From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Tue Sep 8 15:09:09 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus1) id AA18559; Tue, 8 Sep 92 15:09:09 -0700 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 15:09:09 -0700 Message-Id: <9209082209.AA18559@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v12 #1 (msgs 1-12) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 8 September 1992 Volume: 12 Issue: 1 Topics: (1) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (2) Re: Making Scenarios s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (3) Blue Water Navy? dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov (4) Computer Following Orders? s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (5) Re: Making Scenarios fontana@pavia.infn.it (6) Re: Miscellaneous lcline@agora.rain.com (7) More Good Books dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov (8) CVBG Composition lcline@agora.rain.com (9) Harpoon vs. Tomahawk netoprbl@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (10) Australian Update s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (11) Amiga Bug or Feature bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (12) PC 1.3 mckee@hpmckee.fc.hp.com "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon/cz via anonymous FTP ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 8 Sep 1992 13:52:34 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (1) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: sburge@iris.dri.du.edu (Steve Burge) jh7p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey J. Haan) riddell@netcom.com (Shane Riddell) r4s@icf.hrb.com (Robert M. Sanders) 9205875m@ntx.city.unisa.edu.au (Chris Saunderson) as4y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alfred Todd Symonds) Mark Lam (lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu) requests that you still respond to the survey from CZ v11 msg 16 (issue #3). Originally, he planned to sumarize the results at the end of v11, but response was kind of low. Please respond if you haven't already. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 11:53:19 EST From: s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (Gavin Rewell) Subject: (2) Re: Making Scenarios Message-Id: In response to the the request by Gene Moreau (CZ v11 msg 54): > First, how does the computer attack? Say, I'm trying to get a convoy somewhere > and I want it to be attacked. If I give the computer recon aircraft and set > some long distance air patrols over the area where the convoy will be > traveling, will it spot it and set up it's own attacks, or do I have to set > some base some where to airstrike it? Along that line as well, if I give him > recon aircraft will it set up it's own long distance patrols, formation > patrols, etc.? What do some of you people do for this? I have found that the computer will attack a convoy if its objectives are to sink that convoy, or parts thereof. The hard part is getting the computer to find the ships! My greatest problem with the Scenario Editor is that a path cannot be set for outgoing aircraft. This means that if you are using the NACV battleset, and have a convoy crossing from the US to Europe AND you have a base operated by the NATO in the UK, but perhaps not in Keflavik (and you do not station recon aircraft at Keflavik), the planes will fly straight into the CAP over the UK, and cannot be flown "around" the trouble spot. There is also the problem of keeping the recon aircraft alive long enough to have a strike launched from as far away as the USSR (sorry, best description - ignoring current events) ... . The KEY is defining the objectives so that the computer WILL attack the convoy. I have spent many a frustrating time watching the Backfires attempt to destroy the bases in the UK, when I would much rather they were destroying a convoy! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 10:10:54 EDT From: dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov (Dennis Milbert) Subject: (3) Blue Water Navy? Message-Id: Has anyone seen a copy of: Blue Water Navy: World War III at Sea, Michael A. Palmer, Presidio Press According to the Harpoon Battlebook, this was supposed to come out Jan, 1992. I must say, I do enjoy the excerpts they included. If anyone knows the address/phone number of Presidio Press, I'd be happy to call them, and get the story :-). Dennis Milbert dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 10:06:00 EST From: s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (Gavin Rewell) Subject: (4) Computer Following Orders? Message-Id: How does one get the computer to follow orders that cannot be specified by the victory condidtions? The reason I ask this? The scenario in the MEDC battleset with the US CVBG cruising off the Libyan coast specifies that no offensive action on behalf of the US forces is to be taken ... However, when I played the RED side, the computer spent the first 10 minutes of real game time obliterating my airfields ... I suppose it is said that the best form of attack is defence ... but I played the US forces in a defensive posture, and still won easily. Could this sort of thing be prevented in a further edition? I would hate to think a computer actually "interpreted" orders! DAX ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 SEP 92 09:41 GMT From: fontana@pavia.infn.it Subject: (5) Re: Making Scenarios Message-Id: In CZ v11 msg54 Gene Moreau (ummorea0@cuu.umanitoba.ca) asks: > ...what kind of escort ships would be suitable for say Nimitz battle groups, > Iowa battle groups, and some of the bigger Soviet ones such as the Kiev and > Kirov groups. I kind of figured out some ones for the American one as I am a > little bit more familier with those ships, but for the Soviet ones, I don't > have a clue. If we want to escort and protect a surface group, we have first to distinguish between the possible threats on it. The areas from which an attack can come are obviously three: the sky, the sea and the underwater environment. So that the safest choice is to dispose of platforms able to counterfire attacks of every type. Moreover we must place these platforms in the correct ring of the formation, trying to keep the most symmetrical disposition in the sectors in absence of bearing information on the enemy: this enhance the probability that we have the adequate platform in the threat zone, wherever this is. If bearing is known the formation will be modified accordly. The key is then to have some information on the platforms, on theirs weapons and attack/defense capability and on theirs best performances and lacks, and to manage this information in a smart way. Here my suggestions, limited to Red escorts, from the Harpoon internal database and from the book: Antony preston, "Fighting Ships", Magna Books (1989). Let's suppose you have to protect a Soviet carrier group or a Soviet surface group with valuable ships, like Kirov, Slava or Kalinin. We than have the following scheme. ANTI-AIRCRAFT PLATFORMS In the AAW ring the defense from aircraft or missile attacks and the air attacks will be performed by strong AAW platforms, like the cruisers: Kara: with SA-N-3B (30nm), SA-N-4 (8nm) Slava: with SA-N-4, SA-N-6 (50nm) or the frigate Krivak II: with SA-N-4 Moreover some of the ships in the main body have a good anti-air capability, and here the platform it depends on the type of group we want build up. In fact we can have some BCGN like: Kirov: with SA-N-4, SA-N-6 Kalinin: with SA-N-6, SA-N-9 (8nm) which can defends themselves, and the carrier itself may use her aircraft to counterattack the strike. This depends on the carrier type. If we have a Kiev class, better to not use the Forgers which have little fighting capability and then rely on the missiles autodefense. Whereas if we have an Admiral Kusnetsov class use the Fulcrums and the Su27s or the Freestyles, which are able to sustain an air combat and have a good AAW missile loadout. ANTI-SURFACE PLATFORMS The attack of surface groups is left to destroyers like: Sovremenny: with SA-N-7 (60nm), SS-N-22 (65nm) or again to main body platforms like Kirov: with SS-N-19 (250nm), SA-N-6 (Horiz), SA-N-4 Kalinin: with SS-N-19, SA-N-6 Again a carrier can launch her aircraft, configured for a surface attack, possibly standoff or guided, and the type it depends on carrier class. Occasionally we can add to the formation, in the pickets, a couple of submarines with ASuW capabilities, like: Victor III: with Type 65 torpedo (54nm), Type 53-60 Trp (7.6nm) Akula: with Type 65 torpedo ANTISUB PLATFORMS In the ASW ring, we can place some destroyer like: Udaloy: with Set-65 torpedo (11nm), SS-N-14 (30nm), RBU 6000 (3.2nm) or some cruiser as Kara: with Set-65 torpedo, RBU 6000, SS-N-14 Kresta II: with SS-N-14, RBU 6000 all with good torpedoes or antisub missiles. Again the main body ships can contribute if you have either: Kirov: with SS-N-14, RBU 6000 Kalinin: with RBU 12000 (6nm) and a carrier or another ship equipped with helo pad can send her helos in searching and hunting the underwater contacts, with antisub loadout. Finally, if we add some submarine to the group, we can have another ASW platform and here the choice depends on the type of scenario and situation you want create. That was my proposal to create an effective shield around an important soviet surface group. I've still not tried every configuration and possibility, but what I've suggested is based on a few experience, a few great defeat I sustained and on an attempt of systematic approach to the various situations. The formations can be improved and I hope to learn enhancements of my schemes in future issues. BTW, I hope this may help someone! -Andrea Andrea Fontana INet:fontana@pavia.infn.it Department of Nuclear and Theoretical Physics Voice:39-382-392423/4 University of Pavia - Italy "The secret to a long life is knowing when it' s time to go" Maree Johnson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 9:15:59 PDT From: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) Subject: (6) Re: Miscellaneous Message-Id: In CZ v11 msg 53, Ken LaPointe has this to say: > OK, I upgraded to PC V1.3 and lost my land attack Harpoons. HELP!! How can my > planes attack and still return unharmed? Or am I a brave little soilder and > live with my losses? You're going to have to be a good little soldier because Harpoons aren't supposed to be able to attack land targets unless they've been modified as SLAM's. >I was playing the IOPG Guam battle and received a message that Keyhole detected >a ship using sonar. Isn't Keyhole a satellite? Sonar? I think that any detection of a submerged object is classified as a Sonar contact (makes programming life a little easier). It was probably using infrared or laser. How about all those passive contacts on helos and planes? > Is there any comprehensive data on how Harpoon thinks? What Harpoon takes into > account when it decides if your subs can be heard? Most of the members try to > use real tactics (best guess tactics) in Harpoon. From a player standpoint it > would be good to know how Harpoon thinks and develop tactics from there. Getting to know your enemy, hey!? I haven't found a definite data resource although you might try the BattleBook. It could give you the insights. The computer's tactics have definately changed with v1.3 (PC) which has made me change a lot of my previously working tactics (like using Harpoons on bases). As far as the computer attacking subs, it seems to send just about everything within range after the sub. > On of the major faults of Harpoon is the lack of reality, i.e. carrier groups > must search for downed fliers. Under actual battle conditions, the carrier group might send out helos to recover fliers or break off a unit to search. In some groups, there is a designated recovery vessel that is sent out. Under no circumstances though does the carrier itself wander around looking for fliers. It is just to valuable (5000 or so lives, much striking power, and many billions of dollars in equipment. -- Larry Cline (Amiga Harpoon Scenario Administrator) lcline@agora.rain.com C_________ Industrial Graphics ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:34:48 EDT From: dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov (Dennis Milbert) Subject: (7) More Good Books Message-Id: I've gotten a nice book recently: "The Complete Book of U.S. Fighting Power" by Lightbody & Poyer This is a oversized book that can be found in the "bargain bins" at local bookstores. It is very light on technical details, but it has the BEST photographs you can imagine. One of the authors works for the Armed Forces Journal International. The book has 504 pages, coverage breaks down as: Air pages 12-165 Land 166-307 Sea 308-500 The naval portion covers both major combat vessels and amphibious ships, but not the combat auxiliaries. In short, you won't use this to replace your copy of World Naval Weapon Systems. But, if you are interested in high-quality, two page color spreads of U.S. ships and aircraft, then check it out. dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 9:17:58 PDT From: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) Subject: (8) CVBG Composition Message-Id: In CZ v11 msg 54, ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gene Moreau) writes: > For instance, what kind of escort ships would be suitable for say Nimitz > battle groups, ... I ran across this in sci.military. Hopefully, it will give some ideas as to how a group is set up. In sci.military, clfpao@nctamslant.navy.mil (CINCLANTFLT PAO) writes: > NAVY NEWS SERVICE - 21 AUG 1992 - NAVNEWS 035/92 > NNS 1. USS John F. Kennedy Group to Deploy > > WASHINGTON (NNS) -- In yet another example of the inherent flexibility of > naval forces and their ability to respond when called upon, nearly 9,000 > sailors and Marines of USS John F. Kennedy's (CV 67) Battle Group will depart > on a Mediterranean deployment two weeks early. The Kennedy Battle Group will > replace the Saratoga Battle Group, which deployed May 6. USS Saratoga (CV 60) > and her accompanying ships are expected to return on time to their homeports > in early November. > > The units of the Kennedy Battle Group are now scheduled to depart their > homeports Wednesday, Oct. 7, vice Oct. 21. The battle group, composed of 10 > Atlantic Fleet ships, two submarines and a variety of aviation squadrons, are > departing early to ensure the continued presence of a carrier battle group in > the Mediterranean Sea. The Kennedy battle group will consist of: > > Carrier Air Wing Three (CVW 3) USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) > USS Wainwright (CG 28) USS Gettysburg (CG 64) > USS Caron (DD 970) USS Halyburton (FFG 40) > USS Capodanno (FF 1093) USS Kalamazoo (AOR 6) > USS McInerney (FFG 8) USS Puget Sound (AD 38) > USS Albuquerque (SSN 706) USS Seahorse (SSN 669) > > The Kennedy Battle Group will be commanded by RADM James A. Lair, Commander > Carrier Group Two. -- Larry Cline (Amiga Harpoon Scenario Administrator) lcline@agora.rain.com C_________ Industrial Graphics ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 15:15:51 EDT From: netoprbl@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Christopher Lane) Subject: (9) Harpoon vs. Tomahawk Message-Id: Ok ... A question for all you Harpoon gurus out there! :) What's the difference between an Harpoon and a Tomahawk? That is in terms of naval combat ... I don't care about airplanes or coastal bombardment, thanx. :) I mean they're basically I/TARH missiles that skim along the sea ... The only difference I can see in the info given is that the Harpoon rises suddenly at its target and impacts down into the hull of the ship (less armor there). Is there a particular preference amongst navy types? (BTW, this is for the boardgame, not the computer game, but all answers are welcome.) Chris Lane [Mod Note: some other differences, Harpoon: 3 waypoints in course, Tomahawk: about twice the warhead, three times the range and no deployed air-launched version.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 11:19:55 EST From: s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (Gavin Rewell) Subject: (10) Australian Update Message-Id: This is for those people who are served by the Australasian office of Electronic Arts for their Harpoon products. I spoke to the Customer Support people on 2 Sep 92, and was told the HARPOON 1.3 upgrade was available by end of week. Be warned though, it only comes on high-density diskettes! It is free! Also, the Harpoon Designer Series is being shipped also ... look for it in the stores in the near future. Mail me for more information DAX s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 11:32 +1000 From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au Subject: (11) Amiga Bug or Feature Message-Id: Here's an odd "bug" I came across (Amiga Harpoon 1.0, GIUK Battleset). I was testing a scenario I had just finished working on and was using an Improved L.A. class sub to creep up on an approaching Russian ship group. I was detected and hit by a torpedo and decided that I was so badly damaged that I would sink in a little while, so I surfaced and turned on the radar. I saw a couple of Russian Ka-25's break off their attack and return to their ship, even though they still had torpedos, and despite being well inside the range of the surface search radar of the Russian group, and using my own radar, there were no further attempts to attack me (I was well inside the SSM range of at least 5 of the Russian ships). So there I was, a sitting duck waiting to be finished off, and nothing happened. All of the torpedo tubes and the missile launcher were dead, so I was unable to make any kind of attack. Hmmm, has anyone tried to ram another ship? I realise it's not a smart move, but I'm curious about how Harpoon would handle it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 11:47:44 MDTF From: mckee@hpmckee.fc.hp.com (Bret Mckee) Subject: (12) PC 1.3 Message-Id: Below is a letter I am sending to Three-Sixty regarding Computer Harpoon v1.3 for PC's. I thought the mailing list might be interested. Bret ==== Greetings: I am writing this letter to share with you some opinions that I have about your Harpoon v1.3 product. I would first like to say that I find it to by a good simulation, and that I enjoy it very much (although my wife isn't so excited - something about all my time). However, like all very complex software projects, it contains some some defects (I don't like the term "bug -- they are defects). The purpose of this letter is to share with you my thoughts on what I believe are several problems with the system. I understand that you have announced there will be no further revisions of 1.x, but I understand software schedules... As part of my job I work on customer submitted software defects, and understand the frustration of too terse user descriptions, so the ones here are somewhat long. My apologies if they are too long. The first defect described below is not the sort of