From cz Wed Dec 12 09:46:35 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA02942; Wed, 12 Dec 90 09:46:35 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 09:46:35 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9012121746.AA02942@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v4 #1 (msgs 1-10) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 12 December 1990 Volume: 4 Issue: 1 First Message: 1 Messages: 10 Topics: (1) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (2) Re: GIUK Scenario 4 ted@cs.utexas.edu (3) Torpedo Defense malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (4) Re: Torpedo Defense tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (5) Silly SAMs frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (6) Silly Subs frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (7) Various Harpoon Gripes frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (8) Warship Commander allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu (9) SS-N-14 Silex kato@rpi.edu (10) Re: SS-N-14 Silex 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@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 11 Dec 1990 09:49:00 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (1) Editorial New members added since last issue: beowulf@cbnewsm.att.com (John A. Foley) camplib@isd.lbl.gov (Jung Oh) rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet (Unknown) -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 12:25:55 CST From: ted@cs.utexas.edu (James Woodward) Subject: (2) Re: GIUK Scenario 4 In v3 msg 51, johnh@nottingham.cs.ucla.edu (John Heidemann) writes: >I've been playing Computer Harpoon GIUK Scenario 4 (small escorted >convoy), and I've got a couple of questions about tactics. > >First, what's the best way to defend the northern most NATO port >against Soviet air strikes? You have to put fighters up on patrol, >because they cannot scramble in time to intercept a Soviet attack >from their airbase. I tried putting just a couple up, but they >seem to get torn apart by Soviet MIGs. It looks like you just >have to anticipate the Soviet attack and send a fair number of >planes just as a matter of course. The general question is: >you anticipate a Soviet air attack, how should you defend. I don't. I believe that the best defense is a good offense. Send in the Falcons loaded for bear with Mavericks. Hit his bases, and launch at max range. Hightail it out of there. You may lose a few F-16s, but nothing compared to the number you'd lose to a raid of his. Once his bases are toast, then go hunting for the surface fleet. >Second, now that my planes defeat the Soviet air raid, I've spotted >the Soviet northern surface fleet. I move in for the kill with >the F-16's and Harriers carrying air-to-surface missiles. >What's the best approach strategy? My current tactic is to fly >around to the back of the Soviet naval group, come in to about 40nm >at low and then drop to VLow for the final approach. This seems >to prevent most anti-air response, but I did loose a Harrier >into the deep blue sea. Has anyone else had similar experiences >with flying at VLow and with anti-naval air strikes? I just come in straight and low. When he pings you with his active RADAR, kick it up to military or afterburner and go to high altitude to maximize speed and minimize time of exposure. Again, launch at max range to the good targets. Then hightail it out of there. Don't worry if you miss a few ships; you can always go back to base and reload. On a related point, always go after the warships, never the troopships. Again, you can always go back and reload, and the warships are the ones that hurt you. Send your Falcons and Harriers out in different groups because of the speed differential. You don't want the Falcons limited by the Harrier max speed during final approach... >Of course, after my Mavricks had sunk the Nanutchkas, >but before they reached the interesting targets, my Mac decided >to crash. Time to revert to that saved game... Yeah, well...happens to me once in a while too. One thing that really bugged me in the 'take back Iceland' scenario were my F-18s. I waited and waited for the carrier to get into range of Iceland, fending of the damn subs all the way (and watching my MK46s hit about 5 of 27 shots...). Well, Roosevelt is finally in Hornet range, so I send out the strike. It reaches Bingo fuel 20 miles from launch point. I continue, and launch my Harpoons. I turn back, on cruise throttle all the way, and they crash about 10 miles from the carrier. ARGH! And yes, the carrier was heading toward Iceland the whole time. Another tip: don't mess with Mavericks if you can help it. Load up with standoff weapons, or the ones with the longest range. Leave and come back if the target isn't dead yet. For the Ruskies, get their 70nm range ARMs. Nasty. Ted Woodward (ted@cs.utexas.edu) "Mad scientists HATE shopping for shoes!" -- Peaches ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 1990 07:25:34 PST From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) Subject: Re: More Harpoon Questions Summary: (3) Torpedo Defense [Admin Note: this is another discusion with Sean, that Mark has sent on to CZ.] In personal e-mail, Mark A Kadas writes: > Sorry to bother you again, but I have another question about Harpoon. If a > sub fires a torpedo at a surface ship, how can the surface ship defend against > it? Can it launch SSM's at the torpedo? Can it launch a torpedo to interecpt > the first? What kind of ECM's can the ship put in the water to confuse a > torpedo? Would a torpedo show up as a Very Small target on a surface radar, > or is it detectable only by sonar? There aren't any hard kill systems that are effective against torpedo attacks (at least, that I am either aware of or permitted to mention). During WWII, it was not unknown for some ships to use AA machine guns (either .30 or .50 caliber) in an attempt to shoot up the torpedo before it could hit the ship; this practice was extremely limited both in range (generally less than 100 yards) and effectiveness (torpedos are small, fast-moving targets). This method isn't practical for use by modern warships for several reasons; the primary one is that few ships mount the required machine guns (point defense gun systems aren't programmed to fire at subsurface targets), but modern torpedos do not use the same detonation method as WWII torpedos. Most modern torpedos used against surface ships use a magnetic proximity fuse; they are programmed to swim under the target and detonate, ideally cracking the keel. WWII torpedos generally had impact fuses (magnetic fuses had very poor reliability, which caused sub commanders to vent large quantities of abuse on the people responsible for their development after a perfectly aimed spread of fish failed to detonate), and ran only a few feet under the surface. Modern ASuW (anti-surface) torpedos run ten to thirty feet underwater. Most sub-launched torpedos are wire-guided, with a built-in sonar unit; normally, the firing sub controls the torpedo using its own fix to aim by, with the fish going over to its own sonar once it acquires the target (for game purposes, call it one turn of movement out from the target). Before the fish acquires the target for itself, the best defense is for the target to give the firing sub something else to do besides guide the torpedo -- the guide wires are fairly fragile, and hard maneuvers by the firing sub will break them. Dropping a torpedo on top of the firing sub is the best way to to this; this requires that you have a fix on the firing sub, and either an ASW helo nearby or an ASROC launcher (or equivalent). One thing that the game does not simulate very well is the fact that a torpedo, if it misses its target, will revert to a preprogrammed search pattern (generally, a simple circling, but more complex patterns can be loaded); the first target detected by the torpedo's sonar will be attacked ('own goals' are a distinct possibility in sub-to-sub combat, and something that a sub commander has to keep in mind), or the torpedo will follow the search pattern until it reaches its maximum range. If the target ship has Prairie/Masker, it is possible that, as long as the ship is far enough away to require that the firing sub use its own track to target the torpedo, the sub will lose sonar contact with the target, if all it has is a passive sonar contact (if he's close enough to ping you, you're SOL, but at least you know where _he_ is, and can throw unpleasantness back at him). Some ships also carrie Nixies, which are a decoy device fired from a torpedo tube that goes out several hundred yards and pumps a large amount of air into the water, creating a sonified zone that looks like a solid target to a torpedo sonar. The zone lasts for about a minute; most ships, if they carry Nixies at all, won't carry more than one or two of them. The same type of effect can be created, with a lower effectiveness, by tossing depth charges out between the ship and the torpedo; the zone created by a depth charge won't last more than fifteen or twenty seconds, and is much smaller. Another decoy system that's not widely used is towed noisemakers. Basically, what this is is a torpedo-shaped object that is towed behind a ship that creates the same noise that a ship makes, but louder; this gives the firing submarine a better passive sonar lock on a relatively worthless target. This system is generally not available, and I don't believe that it was ever used on ships larger than destroyer size. Any ship trailing a noisemaker that is hit by a torpedo will lose any deployed sonar tail. I don't know if there is a surface ship equivalent of the MOSS, a noisemaking decoy system employed by submarines. A MOSS is launched from torpedo tubes, and generates the same sonar signature as the launching submarine. It provides the same decoy protection that a towed noisemaker does, but can be launched in any direction, and allows the submarine to go someplace else while the torpedos are chasing the decoy. > The book is vague on how ships can defend against torpedoes. There isn't a lot you can do against an incoming torpedo. The best defense is to plaster the subs out beyond where they can fire at you, which is why NATO ASW theory is based around detection and elimination well out from the battlegroup. Sean Malloy | Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | Balance the budget -- declare San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | politicians a game species. malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | ----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 11 Dec 1990 15:43:15 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (4) Re: Torpedo Defense While Sean takes up the technical side of this question, I again try to tackle the game mechanics which apply to this situation. > If a sub fires a torpedo at a surface ship, how can the surface ship > defend against it? As far as the game is concerned, there is no hard kill (i.e., intercept the torpedo) system available. There has been some speculation that Soviet RBU weapons may have some limited capability. This can be simulated by using the rules described in the "Battles of the Third World War" module. Countermeasures and reattack are supposed to be factored into the hit numbers already. However, as the old ECM discussion showed, considerable elaboration is possible. As you may have discovered already, Harpoon goes for the simple choice in most cases. This basically, leaves you with two strategies: evasion and attacking the launch platform. By changing course and increasing to maximum speed, you qualify for a modifier against homing torpedoes. Some of the slower and/or shorter range torpedoes can be outrun. If the torpedo has a speed in the low 30s, relative closure maybe less than 10 knots. In that case, you can run until the torpedo runs out of range. The bad part of evasion is that you must go fast and end up making alot of noise. That makes it easier for everyone to detect you and renders yourself sonar blind. Attacking the launch platform works only if the torpedo was wire guided. If the launch platform is tracking you, you aren't going to get the modifier for changing course and accelerating to maximum speed against the wire-guided torpedo. Your job is break the wire link. In Harpoon, you cannot attack the wire directly. Instead, you attack the launch platform, in order to knock out it's sensors (it's tracking), the launch tube (the wire), or sink the thing. If you are successful at breaking the wire, the wire-guided torpedo becomes a normal homing torpedo and its hit chance goes down by 5%. Then you can try the evasion tactic. (Note, some of this comes from the new additional torpedo rules in SITREP 4, which were summarized in CZ v1 msg 47.) However, attacking the launch platform is generally only possible if you have a standoff weapon or lurking ASW aircraft. Otherwise, you will be attacked by the torpedo long before anything gets there. > Would a torpedo show up as a Very Small target on a surface radar, > or is it detectable only by sonar? In Harpoon, torpedoes are pretty much only detectable by sonar. I imagine you might be able to visually see one or its wake under rare conditions, but that's not part of the game. -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, 11 Dec 90 21:06:26 -0500 From: frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Frank Schick) Subject: (5) Silly SAMs I was playing the 