles in the current computer game, the new data downgrades it ^ to maybe 6 miles. ^ Also, almost all convergence zones were degraded by 1 in the new ^ data. Here's a specific comparison: ^ USA BQQ-5 Old Passive Range: 25 miles Old CZ 2 ^ New " " : 10 " New CZ 1 ^ ^ As you can see the reductions are large. Right now the US LA sub ^ has a better sonar than the Victor II you're trying to engage, so ^ you can hear him at 2 CZ, (with towed array) while he can't. But ^ he CAN hear you at 1 CZ, and has a weapon to do something about it ^ (SSN15/16) while you don't. If you can get inside the 1st CZ you ^ should be OK since Mk48 torps greatly outrange Soviet ASW torps ^ in the game. Problem is you have to survive a lot of SSN16s first. Something else I noticed after pulling the boardgame out was that the sonar modification chart gives you the "silent running" bonus (detect is at half range and -10% plus the CZ detection is halved) for under 5 knts. I think I recall the creeping mode puts the LA at 10 knts. I'm not sure if they give you the bonus in that case. ^ ^ 2. The ASW system of the computer game is based on that of the board ^ game, and it is flawed. The essential problem is that there are ^ detection rolls every half minute, not whenever conditions that ^ affect sonar contact probabilities change. Sure, creeping reduces ^ your chances of being detected, but the odds don't drop to zero. ^ It may take you a time on the order of tens of minutes to cross ^ a hostile CZ at slow speeds. During that time the enemy gets ^ on the order of 50 detection attempts. Even if the chances are ^ only 5% (they're usually higher) simple rules of probability ^ dictate that you will be picked up. After that the chances for Hmmm...LF Type B 40% vs anecholic coating -10% is 30%. Maybe 15% for silent running. Great. Am I wrong to assume that a LA at 0 knts is a hole in the water that does not emit noise much (if at all) above ambient? ^ staying detected rise (at least in the boardgame) so you'll have ^ a hard time breaking track. Yeah...changing depth should do it but evidently the model does not allow for it. From the descriptions and the pictures the CZ range should be valid mostly at shallow or surface. The deeper you are the closer you should be able to get before you enter the CZ. The diagram does note that it is not to scale so I may be all wrong about that. Can anyone tell me if the Red Storm Rising model is reasonably accurate? I ususally drive a Permit in the late 1990s to make things more "fun". Life is deadly and short at ultimate level but I usually much better than I would expect such an old sub to be able manage. ^ The miniatures game Warship Commander seems to have a better ASW ^ system in its Sea Command module (long out of print). Instead of ^ fixing detection ranges and playing with the probabilities, it ^ uses a variety of factors to determine a basic detection range for ^ some situation (noise, sonar type, etc). A random element is ^ used to modify the range up or down, and it is then compared to ^ the true range to see if detection occurred. ^ You can see how Harpoon's system has problems, how does it make ^ sense to let some detection influencing factors alter the odds of ^ detection and others alter the range? It seems that the Warship ^ Commander approach of a unified system makes more sense. ^ ^ Felix Not having seen it I can't agree or disagree. Harpoon ASW seems a bit off (like I got a MAD detection transiting to the patrol area with a Nimrod) and could use a bit of revision. I gotta go out and buy that new data annex. NT BTW: Anyone have stats for AMRAAMs? I'd like to free up my F18s from fighter status a little earlier in one of the scenaros. It be nice if the F16s could punch back a little farther out. Is there a F16 model that allows AMRAAM usage or can all F16s use them? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (Kenneth Jamieson) (01/17/91)
Are there any new scenario disks yet (like the mid-east ??). Seriously, I have beaten almost everything in GUIK and need more. -- ========[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Amiga & Unix Software Development]======= = "I know how you feel, you don't know if you want to hit me or kiss me - = = --- I get a lot of that." Madonna as Breathless Mahoney (Dick Tracy) = =========== Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1 =================== = NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by anybody. = === The Romantic Encounters BBS 201-759-8450(PEP) / 201-759-8568(2400) ====
admiral@m-5.Sun.COM (Michael Limprecht SUN Microsystems Mt. View Ca.) (01/18/91)
> > Are there any new scenario disks yet (like the mid-east ??). > > Seriously, I have beaten almost everything in GUIK and need > more. > > -- I just got the game the other day and I'm having a problem with finding the sub in the gauntlet scenario, even with active sonar (after the torpedos show) and 3 helos up. Any hints for this??? All wet in the North Sea. Mick
jdutka@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dutka) (01/18/91)
In article <689@tronsbox.xei.com> tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (Kenneth Jamieson) writes: > Are there any new scenario disks yet (like the mid-east ??). > Seriously, I have beaten almost everything in GUIK and need > more. The North Atlantic Convoy set and Scenario Editor are available - just call to order... I have them now - they're great! -- | husc6!m2c!wpi!jdutka | "Hey, baby - wanna do some HEAT TRANSFER? | | jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu | Heh, heh, heh!" | | John Dutka, Jr. | -Mechanical Engineers On The Prowl |
cpc@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Chris Cebelenski) (01/23/91)
> > Are there any new scenario disks yet (like the mid-east ??). > > Seriously, I have beaten almost everything in GUIK and need > more. > Yes, NACV (North Atlantic ConVoy) should be out as you read this. (Released as Battleset 2) -- ========================================================================== Chris Cebelenski UUCP: portal.com!gdc!aminet!czaeap!cpc The Red Mage Internet: czaeap!cpc@aminet.gdc.portal.com GEnie: C.CEBELENSKI // "Amiga - The way REAL people compute" "Better dead than mellow" \X/ ========================================================================== NOTE: Due to brain dead mailers, this message can *NOT* be REPLIED to, to reach me you MUST send a NEW message. Sorry!
bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (04/08/91)
In article <253.27fcb89d@intersil.uucp>, hamilton@intersil.uucp writes: > In article <3896@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>, roddi@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Roddi Walker) writes: [ comments on Das Boot deleted ] > I bought this instead of Harpoon. Harpoon has GOT to be better! Depends on what you prefer. Harpoon is not a Sub/Warship simulator (ie you don't simulate the operation of an individual vessel ). In Harpoon you take the role of a tactical commander of a Naval task force. This "task force" can be as small as 3 coastal patrol boats or as large as a Multinational battle group. You can set the deployment of your vessels, the course, speed, depth (if you have subs), altitude (if you have aircraft), etc. Harpoon doesn't let you look through periscopes or such. All you look at is a map which displays the area of operations and the location of the vessels and aircraft within that area. You can be either a NATO or USSR commander. Harpoon has limited facilities for commands concerning individual vessels/aircraft, but they are exactly that, *limited*. As the tactical commander you are preoccupied with the "big picture" of what your task force is doing. If tactical command of a large, multi-unit force is your preference then I *HIGHLY* reccomend Harpoon. If you want to look through a periscope and evade the ships depth charging you, Harpoon won't do this for you. Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au OR bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz Alias: Gareth Bull, The Opal Dragon DOD# 251 '84 VF 750 Closet Ducatisti ==>> If I said it then *I* said it <<==