thing that you could fix in a v1.4 anyhow, but please give it some consideration for v2.0. The remaining defects might be fixable for a v1.4 or a v1.31. The first (and most consistently annoying) defect is a problem in the design. I have problems with the information I get about units and groups from the naming of the units and the subsequent restrictions that this places on the viewing of them. The game gives me too much information when I make contacts, because it knows how many units there are in a group and shares this with me (i.e. We now have an exact fix on XYZ47). This gives me lots of information about group XYZ simply because I noticed a helicopter. I believe that this also gives rise to the psychic anti-sub missions. If I have only detected one sub and send out anti-sub planes, when the sub is destroyed I can determine if there are more by whether I am asked to keep looking or not. The most annoying side effect of this extra knowledge is that enemy planes on patrol are hidden on the Group window. This gives me information about how the enemy has grouped his units, when in fact all I should know is that there are some planes over there. This can also be very frustrating. Recently I was attempting to shoot down an enemy AEW aircraft, but my interceptors kept running into other patrol aircraft first and using up their SAMs on them. I never did manage to shoot it down. My suggestion for this problem would be to maintain a "name map", making the first thing that I find from group XYZ00, even if the computer knows it is XYZ47. This should be a simple name translation, and it would fix most of this. With aircraft, each plane unit should be visible to me. If I want to change my view of the world to place them into one of the enemies groups, the "join" group command should allow this (in the name map only). That way I can look at what is happening and hide things if I want to, but am not forced. The other design level problem is performance. The speed at which the game runs seems to be very linear with the number of things that are in use at a given time. Since the machine noticibly pauses every thirty seconds, I am assuming that it is the sensor scans that are causing this, and not the movement of the units. This seems to be the case even if the units are so far apart that they could not detect each other even with the best possible rolls of their electronic dice. It would seem as if keeping some sort of list of Who-could-possibly-see-whom would help here. Of course, this is pure conjecture about your implementation. The other defects that I have found are much simpler, code level problems, but they are annoying none the less. - It is very easy to run it out of memory handles with v1.3, so that it cannot function even though there is memory left. This single problem makes the v1.3 upgrade sometimes seem like a bad idea. - Bombs disappear. If bombers attack a target, and I use only part of their ordnance, the unused bombs go away. I expect that this is a problem with them jetisoning, but I cannot tell for sure. I don't think that B52's should be jetisoning. (I have only seen this in IOPG, and don't know if that is the only place it occurs.) - Attack pilots follow bad flight paths. When planes attack a base with short range bombs, they fly over the base to attack it, dropping the bombs. They continue a little past, and then return to base, flying directly back over the base again on the way back. This always costs me a couple of planes on the return trip. A little smarter routing would make life easier, since the game is not really set up for me to micro-manage all the paths (and I really don't want to). Thank you for your consideration, and feel free to contact me if any of this is not clear. Sincerely, Bret Mckee mckee@fc.hp.com ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest **************** From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Mon Sep 14 13:11:22 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus1) id AA11421; Mon, 14 Sep 92 13:11:22 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 13:11:22 -0700 Message-Id: <9209142011.AA11421@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v12 #2 (msgs 13-14) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 14 September 1992 Volume: 12 Issue: 2 Topics: (13) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (14) WC II Comparison felixh@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon/cz via anonymous FTP Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 8 Sep 1992 13:52:34 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (13) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: jcanning@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Joe Canning) frankg@halcyon.com (Frank Gleason) hatter@cacd.cr.rockwell.com (Bryan L. Hatter) healyzh@holonet.net (Zane H. Healy) jon@cas.org (Jon Vander Hill) williaml@ee.ubc.ca (William Low) gt7003a@prism.gatech.edu (Kenneth Lawrence Malphurs) There is only one article this time, but its a long one. Enthusiasts of the miniature game should find it very interesting. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 00:08:52 PDT From: felixh@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu (Felix Hack) Subject: (14) WC II Comparison Message-Id: Warship Commander II - Modern Naval Miniatures Rules I'm writing this article for several reasons. My first intention is to introduce players to an alternative set of rules for modern naval miniatures, rules which are more detailed than Harpoon and, in some ways, more realistic. I will try to offer a comprehensive presentation of what Warship Commander is like and why I prefer it to Harpoon. My second intention is to contrast the game with Harpoon in order to show how Harpoon might be improved. It is not my intention to attack and dismiss Harpoon. Far from it, I own every Harpoon product going back to the Adventure Games edition, subscribe to SitRep, and own the computer version. I want to offer constructive criticism that can help show where Harpoon is weakest and can stand the most improvement. If Larry Bond reads this, please understand that many Harpoon players besides myself strongly believe that it is in need of a new edition. The patchwork rule fixes and improvements in SitRep need to be integrated into the rules, the existing errata needs to be incorporated, and the whole rules set needs to be rewritten and tightly edited. Third, I hope to stir up interest in Warship Commander (which I will abbreviate WC). Without the active support Harpoon enjoys, players of WC are on their own when it comes time to incorporate new data. I've written to the publisher asking him to revise the game, but he wrote back that today there simply is not enough demand for a game of such complexity and that it would be money losing proposition. Needless to say, this state of affairs frustrates me deeply. I'm under no illusions that this article will create a fantastic new demand for WC that prompts its creator to upgrade the game and publish a new edition. I urgently wish WC were more widely played and therefore more actively supported; competition is healthy, playing WC does not hurt Harpoon. Data and scenarios published for one game could easily be used for the other. Greater public interest in the fascinating topic of modern naval warfare would increase the popularity of both games to the detriment of neither. Lastly, I hope to generally stir things up and create meaningful debate. I hope most everyone reading this will find the information interesting and/or useful. It may challenge your picture of modern naval warfare and its simulation, and inspire you to find out more on your own. Please write me if you have comments or questions and to point out errors, even if you totally disagree with everything I wrote! Warship Commander is, like Harpoon, a comprehensive set of rules for playing modern naval battles with miniatures. It is published by Enola Games and designed by Ken Smigelski. There are two rule books, one covering surface ships and the other covering aircraft and submarines. The latest edition of the former was published in 1984 and is called Warship Commander II. Sea Command, which covers aircraft and submarines, was printed in 1980 and has not been revised. The latter is very difficult to find; I found copies for myself and friends at gaming convention flea markets and the used game sections of well-stocked game stores. This article will focus on the surface warfare rules. Players need to master those rules before moving on to aircraft and submarines, and this article is already plenty long as it is. While I will cover some aspects of WC only briefly to give a flavor of the game overall, I will also try to focus attention closely on those parts where it differs greatly from Harpoon, in order to more effectively contrast them. A comparative review of Warship Commander and Harpoon was published in issue 29 of Fire & Movement magazine. Many people subscribing to this mailing list haven't seen this, but if you can find that issue I highly recommend it. I agree with the author's points, which are that Harpoon is simpler yet its rules are badly disorganized, while WC is much more realistic, plays a little slower, but is superbly organized. Although the criticisms levelled at Harpoon apply to the 2nd edition, in my opinion the 3rd edition is still a mess. The sonar rules in the current edition of Harpoon are plain broken, and the torpedo rules are vague and unclear. One major theme that I hope to develop in this review is that while WC is more realistic than Harpoon, its careful design makes no single aspect of the game overly difficult to execute. Many procedures, especially ship movement, are actually simpler than Harpoon! Also, many reality enhancements that have over the years been back-fitted into Harpoon suffer from not being designed into the game system in the first place. They don't mesh well with the existing structure, which was intended to be relatively simple and clean. Well, modern naval warfare is not a simple subject! With WC, on the other hand, nothing needs to be added, and it is very easy to leave out things players don't want or need in a given scenario, without compromising the game. Still, all the 'extras' in WC add up, and a typical WC game should probably be smaller in scope than a typical Harpoon game if it is to proceed at a reasonable pace. Only experienced players should try to run more than two ships at a time. Continuing with this philosophical note, WC does have some rule systems which are fairly involved, like damage resolution. However, I like a lot of detail in damage resolution, it makes a game much more exciting and realistic. Another point is that I think the WC rules, for example on electronic warfare, are about as simple as I can imagine them to be, and still work well at showing at least the gross effects of various hostile systems interacting. There are some additional points about electronic counter measures (ECM) in WC that I wish to address. Harpoon has radically oversimplified matters by throwing out all ECM considerations by assuming the effects are built into the hit probabilities. Here the game has problems, for example when an older SSM is fired at a defenseless merchant ship. In reality the missile should have an excellent chance of hitting, but in Harpoon the missile suffers by having its hit probability downgraded to compensate for an environment in which the average ship has effective ECM. On the other hand, WC has extensive ECM rules. Nevertheless, with so much information on electronic warfare (EW) unavailable because it is classified or simply unknown (like what happens when Soviet jammer A is used against missile seeker B while a chaff cloud C is located at position D), one can make the sound argument that the WC EW rules represent, at best, only crude guesses, which, almost by definition, cannot be totally realistic. I agree with this argument, but I should like to point out that the WC EW rules, for all their apparent depth, are not really very detailed or sophisticated! When first reading the rules this might sound very strange, but it is true. Nevertheless, WC succeeds in its EW rules because the players will learn some general principles about what might happen in an ECM environment. The exact details may not be right, but the trends certainly 'feel' right: modern missiles with good ECCM are very resistant to older ECM, but less so to newer ECM; older missiles are easy to spoof. You may not believe the exact numbers and effects, but how much can you expect from a game system in which there are only two types of radar jammers, class A (good), and class B (not so good)? The game at least shows how much better it is to have some jammer than none at all! WC is constructed to allow play by two players without a referee, although refereed, double-blind play is far superior. The formal rules for refereed play are in Sea Command, but any experienced naval gamer can very quickly adapt the game without them. The system is innovative and actually works. Essentially, a number of dummy counters are placed on the play surface in addition to counters for real ships. These are replaced by miniatures if they come into visual spotting range. Under these counters are placed two more counters. These are blank for dummies, but say 'blip' and 'real' for ships. If deception jamming is successfully used against radar searches, then 'blip' counters may be placed under dummies. The opposing player is only allowed to look under the top counter if he makes a successful radar search, and at the bottom counter only if his radars succeed in rejecting false targets. The first part of WC is a comprehensive introduction to the topic of modern naval warfare. This part by itself is almost worth the price of the rulebook. There is a detailed exposition about naval technology and tactics in World War II, the technological changes that have since taken place, and the new tactics that evolved in response. The crucial roles of radar, missiles, and electronic warfare are discussed. The explanation of ECM and ECCM techniques is outstanding; nowhere else have I seen this information presented as a whole in such an accessible manner. If you're curious about the effects of chaff, noise jamming, and deception jamming, and monopulse, pulse-doppler, and continuous-wave radars, you may want to buy WC just to read this section! All these considerations are important to the play of WC and players are well advised to read this section carefully because it explains a great deal of what is going on in the game. Ted Kim has told me that the whole structure of WC seems to be focussed on modern naval operations, the game is built from the ground up to model current and near-future naval activity. This may be contrasted to Harpoon, which, in my opinion, is more generic and could be adapted to WW II naval actions with a minimum of system changes. In my opinion, WC II better imparts the unique flavor of modern naval operations. WC uses two minute game turns, as opposed to the 30 second turns in Harpoon. Each turn is divided into two nearly identical phases. The only difference between the phases is that only one side's ships move during each. All other activities like radar searches and weapons fire is conducted by both forces in both phases. Each phase is subdivided into many segments and steps, which means there is no need to plot orders as in Harpoon. While a game with one minute 'turns' should play faster than one with half minute turns, the need to properly step through the sequence of play slows WC down a bit. This really depends on whether combat is occurring; in normal maneuvering and searching the game is faster than Harpoon unless 10 minute intermediate turns are used in the latter. For convenience, I will discuss the game's systems in the order they appear in the sequence of play. The first activity in a phase is movement. Here, as in Harpoon, ships are divided into three size classes for movement and search purposes. These divisions are similar to those of Harpoon, but are directly based on tonnage instead of abstract damage points. (Note that Harpoon should use the damage points unmodified by construction factors to determine sizes.) Small ships are <1000 tons, large ones are >10,000 tons, and medium ships are in between. Essentially, small ships turn better than large ones. The movement rules are simpler than those in Harpoon because two minute long moves are being simulated, which allows turning through larger angles. Again, movement plotting is not required; in each phase either one player or the other will maneuver his vessels. The type of engines a ship has affects its acceleration rate: diesel and gas turbine engines accelerate a ship much faster than steam engines. Ships with combined propulsion systems accelerate based on whichever engines are currently in use. The recommended game scale is 3 inches to 1 nautical mile, which requires a larger playing area than Harpoon's typical scale. However, one can always change the scale. One important simplification is that ships must always move a speed commensurate with 2.5 knots; that is 32.5, 15, and 7.5 knots are permitted, but 31 knots isn't. This makes movement scaling very easy, and no decimal inch ruler is required. In a ship's movement phase it simply moves 1 inch for every 10 knots of speed (1/4 inch for every 2.5 knots). Turning at normal rates costs 1" of movement, and requires the ship to subsequently move 1" straight ahead. Emergency turning and evasive maneuvering is also allowed. (These radical maneuvers reduce gunfire accuracy by and against the ship). After movement comes visual spotting, except vs SSMs. Spotting is automatic at the appropriate ranges. Fog, night, and sea state can alter the spotting horizon. SSMs are spotted separately later in the sequence of play. The electronic search segment follows. This is quite involved and breaks into the following steps: First players determine whether they will have radars on and/or whether they wish to engage in noise jamming. Then units with radar detectors can detect operating radars and noise jammers. High quality radar detectors will identify the type of radars, lower quality ones have a 20% chance of making such an ID. In response to detecting hostile radars, ships may now use ECM. They may launch chaff, start noise jamming, or engage in deception jamming. Chaff is an important element of electronic warfare. It can affect both radar searches and radar fire control. Depending on the quality of the chaff launcher (modern chaff deploys faster) and the operating mode and ECCM features of the radar, there is a chance that a radar that otherwise would have detected its target will completely fail. Full chaff deployment takes one phase; after that the chaff quality is irrelevant, except that modern chaff also includes flares to spoof IR homing. Older decoy dispensers need to fire these separately. Radar operations are very different from Harpoon. Players