1.1 version of PC harpoon in the Duel scenario and this situation happened to me. The two task forces have closed to gun range, (I mean spitting distance), and we proceed to launch all SAMs at each other just for fun. But.... My Automatic Anti-Missle defense starts shooting at the SAMs with a VLS cruiser. Bug starts here. I have the zoomed in task force in the lower display and I notice that the VLS ship is at the far end of my taskforce. The enemy SAMs are targeted at the closest ship, (in 75mm gun range of each other). The anti SAM SAMs are just too slow to stop the enemy SAMs. This situation repeats about 5 times then I'm out of SAMs. Meanwhile, the enemy shoots down most of my SAMs with his SAMs fired from the back of his taskforce. I take out my copy of DATA ANNEX for harpoon and look up the speed of the SAMs and they are comparable. To end the story, My Iowa class BB, starts sinking everything in sight. Then the Russian SAMs target the Iowa and damage its weapons director that handles the 16" guns. I force the manual mode by using the attack command as fast as I can mouse it. All bad guys sink, Iowa covered in smoke in close up, Display of Iowa shows 27% damage. Not too bad. Frank J. Schick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 21:13:43 -0500 From: frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Frank Schick) Subject: (6) Silly Subs Another slight complaint. I was playing another Duel campaign and low and behold, one of my Improved Los-Angeles class subs spots the Russian fleet, by stumbling into the center of it. I look around and see a Sub captains dream. I target one torp on everything in sight. I set a course directly away, set speed to flank, and depth to deep. Guess what? In roughly one minute of game time, I fire every torp I have. I thought that re-load time for torpedo tubes was around 5 mins per tube? Anyway, I catch the Ruskie with his pants down, sink the cream of his fleet, get away unscratched, run aground into Iceland, get the old ink pad and ship silloette stamp out, and get a battlefield commission to Rear Admiral. BTW, I have just purchased the NACV set and am trying them out. I found that the computer just isn't aggressive enough. I've lost games, but I usually don't. In fact, the computer under-utilizes its air assets. If the game contains more that just helo's, I will win it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 21:19:11 -0500 From: frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Frank Schick) Subject: (7) Various Harpoon Gripes I found a bug in the continuous air attack option. Here is what happened. (Playing the USSR) I send a continuous Backfire strike against one of the Norw. bases and set the strike to continuous strike. I sit back and wait, eat lunch, talk on phone, and when I come back, I have a real target. I cancel the strike, send it back to base. Re-arm in Guided, and send the strike against the ships. Guess What? About the time that the strike would have launched against the ground base, I get a message asking if it is OK to launch a strike against the base. I say no. I check the airfield, no planes. I wait, my strike comes back and lands, then I get a message saying that my 'ghost' stike is landing with zero planes. This repeats. The flying dutchman strikes again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 00:01:49 PST From: allen@enzyme.Berkeley.Edu (Edward Allen) Subject: Harpoon vs. Warship Commander Summary: (8) Warship Commander I remember reading a mention of the question of the comparison of Warship Commander to Harpoon. I have both but haven't looked at Warship Commander much in three or four years. I don't remember any comparison review, so I could do one if there is interest, after re-reading WC. A thumbnail: Warship Commander is much longer and has very small print making it very hard to read. It came in two books, the original WC and an expansion book that has a title I don't remember offhand, that contains Air to Sea and ASW rules if I remember correctly. It was published by Enola Games around 1980. The system look to be more detailed and considerably more cumbersome than Harpoon. In some cases, it served to clarify points that were murky in Harpoon, at least to people without the naval experience to know which way a rule of thumb decision should go. Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 10:29:09 EST From: Mark A. Kadas Subject: (9) SS-N-14 Silex In the 1987 Data Annex (the one that came with my game) the Russian _Kara_ class CG has a missile launcher, SS-N-14 w/4 Silex. The book lists it as being in Annex D (Missiles), but it's not there. It's listed in Annex E (ASW). Is this a misprint? It seems a bit illogical to build a cruiser without any SSM's usable against other surface ships. Several other USSR ships are like this (SAM's, with a SS-N-14 (ASW)). Do I just have the error-ridden verson of the Data Annex, or what? HELP! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed 12 Dec 1990 09:22:18 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (10) Re: SS-N-14 Silex In msg 9, Mark A. Kadas writes: > In the 1987 Data Annex (the one that came with my game) the Russian _Kara_ > class CG has a missile launcher, SS-N-14 w/4 Silex. The book lists it > as being in Annex D (Missiles), but it's not there. It's listed in Annex E > (ASW). Is this a misprint? It should be listed in Annex E. It is roughly the Soviet equivalent of ASROC. It is a missile that lobs a ASW torpedo. It has a secondary ASuW capability, but it's not too good at that. > It seems a bit illogical to build a cruiser without any SSM's usable > against other surface ships. Several other USSR ships are like this > (SAM's, with a SS-N-14 (ASW)). The Soviets often go for more specialized designs than the West. Balance must be provided by using the proper mix of ships. > Do I just have the error-ridden verson of the Data Annex, or what? HELP! Yes. There was errata for it from GDW. But now the 1990 Data Annex is the current edition. It is better, but it still has a bunch of errors in it. When I get around to it, I will post the latest errata for the 1990 Data Annex. -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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Fri Dec 14 17:51:16 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA04948; Fri, 14 Dec 90 17:51:16 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 17:51:16 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9012150151.AA04948@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v4 #2 (msgs 11-16) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 14 December 1990 Volume: 4 Issue: 2 First Message: 11 Messages: 6 Topics: (11) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (12) 1989 Convention Scenario tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (13) Tbilisi's New Name tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (14) Yet Another Mac Bug jch@jargon.whoi.edu (15) Re: Warship Commander trooker@paxrv-nes.navy.mil (16) Re: Where Did My ... lcline@sequent.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@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 14 Dec 1990 10:06:55 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (11) Editorial New members added since last issue: ico.isc.com!corpane!disk!mikeg@e.ms.uky.edu (Rorschach) -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 15 Oct 1990 11:57:38 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (12) 1989 Convention Scenario This scenario was played at Origins 1989 and 1989 GENCON game conventions and subsequently printed up in SITREP 2. It is reproduced here with permission from Larry Bond. At Origins 1989, Larry Bond was referee and I played on the Soviet team. I have edited the material to clear up some ambiguities and to update it to the new Data Annex. Blue Orders You are the commanders of an Italian ASW group exercising in the Mediterranean when war suddenly erupts between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. There is a Soviet surface group attempting to transit though your patrol area east to west. Locate the group and attack it. Priority targets are large combatants and auxiliaries. Blue Operations Use your patrol aircraft and helicopters aggressively to find the Soviet formation. The helicopters can also be used with their missiles, attacking from any direction at very low altitude. Blue Forces C 550 - Vittorio Veneto (Vittoria Veneto CHG class) D 550 - Ardito (Audace DDG class) D 570 - Impavido (Impavido DDG class) F 572 - Librecco (Maestrale FFG class) F 576 - Espero (Maestrale FFG class) 1 Atlantic patrol aircraft (Annex B/France) [Aircraft Notes: 1. All shipboard helicopters are AB-212s. The AB-212 is a small radar target. 2. The Atlantic is a large radar target. It changes altitude as a "large 4-engine" aircraft. It uses endurance modifiers for turboprops. 3. The Atlantic may not be loaded with L4, AS.37 or Zuni 5" HVAR as these items are not used by Italy. It starts loaded with 100 BIT-8 sonobouys. 4. The Atlantic is assumed to be operating from a base north of the patrol area (see setup below). At the start of the scenario it has 2250 nm of fully loaded cruise range left before reaching bingo fuel. The Atlantic must leave the northern edge of the patrol area before reaching bingo fuel.] Red Orders War has suddenly erupted between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers. You have been engaged in ASW exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is important that your ships leave the confined waters of the Mediterranean and enter the Atlantic. Do not attack NATO units unless it is necessary to accomplish your primary mission: Safe transit out of the Mediterranean. [Your immediate goal is to transit a NATO patrolled area.] Red Operations Use your helicopters to locate and avoid any hostile surface groups or submarines. If it becomes necessary to attack, use the submarine's missiles and torpedoes as your main punch. [Under no circumstances are nuclear weapons to be used.] Red Forces Moskva (Moskva CHG class) Petropavlosk (Kara CG class) Sderzhanny (Mod Kashin DDG class) Rezvy (Krivak II FFG class) Gromky (Krivak II FFG class) Berezina (Berezina AFS class) Victor III SSN [Aircraft Notes: 1. All Soviet shipboard helicopters are small radar targets.] Environment Game start time is 0200 hours. Dawn is at 0630 hours. The wind velocity is 20 kts (sea state 4) from 310 T. Visibility is 100% of normal with no precipitation. [From 0200 to 0600, it is nighttime with 33% visibility. From 0600 to 0700, dawn conditions apply with 66% visibility. From 0700 on, daylight conditions apply with full 100% visibility.] Sonar conditions are poor with direct path ranges at 70% of normal. The first CZ is at 16-18 nm, the second CZ at 32-34 nm and the third at 48-50 nm. Setup The Italian formation should be placed within a 200 nm by 200 nm box shaped patrol area. Roll randomly to determine exact position. The Soviets should be placed somewhere east of the patrol area within 50 nm of the box's eastern edge, initial course 270 T at 15 kts. [Opposing groups should not be able to initially sight each other visually.] Both sides should start with all radars off, no towed sonars deployed and all helicopters on alert +5 minutes. Starting formations should be no more than 5 nm across including submarines and aircraft. [Fixed wing aircraft should be at low altitude. Initial loadouts for aircraft should be specified.] [Victory Conditions As originally printed the scenario has no defined scenario end or victory conditions. Informally, if the Soviets get most of their force across the patrol area, they have won a substantial victory. If the Soviets are destroyed and the Italian force only took light losses, then the Italians have won a substantial victory. Otherwise, it is a question of judging relative losses. If there is a clear winner on losses, then that side has won a marginal victory. Otherwise, call it a draw. Comments Tired of littering the Norwegian Sea with wrecks? Try some Med action. Conditions in the Med can be quite different. In this scenario, the Soviets actually have the superior sonar, but are outclassed in ASuW capabilities. The Italian helicopters represent a potent ASM capability, which must be balanced against their ASW duties. At Origins 1989, the Italian team didn't keep enough helos on ASW. As a result, the Veneto went to the bottom after being hit by two Type 65s. Their two destroyers almost suffered the same fate were it not for my cruddy rolling.] -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: Wed 5 Dec 1990 12:12:09 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (13) Tbilisi's New Name As many of you are aware, the Soviet carrier Tbilisi is to be renamed because its namesake is associated with a "breakaway" republic. According to "The Soviet View" (December 1990 USNI Proceedings), the new name has not been publically announced. However, Vice Admiral N.T. Markov recently told a US audience that the ship would be named for Admiral N.G. Kuznetsov. Admiral Kuznetsov had a distinguished career from before WWII. He had a reputation of not mincing words and ran into political trouble more than once. He commented about his fluctuating political capital by pointing out that he had held the rank of Rear Admiral twice, Vice Admiral three times, Fleet Admiral once and Fleet Admiral of the Soviet Union (the highest naval rank) twice. In 1955, while serving as Fleet Admiral of the Soviet Union, he suffered a