of J.D. Webster's Air Superiority (GDW games) or The Speed of Heat (Clash of Arms games) will find the basics of the radar system familiar. Like the system in those games, the range and probability of detection are folded together. In WC radars are rated according to their search strengths at various altitudes. Surface search radars have non-zero strengths only up to low altitudes, air-search radars are stronger against high-altitude targets, and so on. The basic detection procedure is to determine the relevant set of detection modifiers, which vary according to each target, add these to a D10 random number determined once per radar per phase, and cross reference the result with the appropriate radar strength chart. The result is the maximum range at which that target can be detected. If the target is indeed closer than that range, the search is successful. There is no distinction between range and probability of detection as in Harpoon. You simply compare the range at which you could have detected the target with the true range. The charts are constructed such that the most favorable result is a detection out to the radar's strength in miles. For each number worse than this the detection range drops by a certain fraction of the radar's strength. The radar horizon places an absolute limit on the range at which a target may be detected. There is a large bonus (alerted operator) for attempting to contact previously detected targets. With this modifier there is often no need to bother resolving detections in subsequent phases, barring ECM, because even the worst (shortest) detection range would still give a successful result. Radar modifiers include the size of the target, if it is a missile, certain features of the detecting radar, whether the radar is being noise jammed, whether the radar reduces gain while being noise jammed, and so on. Successful deception jamming means the opposing player gets to declare dummy blips as real, though there is a chance these are determined to be false targets. As described above, chaff may nullify an otherwise successful detection attempt. It is possible for a ship to detect a large, broadside target far away while overlooking a small, bow-on that is noise jamming nearby. These rules nicely show the difference between Soviet-style brute-force radars which rely on sheer power to burn through any jamming, and typical western systems which are less powerful but 'smarter', more likely to reject jamming. The WC radar system directly exhibits the phenomenon of 'burn through', that is, how at a short enough range a radar can detect/track its target in spite of noise jamming. The actual resolution of radar searches is delayed until it is determined whether already flying SSMs acquire any targets as this changes their trajectory. Unlike Harpoon where SSMs 'magically' follow and approach their targets after they are launched, WC requires active homing SSMs to find their own targets. Missiles with active homing realistically need to acquire their own targets, and this may not be the target the launching player had in mind. When launched, active homing SSMs need to have the point where homing begins noted, as well as a basic search area size and minimum target size. SSMs are represented by two counters that mark the endpoints of their flight path in the current phase. When fired upon, the target point may be chosen anywhere along this path. In the acquisition segment this path becomes the center of a series of search boxes, whose size is determined at launch. Each box in turn is searched for allowable targets. Against radar homers, chaff and noise jamming may prevent successful acquisition. Chaff may even draw the missile off onto a false target. IR homing missiles may be distracted by flares. There have been attempts to incorporate search rules for bearing-only launched missiles in Harpoon, but they are awkward. Harpoon does attempt rules for missile re-attack, but these are unclear and experimental. Only after this step are SSMs searched for visually. A die roll determines the maximum distance that side can visually spot SSMs that phase. This distance is modified such that large missiles are easier to spot farther away, and sea skimmers are harder to spot. Radar searches are finally resolved, and then ships may employ ECM against detected SSMs that are homing in. False target generation is not possible, but instead range or velocity gate pull-off may be used, as well as chaff. The next step involves engaging air targets with guns and SAMs. This is more involved than Harpoon and takes into account more hardware factors, as well as some 'soft' factors missing from Harpoon. Weapons in WC have an associated fire control rating which represents the sophistication of the attendant FC system. A modern autonomous system like Aegis or Phalanx gets an A rating, a modern digital fire control system rates a B, older analog systems get a D, and so on, down to H which represents local manual control of a weapon system. These rules show that the effectiveness of a given weapon depends on more than just the caliber and rate of fire of a gun, for example. The same gun system on two different ships with different fire control ratings will perform radically differently. This is why modern ships with one or two 5" guns are more effective against air targets than older ships with 8 functionally identical guns. There are penalties for engaging recently detected targets. These do not apply for A rated systems because no human intervention is required. The penalties reflect the time lag in getting fire control systems engaged. If the detection was visual instead of by radar there is a major penalty. The quality of the detecting radars matters, as does the quality of radar detection gear if an SSM's search radar was detected in the previous phase. Against targets above surface skimming altitude there are accuracy losses if a 3D air search radar was not used. Failing that, there is a penalty if a 2D air search radar was used in conjunction with a height finding radar, and an even greater penalty if no height finding radar was used. Soviet designed ships suffer an extra penalty because they don't centralize their detection and fire control stations in CIC's they way western ships do. Why are there penalties for not having 3D or height finding radars? In order to fire guns or SAMs at a target the platform needs to illuminate the target with a narrow-beam fire control radar. This needs to be pointed at the target before weapons fire can begin. The information on where to point the fire control radar comes from search radars, and if they are tracking an air target it is necessary to know the target's altitude, or there will be an extra delay in capturing the target. (Note that some modern point-defense systems have their own 3D acquisition radars co-located with their guidance radars, for example Pop Group for SAN-4 or Mk 92 for Sea Sparrow. WC fails to take this into account, unless the system qualifies for A fire control, like Sea Wolf. I suggest simply assuming a 3D radar was used even if the ship doesn't have a main 3D radar.) Other adjustments to the firing accuracy include the fire control rating of guns, but not SAMs. (SAMs are always closely tied to specific fire control systems, so their accuracy number already reflects the quality of their fire control). Range and target speed also affect accuracy, and there is another set of effects that Harpoon lacks: time and position of engagement. In Harpoon missiles and aircraft flit from position to position, and cannot be engaged at intervening points, except just before they hit a ship. The WC system converts this anomalous situation in Harpoon into the natural situation governing at all times. WC penalizes weapons fire at air targets whose initial counter is already inside gun range. This reflects the fact that the gun could already have engaged the target at that position during the last phase. If a fire control radar is not employed there is a further accuracy drop. If an air target is successfully shot down, the firing battery (set of guns under the direction of a single fire control system or, typically, half a SAM mount) may immediately attempt to engage another target with reduced accuracy. This accuracy drop depends on the quality of the fire control system. A Phalanx mount may destroy two or three missiles in one phase this way, but an older SAM mount is lucky to shoot down even one target. This is very different from Harpoon where there are strict ROF and timing requirements for weapons. The overall results in WC seem about the same, but there is a greater variance of results. A single Phalanx mount may shoot down 3 missiles or none in a single phase, I've seen both happen. (One weakness in the WC rules is that SAM ammunition is not explicitly tracked, nor is it clear whether the fire of one SAM battery always represents one single missile. This would make a difference, for example, in the case of older Soviet SAMs. Only a single target at a time can be engaged by one mount, but doctrine is to fire two missiles at it. Shooting two SAMs at one target seems to be a very common doctrine for many other navies. Only with technology like Aegis do you really obtain the ability to guide as many missiles at different targets as you can put in the air. For game purposes, I assume WC SAM firings typically represent two missiles because rolling twice makes the chances of hitting too large.) Weapons accuracy in WC is not handled with direct percentages as in Harpoon. Instead a more abstract 'accuracy rate' is employed. There is a base accuracy rate for a given weapon, and this is modified as above. Finally, the rate is translated into a hit probability. This has several advantages over the Harpoon system. First, the highest useful accuracy rate of 18 translates into a 90% hit probability. Any excess is wasted. Yet, some SAMs have accuracy rates in excess of 20. Why? Well, if such a SAM suffers accuracy penalties as outlined above, it has some slack to effectively ignore these conditions and thus still be fully accurate. In Harpoon such a SAM would have to be given a hit probability like 98%, or perhaps in excess of 100%. It is hard to distinguish in Harpoon among different modern SAMs that are all intrinsically extremely accurate, but react differently to adverse conditions. Another advantage is that accuracy rates don't have to scale linearly with hit probabilities. WC has an extended low end of hit probabilities, they don't suddenly drop to zero. Crudely, the system may be described as logarithmic, such that a given accuracy adjustment has a constant 'relative' effect no matter what the initial accuracy. In Harpoon a -20% drop has a far different effect on a weapon with 90% accuracy compared to one with a 15% accuracy! Guns that did not engage air targets may then be employed against surface targets. With this and other forms of weapons fire, a fire control radar must successfully track the target before it can assist in aiming. This is not a concern for missiles because these do not typically carry jammers, and the engagement ranges are relatively short, so that fire control will always automatically be successful. As described above for search radars, there are all manner of adjustments based on target size, aspect, radar mode of operation and ECCM capability, and jamming. Chaff can defeat an otherwise successful attempt to track a target. The adjustments to gunnery accuracy include target size and speed, whether the target and/or firer turned and how much, evasive maneuvers by target or firer, and the fire control rating of the guns. During the first phase of gunfire there is an extra penalty for 'ranging in', in which more modern fire control systems are again advantaged. Here Soviet ships are penalized, as are ships not using radar fire control. The damage done by gunfire is resolved on detailed damage tables. The number of hits is modified by the type of shell used (HE is the standard, armor piercing does less damage, high capacity more, and there's also semi-armor piercing ...). HC rounds are good against small boats and for blowing away topside and deck structures, but they won't penetrate armor or any real hull thickness. AP rounds are useful against armored ships, but there aren't a whole lot around. Still, if you're a Soviet who wants to shell the high-tension steel hull of USS Nimitz, by all means use AP. Players may also choose to fire proximity fuzed shells which cause less hull damage, cannot cause flooding or shock damage, but have a better chance of destroying the topside electronics of the target, rendering it helpless. The effective number of hits increases against small targets because there is nowhere 'safe' to hit them. For each hit the area of damage is resolved as either superstructure, hull, or deck damage. This depends on the range of firing and a random resolution. For each hit and each damage area percentile dice are used to determine the exact damage. WC tracks damage through specific system damage, fire, and flooding. There are no abstract hit points as in Harpoon. This means that almost no damage can be ignored; a lucky gunfire hit can cause a dangerous fire, damage the engines, and/or knock out key electronics like radars and jammers. A gun duel can be decided very quickly by when one ship takes damage to its gun fire control system or guns, or suffers steering or engine damage. Flooding damage is tracked by flotation points. A ship sinks when it sustains flooding equal to its flotation allowance, which equals its tonnage. Soviet ships are penalized and get a smaller allowance, while the well-built British and Canadian ships get more. Non-warships typically get half the flooding points normally assigned to a ship of their tonnage. After surface gunfire comes the SSM segment. First, it is determined whether currently homing SSMs hit their targets. This depends solely on the missile's accuracy, and all SSMs in the game have nearly the same accuracy numbers. Remember that the target already had its chance to spoof or jam the missile, if that does not succeed there really isn't much difference between the homer on an SS-N-2A and a Harpoon. The Harpoon is, of course, much more resistant to being jammed in the first place. Yet, both missiles should be roughly equally accurate when fired at an undefended practice target. In Harpoon this causes problems, as ECM is assumed to be taking place, so older missiles are given substantially worse hit probabilities. Yet these hit probabilities really represent a baseline case of engaging a modern, ECM-using vessel. Against an older vessel with primitive ECM, or no ECM, the hit numbers of the older missiles should really rise. There is no such problem in WC. SSM damage can be extremely massive, and is resolved on its own charts. There are separate charts depending on the size of the target, the size of the missile, and whether the missile was a sea-skimmer or came in from a high angle. Whereas a ship like Kirov could laugh off several Harpoon hits as long as no critical hits were scored, even one small or medium missile hit in WC can cause a mission kill by blowing radars and fire control systems away, even if few weapons mounts, if any, suffer direct damage. SSMs often cause fires which can rage out of control and destroy the ship unless contained by damage control crews. Similarly, a large amount of flooding can occur, which will continue to grow until controlled. In this way I have played games where a minor gun hit on a Soviet frigate caused a fire that grew without restraint due to some poor die rolling by the Soviet player, finally to engulf the ship. On the other hand, hits that would automatically result in sinkings in Harpoon can be survived, as when a Perry class frigate survived an SS-N-22 in a WC game. After heroic fire fighting and flooding control the ship was just barely saved. Until my ships came into gun range. SSMs in flight are moved, and new SSMs are then launched. Unlike Harpoon, WC has very definite and strict rules about the tracking requirements needed to engage targets with SSMs. A ship either needs to track the target itself with a fire control radar or optical gun director, or it needs to have this information relayed by a friendly vessel. Only a few missiles may be fired in bearing-only mode (Harpoon, SS-N-22, etc) against targets detected only passively, where the range is not known. Bearing-only launched missiles must turn their homers on as soon as possible, and must be set to search the widest possible zone. This means the other side can get ESM warning sooner. The torpedo segment is next, and it is of little consequence in surface vs surface engagements. Torpedoes function broadly similarly to SSMs in that two counters are used to represent them, but at a specified range they stop moving and set up a pattern-running search zone in which targets may be acquired. Next is the damage control segment. Western ships have significant advantages here in that they can repair electronic systems and weapons, which Soviets are not allowed to do, and they are better at putting out fires and controlling flooding. Before weapons, electronics, and propulsion repairs are attempted there is a procedure to determine whether any repair is, in fact, possible. The last phase is communications; here ships that are in mutual radio contact inform each other of their contacts. Unlike Harpoon, this means that a picket ship does not instantaneously inform its counterparts of the exact locations of targets. Vessels that did not detect their own targets earlier in the phase by visual spotting or search radars could not engage them until being made aware of them in this phase. There is one way to get around these restrictions: a data link system allows a ship friendly to another to immediately communicate detection information. Data link systems are a bit finicky, there is a chance each turn that a given ship's system will fail to function. If data link works, a ship may engage a target that it did not itself detect with its own search sensors. As you can tell, a game turn of WC can be a lot more involved than one of Harpoon, but I believe the extra effort is very worthwhile. The main drawback of WC compared to Harpoon is that some of the ship and weapons information is dated, but this can be remedied by borrowing data from Harpoon and using good reference books like Combat Fleets of the World and World Naval Weapons Systems. How does it play? Some players have likened Harpoon to a die rolling contest because the possible outcomes are narrowly defined by the weapons statistics. That is probably unfair, but in my experience the possible range of outcomes in a Harpoon missile shoot out are not hard to predict, there isn't a great deal of variance. That is definitely not the case in WC. The player who uses better tactics, who understands the limitations and advantages of his electronics and missiles better than his enemy, will have a big advantage, even if he has a weaker force. A good player is more likely to get an effective first missile volley off, and is better at defending against missiles by knowing how to best use ECM. With many 'soft' factors modelled in WC, the range of outcomes has a larger variance. Surprise is more dangerous than in Harpoon, and the more lethal damage system of WC means the first substantial missile hit will probably eliminate a ship's fighting power even if there are no fires or flooding. This makes a good first attack more decisive compared to Harpoon. These factors make players much more cautious and careful. Maneuver before contact and proper scouting become supremely important. Surprise attacks against forces under electronic silence are devastating due to the penalties for engaging just-discovered missiles. But if the radars are left on, you give away your location. Even if you are perfectly happy with Harpoon, I urge you to get Warship Commander II, if only as reference material on modern naval technology and tactics. Many systems of the game can easily be adapted to make Harpoon more realistic. For example, some concepts from the electronic warfare section, especially chaff, could easily be used in Harpoon games. The damage system should be very easy to transplant and should make Harpoon games more fun and realistic (watch your opponent sweat even a single incoming missile; no more 'free' damage). Or go wild and borrow all the electronics rules, so that EW is completely integrated. At a cost of $12 I think WC is a very worthwhile purchase for any naval gamer. If you're like me, you might even decide to go the other way, play WC and borrow from Harpoon! I should like to thank Ted Kim for his assistance in preparing this article. Credit is also due to James Stear for being a great Warship Commander opponent. What better motivation for learning the game? I very much invite comments, please direct them to the email addresses below. Perhaps my next article will be: "Simulations Canada Naval Games on the Computer: What You're Missing", we shall see. In any event, in your naval gaming, may you find him before he finds you. -Felix Hack GEnie: F.HACK1 Internet: felixh@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest **************** From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Fri Sep 25 17:12:09 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus1) id AA00569; Fri, 25 Sep 92 17:12:09 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 17:12:09 -0700 Message-Id: <9209260012.AA00569@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v12 #3 (msgs 15-26) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 25 September 1992 Volume: 12 Issue: 3 Topics: (15) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (16) Re: Making Scenarios jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (17) Blue Water Navy rinkleff@ksuvm.ksu.edu (18) Re: European Sales postmaster@manadon (19) PC 1.3 Bug paul@xcluud.sccsi.com (20) 1.3 Sales and Questions postmaster@manadon (21) 1.3 Upgrade a760@dmt03.mcc.virginia.edu (22) Unix/X-Windows Game janm@dublin.docs.uu.se (23) Various atubbiol@ccit.arizona.edu (24) Re: Tomahawk vs. Harpoon dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov (25) 1.3 Problem zen%hophead@canrem.com (26) More On Reloads s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon/cz via anonymous FTP Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 25 Sep 1992 14:22:27 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (15) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: jboeken@ccit.arizona.edu (John Boekenoogen) coates@lse.ac.uk (Ian Coates) andrew@wybbs.mi.org (Andrew Fabbro) quee@wam.umd.edu (Mike Lynn Miner) modlinski%gssfc.decnet@scfb.nwc.navy.mil (Chip Modlinski) kq9h@maristb.bitnet (Richard W. Roberts) wsulliv@theporch.raidernet.com (Walt Sullivan) torreti@sjsuvm1.sjsu.edu (Timothy A. Torres) tupper@cats.ucsc.edu (Doug Tupper) dturn@mitvma.bitnet (Dave Turnquist) jeffw@sunncal.west.sun.com (Jeffrey Allen Worley) Real work intruded its ugly head again. Sorry for the late issue. Here is a correction of an arithmetic error in v11 msg 42: Class RCS Range Factor Large 10 m^2 1.00 Small 1 0.56 (not .66) VSmall .1 0.32 Stealthy .001 0.10 -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 17:21:39 MST From: jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) Subject: (16) Re: Making Scenarios Message-Id: In CZ v12 msg5, Andrea Fontana (fontana@pavia.infn.it) writes: > [about defending major Soviet vessels...] > > ANTI-AIRCRAFT PLATFORMS > > In the AAW ring the defense from aircraft or missile attacks and the air > attacks will be performed by strong AAW platforms, like the cruisers: > Kara: with SA-N-3B (30nm), SA-N-4 (8nm) > Slava: with SA-N-4, SA-N-6 (50nm) > or the frigate > Krivak II: with SA-N-4 About that Krivak II, I believe that just as in the US Navy, the former Soviet Navy never used frigates in deep sea formations. The Krivak series, although well armed for it's size, is mainly a platform for patroling the territorial seas (i.e., VERY close to shore). This is evidenced by the fact that the Krivak II series was built for KGB use! The Krivak III was for the "real" Soviet Navy. [Mod Note: I think you have the II and III confused, the III is the KGB model.] The US Navy does not use frigates for carrier protection because of the lack of speed, and previously, an overbundance of missile armed destroyers, but now with all the older missile armed destroyer being phased out, leaving only the 4 Kidd class destroyers and the "under built" Arleigh Burke class, we may see frigates preforming carrier escort. Frigates are many for convoy protection. > ANTI-SURFACE PLATFORMS > > Again a carrier can launch her aircraft, configured for a surface attack, > possibly standoff or guided, and the type it depends on carrier class. As for this, unless Harpoon provides us with the never built sucessors to the Kusnetsov, Soviet carriers will very rarely launch surface strike missions. Since the Kusnetsov barely carries half of the compliment of a US carrier, and nearly all of these planes are truly fighters, 99% of the time, the fixed wing assets of a Soviet carrier will be used only in defense of the carrier, in a CAP-type role. In fact, I believe I read over in sci.mil that the navalized Fulcrum got canceled, but I just might be halucinating from the midday heat. So that just leaves navalized Flankers. I forget if they have ASuW loadouts in IOPG, but the Air Force versions have little to no ground to air capability, so I would assume that the navalized Flankers are similarily lacking. (To ford off speed boats with RPGs, or an outdated Osa class boat, keep around a couple of Ka-28s, armed with ATGMs. Those Spandrel missiles will take out a dinky tub like that and save you a Sunburn. Ah, but armed Ka-28s are only in IOPG...) |--------------------------------| "If you were happy all of your life, | J. Taggart Gorman Jr. | you wouldn't be human - you'd be a | jtgorman@caslon.cs.arizona.edu | game show host." |--------------------------------| Winona Ryder, in _Heathers_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 06:30 CDT From: rinkleff@ksuvm.ksu.edu Subject: (17) Blue Water Navy Message-Id: I recently called Presidio and learned that the book had been cancelled. The reason given for this was because of the changing world political scene. They didn't think that there would be a market for a book invovling a super power conflict. If you REALLY want it you can get a pre-publication copy for about $100. Hope this helps! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 11:46 BST From: postmaster@manadon-engineering-college.ac.uk (Keith Wain) Subject: (18) Re: European Sales Message-Id: In CZ v11 msg50, someone asked if 360 takes Europlastic. Up till recently only Harpoon itself was available in the UK and I had to buy all the other goodies direct from 360. They were extremely helpful accepted Visa and Mastercard, but were not all that cheap! Since the goodies are now being sold in the UK I have found them to be cheaper than direct from 360. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 14:26:40 CDT From: paul@xcluud.sccsi.com (Paul Hutmacher) Subject: (19) PC 1.3 Bug Message-Id: Hi y'all: I'd been getting this "Irrecoverable System Error: (Mem Mngr) Insufficient master handles, code = 113,21,-1" error over and over with the new 1.3 Harpoon release and had been getting rather annoyed. One poster on rec.games.ibm.pc noted the same problem and indicated that 360 was aware of it but was not going to do anything about it. Well, I called Dave at the customer support number and he said they were aware of the problem and were working on a fix for it. His suggestion at this time was to go back to version 1.2 until they released the fix. He indicated it was to be a "couple of weeks" and to check back with them then. I asked how the fix was to be released, but he didn't know. -- Paul Hutmacher | paul@xcluud.sccsi.com Houston, Texas | {nuchat,lobster}!xcluud!paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 12:12 BST From: postmaster@manadon-engineering-college.ac.uk (Keith Wain) Subject: (20) 1.3 Sales and Questions Message-Id: The New Designer Series has become available in the UK (from Virgin Shops, at least). They come complete with an update to 1.3. Firstly a few comments and queries on 1.3, if anyone can help. One of my favourite scenarios involved French Mirages in the Indian Ocean doing a nuclear strike on a shore base and on a group of ships. Now they will not attack either. (They at least fly toward the shore base, but never release any weapons.) I can see that I am having to be far more realistic about which weapons I use on which targets, but surely they should have attached one of them? Can anyone recommend a good book on the air/sea/sub weapons available in Harpoon? If anyone has a crib sheet with weapon parameters on it would be most welcome if mailed to me! Otherwise, I am in the process of making up my own. Version 1.3 seems a lot less likely to crash randomly, compared to previous releases. When it does crash, it always appears to be the mem handler problem. The frequency of the machine going into deep thought appears to have gone up particularly on torpedo release. The clock seems to stop but the cursor still moves. Leaving it for a while (like minutes rather than seconds) and everything starts working again. The ability to fire missiles to an activation point, without having to specify any particular target is very powerful and well worth trying out. This is worth getting 1.3 for, in my opinion. Submarines now seem to be MUCH more difficult to find. As I complained earlier about how unrealistically easy it was to find them, I should be happy! It is possible now to set up an ambush by luring a group of ships over an area with deep static subs. In the past these subs seemed to be detected no matter what. The new scenarios that I have tried seem well thought out -- although many seem to have no difference between partial and total victories. Some of the victory conditions (as seen with Scenedit) look a bit odd. I have only looked at a few of these -- generally after I have tried the scenario from each side for a good few goes. How do you set up the formation editor for a ship/aircraft to cover more than one sector? Or is this limited to the battleset scenarios? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 92 09:43:04 EST From: a760@dmt03.mcc.virginia.edu (Kirby Stiening) Subject: (21) 1.3 Upgrade Message-Id: Couple of strange things about the pricing on the 1.3 upgrade. First, registered users like me get a note in the mail that we can upgrade to the Designer's Series for the special price of $44.95. Well, Software Etc has it on sale at $42.95. So much for a "deal". The upgrade itself was only $19.95, but then there is the CZ note from Australia (v12, msg 10) that says they will be getting the update FREE! Finally, why doesn't 360 market a 3.5" disk version? Another nickel and dime frustration. Kirby ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 18:30:24 +0200 From: janm@dublin.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson) Subject: (22) Unix/X-Windows Game Message-Id: About two years ago someone on this list said he was designing a Harpoon look-a-like for Unix/X-windows. What happened to this project? Is someone else working on a similar project? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 1992 13:52:40 -0700 (MST) From: atubbiol@ccit.arizona.edu Subject: (23) Various Message-Id: Hi guys/gals, here's some hints and some questions ... For all you CGA users out there who can't use the Indian Ocean battle set, like me ... Rename IOPGEGA.RES to GIUKCGA.RES and you are ready to rock! For all you out there who use the scenario editor, and are not satisfied with the inability to attack an enemy that can be at variable positions. First, set recon patrols to all the locations that you have designated as potential sites for blue, assuming you are programming red, and allow ample time for the patrol to find potential targets. Be sure to use somthing nifty like a MOSS or IL-76 MAINSTAY, and keep it out of range of SAM range. After ample time has passed to allow the longest patrol to be completed, launch your bombers on an attack mission. A few editions ago someone mentioned the ability to edit .res files, so you could edit ship, and aircraft weapons capabilities. Because my mail directory was purged I have no record of this. Whoever you are could you send instructions to me, or the next issue? Happy Hunting! / \ 0 0 > \__/ ATUBBIOL@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 07:19:50 EDT From: dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov (Dennis Milbert) Subject: (24) Re: Tomahawk vs. Harpoon Message-Id: Chris Lane (CZ v12 msg9) asks: > What's the difference between a Harpoon and a Tomahawk? In one word, "size". In 1972 the Navy wanted a strategic missile that would fit a standard torpedo tube. It would have a nuclear warhead and a range of 1600 miles. This meant cruise missile technology; and the Tomahawk (SLCM -- Submarine Launched Cruise Missile) was conceived. Subsequently, the Navy extended the requirement to include a long-range, conventional, anti-ship mission. The conventional version was TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile), deployed in 1982-83 on both ships and subs. In 1984 we deployed GLCM (Ground Launched Cruise Missile) and TLAM-C (Tomahawk Land Attack Missile - Conventional). In 1987 we finally deployed the TLAM-N (Nuclear), which was the missile originally envisioned in 1972. These versions share the same airframe/wings/engine. Modular design allows different warhead/guidance/fuel tank combinations. Obviously, if a commander needs to nuke a base or crater a runway, then a Tomahawk is chosen. Focusing now on TASM, the warhead comes in two types: BGM-109B 1000lb warhead (found on the AGM-12 BULLPUP missile) BGM-109E an incendiary warhead These warheads are heavier than the 200 kiloton W80 nuclear warhead, so fuel tankage is less, and the range is reduced to around 300 miles. TASM uses inertial guidance and an active radar terminal guidance. Of interest, this radar guidance was derived from the Harpoon. TASM flies at medium altitude, then decends to 50-100 ft for the final run. It can be programmed to fly doglegs, and search if the target has moved from its expected location. By way of contrast, Harpoon was designed from the ground up as an anti-ship missile. The land attack version (SLAM) is a recent development. Harpoon has a smaller warhead (488 lb) and shorter range (60-80 miles). Harpoon flies at only 50 ft for the entire course, with a selective popup at the end. It is a smaller, lighter missile. (as a source: The Dictionary of Modern War, Luttwak and Koehl, 1991) Dennis Milbert dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 13:00:34 -0400 From: zen%hophead@canrem.com (Nick Zentena) Subject: (25) 1.3 Problem Message-Id: Hi, Every now and again a air patrol will run out of fuel and crash. The problem is these patrols are attached to the bases, i.e., in the the base formation. Is anybody else having this problem? Nick ***************************************************************************** I drink Beer I don't collect cute bottles! zen%hophead@canrem.com ***************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 13:59:17 EST From: s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (Gavin Rewell) Subject: (26) More On Reloads Message-Id: Some weeks back I wrote to CZ and raised the question of reloadable launchers in computer Harpoon. Thanks to those who replied. I appreciate it. However, I have some new information to bring to light. I was playing a scenario of my own making from the MEDC battleset (Harpoon IBM v1.2). I was playing the blue side. One of my groups was composed of Italian vessels, and was under heavy air/sea attack - I mean lots of incoming missiles. I received the message "AH07 reloading its mounts". I was stunned. I have NEVER in two years of play seen this message for a blue ship before ... I eagerly looked at the unit, using the close-up window, and requesting a [F]ull Report. I remembered seeing the Maestrale unit (there were also three Lupos, a V. Veneto, A. Doria and two Audace class ships) fire off some SAMs. Sure enough, it had fired 16/24 missiles. That is, it had fired off its total of 8 in the Albatros launcher. Now this DOES UPSET ME. Why is it that this is the first unit I remember with this characteristic? There are many vessels in the Data Annex also represented in the computer game which are said to have "manual reloads" ... but why is the Maestrale the only class that can USE them? The Maestrale class has, and I quote, "16 reloads for Aspide (manual)". There are many other ships with notes the same as this. (Only one other ship is allowed more than one shot with their SAM launchers per tube, that being the G. Garibaldi, it would seem.) The other classes are: DDG Cassard (Sadral/Mistral), CV Clemenceau (Crotale EDIR), DDG Georges Leygues (Crotale), DD Tourville (Crotale), FF Oslo (NATO SS/RIM-7M), FF Descubierta (NATO SS/Aspide), FF Leander/3A (Sea Wolf), all Type 22 FFs (Sea Wolf), and both the DD Spruance and DD Improved Spruance classes (NATO SS/RIM-7M). The G. Garibaldi is rated for 24 missiles, not 48 and is said to have "six manual reloads carried for Otomat Mk 2", does that mean it should have 10/10 Otomat instead of 4/4 ? Now, there are errors in the Data Annex I admit, and there may be more I am not aware of, but assuming there are not, could someone please explain to me what gives? Oh, and one final matter. Could someone please tell me if the Clemenceau class has 8-round or 6-round Crotale EDIR launchers in real life? Harpoon gives them 6-round, while two other sources say 8-round. Is the EDIR launcher smaller than the regular Crotale Navale carried on the Georges Leygues and Tourville classes? Thanks a bunch. DAX ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest **************** From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Thu Oct 1 10:06:44 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus1) id AA14626; Thu, 1 Oct 92 10:06:44 -0700 Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 10:06:44 -0700 Message-Id: <9210011706.AA14626@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v12 #4 (msgs 27-36) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 1 October 1992 Volume: 12 Issue: 4 Topics: (27) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (28) Survey Again lam@cs.colostate.edu (29) Re: Making Scenarios assembly15@bvc.edu (30) Re: 1.3 Problem postmaster@manadon (31) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (32) This and That coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (33) USN Frigates ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu (34) Data Annex Updates tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (35) 1.3 Bugs mgjblok@cs.vu.nl (36) PC 1.3 Config Tricks s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon/cz via anonymous FTP Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 1 Oct 1992 08:19:01 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (27) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: belanger@mr4dec.enet.dec.com (Roland Belanger) leungsa@ecf.toronto.edu (Leo S. Leung) adrianm@vnet.ibm.com (Adrian Merwood) rodrigue@sunburn.ec.usf.edu (Angel Rodriguez) bsteele@ups.edu (Brian Steele) andrew.stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) wagner@main.mndly.umn.edu (Rick Wagner) Mark Lam's survey is included again for any of you want to respond but don't have a copy. Late breaking news: A European archive site is now operational! Our European readers and Harpoon players can now get service closer to home. The archive is available by anonymous FTP to ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42). Our thanks to Maurice Blok (mgjblok@cs.vu.nl) who arranged the setup and to the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam for letting their facilities be used. Everything from the Sunbane archive should be available there also. Please be kind and gracious guests when using their system. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 16:25:54 MDT From: lam@cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Subject: (28) Survey Again Message-Id: Folks, I recently received a request to send out my survey because a member had lost his copy. Unfortunately, my reply bounced back (sorry Andrew.) To make sure everyone has a copy, I have posted it again. I need some more responses to this, or the results could be a bit strange! :-) Thanks to all who have filled out and returned to survey to date. I wanted to reply to all of you personally, but I didn't accomplish that goal. Please accept this substitute. Thanks again, and Happy Harpooning! ==== I thought it might be interesting to see how the membership of CZ breaks down in relation to the version of the game they play (computer vs. paper), and what their favorite part of the game is. So, I decided to put this little survey together. Here's what I propose: fill out the survey and email it to lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu. [Mod Note: Do not mail it to cz or cz-request!] I'll tabulate the data over the course of volume 12. After the last issue of volume 12 is posted, I'll put the data together and present it to the group. Hopefully, this will spur some discussion as well as give people a feel for the list membership. 1. What versions of the game do you have (computer/paper/both): a. What type of computer do you play Harpoon on: 2. Which version is your favorite, if you have both: PAPER VERSION 1. Please rank your favorite types of scenarios (ASW, ASuW, AAW, other) with one being your favorite, two your second favorite, etc.: a. If you have one, what is your favorite scenario: 2. What Harpoon supplements do you own, other than the basic game (Ship Forms, ASW Forms, etc.): 3. Do you prefer large games (ie Carrier Battle Groups involved) or small games (ie two or three ships total): 4. Do you prefer a game with a referee or without: 5. How long does a typical game session last: 6. What is the single most important facet of the game that needs improvement: COMPUTER VERSION 1. Do you own the Scenario Editor: 2. What BattleSets do you own, other than GIUK: 3. Please rank the BattleSets in order of preference, with one being your favorite, two your second favorite, etc.: 4. Do you prefer playing user scenarios or built-in scenarios: 5. What is your favorite type of scenario: a. If you have one, what is your favorite scenario: 6. What is the single most important facet of the game that needs improvement: ==== Please take a few minutes to fill this out and send it to me. I think the whole list will be interested in the results. Thank you! -- Mark R. Lam InterNet Address: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu Colorado State University lam@lamar.colostate.edu Fort Collins, Colorado ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 1992 13:29:24 -0500 (CDT) From: assembly15@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman) Subject: (29) Re: Making Scenarios Message-Id: In CZ v12 msg16, jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) writes: > The US Navy does not use frigates for carrier protection because of the lack > of speed, and previously, an overbundance of missile armed destroyers, but now > with all the older missile armed destroyer being phased out, leaving only the > 4 Kidd class destroyers and the "under built" Arleigh Burke class, we may see > frigates preforming carrier escort. Frigates are many for convoy protection. Frigates are mainly used for picket patrols where you speed up a while and then slow down to use you sonar more effectively. > [stuff deleted] > > As for this, unless Harpoon provides us with the never built sucessors to the > Kusnetsov, Soviet carriers will very rarely launch surface strike missions. > Since the Kusnetsov barely carries half of the compliment of a US carrier, and > nearly all of these planes are truly fighters, 99% of the time, the fixed wing > assets of a Soviet carrier will be used only in defense of the carrier, in a > CAP-type role. In fact, I believe I read over in sci.mil that the navalized > Fulcrum got canceled, but I just might be halucinating from the midday heat. > So that just leaves navalized Flankers. I forget if they have ASuW loadouts in > IOPG, but the Air Force versions have little to no ground to air capability, > so I would assume that the navalized Flankers are similarily lacking. In real life, Flankers are a pain in the a** if you opponent have them. They can carry a wide variety of ASMs and can effectively knock out ships from standoff range. So for you board players, you can modify the Su-27/35 to sink some ship. SF bvc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 12:20 BST From: postmaster@manadon-engineering-college.ac.uk (Keith Wain) Subject: (30) Re: 1.3 Problem Message-Id: In reference to CZ v12 msg25 ... Base aircraft running out of fuel on the PC version of Harpoon appears always to be a result of "joining" a battlegroup to a base when the group has aircraft flying. These aircraft then appear to be homeless and will crash without warning. The only solution I have found is to use the formation editor to land all aircraft before joining groups. I am not sure what happens when a group is split -- do the aircraft stay in formation or rejoin the ships leaving the group? Because Harpoon seems to let any platform land any number of aircraft, I suspect that I do not see crashes because the aircraft are landed onto whatever platforms are left in the group that can take them ... . Again, landing all aircraft before splitting groups seems to be the only sure-fire way of getting the right aircraft on the right ships. Any-one had any problems with OS2/2 and Harpoon, or running Harpoon under Windows 3.1? The latter never seems to have enough memory to make it worthwhile. The former has loads of memory but seems to be very flaky. I have followed the manual supplied with the 1.3 upgrade. (RTM has caught me out too many times ...) If sound is enabled the whole system goes ape whenever multiple aircraft take off. Finally, what is the situation regarding user scenarios on a BB? I have been asked for scenarios and would like to download those from your archive site, but thought that there were copyright problems, so did not. With 1.3 able to support user scripts as well as databases, the interest in user scenarios should grow even more. [Mod Note: an anonymous FTP scenario archive is on sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue 15 Sep 1992 10:47:38 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (31) Recent Naval Developments Message-Id: What follows are some items of interest summarized from the September 1992 USNI Proceedings. The Royal Navy's last broad-beamed Leander (HMS Ariadne) was sold to Chile. On 3 June 1992, it became PF-09 General Banquedano. This leaves 5 of the original 26 Leanders built from 1964-73 still in service. Other Leanders recently removed from UK service include HMS Jupiter (sold in April) and the HMS Hemione (decommissioned in June). In July 1992, the FRG withdrew from the European Fighter Program. The stated reason was that it was too expensive and elaborate for the times. The PRC has bought the CIS Varyag (sister ship to Kuznetsov) and 22 Su-27K. It was supposedly bought to help enforce her claim on the Spratly islands and the oil reserves there. When the Soviet Union collapsed, work was stopped before the ship was fully equipped. Now, she may be completed with equipment different from her sister ship. Apparently, the dispute about Black Sea Fleet ownership revolved primarily around the Varyag. Now that she will be sold, Russia and Ukraine have agreed to operate the fleet jointly through 1995. Some of the proceeds of the sale will finance Black Sea Fleet operations. In CZ v11 msg42, there was a report about a CIS aircraft sale to Iran. Apparently, that deal is larger than thought before. In addition to 24 MiG-27 48 MiG-29 and 24 MiG-31, the deal reportedly includes 2 Il-76 Mainstay, 12 Tu-22M Backfire, An-72 maritime surveillance variants, SAMs (SA-5, SA-11, SA-13) and contracts for service and spare parts. The Mainstays are AWACS type planes, though not nearly as sophisticated. The SAMs may be the beginnings of a Soviet style IADS network. However, what really worries the USN are the Backfires. This is the first time that Backfires have been exported. The An-72 variants are apparently the search component for the Backfires. The search technology is some type of passive EO search with a data-link. The main concern is that the CIS has exported AS-4 or AS-6 with the Backfires. If this is so, Iran will have the sort of naval air threat previously only possessed by the CIS (though on a much smaller scale). No Gulf state navy is up to effectively defending from that sort of threat. The USN may find that the development programs for the Outer Air Battle (e.g., F-14D, AAAM) were abandoned prematurely. Backfire attacks on CVBGs may not be a thing of the past. The second Arleigh Burke class destroyer (DDG-52 Barry) went on trials on 29 June 1992. The USN is reorganizing and trimming down the CNO's office. One major change is that the so called "platform barons" (3-star Assistant CNOs for Suface Warfare, Undersea Warfare and Air Warfare) were reduced to 2-star positions placed under a single 3-star Deputy CNO. The September 1992 issue also contained an interesting article about the F/A-18E/F. Among other things, the article contained graphs showing projected carrier aviation strengths out to 2015. Some interesting observations can be made by interpolating from the graphs (an inexact measurement to be sure). Currently, the USN desires to have a "base force" of approximately 1600 fighters and attack planes total for a 12 carrier force. Current levels are somewhat below this at about 1400. Around 1995-99, the desired force level will be achieved. However, after that there is a steep drop off. Of course, the Navy is considering service life extension programs, the AX and the F/A-18E/F. If all goes as planned, the force never drops below 1400 (low point around 2007). However, many people question whether the projected service lifetimes, budget and delivery times can really be counted on. The projected drop off for the current program and the current program with new life extension programs is shown below. Force Year Reached Size Current SLEP 1400 2000 2003 1200 2001 2005 1000 2002 2008 800 2004 2011 600 2008 2013 400 2012 Projections for specific plane types are as follows. A-6E peak of ~250 in 1998, declining until totally gone by 2015 AX projected deployment in 2007, with 200 by 2015 F-14A currently at 404, declining until totally gone by 2012 F-14B/D peaks at 124 in 1993, declining until totally gone by 2016 F/A-18A/B/C/D peak of ~800 in 1998, declining with ~300 in 2015 this decline will be slowed if SLEP is instituted F/A-18E/F projected deployment in 1999, with ~800 by 2015 Overall, there is a fall in the attack plane total, which is only arrested after the AX is deployed. The Tomcat slowly fades from the scene, being replaced eventually by Hornet types. The Outer Air Battle capability is traded for more general fighter and light attack capability. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 SEP 92 12:37:46 BST From: coates@vax.lse.ac.uk Subject: (32) This and That Message-Id: I was wondering if there we any Computer Harpoon users here in the UK, preferably in the University of London, (although Polys will be accepted), or the University of Bristol (my home address), who are willing to swap User Scenarios (as I'm not sure it's possible on ye olde JANET). Also, I have not been able to access the archive files for CZ in the USA from the UK, and was wondering if anyone in the UK had been able to via JANET with their friendly neighbourhood VAX? And if not, would anyone be kind enough to E-mail me their past issues? Pretty please? In response to Bret Mckee's letter to Three-Sixty (CZ v12 msg12), I agree with his main point. It annoys me greatly when Sub contact ZZ01 is detected. It immediately tells you that ZZ00 is lurking around somewhere. Also the fact that helicopters on AEW for an enemy group give away the course and speed of that group, although it can be argued that this is the drift speed and course as the helo patrols it's patrtol area, while maintaining it's formation. One thing I have noticed with Computer Harpoon v1.3 is that whenever I conduct ASW operations the computer tends to crash. You hear a faint helo launch noise followed by a freeze in the action, followed by complete frieze in the game, but the helo noise continues. I notice that Keith Wain (CZ v12 msg20) has experienced a similar problem. Has anyone else experienced this, or is it yet another fault of my occasionally incompatable Walters 286? Also in response to Keith Wain's letter (CZ v12 msg20), to get formation editor patrols to cover more than one sector, you need to hold the SHIFT key down while clicking on the second, third, fouth ... sectors with the mouse. It's in the manual supplement, but I only just noticed it after 2 years of playing the game! Finally, I would like to have a moan at the after sales support, or lack of it, here in the UK. Initially, I bought Harpoon v1.1 here in the UK. I then had to send away to Three-Sixty in the states for battlesets. This year Electronic Arts finally got there act together and re-released Harpoon, and introduced the three other battlesets and scenario editor. I registered with Electronic Arts, but recieved no correspondance concerning the Designer Series or the possibility of upgrading to v1.3 of Harpoon. I had better service from Three-Sixty in the USA who at their own expense sent me v1.2 free, after I wrote to them over some problems I was having with the game. You will soon realise that my spelling leaves a lot to be desired! Ian Coates ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 10:02:53 CDT From: ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu (Kevin Soutor) Subject: (33) USN Frigates Message-Id: In opposition to a previous article (CZ v12 msg16), frigates are commonly used in American CVBGs: KNOX class frigates are used as ASW platforms with their IVDS, SQS-26 sonars, and embarked LAMPS helicopters while O.H. PERRY class frigates are more general purpose escorts, being armed with the Mk 13 GMLS, TASS (towed array sonar), and SH-60 helos. Their "slow" speed (29 knots max in each case) does not prevent them from operating with the carriers at all: they are relatively fast when compared to the AOR that accompanies the battlegroup to refuel and replenish the escorts. -- Kevin Soutor | "Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms!" | ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu | -- Outlaw Josey Wales | ------------------------------ Date: Fri 11 Sep 1992 16:15:43 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (34) Data Annex Updates Message-Id: The following data entries for the miniatures game are summarized from SITREP 12 by permission of Larry Bond. Annex A ======= CIS Nanuchka E FFL ---------- Displacement: 680 In Class: ? Damage Points: 29 In Service: 1988? Damage Mod: 1.00 Speed: 36 Propulsion: Diesel Crew: 60 Weapons: Total Mounts: 5 A(1)1 AK-176 76mm/60 // 1 Bass Tilt C A(6)1 AK-630 30mm/65 w/15 bursts // 1 Bass Tilt C F(2)1 SA-N-4 w/18 Gecko // 1 Pop Group D PB&SB(6)2 SS-N-25 w/6 missiles D Sensors: Band Stand, Don, Peel Pair J Remarks: The latest variant of the Nanuchka series, replacing the SS-N-9 with twice as many SS-N-25s, presenting the defender with more, smaller targets. Uses Soviet construction modifier in damage point calculation. Single Bass Tilt directs both AK-176 and AK-630. Total SS-N-25 ROF = 6 missiles/turn at same target. Damage and Speed Breakdown: Damage Points: 0 7 14 21 26 29 Surface Speed: 36 27 18 9 0 Sinks CIS Mod Udaloy DDG ---------- Displacement: 6500 In Class: 0+2 Damage Points: 185 In Service: 1992 Damage Mod: 1.00 Speed: 33 Propulsion: COGOG Crew: 300 Weapons: Total Mounts: 15 F(2)1 Auto 130mm/70 // 1 Kite Screech C P/S(R+2)2 CADS-N-1 w/15 bursts + 8 SA-N-11 missiles C,D F&A(2)4 SA-N-9 w/16 missiles // 2 Cross Sword D A(12)2 RBU 6000 w/5 salvoes E PB&SB(4)2 SS-N-14 w/4 Silex // 2 Eye Bowl E P/S(4)2 533mm torpedo tubes w/4 SET-65 F Aft Pad(1)2 Ka-27 Helix A B Sensors: 3 Palm Frond, Top Plate J Hull Sonar, Towed Array M Remarks: BAL-COM-12. Evolutionary development of Udaloy class. Critical Hit Protection: Auto 130mm, CADS-N-1, SA-N-9, RBU 6000 are L. Uses Soviet construction modifier in damage point calculation. Each SA-N-9 mount ROF = 4 missiles/turn. Each Cross Sword can control 4 missiles, 2 each at 2 separate targets. Fitted with stabilizers. May have improved sonar suite. Until more data is available use Horse Jaw & Horse Tail with +5% Pd. Damage and Speed Breakdown: Damage Points: 0 46 93 139 167 185 Surface Speed: 33 25 17 8 0 Sinks Annex B ======= USA F/A-18E/F Hornet Intercept/Attack ---------------- Cannon ATA: 4 Def ATA: 4.5(2.5) Sensors: APG-65 radar, ESM, Advanced Bombsight, FLIR (pod), Laser-Spot Tracker (pod). Performance: Speed: Knots (nm/phase) ---------- Throttle Setting -------------- Altitude Cruise Military Afterburner ----------------------------------------------------------- VLow/Low 650 (2.7) 650 (2.7) 795 (3.3) Medium 490 (2.0) 685 (2.9) 914 (3.8) High 490 (2.0) 720 (3.0) 1032 (4.3) Ceiling: 15,510 meters Endurance: Cruise Range: 1500 nm Engine Type: Turbofan Internal Fuel: 6591 kg Inflight Refuel?: Y Drop Tank Fuel Weight Additional Range -------------------------------------------------------- 330 USG drop tank (A) 1018 kg 116 nm 480 USG drop tank (B) 1481 kg 169 nm Ordnance Loadouts: Cannon: M61 20mm Payload: 8169 kg * 4 Mk83 bombs, 4 AIM-9L, FLIR & LST pods, 2 drop tanks (A: 1559 nm, B: 1654 nm) * 2 AIM-9L, 2 AIM-120, 3 drop tanks (A: 1663 nm, B: 1806 nm) * 2 AIM-9L, 4 AIM-120, 2 drop tanks (A: 1559 nm, B: 1654 nm) * 4 Harpoon, 2 AIM-9L, drop tank (A: 1454 nm, B: 1502) Remarks: Derivative design of F/A-18. Streched fuselage, more fuel, larger wing, more powerful engines, but heavier. Performance estimated as about the same as original F/A-18 but with greater range. USA F-22 Air Superiority ---- Cannon ATA: 4 Def ATA: 6.0(3.5) Sensors: ATF radar, ESM. Performance: Speed: Knots (nm/phase) ---------- Throttle Setting -------------- Altitude Cruise Military Afterburner ----------------------------------------------------------- VLow/Low 650 (2.7) 650 (2.7) 792 (3.3) Medium 700 (2.9) 780 (3.2) 1020 (4.2) High 807 (3.4) 920 (3.8) 1260 (5.2) Ceiling: 19,812 meters Endurance: Cruise Range: 2000 nm Engine Type: Turbofan Internal Fuel: 9979 kg Inflight Refuel?: Y Ordnance Loadouts: Cannon: M61 20mm Payload: ? kg * 4 AIM-9L, 4 AIM-7M or AIM-120 (1900 nm) Remarks: Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF). Data is very sketchy. Incorporates all sorts of advanced technology including stealth, thrust vectoring and advanced radar. Front quarter RCS is 100 times smaller than F-15. Cost estimated at US$ 51.3 million in FY90. Radar has low passive detection signature (not clear how to simulate this), but should still have APG-70 or better performance. Should be considered a low-RCS (VSmall) target. Air to air loadouts carried in internal bays to preserve stealth RCS. Internal bays could probably carry a small air to ground weapons load instead. Annex G4 ======== New Info on CIS Guided Bombs CIS Name Hang Dmg Remarks Wt(kg) Pts ------------------------------ KAB-500L 500 43 KAB-750L 750 45 KAB-1000L 1000 92 KAB-1500L 1500 133 only carried by Su-24 these weapons share the following characteristics: min range: .5 nm, max range: 4.3 nm, Ph .80, speed 528 kts (4.4 nm/phase), ballistic trajectory, SALH guidance, VSmall target TV guided versions are named KAB-500T, KAB-750T, etc. Stats are same except guidance is EO(TV). -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 16:31:57 MET From: mgjblok@cs.vu.nl (Maurice Blok) Subject: (35) 1.3 Bugs Message-Id: Morning! I've been running Harpoon 1.3 for a few months now, and I encountered a few bugs. Maybe some of you encountered them too or can explain why they are bugging me. - While playing the MEDC scenario Allah`s Will (I beleive) my beloved F-14s got shot down by their own missiles. I launched a salvo of Phoenix's (sp?) at a section of Foxbats. They flew straight and true for their IP, reached their IP, made a cool 180 and flew back towards their previous owners in search mode. I immediatly saved the game and I waited for `it`(being the bug) to happen. "We shot down 1 F-14D Tomcat!!", my staff assistant screamed, quickly followed by "1 F14D Tomcat has been shot down". - When I sink a carrier the 'kill` picture is empty/black, all other `pics` work OK. - Not really a bug but also irritating: When launching a strike Harpoon displays: "Not enough fuel to reach target", while according to the loadout screen and Ctrl-C the target is well within strike radius. I realise that some kind of fuel reserve is allocated, but about 200nm worth? When using standoff weapons the range is usually shortened by another 100nm. I usually just launch the strike on a patrol mission, fly them to the target and ignore the `Must return to base message`. I strike the target and land my planes safely. Otherwise Harpoon is better and more realistic than ever. Every change made made the game better, although gameplay became a bit tougher. Normally (v1.2) I won with just a few planes downed, now winning will cost me a few squadrons worth of planes ... . I`ve got a small request, does anyone have a list with all the missile parameters; like Low-VHigh, All-Aspect, Snap U/D etc. The same for SAMs and planes (data & ATA, etc). I do have the Battlebook, but with all the changes in Harpoon the Battlebook is `Out-of-Date(?)`. [Mod Note: You may want to check out the Data Annex for the miniatures game. Various updates for the Data Annex have appeared in CZ. For example, AAMs were updated in CZ v9 msgs 22,26. Data for SAMs (Annex S) will appear soon in a future issue.] Thanks a bunch! Maurice Blok /-------\ /-------------------------------\ |04:23am| | Let's hit the sack!.....Naaah | \-------/ /-------------------------------/ ____ / / # /---\ ------ ---/ # |o | Maurice Blok | # <__ | Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam ---\____# \___/ ------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 9:05:06 EST From: s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (Gavin Rewell) Subject: (36) PC 1.3 Config Tricks Message-Id: I bought the HDS yesterday, but I have not had a chance to run it yet. However, I was quite dissapointed when I read the Version 1.3 manual supplement. It struck me as being poorly made, with faded and small lettering, and multiples of some pages. In contrast, the Scenario Booklet for HDS looks great. I was, however, very disappointed with the way that 360 dealt with the section on memory under DOS 5 and Windows. For the unwary, their suggestions might, at the very least, prove frustrating - and at worst painful. The CONFIG.SYS file must resemble the form: DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE DOS=HIGH,UMB To be able to load TSRs into the UMB area (on a 386 - based machine), the parameter NOEMS should be added after EMM386.EXE. In most PCs, this will give you around 70-100K of precious space back if you have a lot of TSRs, especially small ones. As for Windows, I would not run Harpoon under this ... and it can only be run in CGA mode anyway. It is a pain to get graphics-based packages to run in DOS windows. If you have Windows 3.1, be sure to use the replacements for HIMEM.SYS, EMM386.EXE and remember SMARTDRIVE now works, and is loaded from the AUTOEXEC.BAT file. One other thing, I believe that 360 used the RAM parameter on the EMM386.EXE manager to say how much memory you want to be XMS. It will actually be how much memory you wish reserved for either XMS or EMS, as the manager detects it is needed. Default memory should be left as XMS if possible. Hopefully, this has been of some use, and Harpoon will run for everyone as they want it to. Any comments can be mailed to me DAX s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest **************** From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Fri Oct 9 15:40:42 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus1) id AA02585; Fri, 9 Oct 92 15:40:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 15:40:42 -0700 Message-Id: <9210092240.AA02585@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v12 #5 (msgs 37-47) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 9 October 1992 Volume: 12 Issue: 5 Topics: (37) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (38) Bombing Bases leungsa@ecf.toronto.edu (39) Miscellaneous randy@ms.uky.edu (40) Udaloy vs. Tanker postmaster@manadon (41) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (42) PC 1.3 + HDS s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (43) PC 1.31 mckee@hpmckee.fc.hp.com (44) PC 1.3 Handles Bug sburge@iris.dri.du.edu (45) PC 1.3 Fix Beta Testing kq9h@maristb.bitnet (46) 360 on PC 1.3, etc. 76711.240@compuserve.com (47) Annex S tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: anonymous FTP for CZ and Computer Scenarios (Amiga, Mac, PC) Europe ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42): harpoon N.A. sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 9 Oct 1992 15:03:04 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (37) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: md87-ajo@nada.kth.se (Anders Jorring) 100113.2052@compuserve.com (Steve Trease) For all you PC 1.3 users out there wondering about v1.31 and v1.32, handle problems, etc., please take a look at Carl Norman's message (46) below. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:12:36 -0400 From: leungsa@ecf.toronto.edu (Leo S. Leung) Subject: (38) Bombing Bases Message-Id: Hi, I'm just wondering if any others have encountered this problem while playing Harpoon PC (I know this problem existed on v1.1 & v1.2 but I haven't had the opportunity to see if this problem occurs in v1.3): When I send an any type of unguided air strike group to hit a base (especially if the base has already been damaged rather extensively), the air group flies over the target for a long period of time not doing anything. I re-issue the attack order and the program accepts it, but despite another wait, the planes continue flying around the base aimlessly until they're low on fuel. This is not a constant occurence, but it still happens nonetheless. Could it be that the base has been damaged to a point where the computer thinks that it would be fruitless to damage it to a point of total destruction? Thanks! +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Leo Leung 9T3 Department of Electrical Engineering SKULE (tm), University of Toronto e-mail: leungsa@ecf.toronto.edu leungsa@ugsparc0.eecg.toronto.edu 443f24@ugsparc0.eecg.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:51:23 EDT From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) Subject: (39) Miscellaneous Message-Id: Hi! Two questions: What is the "Designers Annex", and how do I get one? Also, which scenerios from the archive do y'all enjoy the most? How come? As a final note, the readme in /pub/harpoon/pc on the archive at sunbane says there should be an INDEX file, but I see none. What's up? -Randy [Mod Note: I think you mean the Data Annex 91/92 from the miniatures version of the game available from GDW. It is also available separately. Mark Lam says he is working on getting out the INDEX for the PC archive.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 16:15 BST From: postmaster@manadon-engineering-college.ac.uk (Keith Wain) Subject: (40) Udaloy vs. Tanker Message-Id: On 16 Dec last year, I sent a mail message with a problem scenario concerning a single ship duel -- Udaloy vs. Spruance. The setting was the aftermath of a convoy battle, where a single disabled tanker (modelled by a ship being given zero speed) was being guarded by a Spruance. This was sent on an infinite circular course around the tanker -- but now I know how to give it a multi- sector patrol area, I will use that instead. The Udaloy was the only Soviet ship in the scenario; but was modelling the single ship that the Soviet commander had allocated to the job of removing the tanker -- the rest of his assets were taking on the rest of the convoy, in theory. Even giving the Udaloy LRMP support and a fairly intelligent route, the Udaloy failed to sink the tanker. Its missiles missed and it simply wouldn't close and engage with guns. What am I doing wrong? The Soviet win conditions were to sink the tanker -- the US win conditions were to keep the tanker in the zone for 36 hours (theoretically a support group was en route). Any thoughts? Keith Wain postmaster@uk.ac.manadon "bigger guns make bigger holes" ------------------------------ Date: Wed 7 Oct 1992 09:23:22 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (41) Recent Naval Developments Message-Id: What follows is a summary of some items of interest from the October 1992 USNI Proceedings. Updates on Republic Navies (p.24) The top commander of the Russian Navy is now Admiral F.N. Gromov, taking over from Admiral of the Fleet V.N. Chernavin. Gromov was the Northern Fleet commander. The Russian Navy has switched back to the Tsarist ensign (i.e., naval flag) design - the Cross of St. Andrew. The Black Sea Fleet dispute has been resolved. The fleet will be jointly operated until 1995, at which point separate national fleets will be established. By 1995, the division of resources and details concerning Russian use of Ukrainian facilities will be worked out (e.g., overhauling the Russian carriers at Nikolayev yards). Some small naval units are apparently being transferred to Georgia on the Eastern Black Sea. Also, 10 small units of the Caspian Sea Flotilla are to be turned over to Azerbaijan in November 1992. An Arleigh Burke with Helicopters (p.102) The original Flight III design of the Burke was cancelled due to budget pressures. What will replace it is a new Flight IIA design starting with DDG-72. The new variant will have the two LAMPS III (SH-60B) helicopters of the Flight III design and a RAST hauldown system. It also has the Kingfisher mine-hunting sonar upgrade to the SQS-53, advanced VLS Sea Sparrow (4 per cell) and the Track Initiation Processor upgrade for the SPY-1D (Aegis) radar, blast hardened transverse bulkheads and lots of smaller changes. But it does have tradeoffs in other areas: no SQR-19 towed array, no Mk15 Phalanx, no VLS loading cranes and no Harpoon missile canisters. The mine sonar is thought to be more important than the towed array in expected littoral situations. The Sea Sparrow system is thought to be adequate for CIWS purposes. Space is still left for the Harpoon. It is thought that the TASM and LAMPS III surface attack capability will be sufficient. IMHO, the loss of the VLS crane is perhaps a realization of the realities of reloading at sea. World Naval Developments (p.122) The Russian arms business is becoming quite agressive in marketing and pricing. Previous "secrets" are now being openly advertised in sales brochures. Unfortunately, this is one of the few areas that Russia has a hard-cash export market. Its not completely clear if all wares are available today or if they were looking for advance sales to finance development. Apparently, export items carry an "E" designation. Some items recently offered at the August 1992 Moscow sales show include: AS-15: Essentially a Tomahawk equivalent. Conventionally armed strike version of the strategic weapon. Presumably, conventional ship-launched version (SS-N-21) is coming. Possibly an anti-ship version coming also. Details: subsonic cruise, TerCom and GLONASS (Russian GPS equivalent) guidance. AS-16: Possibly AS-4, AS-6 replacement. Carried in rotary launchers on Backfire. Details: high-altitude launch range 90 nm. vs. cruisers (shorter range vs. smaller ships), 2600 lb hang weight, 330 lb warhead, rocket-ramjet propulsion, high trajectory w/ terminal dive (upto Mach 5), I/M/TARH (mm wave) guidance. AS-17 (Kh-31): Smaller version of same airframe used on Flanker carried missile (see next item). Also ARM version. AS-?: New rocket-ramjet antiship missile. Shown mounted on Su-27K (carrier-based Flanker). AS-?: ARM specialized to attack the Patriot's MPQ-53 ground radar. Details: range 86 nm, top-speed Mach 3.6. SS-N-12, SS-N-19: Both have PRH versions. The SS-N-19 PRH version specialized to attack SPY-1 (Aegis) radar. The SS-N-19 not on display. Possibly, its not for sale. SS-N-22: Apparently, sub-launched, coastal defense and PRH versions exist. Missile has a video data-link. SS-N-25: Essentially a Harpoon equivalent. Also air-launched version. Supposedly available starting 1993. ASW Torpedo: New 350 mm helicopter carried, light-weight rocket torpedo called APR-2E. Perhaps also a warhead for a stand-off ASW weapon. Details: dive depth 600 m, top speed 63 kts. SA-?: Big ramjet ARM SAM. Specialized to attack AWACS, probably homing in on S-band APY-1/2 (AWACS radar) emissions. Details: 600kg launch weight, range 108 nm, top speed 1940 kts., ARM/TARH guidance w/ target memory. Combat Fleets (p.125) The German MEKO-200 modular frigate design is popping up everywhere. In June 1992, the first of 4 for Greece went on trials after taking only slightly more than 6 months to construct in Hamburg. The other 3 are being constructed in Greece. Other MEKO-200 ships deliveries and orders include Turkey (4+2), Portugal (3), New Zealand (0+2) and Australia (0+8). The FRG announced it will be selling 39 former DDR combatants including fully-armed Parchim-I frigates to Indonesia. The sale also includes 9 Kondor-II minesweepers and 12 Frosch-I landing ships and 2 Frosch-II amphibious support ships. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 11:08:31 EST From: s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (Gavin Rewell) Subject: (42) PC 1.3 + HDS Message-Id: I got the 1.3 upgrade with my HDS, and have now played a few scenarios. I have found subs extrmely elusive. Incoming torpedoes are the only things I see, and then I lose a ship. More play, I suspect to appreciate the new sonar model ... And I have a nasty thing to say about the AAW model. I was playing the first scenario of the GIUK HDS and had my helos with radar on for the mixed ASW (blue) group. Detected incoming Shipwrecks. Illuminated area ... and waited. No one fired a shot except for the Phalanx on the Iroquois (just before it went down). Subsequent attacks left all my ships in dire straits, and only 2 SM1MR missiles from a Charles F Admams were fired. On a final note, the database is now awesome. Nice one 360. DAX ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 17:20:47 MDT From: mckee@hpmckee.fc.hp.com (Bret Mckee) Subject: (43) PC 1.31 Message-Id: I was at Software Etc. today and saw some of the new Harpoon products. I noticed that the boxes have a litte sticker that says 1.31 next to the word "Version" on the box. I hope this is the memory handles fix, and I hope 360 makes it easily availible. Anybody have more information? Bret ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 10:51:51 -0600 From: sburge@iris.dri.du.edu (Steve Burge) Subject: (44) PC 1.3 Handles Bug Message-Id: Does anyone know if 360 really plans to put out a bug fix to the most glaring and annoying bugs in version 1.3? I've called them (360) to ask about a possible fix especially to the "Insufficient master handles" error, and the tech (Scott) just laughed and said that any fix is just a rumor and unlikely and to happen. As to going back to version 1.2, I've also had this same error. It might not occur as often, but it still does occur and so this does not seem to be a very good solution. So we have a couple of differing opinions from 360 techs about a fix. Does 360 subscribe to the CZ? If so, how about an authoritative answer. [Mod Note: Yes! They do subscribe to CZ. See below.