stroke. Later that year, he was blamed for a scandal and retired at the rank of Vice Admiral. Admiral Sergei G. Gorshkov succeeded him at the rank of Fleet Admiral of the Soviet Union. Kuznetsov died on 6 December 1974. He was posthumously "rehabilitated" on 27 July 1988 and restored in rank to Fleet Admiral of the Soviet Union. -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: Wed, 12 Dec 90 17:10:22 EST From: jch@jargon.whoi.edu (Jon Howland) Subject: (14) Yet Another Mac Bug [Admin Note: This message was reformatted and edited slightly to make it more readable.] I played the fourth scenario in the Mac battleset last night, and found some pretty cruddy bugs. I actually managed to get my convoy through to Narvik with no ship losses at all. I lost some aircraft while taking out the Soviet surface force, but managed to fight off every attack on my convoy. Anyway, it was apparent that the convoy was going to make Narvik, so I relaxed and pretty much let the game play itself to a conclusion. Imagine my surprise when my staff (at least I guess it was their orders) ran an FFG 7 aground at the entrance to Narvik harbor! I know that I never set that course, so I assume that the "staff assistant" did so. I don't mind that one so much. I'll take some partial blame for letting it happen, and it'll never happen again, but the big problem was that once the ship ran aground, I couldn't shut up the constant request for orders saying "unit xxx ran aground." No orders I could give would either take my ship off the rocks or put it (and the constant stream of messages) out of [its misery]. [Admin Note: if you set the option to ignore ships running aground, you can shut it up and possibly refloat the ship.] I guess I should be glad that I managed to get through the whole game without a Mac crash. In answer to the question about how to defend Narvik against air attack, I couldn't figure it out either, but managed to achieve victory anyway. I took out some of the attacking a/c, but substained ~32% damage. Later on, when another raid was launched against targets further south, I shredded it with my CAP and with F-16's returning from a strike against the Soviet surface force. P-3 Orions seem to be best used in this scenario as airborne radar platforms [at] Very High [altitude]. I detected the Soviet surface force long before they could do any damage this way. They can be used to intercept sub contacts if necessary, or even further complicate [things with] a missile attack by using their Harpoons. Many of the Mac bugs appear to be related to memory availability. I couldn't even get Harpoon to start up when I had Adobe Type Manager installed in my 1MB Mac Plus. Does anybody who has played on a better machine with a larger monitor have good things to say? Does the game use the full monitor? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Dec 90 13:53:00 EDT From: "Terry L. Rooker" Subject: (15) Re: Warship Commander Now that I am settled (somewhat) into my new job, I also may be able to add to the comparison of Harpoon and WC. To start off, there was a second edition called WC II. The second volume containing the air and sub rules was called Submarine Commander. Overall WC is MUCH more detailed than Harpoon. Once you are used to the system, it is not too bad. For example you roll for detection every turn. This recreates the uncertainty of sensor contact. On more than one occasion I stared at a radar scope trying to figure out if the intermittant blip was a contact or just a ghost. The EW is handled explicitly. The designer does not simply lump the EW effects into the combat tables. In WC you decide if you want noise jamming, or if you ewant to attempt a range gate pull-off of a locked on fire control radar. The type of emitter influences your decision since not all ECM works against all types of emitters (pulse- doppler as opposed to continuous wave). One of the biggest superficial differences is the data presented for each platform. In WC the listings aren't as detailed as in Harpoon. On the other hand the equipment lists in WC are more detailed. For example, radars include the mode of operation and possible ECCM features. I ahve found that the two complement each other nicely. Some of the features of WC can be incorporated into Harpoon (such as rolling for detection each turn). The detailed data lists of each game can be combined. Be warned, WC is for the purist. It is very detailed, and requires you to either know a lot, or be willing to learn a olt about modern naval weapons. I will try to periodically post a discussion about different aspects of the two systems. Terry Rooker ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 15:02:33 -0800 From: Larry Cline Subject: Re: Where Did My Hornets Go? Summary: (16) Where Did My ... On the subject of disappearing planes, there may be a possible answer. On one scenario I sent a large (30+ plane) fighter/bomber group on a long range mission deep into enemy territory. When I sent them out I knew that they would reach BINGO fuel shortly AFTER dropping their ordinance. This turned out to be true but since the planes were already going back to base I selected to 'Continue' instead of 'Return to Base' when it warned me. It just so happened that when they reached their base, there was a lull so I selected them as the active unit and watched them land. I had a fairly good time acceleration selected so the number of aircraft in the unit dropped by several numbers each time the information was updated. When there was 10 aircraft left in the unit (all bombers) I was kindly informed by the computer that '7 aircraft had run out of fuel and crashed' which didn't please me one bit. I have determined (but not confirmed) a couple of factors which may have been the cause: 1. The units do not launch all aircraft simultaneously. The actual number of units launched may be related to the number of runways in the airstrip. This means that aircraft are hanging around in the sky, burning fuel, and waiting to form up. 2. #1 is also true in landing. It was pretty much a straight-forward mission. I did not have to evade interceptions or missiles so my fuel consumption was constant. As a matter of fact, I almost forgot that I had sent them out until the attack was actually made. This process seems logical to me. Some of the other behaviours of Computer Harpoon described in the mailing list I have not observed yet. Larry Cline ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Mon Jan 7 11:01:39 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA02450; Mon, 7 Jan 91 11:01:39 -0800 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 11:01:39 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9101071901.AA02450@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v4 #3 (msgs 17-19) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 7 January 1991 Volume: 4 Issue: 3 First Message: 17 Messages: 3 Topics: (17) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (18) Amiga BattleSet 2: NACV caw@miroc.chi.il.us (19) Old Ships & C3 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@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 7 Jan 1991 10:45:38 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (17) Editorial New members since last issue: waynec@sanjuan.uvic.ca (Wayne Chapeskie) bc01%swtexas.bitnet@oac.ucla.edu (Unknown) Now that I am back from my vacation, CZ is back on the air! Send those articles in! -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 20:31:14 CDT From: caw@miroc.chi.il.us (Christopher A. Wichura) Subject: Computer Harpoon Battleset 2: North Atlantic Convoy Summary: (18) Amiga BattleSet 2: NACV For the Amiga owners of the Harpoon Computer game, Battleset 2 has just recently been released. I got it for $20, which seems a pretty reasonable price. For those not familiar with NACV, the basic premiss is that one is trying to get supplies to Europe. It has 16 scenarios which investigate several tactics (lone steaming, escort, and shipping lanes) to get this done. I've only played with it for a few hours, but it looks like it's fairly well done. Now if only the computer was smarter... But that's a function of the executable, not the Battleset. Battleset 2 adds units from a couple new countries, such as France and Spain. There are quite a few merchant/tanker/etc class ships in there now (obviously). My first impression was there were more of those than warships (which is grossly incorrect) :-). Anyone know what Battleset the IBM version is up to? I'd think a Persian Gulf one would be in pretty hot demand, given current world affairs. I'd also like to see a Mediterr (oh fudge, however the hell you spell it) Battleset, myself. Anyone know if Harpoon could handle a Battleset dealing with ancient ships? I'd think you could design cheesy weapons with very little range and all, but how well would it handle no sonar and whatnot? If it would work, it would make for some pretty cool battlesets. How'd ya like to see if you could have brought success to the Spanish Armada? -=> CAW Christopher A. Wichura Multitasking. Just DO it. caw@miroc.chi.il.us (my amiga) ...the Amiga way... u12401@uicvm.uic.edu (school account) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 7 Jan 1991 10:28:39 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (19) Old Ships & C3 In v4 msg 18, caw@miroc.chi.il.us (Christopher A. Wichura) writes: > >Anyone know if Harpoon could handle a Battleset dealing with ancient ships? >I'd think you could design cheesy weapons with very little range and all, >but how well would it handle no sonar and whatnot? If it would work, it >would make for some pretty cool battlesets. How'd ya like to see if you >could have brought success to the Spanish Armada? I don't know about ancient ships, but it is interesting to note that 360 is considering WWII. On the Macintosh product registration card, one question had a list of potential BattleSets. One choice was WWII Pacific. One area that Computer Harpoon is perhaps deficient is realistic Command, Control and Communications. You have total control in the game over your forces and can instantly communicate and change orders. More realistic C3 would have a big impact on submarines which have some difficulty communicating while underwater. I bring this up because C3 problems were quite prominent in some WWII battles (not that everything is solved even today). In particular, in some of the night actions in Iron Bottom Sound, the USN had very bad C3 problems. (If you have ever played the "Tokoyo Express" game by Victory Games, you know what I mean.) -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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Tue Jan 8 08:52:10 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA03138; Tue, 8 Jan 91 08:52:10 -0800 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 08:52:10 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9101081652.AA03138@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v4 #4 (msgs 20-25) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 8 January 1991 Volume: 4 Issue: 4 First Message: 20 Messages: 6 Topics: (20) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (21) GIUK: Duel Scenario carlton@apollo.com (22) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (23) MEDC BattleSet jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (24) Re: Where Did My ... nelson@ee.udel.edu (25) New Sonar Table 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@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 8 Jan 1991 8:03:33 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (20) Editorial New members added since last issue: gregd@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Greg Degi) hal@maranello.dcrt.nih.gov (Hal) patrick.hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) richard@agora.hf.intel.com (Richard Johnson) bmpospec@mtus5.cts.mtu.edu (Joe Neldrett) harpoon-local@pro-freedom.cts.com (Vancouver Apple Users Group) -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 91 15:41:11 -0500 From: Carlton B. Hommel Subject: The "Duel" senario Summary: (21) GIUK: Duel Scenario I've been fooling around with the last senario in the GUIK battleset, where two surface task forces go 1 on 1, with no wimpy aircraft to confuse the issue. 1. I can't duplicate the computer's sucess with missles. It always manages to get some through my SAM screen, while I rarely do. Should I space them out, or adjust some parameter? 2. Nukes are, um, interesting. I nuked the Iowa, and it took out the adjacent Aegis cruiser. Fun stuff. 3. I wanna loft a helicopter using the Formation Editor, rather than having to fuss with launching patrols. How do I set my Mixed Surface Radar, so that the copter has its radar on, but not the surface ships? 4. The Swiftsure sub is wimpy, and can't do much damage. It has but 5 Harpoons, which can't do much, and its 30 knot torpedos are easily outrun. It is usually sunk by the first torpedo to come its way. 5. The Improved Los Angels sub is deadly. The computer was bombing along at 24 knots, trying to get in range of my task force. After I drifted to within a mile of the Kirov, I launched my Harpoons at the Kirov and Slavas, and fired 60 knot torpedos at everything else. The ships were too busy running to launch more than an easily avoided torpedo or too. When the wreckage settled, there was only one Souvrenny left. Now I know why the Carrier group in the "Attack Iceland" group has so much ASW.... Any suggestions on how to survive the "Attack the Bastion" senario, where NATO tries to take out the SSBNs? Carl Hommel carlton@apollo.hp.