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 20:49:35 EST From: kq9h%maristb.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Richard W. Roberts) Subject: (45) PC 1.3 Fix Beta Testing Message-Id: Last week I called Three-Sixty with some questions about the problems with Harpoon V1.3. Maybe someone can verify this, but I was told they currently beta testing a fix. I hope this is the case, as I would rather not be limited to the number of aircraft I can have in the air. Anyway, they said they release the fix, when it is ready, on the networks and by mail to registered users. Have fun Harpooning! ------------------------------ Date: 08 Oct 92 02:00:09 EDT From: 76711.240@compuserve.com (Three-Sixty Pacific, Inc.) Subject: (46) 360 on PC 1.3, etc. Message-Id: Harpooners, I realize that all of you have been very patient while we have been working on bug fixes for Harpoon V1.3. The Harpoon Development Team at Three-Sixty appreciates your patience and understanding while we have worked on a Harpoon revision. I can now tell all of you that we are ALMOST finished with Harpoon Version 1.32. What happened to V1.31? A new Signature Edition Challenger Pak has just been released that contains Harpoon, the Scenario Editor, and the original four BattleSets. This new product had a scheduled release date that prevented us from having the ability to put all the 1.3 fixes into it, so we made V1.31 specific to the Signature Edition Challenger Pak. V1.31 is similar to V1.3 except for the inclusion of a command line switch that allows the user to increase the number of master handles that Harpoon uses. V1.32 has this feature and many other fixes. Sorry if this V1.31 and V1.32 is confusing. Version 1.32 should be finished within the next two weeks. It will be mailed to everyone who purchased the 1.3 upgrade or HDS directly from Three-Sixty and to registered HDS owners (if you purchased HDS from somewhere other than Three-Sixty, get those registration cards in now). I will also upload the V1.32 executable file to CompuServe, GEnie, AOL and to the Harpoon scenario FTP site when it is completed for those of you who want to get it right away. It will be about 250K zipped. You must have the other files that came with V1.3 for the executable to work. We are in the final stages of beta testing V1.32 so please hang on just a bit longer. Good Hunting, Carl C. Norman Three-Sixty Pacific, Incorporated ------------------------------ Date: Mon 28 Sep 1992 14:56:16 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (47) Annex S Message-Id: In SITREP 12, new Data Annexes S1 and S2 are included to provide data about land-based SAMs. The data is summarized here by permission of Larry Bond. I have taken the liberty to reorganize the data a bit. SITREP subscribers might like to compare. I would like to hear comments about whether you like this or not. Land-based SAM systems are made of the same basic components found on ship-based SAMs. The larger radar guided systems are organized into "batteries" and include an acquisition radar (search radar), launchers (mounts) and guidance/tracking radars (directors). Most modern systems tend to have a guidance radar unit for every launcher. The latest systems can track multiple targets and guide multiple missiles from a single planar radar array. The smallest systems are man portable IR missiles which have no associated radars. Land-based SAMs generally do not have automatically loaded launchers fed by large magazines. Instead, they have several launchers each with a small number of "ready" missiles sitting on rails or in canisters. After expending the ready missiles, the launchers must be reloaded manually. Since space is not as tight as on a ship, SAM batteries are often spread out over a much larger area and are possibly dug-in or in improved positions. Also, many of the systems are also designed to be broken down and moved by vehicles. Annex S1 lists the characteristics of the SAM itself. Annex S2 describes battery organizations. Each battery is assumed to have at least one acquisition radar unit. Each launcher in the battery has as many ready missiles as it has rails or canisters listed in its mount. ROF is assumed to be all ready missiles in the battery. In most cases, the guidance system limits the total number of missiles in flight to considerably less than the ROF. Man portable units form single unit independent batteries. All batteries are considered to have 360 firing arcs. Annex S1: Land-Based SAMs ========================= Note: the data does not fit into 80 columns, so the table is divided into 2 parts S1, Part 1 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. J. K. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIS SA-1 Guild Cmd .20 4.0 19.0 4000 30.0 1434 12.0 CIS SA-2 Guideline Cmd .20 3.7 22.0 1500 18.0 2008 16.7 CIS SA-3 Goa Cmd .25 3.2 13.5 100 15.0 1147 9.6 CIS SA-4 Ganef Cmd/TSARH .25 5.0 38.0 1100 27.0 1434 12.0 CIS SA-5c Gammon Cmd/TSARH .25 43.2 165.0 3000 30.5 2995 25.0 CIS SA-6 Gainful Cmd/TSARH .40 2.2 16.1 100 18.0 1434 12.0 CIS SA-7a Grail IRH .25 0 1.9 45 3.0 924 7.7 CIS SA-7b Grail IRH .30 0 2.6 25 4.5 1078 9.0 CIS SA-8a & 8b Gecko Cmd .50 0.9 6.5 50 13.0 1147 9.6 CIS SA-9 Gashkin IRH .30 0.1 3.5 20 5.0 990 8.3 CIS SA-10a & 10b Grumble TVM .70 10.0 54.0 25 30.0 3442 28.7 CIS SA-11 Gadfly SARH .70 1.6 16.0 30 14.0 1721 14.3 CIS SA-12a Gladiator SARH .70 2.7 54.0 900 30.0 3442 28.7 CIS SA-12b Giant SARH .70 2.7 54.0 900 30.0 3442 28.7 CIS SA-13 Gopher IRH .40 0.3 4.3 10 5.0 990 8.3 CIS SA-14 Gremlin IRH .40 0.1 2.7 10 3.5 1300 10.8 CIS SA-15 Tor Cmd .70 0.8 6.5 10 6.0 1625 13.5 CIS SA-16 Gimlet IRH .50 0.1 2.7 10 3.5 1107 9.2 CIS SA-19 Cmd/TIRH .60 0.2 5.4 15 5.0 1434 12.0 France Crotale Cmd .60 0.3 5.4 15 5.0 1518 12.7 France Mistral & SATCP IRH .50 0.2 3.2 15 4.5 1716 14.3 France SAMP/ASTER 15 I/M/TARH .80 0.3 8.1 15 15.0 1147 9.6 France SAMP/ASTER 30 I/M/TARH .80 0.3 16.2 15 25.0 1147 9.6 FRG Roland 1 & 2 CLOS .50 0.3 3.2 20 5.5 972 8.1 FRG Roland 3 CLOS .60 0.3 4.3 20 5.5 1205 10.0 Intl. ADATS SALH .80 0.5 4.3 10 5.0 1721 14.3 Italy Spada/Aspide SARH .60 1.0 5.4 15 5.0 1319 11.0 Japan Type 81 I/TIRH .70 0.3 3.8 15 3.0 1377 11.5 PRC FM-80 Cmd .40 0.4 5.4 15 4.0 1434 12.0 PRC HN-5 IRH .25 0.4 1.9 50 2.5 924 7.7 PRC HN-5A IRH .30 0.4 2.4 50 2.5 1078 9.0 PRC HQ-2B & 2J Cmd .20 5.0 18.9 457 24.4 2000 16.7 PRC HQ-61 SARH .40 1.6 5.4 50 8.0 1721 14.3 Sweden RBS 70 SALH .70 0.1 2.7 0 3.0 700 5.8 Sweden RBS 70 Mk2 SALH .80 0.1 3.2 0 4.0 700 5.8 Sweden RBS 90 SALH .80 0.1 3.2 0 4.0 700 5.8 Switz. Skyguard/Sparrow SARH .60 0.5 8.0 30 5.0 2638 22.0 UK Bloodhound Mk2 SARH .50 4.0 43.0 100 40.0 2000 16.7 UK Blowpipe Cmd .40 0.4 1.6 10 3.5 1300 10.8 UK Javelin SACLOS .40 0.2 2.4 10 3.0 660 5.5 UK Rapier SACLOS .60 0.4 3.5 10 3.0 1147 9.6 UK Starstreak SALH .80 0.2 3.8 0 4.0 2295 19.1 UK Thunderbird SARH .40 5.0 21.6 500 30.0 1434 12.0 UK Tigercat Cmd .40 0.3 3.2 4 3.5 396 3.3 USA Chaparral IRH .50 0.3 5.0 500 6.0 1434 12.0 USA Improved Hawk SARH .70 1.0 21.6 30 16.0 2500 20.8 USA Nike-Hercules Cmd .50 4.0 75.6 100 45.0 2000 16.7 USA Patriot TVM .80 2.0 43.5 60 21.0 2237 18.6 USA Redeye IRH .40 0.1 1.6 20 3.5 1300 10.8 USA Stinger IRH .50 0.1 3.0 10 3.5 1452 12.1 USA Stinger-POST IRH .60 0.1 3.0 10 3.8 1452 12.1 Column Key A. Country F. Maximum Range (nm) B. Name G. Minimum Altitude (m) C. Guidance H. Maximum Altitude (km) D. Pk J. Speed (kts) E. Minimum Range (nm) K. Distance/Turn (nm/30 seconds) S1, Part 2 A. B. L. M. N. P. - ----------------------------------------------------- CIS SA-1 Guild 1 YoYo N 1 CIS SA-2 Guideline 1 Fan Song F Y 2 CIS SA-3 Goa 2 Low Blow Y 3 CIS SA-4 Ganef 2 Pat Hand N 4, 5 CIS SA-5c Gammon 1 Square Pair N 6 CIS SA-6 Gainful 3 Straight Flush Y 5 CIS SA-7a Grail 1 - Y 7, 8 CIS SA-7b Grail 1 - Y 8, 9 CIS SA-8a Gecko 4 Land Roll Y 5, 10 CIS SA-8b Gecko 6 Land Roll Y 5 CIS SA-9 Gashkin 4 - Y 11 CIS SA-10a Grumble 4 Flap Lid A N 12, 13 CIS SA-10b Grumble 4 Flap Lid B N 13, 14 CIS SA-11 Gadfly 4 Fire Dome Y 15 CIS SA-12a Gladiator 4 Bill Board N 16 CIS SA-12b Giant 2 Bill Board N 16 CIS SA-13 Gopher 4 or 6 - Y 17 CIS SA-14 Gremlin 1 - Y 8, 18 CIS SA-15 Tor 8 K-Band Doppler Y 19 CIS SA-16 Gimlet 1 - Y 8, 20 CIS SA-19 8 Hot Shot Y 21 France Crotale 4 J-Band Monopulse Y 22 France Mistral & SATCP 1 - Y 8 France SAMP/ASTER 15 8 Arabel N France SAMP/ASTER 30 8 Arabel N FRG Roland 1 10 - Y FRG Roland 2 10 Pulse Doppler Y FRG Roland 3 12 Pulse Doppler Y 23 Intl. ADATS 8 - Y 24 Italy Spada/Aspide 6 - Y Japan Type 81 4 - Y 25 PRC FM-80 4 ? Y 26 PRC HN-5 1 - Y 8, 27 PRC HN-5A 1 - Y 8, 28 PRC HQ-2B & 2J 1 Gin Sling A N 29 PRC HQ-61 2 ? N 30 Sweden RBS 70 1 - Y 8 Sweden RBS 70 Mk2 1 - Y 8 Sweden RBS 90 2 - Y Switz. Skyguard/Sparrow 4 Pulse Doppler Y 31 UK Bloodhound Mk2 1 Firelight N UK Blowpipe 1 - Y 8 UK Javelin 1 - Y 8 UK Rapier, Towed 4 Blindfire Y UK Rapier, Tracked 8 Blindfire Y UK Starstreak 1 - Y UK Thunderbird 1 ? N 32 UK Tigercat 3 - Y USA Chaparral 4 - Y 33 USA Improved Hawk 3 PWAR N USA Nike-Hercules 1 HIPAR N 34 USA Patriot 4 MPQ-53 N 35 USA Redeye 1 - Y 8 USA Stinger 1 - Y 8 USA Stinger-POST 1 - Y 8, 36 Column Key A. Country M. Tracking Radar B. Name N. Optical Backup L. Missiles/Launcher P. Remarks Remarks 1. Probably removed from operational service. 2. Naval version is SA-N-2. CIS designation V750K, system designation V75SM. Nuclear version may exist. 3. Naval version is SA-N-1. Guidance radar has optical tracking too. 4. CIS Designation ZUR Krug 3M8M2. 5. Either uses or can use Long Track AS radar and Thin Skin HF radar. 6. Long minimum range, poor low altitude capability, relatively unmaneuverable. 7. CIS designation 9M32 Strela 2. Tail-chase only. 8. Man portable. 9. Naval version is SA-N-5. CIS designation 9M32M Strela 2M. Better countermeasures resistance. 10. Naval version is SA-N-4. 11. Associated Hat Box range-only radar. 12. Naval version is SA-N-6. Static mount. 13. Can be linked with Big Bird AS radar. 14. Mobile version. 15. Naval version is SA-N-7. Radars can be tied into SA-6 system. 16. Can be used as ABM system. 17. Replaces SA-9. Better IR seeker. 18. Naval version is SA-N-8. Replaces SA-7. Cannot engage head-on targets. 19. Naval version is SA-N-9. 20. Can enagage head-on targets. 21. Naval version is SA-N-11. On 2S6 Tunguska AA vehicle. 22. Can two fire missiles at same target from same launcher. 23. Improved missile fired from same launchers as earlier versions. 24. On-board acquisition radar. Passive optical tracking system w/ LLTC or IIR. 25. Guidance allows designation and launch against one new target each turn. 26. Copy of France Crotale with lower performance. 27. Copy of CIS SA-7a. PRC designation Hong Yin-5. Tail-chase only. 28. Copy of CIS SA-7b. Can engage helicopters from head-on. 29. Copy of CIS SA-2. HQ-2B is semi-mobile tracked version. 30. Acquisition radar is copy of CIS Flat Face. 31. RIM-7H version of Sparrow. Skyguard FCS can control 35mm guns and RIM-7H or Aspide SAMs at same time. 32. Removed from service in 1977. 33. Sidewinder variant. 34. System improved in 1981. 35. Multiple target capability. 36. Passive Optical Seeker Technique. Improves seeker discrimination by using UV and IR. Annex S2: SAM Battery Organizations =================================== A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. J. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIS SA-1 Guild Gage 162 6 1 1 1 6 CIS SA-2 Guideline Spoon Rest 146 6 1 1 1 6 CIS SA-3 Goa Flat Face (P-15) 135 4 1 1 1 8 CIS SA-4 Ganef Long Track, Thin Skin 54 3 1 1 1 6 CIS SA-5c Gammon Back Net, Tall King 173 6 1 1 1 6 CIS SA-6 Gainful Long Track, Thin Skin B 130 4 1 1 1 12 CIS SA-8a Gecko Land Roll 16.2 5 5 5 2 20 CIS SA-8b Gecko Land Roll 16.2 4 4 4 2 24 CIS SA-9 Gashkin - - 4 0 4 2 16 CIS SA-10a & 10b Grumble Clam Shell ? 12 1 6 2+ 48 CIS SA-11 Gadfly Tube Arm ? 4 4 4 1 16 CIS SA-12a Gladiator Grill Pan ? 8 4 4 2+ 16 CIS SA-12b Giant Grill Pan ? 4 4 4 2+ 16 CIS SA-13 Gopher - - 4 0 4 2 16 or 24 CIS SA-15 Tor Pulse Doppler 13.5 4 4 4 2 32 CIS SA-19 Hot Shot ? 6 6 6 2 48 France Crotale Mirador IV 9.7 3 3 3 2 12 France Mistral & SATCP - - 6 0 6 1 6 France SAMP/ASTER 15 Arabel 52 4 4 10 2 32 France SAMP/ASTER 30 Arabel 52 4 4 10 2 32 FRG Roland 1 & 2 Monopulse Doppler 8.9 3 3 3 1 30 FRG Roland 3 Monopulse Doppler 8.9 3 3 3 1 36 Intl. ADATS SHORAR 11 4 4 4 1 32 Intl. Indep. Man Portable - - 1 0 1 1 1 Italy Spada/Aspide Pluto 38.4 9 3 3 2 54 Japan Type 81 Phased-Array 3D 16.2 2 0 8 2 8 PRC FM-80 ? 10 6 6 6 1 24 PRC HQ-2B & 2J ? ? 6 1 1 1 6 PRC HQ-61 Model 571 135 4 1 1 1 8 Sweden RBS 70 & 70 Mk2 PS-70/R Giraffe 21.6 6 6 6 1 6 Sweden RBS 90 PS-91 10.8 6 6 6 1 12 Switz. Skyguard/Sparrow Pulse Doppler 10.8 6 1 1 2 24 UK Bloodhound Mk2 UKADR ? 8 1 1 1 8 UK Rapier, Towed Blindfire 6.5 4 4 4 1 16 UK Rapier, Tracked Blindfire 6.5 4 4 4 1 32 UK Starstreak ? ? 6 6 6 1 6 UK Thunderbird ? ? 6 6 6 1 6 UK Tigercat ? ? 6 1 1 1 18 USA Chaparral MPQ-49 FAAR ? 4 0 4 2 16 USA Improved Hawk CWAR 54 3 3 3 1 9 USA Nike-Hercules ? ? 6 1 1 1 6 USA Patriot MPQ-53 92 8 1 5 2+ 32 Column Key A. Country F. Directors or Tracking/Guidance Radars B. Name G. Targets/Battery C. Acquisition Radar H. Missiles/Target D. Acquisition Range (nm) J. Missiles/Battery E. Launchers (total ready missiles in battery) Independent Man Portable Units ------------------------------ CIS SA-7a Grail PRC HN-5 USA Redeye CIS SA-7b Grail PRC HN-5A USA Stinger CIS SA-14 Gremlin UK Blowpipe USA Stinger-POST CIS SA-16 Gimlet UK Javelin -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest **************** From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Thu Oct 15 15:36:39 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus1) id AA18519; Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:36:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:36:39 -0700 Message-Id: <9210152236.AA18519@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v12 #6 (msgs 48-56) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 15 October 1992 Volume: 12 Issue: 6 Topics: (48) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (49) Origins/Gencon Report d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (50) PC 1.32 Update postmaster@manadon (51) Amiga HDS jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (52) Re: Bombing Bases creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (53) V1.32 in the UK coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (54) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (55) Volume 12 Index cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (56) CZ Guidelines cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: anonymous FTP for CZ and Computer Scenarios (Amiga, Mac, PC) N.A. sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon Europe ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42): harpoon Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Date: Thu 15 Oct 1992 15:06:41 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (48) Editorial Message-Id: Members added since last issue: 70524.513@compuserve.com (Bernard Delurey) markf@sequoia.com (Mark R. Friedman) eph3@po.cwru.edu (Ephraim P. Hochberg) karmira@natinst.com (Apostolos Karmirantzos) jlassen@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Jeremy Lassen) vzhivov@ccs.carleton.ca (Vladimir Zhivov) Mark Lam reports he has put out an INDEX file for the PC archives with more updates to come. Also, I have been told that Mac 1.3 (packaged with HDS) is out, though I have not seen it myself. Finally, you should take a look at Bertil's article (msg 49) on what Larry Bond said at Origins. This issue wraps up Volume 12 and has the usual end of volume stuff attached. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 11:32:46 +0100 (MET) From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se Subject: (49) Origins/Gencon Report Message-Id: Comments: reformatted At Origins/Gencon this year, Larry Bond held a Harpoon seminar which I attended. This is a short summary of what was discussed there. Unless otherwise indicated 'Harpoon' means the miniatures rules published by GDW. My comments are within brackets. The seminar was semi-well attended but what was lost in numbers was made up for by enthusiasm :). GAME NEWS A book similar to Troubled Waters but for the Pacific Rim is in the making, exact release date unknown. The 4th edition Harpoon might be on the way. If GDW is willing, it will be comming out in late 93 or early 94. "Beat on GDW!", if you want to see it. It is very likely that the Annex will return to the normal, Jane's style organization but with an alphabetic index over ship classes. Computer Harpoon 1.3 is on the way (I guess you already know this :). Computer Harpoon II is sheduled for Xmas 93 release. It will include unrep and supplies, aerial tankers and Modem Play! There is a multiplayer Harpoon for Genie under development, at that time the display routines were working. He is working on an WWII naval simulation named 'Murderers Row' which probably will be in form of a 3 ring binder. Apparently it uses a faster system with one dice roll and a lookup table, rather than five dice rolls. His new novel, title 'Cauldron' is sheduled for May 93 release. The main bad guy in it will be French, more on this later. WORLD NAVAL/TECHNOLOGICAL/POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS General Based on lessons from Desert Storm the Ph of LGB's should be 50%-60%, if opposition (some AAA, etc.) is encountered and 85% to 95% if the target area is totally calm. The Ph of SARH missiles should be lowered, except for AMRAAM, Active SkyFlash and AIM-54C. Experiments and trials with advanced conepts for conventional subs continue. Germany is experimenting with a liquid oxygen fuel-cell in a 212 and another air-independent-propulsion in a 209. The Swedish sub with the Stirling is on it's 3rd or 4th year now. There are also several more exotic concepts tossed around, some involving new nuclear propulsion. In Latin America, nothing really interesting is going on, except a lot of ship buying. CIS The Russian Navy continues to shrink. Due to delayed and/or non-existant support and overhauls, the Minsk and the Kiev are "hulks". Several Kirovs are laid up. The Kresta I, Kashin, Victor and the Foxtrots are being phased out. The latter are being sold to Turkish, Brittish and South Korean scrapyards. The Kirov has been renamed to Admiral Usjikov (sp?) and the rest of that class has been named after old Tsars. The class name for the Akula is Baris (snow leopard) and they are named after hunting cats. The Typhoon is named Akula :). There is an upgraded MiG-29 called the MiG-33. The prototype has a 4-glass cockpit, fly-by-wire and aerodynamic upgrades and is dual-role capable. It will also have a new radar, more effective flares and be able to carry the Kh-31. The Kh-31 is a long range high speed ARM about as big as a Standard ARM. It is said to be tunable in flight and to have a target location memory like the HARM (but it's not a HARMski). New data from Russia reveals that AWACS and tankers were the high-priority targets in a war. Since the world political scene has changed, the likelyhood of a Russian-US confrontation diminishes, while the PRC apparently is strengthening it's capabilities. India India hasn't forgotten the USN threat of entry in the '72 war and is going through a very thourough program of upgrading its logistics sector and the capabilities of its bases. The goal of this buildup is to become a strong regional power able to withstand outside coercion. With the current cutbacks, there will be no permanent US carrier presence in the Indian Ocean. The Charlie I they borrowed from USSR is back in Russia, but they learned valuable lessons from it. They are working on mastering carrier operations and is planning a Harrier carrier similar to the Garibaldi. Two other new Indian classes are the New Delhi DD(G?) and the Kukri FF(G?). They are, however, still weak on nukes and have no airborne radar. Japan Japan is going through a period of domestic agonizing over the limitations on participation in UN actions that the constitution sets. "The Alternate Klingons are the Chinese" The Chinese government are trying to take over the Soviet role of main exporter of low level cheap weapons to Third World countries. There are rumours that they might be selling nukes too. The French has recently sold Croatale to the PRC Luda class destroyers, but their navy is roughly on the same level as the USN in the late 60's except for area AAW which they lack. The French are also selling technology and know-how to China. PRC is generally disliked as a neighbour, especially those who also claim the rights to the Spratley Islands. There is also a risk of interior unrest in the PRC. UK The UK is performing a nuclear standdown removing all nuclear weapons from their ship and storing them on the bases. They are also cutting down the conventional parts of their navy. For example, some ships have had their sonar sets removed and the Type 22 is being scrapped (?). Their new AOE has been put on ice and Spearfish is getting less and less likely to ever get deployed. The 70kt speed that was reported was an accident. The engine regulator malfunctioned and let the motor run free and burned itself out. In summary, the UK is going down from large power to regional power. US The B1 and B2 are being converted to conventional weapons. [Can't the B1 already take conventional weapons?]