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 7 Jan 1991 11:04:39 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (22) Recent Naval Developments It was announced that the US Secretary of Defense intends to cancel the A-12 Avenger program. The A-12 is a stealth replacement for A-6. Some items taken from the January USNI Proceedings: A movie based on the "Flight of the Intruder" book will be out shortly. As was discussed earlier in v4 msg 13, Soviet ships with names associated with breakaway republics are being renamed. It has been announced that the "Tbilisi" CV has been renamed "Admiral of the Fleet Kuznetzov". The "Baku" (Kiev class CVH) has been renamed "Admiral of the Soviet Union Gorshkov". And as reported earlier the "Riga" is now "Varyag". In September 1990, an Oscar II class SSGN deployed with the Soviet Pacific Fleet. This is the first Oscar II in the Pacific Fleet. During the same month, a Delta III class SSBN submarine also joined the Soviet Pacific Fleet. [The following isn't really a news item, but I thought you would find it interesting anyway.] The Proceedings surveyed USN unrestricted-line admirals about books to read. The top choices: "The Influence of Sea Power on History: 1600-1783" by Alfred Mahan "Nimitz" by E.B. Potter "Art of War" by Sun-tzu "On War" by Karl von Clauswitz "Sea Power: A Naval History, 2nd Edition" by E.B. Potter, ed. "American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, 1860-1964" by Manchester The Bible "The Caine Mutiny: A Novel of WWII" by Herman Wouk "Price of Admiralty: The Evolution of Naval Warfare" by John Keegan "Command at Sea, 4th Edition" by Mack "The Quiet Warrior: A Biography of Adm. Raymond A. Spruance" by Buell "History of US Naval Operations in WWII: 14 Volumes" by Morrison "Silent Victory: The US Submarine War Against Japan" by Blair "Horatio Hornblower" (a series of 10 books) by C.S. Forrester "Knight's Modern Seamanship, 18th Edition", latest revision by Noel "Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command, 3 Volumes" by Freeman "United States and World Sea Power" by E.B. Potter, ed. Other selections further down on the list include: "Run Silent, Run Deep" by Beach "Strategy" by Lidell Hart "Fleet Tactics: Theory and Practice" by Wayne P. Hughes "In Search of Excellence ...." by Peters and Waterman "Patriot Games" by Tom Clancy "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers ..." by Paul Kennedy "Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam" by Sheenan "Flatland" by Edwin Abbott "Flight of the Intruder" by Stephen Coonts "Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives" by Naisbitt -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, 7 Jan 91 17:00:52 EDT From: jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (John J. Szucs) Subject: BattleSet #3: Meditterean Conflict for PC Harpoon Summary: (23) MEDC BattleSet > Anyone know what Battleset the IBM version is up to? The IBM version is up to BattleSet 3: The Meditterean Conflict (MEDC). Unlike GUIK and NACV (which focus only on a superpower confrontation), this battleset has three types of scenarios. Some scenarios are based on a full-scale US-USSR conflict and situations in the Meditterean resulting from such a conflict. Some of the scenarios of this type are: -- Preventing Soviet break-out from the Black Sea into the Med -- Search for and destroy Soviet units that have broken out into the Med -- Moving a CVBG to the Isreali coast as reassurance for Isreal during a US-Soviet conflict Other scenarios focus on superpower vs. regional power conflicts. Some examples are: -- Combined US carrier- and land-based air strikes on Libyan bases and naval forces (similar to the raids on Libya during the Reagan administration) -- US surface battle group attacks on Syrian bases (including Missouri class BBs) (similar to the bombardment of Syrian emplacements that occured a few years ago) -- French carrier-based air strikes on Libya and Syria -- The Arab nations (Syria, Libya, and Egypt) vs. the US and Isreal The final type of scenario is a regional conflict. For example: -- An air war between Isreal and Syria -- A naval war between Isreal and Syria -- The Arab nations vs. Isreal -- A flare-up of the long-standing conflict between Greece and Turkey Although I've only played them for a little while, the scenarios in MEDC strike me as more challenging than the ones in GUIK and NACV. In both GUIK and NACV, I tend to win most scenarios the first time I play and often experience only minimal losses. Playing MEDC, I've actually lost some scenarios and in other cases, won, but with serious losses. For example, I was playing the scenario where a U.S. surface action group is to perform naval bombardment of Syrian bases. You get two task forces: one consisting of a Missouri class BB, a California class CGN, and a Spruance class DD; the other consisting of a Tawara-class amphibious assault ship and four escorts (including, I believe, a Ticonderoga-class CG). In less than two hours of game time, my entire BB group was at the bottom of the Med, a victim of massed Syrian air power. Very nasty. This brings me to a question: it seems air defense is rather ineffective in Harpoon. I would pick up an incoming air strike at a good range (~100 miles), watch it come into SAM range, and my ships would not fire at them! They finally began firing when the strike at very close range (under 5 miles). At this point, of course, the strike had already launched anti-radar and anti-ship missiles (which softened up my defense pretty effectively) and was proceeding to apparently iron-bomb and strafe my expensive air defense ships. Is there any explanation for this? Is this a bug or a feature? I'm thinking it might a reflection of the limitations of the fire control systems and launchers (rate of fire, re-load time, etc.) of the older ships or the need to identify targets before firing on them (although I would think that approximately 40 aircraft, taking off from a Syrian airbase, coming in low and fast right toward my battle group should probably serve as sufficent identification!). Overall, I'm pretty pleased with the MEDC battleset. It definitely encourages you strategies other than the basic "sail an aircraft carrier up and pound away" strategy that works so well in most of the GUIK and NACV scenarios. I'm finding it to be challenging and very interesting. > I'd think a Persian Gulf one would be in pretty hot demand, given > current world affairs. I've heard a rumor that a Persian Gulf battleset will be next. I'm eagerly awaiting it, particularly since I have the Scenario Editor and could theoretically create up-to-the-minute scenarios and play armchair admiral :-). > I'd also like to see a Mediterr (oh fudge, however the hell you spell it) > Battleset, myself. See above! ============================================================================== || John J. Szucs || The opinions expressed are my own and || || Amiga Systems Section || in no way represent the opinions or || || Product Assurance Department || policies of Commodore Technology, Inc. || || Commodore Technology, Inc. || or any associated entity. || ============================================================================== ...{rutgers|uunet|pyramid}!cbmvax!jjszucs "Nice boys don't play jjszucs@cbmvax.commodore.com rock 'n' roll" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 5:12:48 GMT From: nelson@ee.udel.edu Subject: Re: Where Did My Hornets Go? Summary: (24) Re: Where Did My ... I have found another way to make Hornets disappear, this being with the 1.0 Amiga version. My 20 plane F-18 strike reached Bingo just a few miles short of the target, so I had it continue with the strike. I then watched them land. 19 landed safely, but the 20th ran out of fuel and crashed. After that, my 19 Hornets disappeared (from most displays: they still showed up under the order of battle, and they were in the total count of planes on the ship). The important difference is that I am sure I was only given the "bingo" message once for these planes. I found another bug: I sent an Viking out to intercept a sub contact. I then sent it back to my carrier group and had it "join" the group. It showed up on the formation editor, and I was able to set up a patrol pattern for it. Eventually, it ran out of sonobouys, but it continued to patrol. And the formation editor wouldn't let me delete its patrol to make it land. In fact, eventually it ran out of fuel and crashed, without any sort of a bingo message, or any way I could find to make it land. Both of these problems came up in the same game, the carrier attack on Iceland. The worst part is that I won a decisive victory, and the two planes which ran out of fuel were my only losses! (Ignoring the 19 disappeared Hornets). The program uses airplanes very badly, and the Phoenix missiles are way too powerful. I just kept a continual flight of F-14's 60 miles out from his base and shot down his planes as they took off. Mark Nelson ...!uunet!udel!nelson or nelson@udel.edu This function is occasionally useful as an argument to other functions that require functions as arguments. -- Guy Steele, Jr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 8 Jan 1991 07:33:11 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (25) New Sonar Table In the last letter I received from Larry Bond, he confirmed that the Sonar Performance Modifiers Table listed in "ASW Forms" (with corrections) replaces the one given in the rulebook. I have reproduced the table below. Owners of "ASW Forms" should correct the modification for Old Soviet Submarines to 15%. Contact Is: Active Passive Remarks - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Running Torpedo Using Active Sonar -- Auto Detect at 2 x Range Sonar provides Not Using Active Sonar -- +15% Pd for low speed torpedo only bearings +30% Pd for high speed torpedo to the torpedo Cavitating -- +20% Pd, 2 x Range, +1 CZ 10+ kts on Surface 10+ kts at Periscope 15+ kts at Shalllow 25+ kts at Intermediate 35+ kts at Deep Running Silent -- -10% Pd, .5 x Range, -2 CZ 5 kts or less Diesel Submarine using Batteries -- -20% Pd Snorkeling -- +15% Pd Detected within +10% Pd +10% Pd Alerted Operator Last Six Turns Submarine Firing Weapon -- +20% Pd Using Active Sonar -- 90% Pd, 3 x Range Anechoic Coating -15% Pd -5% Pd Older Soviet Submarine -- +15% Pd Surface Ship -- +15% Pd (Not Quieted) Very Large +10% Pd -- CV,BB,Oscar,etc. Very Small -10% Pd -- <40 Damage Pts Cross Layer to Sonar .5 x Range .5 x Range Termocline Detecting Ship Is: Active Passive Remarks - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25+ kts Blind Blind Self-Noise 10-24 kts -10% Pd -10% Pd, .5 x Range 5 kts or less -- +10% Pd Notes: 1. "Pd" = probability of detection 2. A "high speed" torpedo is either a single speed torpedo or a dual speed torpedo operating at the higher speed. 3. A "low speed" torpedo is a dual speed torpedo operating at the lower speed. 4. The notation "+1 CZ" or "-2 CZ" is a modification to the normal capabilities of a CZ capable sonar. For example, US SQR-19 would be treated as having 4 CZ capability if trying to detect a cavitating target or 1 CZ capability against a silent running target. -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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Wed Jan 9 15:36:49 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA04074; Wed, 9 Jan 91 15:36:49 -0800 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 15:36:49 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9101092336.AA04074@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v4 #5 (msgs 26-30) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 9 January 1991 Volume: 4 Issue: 5 First Message: 26 Messages: 5 Topics: (26) AAW Settings csmsets@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (27) AAW and Sub Problems jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (28) Computer Strategy fidder@druhi.att.com (29) AAW and Rollback xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (30) Changing Computer Data xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov "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@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 91 16:33 PST From: Ed Sakabu Subject: Re: BattleSet #3: MEDC PC Harpoon and Air Defence Summary: (26) AAW Settings In v4 msg 23, jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (John J. Szucs) asks: > > This brings me to a question: it seems air defense is rather > ineffective in Harpoon. I would pick up an incoming air strike at > a good range (~100 miles), watch it come into SAM range, and my > ships would not fire at them! They finally began firing when the > strike at very close range (under 5 miles). John, what settings did you have your air defences set at? In a situation like this I think your anti-air settings should be set to high rate of fire at maximum range (actually 3/4 maximum range). It sounds like you may have had it set for 1/4 maximum range and low rate of fire. --Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 20:08:12 -0700 From: J. Taggart Gorman Subject: Air Defense and Subs: Worthless for Me! Summary: (27) AAW and Sub Problems Comment: slightly reformatted I too, have been finding out that Harpoon's handling of air defense, well, sucks! The one scenario that comes to mind is the Soviet raid on Britain. I like bashing the Brits, so I will play Soviet. My lovely little surface group with 2 Udaloys, 2 Sovs a Kiev and some other things quickly gets detected and the Brits send out the F-18s and the Buccaneers. In the last game I played, a Udaloy was out front. For some unknown reason, the incoming attackers could not "see" it. The planes flew right in with all of my anti air silent, that is, until the udaloy got the range on the planes. It fired 2 missiles each at one or two planes. And it did that quickly. After no time at all, the planes were scrap. So what am I complaining about? My stupid Kiev was no more than 10 miles away! SA-N-6 range is what, 30 miles? Was commrade missile officer asleep? Sheesh! A udaloy protecting the fleet! Harpoon handles all ship based SA missiles badly. Another problem I have is using SAMs as SSMs. Ever seen a OHP FFG take out a soviet fleet? I have. For some reason, the radar horizon for that dumb OHP was greater than my fleet, so it got to fire about 20 SM-1s. The other problem I have is subs. If Harpoon is realistic, then the US should not be building any subs, because they die in droves. Ever played the mission against the Soviet sub surge? I took out 17 subs in less than one day with only 10 or so planes. Sure I had more planes, but they weren't needed. Subs are supposed to be stealthy and not get heard, but the game lets the other player hear just to many. There is no defense against an ASW plane. What ever happened to those mast mounted SA-14s? That would put an end to my woes! When my subs are on the receiving end of an attack, they are as good as gone. My sub will be creeping along and all of the sudden, bang! It's gone. I can't see (hear) the torp or the launching platform. I know it's a sub launched torp, but the attacker is invisible. If I do get lucky and get a solution on the attacker and fire, he immediately hears the torp and runs the other way, losing it over time. I hate subs! In any scenario I play, I don't even watch my subs, because they go blub blub! But the computer's subs, oh no, they are torpedo proof, and super stealth subs. How many torps to kill an Oscar? Two, maybe 3? Try 8! Good grief! That's incredible! The worst sub I every came across was a lousy Now. diesel. It heard my AA fleet coming up and sat. When it had the range, it fired. I only heard the torps. I marked on my monitor where I first saw the torps and put a helo right there. I found nothing. The sub continued to fire, but I couldn't find it! Why couldn't they just drop a torp in the water and let it circle? They do that you know. You don't need a target to fire a weapon. How about a bearing only launch with the bearing inputed by the user? This is the way most ASMs are fired in the real world, but not in Harpoon! Don't get me wrong, I like the game, but it just has some anoying problems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 08:53 MST From: fidder@druhi.att.com Subject: Harpoon Computer Strategy Summary: (28) Computer Strategy Comment: included article header edited In v4 msg 24, nelson@ee.udel.edu (Mark Nelson) writes: > >Both of these problems came up in the same game, the carrier attack >on Iceland. The worst part is that I won a decisive victory, and >the two planes which ran out of fuel were my only losses! (Ignoring >the 19 disappeared Hornets). The program uses airplanes very >badly, and the Phoenix missiles are way too powerful. I just kept >a continual flight of F-14's 60 miles out from his base and shot down >his planes as they took off. OK, whats wrong with Marks comment... I first started playing harpoon on an 4.77MHZ PC clone with a CGA (yes, it is possible, but painful). Because of the speed limitation I could only play about the first 5 scenarios, and as mentioned by others in this group I was able to win easily playing either side. My first thought was that the computer was handicapping itself because of the performance of my system, but when I started running on a 386 I had a similar victory as Mark above. The game interface and concept is wonderful, but I can not believe that the 360 folks have put so much time into the game only to give it a brain damaged strategy module. It is not just the aircraft use, as mentioned before the automatic ship defense has problems, and ASW is weak. I have had times were two USSR helicopters were sitting right on top of my sub, but because I told the sub to stop (0 knots) they could not locate it and left after running low on fuel... what, no active sonar ? Has anyone heard if 360 is planning to fix the computers strategy ? Also for those of you that have the editor does it allow you to create scenarios where the computer plays more intelligently or unpredictably ? Of course, the easiest way to fix the problem with the computer is to allow a modem interface (I can't believe they did not have this in the first release). Does anyone know if they have plans to do this ? Given the ease of winning, and some of the early problems with the game (v1.0, v1.1 and even v1.2) it really make me wonder who (and how) they are testing the game with. Ted Fidder AT&T Bell Labs druhi!fidder ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 1991 14:15:46 EST From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: CZ v4 #4 (msgs 20-25) Summary: (29) AAW and Rollback Comment: message split into two articles, included article header edited In v4 msg 21, Carlton B. Hommel writes: > >I've been fooling around with the last senario in the GUIK >battleset, where two surface task forces go 1 on 1, with no >wimpy aircraft to confuse the issue. > >1. I can't duplicate the computer's sucess with missles. It > always manages to get some through my SAM screen, while I rarely > do. Should I space them out, or adjust some parameter? I don't have the instruction book in front of me but there is some sort of menu to set up you AAW parameters. The Amiga version continues on to say that this feature is not available yet ;-). It would be nice to be able to set the "panic" level on the AAW...as far as I can tell the preset is to fire one SM2 at each target and wait until they hit to determine if more should be sent. I haven't look at it too closely though. I've have had the Tico just sit around and let one of the other ships shoot. I can understand this to some degree as the other ship was a CG (the Leahy? Can't remember exactly) with SM2ERs. What I don't understand is why it still refused to engage once missiles were within its range. I've tried ripple fire (rear ships fire first) with my ships to try to make all the missles come close together. So far I haven't managed to get the timing down well enough to show any useful improvement. On the US side the supposed theory of rolling back AAW doesn't seem to work well. Due to some time compression thing US missles seem to hang forever within the lethal AAW zone and get eliminated before impact. Soviet missles are much faster and tend to zip in allowing fewer intercept chances...which is why I'd like to be able to volley a couple of SM2s at each incomming missle instead of waiting for hits. In this scenario I merely hope that the Soviets don't find me first and if they do I try to weather the first wave of missiles. I don't bother firing the Tomahawks as I've never managed to get one past the air defence. I've managed zero hits when I tried seperate Harpoon and Tomahawk attacks so now I use both together. The Harpoons are just slightly longer range than the secondary Soviet missiles...Of the couple of times I've won this scneario when the Soviets see me first (and I don't cheat by sticking some hapless sacrifical lamb out on picket duty) the key factor was the BB. The Soviets can generally sink your group when they see it due to some odd game mechanics (like his missiles hit and yours don't) except for the Tico class CG, the BB and maybe another ship. Then the BB sails in and sinks the Soviets with gunfire. Fun to watch on the info screen. The Kirov goes from macho to sinking in one volley. The trick is to survive long enough so that they don't go home before the BB gets in range. In general they do turn around and head home and you have to send the BB off by itself to run them down. BTW: Is it more effective to send missiles in seperate groups or in one mass? For instance if you accept the default attack settings the computer generally divides your missiles at different ships. In the case of this scenario it arranges the BB and CG fire into volleys of 2-4 msls per Soviet often having one battery shoot at two (or even three) targets. I usually reset everything to zero and fire each battery (and often the whole ship) at one target. I've noticed that targeting is done by tonnage since almost every time those two useless WWII cruisers get targeted while more dangerous ships get missed ;-). Another question. I've read that the Ageis fire control has an aimed mode and a fan mode. In the aimed mode the Ageis computer assigns specific missiles at targets and the max number is some low number. In the fan mode the directors paint everything and tells the missles to hit the nearest target. The number of missles "controllable" (sp?) is much higher. Is there an "offical" game mechanic to simulate this in the board game? The computer Harpoon Ageis system is fairly wimpy so I guess that it averages this performance somehow... > > Now I know why the Carrier group in the "Attack Iceland" group has > so much ASW.... I don't use normal ASW much if I can get Nimrod or Orion support. Once detection occurs I just fly 2 or three of the beasties over the offending sub group. 15-20 minutes later no more subs. This doesn't seem overly realistic but it seems to work. Carrier Vikings are also nice but most helos tend to run out of torps too quickly. Is there a way to increase the odds of a hit with these things? It takes quite a few torps for a P3 to score a hit and the helos just don't carry that many. Do I have to arrange the helo to sit on top of the sub just before releasing? NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE/SMEX Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov or xrtnt@vx730.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 1991 14:15:46 EST From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: CZ v4 #4 (msgs 20-25) Summary: (30) Changing Computer Data Comment: message split into two articles, included article edited In v4 msg 25, tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) writes: > >In the last letter I received from Larry Bond, he confirmed that the >Sonar Performance Modifiers Table listed in "ASW Forms" (with >corrections) replaces the one given in the rulebook. I have reproduced >the table below. Owners of "ASW Forms" should correct the modification >for Old Soviet Submarines to 15%. I never got the notes on how to modify the data tables in computer Harpoon on the Amiga. I've looked at them with the various file editors I have but I have not been able to figure the system out. Could someone go over that again? This is the new Annex data (sonars, etc) and not the ASW tables that I deleted above...although if anyone has figured out how to modify that info as well it would be great. NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE/SMEX Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov or xrtnt@vx730.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Thu Jan 10 10:07:57 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA04573; Thu, 10 Jan 91 10:07:57 -0800 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 10:07:57 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9101101807.AA04573@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v4 #6 (msg 31) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 10 January 1991 Volume: 4 Issue: 6 First Message: 31 Messages: 1 Topics: (31) Errata Update 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@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 10 Jan 1991 9:45:38 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (31) Errata Update This is the latest batch of errata that I have for the miniatures version of Harpoon. Most of this material is from the last letter from Larry Bond. I have also included some other items from previous letters that I have not seen in the official GDW errata or in the SITREP. This material assumes the you have already applied all official errata and updates from GDW and the SITREP. The GDW errata updates version 3.0 to 3.1. All SITREP errata and updates have appeared in CZ already. Rules ===== 2.2.1.5 Weapon Data: When more mounts are listed than arcs, assume they are evenly divided amongst the arcs, unless otherwise specified. For example, the arc notation "2F/A" means that two mounts face forward and one aft. Secret Submarine Movement Example, p.19: The Permit detects the Soviet ships at 1.5 x normal range, since it is cross-layer (.5 x range) and the Soviet ships are using active sonar (3 x range). 4.3.6.3.3 Fuel Consumption in Flight (in the 1990-1991 Data Annex book): Hovering helicopters consume fuel at the FMP rate. 4.4.3 Missile Altitude Changes: SAMs may change any number of altitude bands. Terminal dive missiles may change any number of altitude bands during their dive. During terminal dive, the missile is considered a crossing target. Missile Guidance Systems, p. 28: In several places, the phrase "the target must be within radar line of sight of the target ..." is used. It should read, "the LAUNCHER must ...". Note that Cmd, BR and TVM are essentially the same in game terms, except that the more advanced systems can often control multiple missiles at once. 5.2.4 Shipboard Radars: Some radars have multiple functions (e.g., AS/SS or HF,FC). All such functions can be performed simultaneously. Convergence Zone Diagram, p.32: The innermost ring is the limit of direct path ACTIVE sonar. The second smallest ring is the limit of direct path PASSIVE sonar. Also, the performance numbers for the BQQ-2 have been changed from those in the example in the 1990-1991 Data Annex. 