. The B1's are being transferred from SAC to the tactical command. [Yup, that's what they said at Ellsworth AFB too]. The B1 and B2 will be added to the Annex due to this. ECM for the E3's are being added. The carrier air wings are to be changed to 100% F/A-18 and SH60F. Cheney has slashed the Tomcats, and the line has shut down. [There are loads of F14's at Davis-Monthan AFB]. The F-14A+ has been officially renambed F-14B. AV-8B+ will have an APG-65, FLIR and be able to carry AMRAAM. The A12 [aka the USN batplane] is dead. DoN is defying congress that tries to strangle the V-22. They are writing a paper specifying a need that can only be filled by the V-22. In the US, the Knoxes are hanging loose as are the Leahys. At least one Seawolf, probably two, will be built. Whether a third will be built is an open question, depending on whether the US government wants to keep two shipyards capable of building submarines or just one. The Centurion is still unformed. The only firm things are that it will be in the 6000 to 8500 ton range, have a max speed of below 30kt, be very quiet, but not have the capacity to carry a large weapons loadout. -bertil- -- "It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an exercise for your kill-file." "Revive the Swedish-Madagascan Brigand Pact!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 8:48 BST From: postmaster@manadon-engineering-college.ac.uk (Keith Wain) Subject: (50) PC 1.32 Update Message-Id: Hi, Being a little too impatient, I guess, but when 360 loads the update to (presumably) Sunbane, where will it be? 360 thought that it would be in "a couple of weeks" -- which makes it any day now ... I sent back the registration card for 1.3 -- just as I have sent back the previous registration cards for all the other 360 goodies I have bought (lots through 360 direct). Never have had the slightest glimmer of any updates, newsletters, bug fixes or anything from them. Can't blame them too much I suppose, the cost of international mail being what it is. So, fingers crossed I can get the update from CZ. Cheers keith ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 19:57:01 EST From: jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dutka) Subject: (51) Amiga HDS Message-Id: Upon calling the Harpoon Hotline, I was informed that 360 is thinking about doing an Amiga vesrion of the Harpoon Designer Series, so if you want to see it released, let them know you are interested ... You never know - it might just help. Stranger things HAVE happened :). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:38:22 -0500 (EST) From: creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) Subject: (52) Re: Bombing Bases Message-Id: In CZ v12 msg38, leungsa@ecf.toronto.edu (Leo S. Leung) writes: > When I send an any type of unguided air strike group to hit a base (especially > if the base has already been damaged rather extensively), the air group flies > over the target for a long period of time not doing anything. I re-issue the > attack order and the program accepts it, but despite another wait, the planes > continue flying around the base aimlessly until they're low on fuel. I've noticed this problem too, and have notified 360 about (a year ago). My theory of what is causing it is this. When you send a group of aircraft on attack, they are put into formation by unit. Therefore, if you send say a unit of A-6's loaded out for anti-radar in the same group as a unit of A-6's loaded out for iron bomb, the group will contain two units. My theory is that in such a case the unit loaded for iron bomb are put into formation more than a mile from the center of the formation, with the anti-radar A-6's being in the center. Now the attack range for iron bomb is 0 miles; the _unit_, not the group, has to be directly over the target. I would guess that closing for the attack is based on the center of the formation. Therefore it is likely that units not in the center of the formation will never be directly over the target, and therefore will never drop their bombs. To get around this problem, send a separate group for weapons with a range of 0 miles. Also make sure the time compression is set to 1 second when the group gets close to the target. If it's set for say 1 minute, the time resolution may be too high, causing the group to pass over the target "between ticks." By the way, I haven't noticed this problem in 1.3, but I haven't really checked for it. - - - - - - - - - - Steve Creps, Indiana University creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 OCT 92 10:28:45 BST From: coates@vax.lse.ac.uk Subject: (53) V1.32 in the UK Message-Id: Just a quick note to all fellow Harpoon v1.3 users in the UK. Yesterday, I phoned Electronic Arts (Harpoon distributors in the UK) to ask about the distribution of v1.32, whether we'd actually be receiving it and secondly, would it be free. Being their typical self, they knew nothing about it, but said they'd now look into it, and if they received a copy, it would be available to registered UK users. Just incase they "forget", here's their address in Slough, and their phone number: ELECTRONIC ARTS LANGLEY BUSINESS CENTRE 11/49 STATION ROAD LANGLEY NR SLOUGH SL3 8YN. UK. Tel: 0753 549442 Ian Coates COATES@UK.AC.LSE London School of Economics University of London ------------------------------ Date: Thu 15 Oct 1992 10:57:41 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (54) Recent Naval Developments Message-Id: These USN news items are from navnews@nctamslant.navy.mil (Navy News Service) via the sci.military newsgroup. My commentary is in brackets "[]". Summary of NNS140. "Bombcats" Join the Fleet Recently, two F-14B squadrons (74 and 103) on CV-60 Saratoga were equipped with bomb racks. They have executed bombing training missions from the Adriatic to the Wadi Natrun Range in Egypt (1700 miles) and to the Avgo Nisi Range in the Aegean Sea. [Comments: While strike development of the Tomcat has been discouraged from above, including prohibiting "Quickstrike" program funding, it looks like some operators are taking matters into their own hands.] Summary of NNS156. FY-93 Authorization and Appropriation Results The final version of the Defense Authorization and Appropriations bills for FY-93 has been approved by Congress. This includes: Requested Authorized Appropriated Ops & Maint $20.728B $19.533B $19.108B Aviation $ 6653.7M $ 5899.4M $ 6026.2M Weapons $ 3719.0M $ 3700.1M $ 3760.7M General R&D $ 8517.8M $ 8984.7M (up 466.9M) $ 8930.4M (up 412.6M) SHIPBUILDING: All major items requested were fully funded, though with some minor price adjustments. LHD-6 was authorized (to take advantage of a favorable contract option) but not fully funded this year. One additional LSD-41, authorized last year but not funded, was appropriated. The National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) established. With money from previous years, the fund has approximately $2.5B. Requested Appropriated CVN AP $ 832M $ 832M (long lead funding for next CVN) DDG-51 4/$ 3,346M 4/$ 3,253M LHD-6 0 $ 305M LSD-41 0 1/$ 300M MHC-51 2/$ 246M 2/$ 236M AOE-6 0 $ 300M (Can be added to $200M from prior year appropriation.) AVIATION: The budget includes $175M for new F-14 engines. Funding for the Advanced Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ) was removed. Money for these purchases was included: 36 F/A-18C/D, 3 remanufactured EA-6B, 12 SH-60B and 9 SH-60F. Some EP-3 funding was shifted to an account designated for a future common tactical SIGINT/ELINT aircraft Only 65% of aviation development funds may be spent until JCS roles and mission stufy and DoD cost analyses of programs is completed. AX program funding ($165.5M) includes money for the two contractor teams to do Demonstration/Validation of concept. F/A-18E/F was authorized at $944M. The budget placed these restrictions on the program: no long lead funds or procurement money until an early operational assessment based on flight performance of not less than two R&D aircraft, cost caps placed on R&D and flyaway cost (relative to F/A-18C/D costs) and a Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) must be submitted comparing the AX, F/A-18E/F and F-22. MV-22 was funded at $755M. Congressional support for the program is quite strong. (Only $22M was provided for the Medium Lift Requirement Alternative study.) OTHER: Magic Lantern (helicopter mounted laser mine detection system) funding increased. All Ship Self-Defense budget items were appropriated with some increases. The Advanced Submarine System Development (Centurion) program suffered some cuts. Funding for both the Non-Acoustic ASW and the Deep Submergence Technology programs were cut completely. Full funding for the single demonstration Fixed Distribution System (SOSUS replacement) was given. Development funding of the related Advanced Deployable System was increased. [Comments: The 12 carrier plan is still alive for now. Currently, ASPJ has big technical problems. All the strings on aviation development reflects the general concern about the future of carrier aviation. Magic Lantern was probably boosted by good Gulf War performance and worries over mine warfare in general.] -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)825-8524 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------ Date: Thu 15 Oct 1992 15:06:18 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: Volume 12 Index Message-Id: Volume Issue Date Messages Author - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 1 8 September 1992 (1) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (2) Re: Making Scenarios s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (3) Blue Water Navy? dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov (4) Computer Following Orders? s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (5) Re: Making Scenarios fontana@pavia.infn.it (6) Re: Miscellaneous lcline@agora.rain.com (7) More Good Books dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov (8) CVBG Composition lcline@agora.rain.com (9) Harpoon vs. Tomahawk netoprbl@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (10) Australian Update s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (11) Amiga Bug or Feature bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (12) PC 1.3 mckee@hpmckee.fc.hp.com 2 14 September 1992 (13) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (14) WC II Comparison felixh@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu 3 25 September 1992 (15) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (16) Re: Making Scenarios jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (17) Blue Water Navy rinkleff@ksuvm.ksu.edu (18) Re: European Sales postmaster@manadon (19) PC 1.3 Bug paul@xcluud.sccsi.com (20) 1.3 Sales and Questions postmaster@manadon (21) 1.3 Upgrade a760@dmt03.mcc.virginia.edu (22) Unix/X-Windows Game janm@dublin.docs.uu.se (23) Various atubbiol@ccit.arizona.edu (24) Re: Tomahawk vs. Harpoon dennis@hecate.ngs.noaa.gov (25) 1.3 Problem zen%hophead@canrem.com (26) More On Reloads s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au 4 1 October 1992 (27) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (28) Survey Again lam@cs.colostate.edu (29) Re: Making Scenarios assembly15@bvc.edu (30) Re: 1.3 Problem postmaster@manadon (31) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (32) This and That coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (33) USN Frigates ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu (34) Data Annex Updates tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (35) 1.3 Bugs mgjblok@cs.vu.nl (36) PC 1.3 Config Tricks s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au 5 9 October 1992 (37) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (38) Bombing Bases leungsa@ecf.toronto.edu (39) Miscellaneous randy@ms.uky.edu (40) Udaloy vs. Tanker postmaster@manadon (41) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (42) PC 1.3 + HDS s905066@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (43) PC 1.31 mckee@hpmckee.fc.hp.com (44) PC 1.3 Handles Bug sburge@iris.dri.du.edu (45) PC 1.3 Fix Beta Testing kq9h@maristb.bitnet (46) 360 on PC 1.3, etc. 76711.240@compuserve.com (47) Annex S tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 6 15 October 1992 (48) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (49) Origins/Gencon Report d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (50) PC 1.32 Update postmaster@manadon (51) Amiga HDS jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (52) Re: Bombing Bases creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (53) V1.32 in the UK coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (54) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (55) Volume 12 Index cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (56) CZ Guidelines cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu 15 Oct 1992 15:06:14 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: CZ Guidelines Guidelines for The Convergence Zone Last Update: 1 October 1992 Author: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim - CZ Moderator) Welcome to The Convergence Zone! Goal "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. The Harpoon products include Harpoon, Captain's Edition Harpoon, Computer Harpoon, Harpoon SITREP, and various supplements for the print and computer versions. Naval topics are discussed in so far as they are related to the game or provide useful background. The goal of CZ is interesting discussions and material and just plain fun. Submissions Messages for submission to the mailing list should be sent to "cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu". CZ is published in digest form. Volumes 10 and higher are in RFC 1153 compatible format. Earlier volumes are in an incompatible format. All messages are subject to possible rejection or editing by the moderator. Rejection should be pretty rare and only occurs if the subject of a message is wholly inappropriate or if the message is offensive. (Please keep flames to a minimum!) Editing should be pretty rare also. Reasons for editing include (but are not necessarily limited to) extreme length, obvious errors and really bad formatting. Any editing will be noted. Please double check your submissions for errors and try to stay within 80 characters per line. Administration Administrative requests should be sent to "cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu". Once in a while, the moderator has to do real work, so please be patient. If several people on the same machine receive the CZ, please try to organize a local redistribution. When you signup, I will send you back issues from the current volume. Previous volumes are available from the archives. Archives After each volume is complete, it along with an index is placed on the archive sites for access by anonymous FTP. The archive sites and the path to the Harpoon directory root is listed below. North America sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon Europe ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42): harpoon The CZ archive is in the "cz" subdirectory under the Harpoon directory root. The CZ archive volumes are named v1.Z, v2.Z, etc and are in UNIX compress format. The index files are named i1.Z, i2.Z, etc. A few other items appear under separate names. The complete list is in the file "INDEX". Please be polite and don't FTP during peak load hours during a workday. Scenarios User written scenarios for Amiga, Macintosh and IBM-PC versions of the computer game are also stored on the archive site under the the Harpoon directory root in subdirectories "amiga", "mac" and "pc" respectively. Each directory contains a file called "INDEX" and one called "README". The "INDEX" file lists the contents of that directory. The "README" file describes the scenario formats, procedures for uploading, who administrates the directory, etc. The scenarios themselves are in compressed files. If "README" and "INDEX" are sufficiently long they too will be in UNIX compress format as "README.Z" and "INDEX.Z". Disclaimer All services are being provided with no representations about the suitability of these services for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. Three-Sixty Pacific, Inc. does not accept responsibility for any of the services or scenario files that are provided by the archive. ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest ****************