5.3.4 Sonar Types: Certain sonar systems are combined hull and towed units. These are noted as either type H/T or H&T in Annex M. When the system is fully operational, the ship has no baffles. If half of such a system is not operating, Pd is -10%. If the towed portion is knocked out or not deployed, the ship has a normal baffles. If the hull portion is knocked out, the ship has a forward facing baffles. When such a system suffers a critical hit, roll a D6. On 1 or 2, the hull portion is destroyed; on 3 or 4, the towed portion is destroyed; and on 5 or 6, the entire system is knocked out (sonar processor is knocked out). 5.3.5.3 Passive Sonar Information: If an active sonar emission is detected by a passive sonar, the type of active sonar can be determined. 5.4 Visible Light Sensors: TCS has the same bearing restrictions as IRST. FLIR is usually mounted such that it is a 360 degree sensor. Sonar Performance Modifiers Table, p. 34: Use the updated table in CZ v4 msg 25. Line of Sight Table, p.35: Use the updated table in CZ v2 msg 16. 6.2.2.2 Air-to-Air Missile Combat: An aircraft illuminating for a SARH air-to-air missile must keep the illiminated target within 60 degrees angle off its nose. 6.3.1.1 Gunnery: Guns which can fire in "local control" can still fire if their director is destroyed by using backup on-mount (usually optical) fire control equipment. Such fire is at 2/3 normal hit chance, but there is no penalty for seaskimming targets. 6.3.2 Surface Ships Attacking Air Targets: Some USN ships are described as having New Threat Upgrade (NTU). Ships with NTU can fire at terminal dive missiles without crossing target penalty. In addition, NTU ships can use Remote Track/Launch on Search (RTLOS). This allows them to pass air targeting data to other NTU or Aegis ships. The other ship can launch an SM2MR or SM2ER missile at the target without using its radars. (Remember for most of its flight an SM2 missile uses inertial guidance.) Terminal guidance is performed by the ship passing the data. Effectively, this may allow an Aegis ship to use other NTU ships as spare missile magazines. 6.3.3.1 Manual Reloads: Manual reloads are assumed to take 10 minutes per missiles or torpedo to reload. 6.3.4.2.2 Guided Torpedoes: Some torpedoes in Annex F are listed as "wire-guided". These torpedoes accept guidance commands from the launch platform. Some torpedoes are "dual-wire". These torpedoes are wire-guided and also transmit torpedo sonar data back to the launch platform. "Shallow-water capable" torpedoes have special capabilities to distinguish contacts from bottom clutter. This is especially important in "shallow water" (about 100 fathoms or less in depth). 6.7.3 Airborne Chaff: Move chaff each turn according to wind speed and direction. Critical Hit Table, p. 45: Change the second "Pressure Hull" result (on die roll 3) for submarines to "Sensor". [Before submarines could not have their sonar knocked out, short of sinking!] Future Rules: Rules will expanded to better cover shallow-water ASW. The "South Atlantic War" module will contain land attack rules for aircraft. Among other things, it will use the bombsight types (mentioned in the 1990-1991 Data Annex) and will provide rules for fixed-wing aircraft flying at VLow. 1990-1991 Data Annex ==================== Currently, no plans exist to update the Form booklets with the new information in the new Data Annex. Annex A ------- France Cassard: Delete from remarks, "16 manual reloads for Crotale". Italy Audace: Add to remarks, "Teseo ROF 8 msls per turn (all mounts) at same target." Japan Hatakaze: Add to remarks, "Mk13 ROF 3 msls per turn". Japan Improved Yushio: Make the following modifications: Change class name to Harushio. Change submerged speed to 21 knots. Submerged Speed breakdown: 21/16/11/5/0/Sinks. Libya El Hani: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". PRC Luda: Change remarks, "Jinan can carry TWO Zhi-9 helicopters". UK Eagle: Add to remarks, "General Armor Rating is M. CHP Rating for Flight Deck, Engineering and Hanger is M." USA Arleigh Burke: Change Mk15 Phalanx Block I 20mm/76 from 5 to 8 bursts. USA California: In the second to the last line of remarks, the word "both" is misspelled. USA Enterprise: Change Mk29 NATO Sea Sparrow from (8)3 to (8)2. Delete Mk23 TAS radar. Add to remarks, "During the 1991-94 overhaul, a third Mk29 and the Mk23 TAS will be added." USA Improved Spruance: Change Mk41 VLS to F&A(61)1 from (F&A)(61)x1. USA Knox: Add to remarks, "carries estimated 8 manual reloads for Mk32 324mm TT". USA Nimitz: Split into Nimitz and Theodore Roosevelt (described later) classes. Change Nimitz information as follows: In Class: 3 Total Mounts: 14 Change Mk15 Phalanx to P&PQ/S&SQ/P&PB(R)3. Change Mk29 NATO Sea Sparrow to (8)3 with 6 Mk91 directors. Delete the remarks before the word "Armor". Add to remarks, "Carl Vinson (CVN-70) has additional S&SB Phalanx." USA O.H. Perry: Change "40 SM1MR" to "40 missiles (see remarks)". Add to remarks, "To be fitted with Mk92 Mod 6 Fire Control system, allowing 76mm gun to engage seaskimmers without penalty and SM1MR missiles to engage seaskimmers." USA Stalwart: In last line of remarks, change "STASS" to "SURTASS". USA Theodore Roosevelt: Use corrected Nimitz class information with these modifications: In Class: 2+3+2 In Service: 1986 Crew: 6286 Total Mounts: 15 Change Mk15 Phalanx to P&PQ/S&SQ/P&PB/S&SB(R)4. Remove remark about Carl Vinson. USA Ticonderoga: Change Damage Points to 165. Change the Damage Point breakdown to: 0/42/83/124/159/165. USSR Azov: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Baku: Change "RBU ?" to "RBU 12000". USSR Ivan Rogov: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Kalinin: Change SA-N-6 directors to "Top Dome". Change "SS-N-" to "SS-N-19" in Weapons and Remarks section. Change "New CIWS" to "CADS-N-1 w/8 SA-N-11 and 15 bursts // 6 Hot Rod". Change RBU ? to RBU 12000. Change "New CIWS" in remarks to "CADS-N-1". Change "short-range" in remarks to "SA-N-11". USSR Kara: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Kashin: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Kiev: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Kirov: Change second "Horse Jaw" in Sensors section to "Horse Tail". USSR Koni: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Krivak I: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Kynda: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Marshall Nedelin: Make the following modifications: Damage Points: 348 Damage Modifier: 0.75 Damage Points breakdown: 0/87/174/261/313/348 USSR Matka: Make the following modifications: Displacement: 255 Damage Points: 8 Damage Modifier: 0.75 In Class: 17 In Service: 1978 Total Mounts: 5 Change "Auto 76mm/60" to "AK-176 76mm/60". Add weapon line: "A(4)1 SA-N-5 w/4 Grail D". Add to remarks, "Aluminum superstructure." Damage Point breakdown: 0/2/4/6/7/8. USSR Mirka I: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Mirka II: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Mod Kashin: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Mod Kildin: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Mod Petya I: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Muravey: Change "Auto 76mm/60" to "AK-176 76mm/60". Add to remarks, "Hydrofoil. Treat as large radar target at speeds of 20+ kts. No sleeping accomodations." USSR Nanuchka III: Change "Auto 76mm/60" to "AK-176 76mm/60". USSR Papa: Change the torpedo tubes from (6)1 to (3)2. USSR Pauk: Change "Auto 76mm/60" to "AK-176 76mm/60". USSR Petya I: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Petya II: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Provornyy: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Slava: Change helicopter type from "Helix B" to "Helix A". Add to remarks, "Top Dome can control 4 (maybe 6) msls at same time at different targets." USSR Tarantul I/II: Change "Auto 76mm/60" to "AK-176 76mm/60". USSR Tarantul III: Change "Auto 76mm/55" to "AK-176 76mm/60". USSR Tbilisi: Change "RBU ?" to "RBU 12000". Change "New CIWS" to "CADS-N-1 w/8 SA-N-11 and 15 bursts // 8 Hot Rod". USSR Udaloy: Change "Top Mesh" in Sensor section to "3 Palm Frond". Soviet Submarines ----------------- Noisy (incur the +15% passive detection modifier): Alfa, Charlie I, Charlie II, Delta I, Delta II, Delta III, Echo I, Echo II, Echo II Mod, Foxtrot, Juliett, November, Papa, Romeo, Victor I, Victor II, Whiskey, Yankee I, Yankee II, Yankee Notch, Yankee SSGN, Yankee SSN, Zulu IV Quiet (no special modifier): Akula, Delta IV, Kilo, Mike, Oscar I, Oscar II, Sierra, Tango, Typhoon, Typhoon Mod, Victor III Annex B ------- Argentina A-4Q Skyhawk: Change loadouts to: * 1 300 USG drop tank, 2 Mk84 2000 lb bombs or Martin Pescador (1037 nm) * 1 300 USG drop tank, 6 Mk82 500 lb bombs or LAU-69 (1037 nm) * 1 Mk84 2000 lb bomb, 2 Mk83 1000 lb bombs (873 nm) Argentina MB.339A: Change loadouts to: * 10 Mk81 250 lb bombs (855 nm) * 6 Mk82 500 lb bombs or LAU-10A rocket pods (855 nm) * 2 325 L drop tanks, 4 Mk82 500 lb bombs or LAU-10A (1323 nm) Argentina P-2H: Change listed ranges for all loadouts to 1321 nm. France Alize: Change all ranges in the Loadout section to 1215 nm. France AS.322F Super Puma: Change Inflight Refuel to N. Add to remarks, "Helicopter." France F-8E(FN) Crusader: Change range in Loadout section to 1235 nm. Change remarks from "Cyrano IV radar vice APQ-104, Super 530F" to "R.550". France Mirage 50: Add another Drop Tank entry: 1200 L Drop Tank/959 kg/203 nm. Change the listed ranges in the Loadout section to: 1035 nm (loadouts without drop tanks), 1400 nm (loadouts with 2 1200 L drop tanks). France P-2H: Change listed ranges for all loadouts to 1321 nm. France SA.321G Super Frelon: Add to remarks, "Helicopter." FRG Lynx Mk88: Add to remarks, "Helicopter." Japan HSS-2 Sea King: Add to remarks, "Helicopter." Japan P-2J Neptune: Change Inflight Refuel to N. Netherlands SH-14 Lynx: Add to remarks, "Helicopter." PRC Be-6 Madge: Add to sensors, "Radar type unknown, use USSR Mushroom statistics until other data becomes available." PRC Zhi-8: Add to remarks, "Helicopter." PRC Zhi-9: Add to remarks, "Helicopter." Spain HS.13: Change Inflight Refuel to N. Add to remarks, "Helicopter." UK HAS.6: Change dipping sonar type to "Type 2069". Change Inflight Refuel to N. Add to remarks, "Helicopter." USA A-10A Thunderbolt II: Add ballistic bombsight to sensors. USA A-6E Intruder/KA-6D: Add new loadouts: * 4 300 USG drop tanks and buddy fuel store (1796 nm) (A-6E) * 5 300 USG drop tanks (1886 nm) (KA-6D only) USA EF-111A Raven: Add to remarks, "Opposing radar ranges halved and -10% Ph for enemy radar guided weapons within 25 nm." USA KC-10 Extender: Add to remarks, "Has two refueling stations capable of refueling USN or USMC aircraft and one refueling station capable of refueling USAF aircraft." USA KC-135R: Add to remarks, "Can only refuel USAF aircraft." USSR Il-78 Midas: Change Inflight Refuel to N/3. USSR Ka-29TB Helix B: Make the following modifications: Cannon ATA: 3.0 Def ATA: 1.5(1.5) Delete the last listed loadout. Add new loadout: * 8 AT-6 Spiral and 2 UB-32-57 rocket pods (389 nm) Add to remarks, "Helicopter." USSR MiG-23MF Flogger B/G/K: Change Ceiling to 18,000 meters. Change radar to "B: High Lark I; G, K: High Lark II". USSR MiG-25 (all versions): The Ceiling entry is mistakenly printed as "VHigh". USSR MiG-25M Foxbat E: Change radar type to "High Lark IV". USSR MiG-29 Fulcrum: Make the following modifications: Add to sensors, "Laser Rangefinder". Ceiling: 17,500 meters Inflight Refuel?: N (naval version: Y) Internal Fuel: 3200 kg Cannon: 1 30mm single barrel (L301) Delete the last listed loadout. Add new loadout: * 2 AA-10, 2 AA-11, 1500 kg drop tank (968 nm) Add to remarks, "IRST and Laser Rangefinder together give +10% to chance to gain dogfight position for IR missile launch." USSR MiG-31 Foxhound: Change radar type to "Flash Dance". In remarks, change "M-9" to "AA-9". USSR Su-24 Fencer: Make the following modifications: Sensors: Fencer radar, RWR, Advanced bombsight A, B: Terrain Avoidance radar C: Terrain Avoidance radar, ESM D, E, F: Terrain Following radar, ESM, LRMTS Cruise Range: 1100 nm Inflight Refuel?: Y (D version only) Internal Fuel: 9900 kg Delete 3000 L drop tank from Drop Tank table. Add new drop tank: 2000 L drop tank/1598 kg/89 nm. Change references to 3000 L to 2000 L drop tank in loadouts. Change ranges in listed loadouts to: 1150 nm, 1310 nm, 1150 nm, 990 nm, 1310 nm. Remarks: All-weather. Fencer A is initial production version with squared-off aft fuselage Fencer B has rounded fuselage Fencer C has changes in EW equipment, probably ESM Fencer D (Su-24MK): can be inflight refueled and has longer nose Fencer E (Su-24MR): naval recon/ELINT variant, can also carry antiship weapons Fencer F (Su-24MP): dedicated EW variant, performance unknown. USSR Su-25K Frogfoot: Add ballistic bombsight to sensors. USSR Su-27 Flanker B: Make the following modifications: Change radar type to "Slot Back". Inflight Refueling?: N (naval version: Y) Cruise Range: 1400 nm Change drop tank Range Add to 176 nm. Cannon: 1 30mm single barrel (L301) Change ranges in loadouts to: 1330 nm, 1577 nm, 1577 nm. USSR Tu-16 Badger: Add to remarks, "Only A version can refuel others". Change remarks for H version to "H: radar/communication jammer aircraft, carries chaff for 90 nm barrier, carries equivalent of -15% defensive jamming pod, carries jammer that reduces Ph of enemy radar-guided weapons by 10% within 10 nm." Change remarks for J version to "J: specialized jammer aircraft, carries equivalent of -15% defensive jamming pod, carries jammer that reduces opposing radar detection ranges by 25% and reduces Ph of enemy radar-guided weapons by 10% within 30 nm." Annex C ------- USA Mk88 25mm/87: Change as follows: Surf Ph .25(50%-), .10(51%+); Air Range 1.5nm, Air Pk .10. USSR 76mm/60: The correct name for this mount is "AK-276 76mm/60". USSR Auto 76mm/60: The correct name for this mount is "AK-176 76mm/60". Annex D ------- Column Notes: The Air Pk column is identified as column 5. It is actually column 7. Japan SSM-1: Change Surf Ph to .70. USSR SA-N-?: The correct name of this weapon is "SA-N-11". This is the SAM used in the CADS-N-1 hybrid gun/missile point defense mount. USSR SS-N-3A, SS-N-3B: Change Min Range to 12 nm. Annex E ------- USA Sea Lance (both versions): This weapon has been cancelled. USSR FRAS-1: Change Range to 16.0 nm and Dist/Turn to 5.4 nm. USSR RBU ?: The correct name for this weapon is "RBU 12000". Annex F ------- USA Mk16: Change Dist/Turn to .38 nm. USA Mk37, NT-37C, NT-37D, NT-37E: Change Damage vs. Sub to 38 points. USA Mk46 NEARTIP: For the 45 kt speed, change Dist/Turn from .37 nm to .38 nm. USSR 53VA: Add remark, "export weapon". USSR 53-65: This weapon also uses a short-range terminal wake homer, but for game purposes is non-homing. It does have a higher Ph than other non-homing torpedoes. Annex G2 -------- Sweden Erijammer A100: The country name is misspelled. Annex G3 -------- USSR 23mm Rotary: Delete this entry. USSR GSh-6-N-30 30mm Rotary: Change Damage Pts to 6, change ROF to 6000. USSR GSh-23L 23mm: Change ROF to 3600. USSR GSh-23-6: Add entry for this weapon with .70 Pk, 4 damage points and ROF of 6000. Annex G4 -------- USA AGM-130: Change name of weapon to "AGM-130A". Change Guidance to "EO(TV)". USA HARM: Add note "E" to Remarks column. USA TOW: Change Ph to .80. Annex H ------- Column Notes: Delete the phrase "of a cannon pod" from Hang Weight description. USSR AA-8 Aphid: Change Dogfight to "Y". Annex I ------- USA ASROC, SUBROC, Terrier BTN: nuclear versions of these weapons have all been removed from service. Annex J ------- USA SPS-67: Change Pd to .80. Annex K ------- Bass Tilt: Change "Auto 76mm/60" to "AK-176 76mm/60". Hawk Screech: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". Owl Screech: Change "76mm/60" to "AK-276 76mm/60". Annex L ------- Insert "AI:" before "Air Intercept Radar" in the Abbreviations section. Add to Abbreviations, "TF: Terrain Following Radar". Annex M ------- USA SQQ-89: There is more than one version of the SQQ-89. The one represented here is the one based on the SQS-53C. Annex N ------- The Random Time Generation table should be changed. The Quarter column should be 1st(0), 2nd(6), 3rd(12), 4th(18), Reroll, Reroll. The Hour column should be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Before, some times could not be generated and others had double chance of being generated. Annex O ------- The correct title of Jane's is "Jane's Fighting Ships", not "Jane's All the World's Ships". Annex P ------- Add "COGOG: Combined Gas or Gas; Ship has two gas turbine propulsion systems, each geared for different speed ranges." Annex P1 -------- In a future edition, there will be a new Annex P1, which will have more extensive list of ship type abbreviations. Annex Q ------- Metric tons should be used in Damage Point calculations. Some USA ship damage points are slightly off due to using long tons in calculations. For older anti-ship torpedoes with impact-only fuzing (e.g., France Z13, Z16, UK Mk8, USA Mk 16, USSR 53 series) use a different damage formula: Warhead Wt/3.33333. Aircraft Mission Planning Form ------------------------------ The bottom center box (which calculates Reserve) should be Aircraft Range minus Mission Range (not the other way around). Scenarios ========= In the Gulf of Sidra: The Osa II PTMs are not equipped with ESM. Therefore, assume the Libyan forces are given an initial ESM bearing from forces outside of the scenario. Vampires in the Sky: The US player may not interfere with mid-course correction of the Soviet missiles. Between Ascension and San Carlos: The Broadsword is a Type 22, Batch 1 ship. The First Team: The US player also receives 4 EA-6B Prowlers. North of Iceland: The Glasgow is a Type 42, Batch 1. The Hundred Fathom Curve: Add to remarks in the Red October data, "Not subject to sonar modifier for Soviet Construction." Battles of the Third World War ============================== Icepick Scenario: The map should show the depth ranges as: 60-100 fathoms, 40-60 fathoms and 40 or less fathoms (not 50 or less). ASW Forms ========= Sonar Peformance Modifiers Table: The modifier for Soviet Submarines should be +15% detect (not 20%). SITREP ====== Issue 1: The ALARM's seeker footprint while loitering is a circle of 10nm radius. Issue 3: The special capabilities of Aegis may be used against any air target detected by any radar on the Aegis equipped ship. Issue 4: The April 1982 date applies to all UK ships listed in the Laser Dazzle article. Some Leanders in each class were equipped with LDS, but just which ones is not clear. Issue 5: The Tomahawk table is missing a column which should be corrected in SITREP 6. The Ticonderoga entry in the table is for a VLS ship. The Los Angeles and Seawolf weapon loadouts should both have 2 more Mk48 torpedoes. Dogfights which collide at the same altitude are combined into a single dogfight. Some dogfights move randomly (a "furball"), other do not (a "chase"). Combining furballs yield a furball. A chase and a furball equals a chase. On exactly equal position die rolls, resolve attacks in this order: guns, self-guided missiles (IR and ARH), SARH missiles. Within these categories, combat is simultaneous on equal position rolls and may result in mutual kills. -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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Fri Jan 11 13:45:09 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA05622; Fri, 11 Jan 91 13:45:09 -0800 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 13:45:09 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9101112145.AA05622@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v4 #7 (msgs 32-38) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 11 January 1991 Volume: 4 Issue: 7 First Message: 32 Messages: 7 Topics: (32) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (33) AAW and Versions jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (34) Scenario Editor jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (35) Re: Changing Computer Data jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (36) Re: GIUK: Duel Scenario rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet (37) More Computer Problems ted@cs.utexas.edu (38) Missile Attack Strategy jtgorman@cs.arizona.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@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 11 Jan 1991 12:47:58 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (32) Editorial New members added since last issue: sr26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Alexander Racunas) I recently received a letter from a person that felt that CZ should be split into two mailing lists. One would discuss the computer versions. The other one would discuss the miniature and board versions. Currently, I am not inclined to do this, but I would be interested in hearing from who people feel that way or from people who feel strongly that the two should be discussed in a single forum. If enough people do feel that a change should be made, then I will seriously consider doing something. Private mail on this subject should be sent to the administrative address. Public discussions should go to the submission address. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 11:21:32 EDT From: jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (John J. Szucs) Subject: Air Defense, Computer Strategy Summary: (33) AAW and Versions Comment: original message split into three articles In v4 msg 26, csmsets@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Ed Sakabu) writes: > John, > what settings did you have your air defences set at? In a situation > like this I think your anti-air settings should be set to high rate > of fire at maximum range (actually 3/4 maximum range). It sounds > like you may have had it set for 1/4 maximum range and low rate of > fire. I've scanned the documentation and the menus and haven't found anything about setting anti-air settings. How do you access this option? I've noticed mention of a version 1.2 of Harpoon. I'm playing PC Harpoon version 1.1 and Amiga Harpoon version 1.0 -- are these 1.2-only features? What else was changed/added in 1.2? I suppose I'll have to give 360 a ring and have them send me 1.2. jjszucs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 11:21:32 EDT From: jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (John J. Szucs) Subject: Air Defense, Computer Strategy Summary: (34) Scenario Editor Comment: original message split into three articles In v4 msg 28, fidder@druhi.att.com (Ted Fidder) writes: > Also for those of you that have the editor does it allow you to create > scenarios where the computer plays more intelligently or unpredictably? The Scenario Editor allows you to specify what basically amounts to a script for the various groups. You specify the starting point(s) and path(s) for the groups, the initial speed and sensor settings, ship-based attacks on bases, air strikes on bases and groups, victory conditions, game time limit, and other elements of the scenario. The Scenario Editor supports setting alternate starting points and paths, so some element of unpredictability can be added. Intelligent play, as far as maneuvering and effective use of sensors and air power, is up to the scenario writer. For example, in a scenario that I wrote where Libya attempts to retaliate for U.S. air strikes on terrorist bases by attacking the U.S. base at Sigonella, Italy (something like this -- albiet on a somewhat smaller scale -- happened shortly after one of the air strikes on Libya during the Reagan administration), the scripts I wrote for Libya resulted in a surprisingly good performance. Ship/sub-to-ship/sub combat is handled automatically by the computer strategy module -- you don't have to put in the group orders created in the Scenario Editor. In most cases, this is an advantage, since you are often unsure when or if two opposing groups will make contact and having explicit ship/sub-to-ship/sub attack orders might result in a group chasing around after its attack target, instead of pursuing the objective. However, in some cases, this can be a disadvantage. It appears to be impossible to order a group to attempt to pass by an opposing group within firing range without attacking. This prevents some strategies, such as attempting to slip a submarine group by a surface group unnoticed, since the sub will fire (effectively screaming "Here I am! Sink me!") as soon it comes within range. One feature that I would like to see is support for Rules of Engagement, whose violation would result in an automatic victory for the other side. For example, in the "Libyan Retaliation" scenario I described above, I wanted to specify Rules of Engagement for the U.S. side prohibiting attacks on Libyan bases. Another example would be an "Opening of the War" scenario that spanned the time just before the start of open hostilities to some number of days into the conflict. In such a scenario, the Rules of Engagement would be "Do not fire unless fired upon", etc. until the opening of hostilities, at which point the Rules of Engagement would become greatly relaxed. This would allow preparation and posturing -- such as locating and shadowing enemy forces, probing of defenses, etc. By modifying the scenarios or creating your own, you can correct the strategic deficencies, such as ineffective use of air power. However, it seems that most of the problems with the computer player in Harpoon are tactical and are coded into the game -- not the scenario. The poor air defense and ASW are two examples. >Of course, the easiest way to fix the problem with the computer is >to allow a modem interface (I can't believe they did not have this in >the first release). Does anyone know if they have plans to do this ? This would be a really nice feature. I hope 360 implements it, although I haven't heard anything about such plans. Is anyone from 360 on the net? Perhaps they could use this mailing list as a source of customer input and discuss bugs, hints, etc. jjszucs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 11:21:32 EDT From: jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (John J. Szucs) Subject: Air Defense, Computer Strategy Summary: (35) Re: Changing Computer Data Comment: original message split into three articles In v4, msg 30 xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes: >I never got the notes on how to modify the data tables in computer Harpoon >on the Amiga. I've looked at them with the various file editors I have but I >have not been able to figure the system out. Could someone go over that >again? This is the new Annex data (sonars, etc) and not the ASW tables that I >deleted above...although if anyone has figured out how to modify that info >as well it would be great. When I purchased Harpoon 1.0 for the PC, the documentation (or the warranty card) seemed to promise a BATTLESET Editor, which hasn't appeared yet. The documentation for the Scenario Editor attempts to explain how a BattleSet Editor is not feasible because of the compressed data format used by the BattleSets, etc. This excuse doesn't sit well with me, being a programmer, since I know such a thing is possible and it is very likely that 360 has one (for internal use). It might require a lot of computing horsepower and hard disk space, but it should be made available so people with the right hardware could use it. One reason I'm really hot on a BattleSet Editor is the military situation changes continually. For example, the GUIK and NACV BattleSets don't include the Soviet Tbilisi class carriers (recently renamed -- I don't have the new name of the class available right now). [Mod Note: The new name of the lead ship (and probably class) is "Fleet Admiral Kuznetzov". The sister ship is now called "Varyag".] Just being able to add new unit types and modify the capabilities of existing units would be nice -- although being able to modify maps would be good, too. Has anyone completely figured out the data format used by Harpoon for BattleSets (for either the PC or the Amiga)? I know there was an article posted to comp.sys.amiga.games a while back describing part of the Amiga format (sensors, weapons, and platforms), but maps and scenarios weren't covered. Also, it didn't describe how to add completely new types of sensors, weapons, platforms, etc. Given this information, a home-grown BattleSet editor (allowing us to keep Computer Harpoon up-to-date with data from the Annex) shouldn't be too hard to write, although trying to persuade 360 to release their's would probably be quicker and better. BTW: If you'd like, I can mail the article to CZ (it's fairly long -- 255 lines). The article reference is: From: felixh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU) (Felix Hack) Message-ID: <1990Nov6235616.21471@agate.berkeley.edu> jjszucs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jan 91 16:33 EST From: rbeypw%rohvm1.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu Summary: (36) Re: GIUK: Duel Scenario There is one way to avoid Soviet SAMs in the Duel scenario. That is to hit the Soviets with their radars OFF. In general, the computer will not activate radar until it has been scanned by radar. This means is you can get a fix on the surface group with your subs, you can launch Tomahawks at the Kirov/Slavas and take out most of the long range ASuW punch. Then cruise in and take out the rest with your Harpoons. For this to work, you need your subs, so don't attack with them, just let them sit, stopped and silent, until you've unloaded on him. Then send the subs in to pick up the CLs for free. Once the Soviet turns on the radar, it will stay on, so the way to approach this is to unload only within Harpoon range. To do this safely means no being detected. This means figure out the Soviet course and creep to an intercept point. If his subs pick you up there will be a storm of SS-19s within minutes. As your SSMs approach, the Harpoons come in first, and will soak up most of the SAMs, allowing the Tomahawks to slip in behind. Target at least 6 each on the Kirov/Slava/ Sovremennys. If you pick up those 5, take you victory and run. Always, launch SSMs in one blast, and try not to attack one ships with missiles from separate units. If you split them up the point defenses may take out a couple extra. Paul Westkaemper (RBEYPW @ ROHVM1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 17:31:21 CST From: ted@cs.utexas.edu (James Woodward) Subject: More Computer Harpoon problems... Summary: (37) More Computer Problems I've got the Mac version, so this might only be specific to it, but here goes: Every had a patroling Bear shot down by a Storm PTM? While it's at Very High? I checked out the Storm---the 76mm can't fire at an air target, and the 40mm has a range of 2.2 miles. 20,000 feet is considerably more than 2.2 miles... I wish I had more control over the aircraft in the formation editor. In the CV vs Iceland scenario I sent every fighter I had to get the Hummer. Well, they wasted their missiles on useless things like Tomcats :-) and headed home. I decide to eliminate the AAW patrol around Iceland because I had 8 Flankers left. Well, it's not there in the Formation Editor. So I land the things, and an hour later the patrol is launched again. And I can't intercept the Carrier Group because I can't see the Hummer. I've got a ship on sonar, but can't see the Active Hummer. Same thing happenned with an AWACS later that day; I see its RADAR, but not it above the base. Why can't I shoot bearing only at targets I can't see but know exist, like the rest of a carrier group when I see one? Why did a Leahy fire SAMS at my Fencers without turning on RADAR? Why do my Flankers 150 miles into my RADAR cover suddenly die without me seeing the missiles? Why do 30 knot torpedoes catch up to my 32 knot 688s? Why don't the Improved LA's in the assault on Kola scenario carry conventional TLAMs instead of antiship Tomahawks? Why do Udaloys shoot 4 missiles to port? The ship display says 1 SA-N-9 port and one starbord; two missiles each direction. [Mod Note: Late model Udaloys have 8 SA-N-9 launchers. Regardless of mounting location all launchers should be capable of dealing with threats from any direction. However, only unit #8 on have complete SA-N-9 installations.] Why does the Iowa class only have 2 turrets, but 3 dots on the display? [Mod Note: In real life, Iowas do have three 16" gun turrets.] Why do Fighters turn around and run after firing AAMs? They do this immediately, even though they are on afterburner and take forever to turn back around... Why do Slavas and Kirovs fire their SA-N-6s at max range vs Harpoons? How does one Slava shoot down 10 missiles in one shot (not enough guidance)? Why do Udaloys (with 8 nm missiles) get 3 shots at Harpoons? A 500 kt poon covers 8nm each minute. And why do ships shoot at max rate during reaction fire? Why do Sovremenys refuse to fire at anything? Why do aircraft fly back to base after you deny permission to increase speed during an intercept? Now, for some serious questions: How do you evade in a sub? After I come off of a sprint to aviod a torp I stop. And pretty soon, another torp comes along...even when I cange direction and creep. Without fail. And I love it when my subs that are not moving get detected. I had two of those in an hour in one game. And the subs hadn't moved all game. How do you use jammer aircraft? Just launch them and put them in an area, or add them to the group you wish to protect? Now, for an elementary tactics lesson: ignore guided weapons for your planes. Load up with standoff (and the Soviet ARM) and blast his bases. This works REAL well. I'm to the point where I win scenarios where I have aircraft, and by a lot. Without fail. And I count the Duel as one of them because I always put up a patrol chopper with it's RADAR on to find his fleet. Who needs a sacrificial lamb of a Frigate; use a Hormone B or a Seahawk. Oh, according to the Mac insert Harpoon is Multifinder friendly. Well, sort of. The pause is a modal dialog, so you can't switch while paused, you can't switch during certain times, like when it wants to fire or load a battleset because there is no menu bar, and the worst part: if Harpoon is in the background and wants to fire, it kills the menu bar. And doesn't put it back after firing. You have to do it manually by setting the low memory global MBarHeight (hex BAA) to $14...sigh. Ted Woodward (ted@cs.utexas.edu) "Mad scientists HATE shopping for shoes!" -- Peaches ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 11:40:27 -0700 From: J. Taggart Gorman Subject: Re: CZ v4 #5 (msgs 26-30) Summary: (38) Missile Attack Strategy Comment: included message reformatted In v4 msg 29, xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: > BTW: Is it more effective to send missiles in seperate groups or in > one mass? For instance if you accept the default attack settings the > computer generally divides your missiles at different ships. In the > case of this scenario it arranges the BB and CG fire into volleys of > 2-4 msls per Soviet often having one battery shoot at two (or even > three) targets. I usually reset everything to zero and fire each > battery (and often the whole ship) at one target. I've noticed that > targeting is done by tonnage since almost every time those two > useless WWII cruisers get targeted while more dangerous ships get > missed ;-). I find that launching every single missile you can is the best bet. Single ships launching by themselves (unless that ship is a Kirov!) will find that their missiles get eaten alive. A nice 40 missile attack leaves a few ships nice and dead. On the idea that ships are targeted by tonnage, that seems fairly correct, but I noticed that the computer tends to try and seek out Ticos. It once targeted 26 missiles at one and there were other, bigger targets. It's nice to know that the computer occasionaly thinks like I do! :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Tue Jan 15 12:13:38 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA07547; Tue, 15 Jan 91 12:13:38 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 12:13:38 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9101152013.AA07547@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v4 #8 (msgs 39-45) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 15 January 1991 Volume: 4 Issue: 8 First Message: 39 Messages: 7 Topics: (39) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (40) Aegis Capabilities artabar@mtus5.cts.mtu.edu (41) Evasion, Standoff, Pickets xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (42) Controlling Fire jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (43) Mac Version rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet (44) Splitting the Mailing List digi!rschirme@uunet.uu.net (45) TLAMs and TASMs robinro@ism.isc.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@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 15 Jan 1991 11:47:23 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (39) Editorial New members added since last issue: prenzett%polyvm@vm.poly.edu (Paul M. Renzetti) -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 19:30:13 EST From: artabar@mtus5.cts.mtu.edu Subject: Missile Attack Tactics Summary: (40) Aegis Capabilities The Aegis anti-missile system is supposed to counter the major threat of a group being flooded by enemy missile fire. (theoretically.) The threat is that a whole mess of missiles coming in at once will confuse, confound and frustrate both the anti-missile computer systems and their operators...which missile poses a bigger threat, which one is closer, etc etc. And with 20-30 missiles incoming, these calculations can get confusing. And, when you consider that more than 1 ship might be in the group, many AAM shots will get wasted because Ship A fires and takes down a missle that Ship B had its sights on. Here's what Aegis is supposed to do, as far as I am aware:It is supposed to be able to do the threat analysis of up to 40 incoming missiles at once and task out its anti-missile weapons to deal with the threat. Then, the anti-missile weapons start their job. ====================================================================== "Now let me get this straight... | Andy... You parried one blow with your | ARTABAR@MTUS5 (Bitnet) shield, one with your sword and | ARTABAR@MTUS5.CTS.MTU.EDU the other with your head?" | (Internet) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 1991 15:55:13 EST From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov Subject: RE: CZ v4 #7 (msgs 32-38) Summary: (41) Evasion, Standoff, Pickets Comment: included message edited In v4 msg 37, ted@cs.utexas.edu (James Woodward) writes: >How do you evade in a sub? After I come off of a sprint to aviod a torp >I stop. And pretty soon, another torp comes along...even when I cange >direction and creep. Without fail. And I love it when my subs that are >not moving get detected. I had two of those in an hour in one game. >And the subs hadn't moved all game. It seems that given the probability of detection and the number of times a ship or subs gets to try to detect the opponent the odds are that you'll get picked up. >Now, for an elementary tactics lesson: ignore guided weapons for your >planes. Load up with standoff (and the Soviet ARM) and blast his bases. I've wondered about this. The damage values and the ranges for standoff weapons is much better than anything else in your inventory so the natural reaction is to go ahead and use them. Shouldn't some weapons get negative modifiers when used against land targets? Aside from the cost of standoff weapons and the fact that you probably don't have that many they can't be as effective as the numbers tend to indicate... >This works REAL well. I'm to the point where I win scenarios where I have >aircraft, and by a lot. Without fail. And I count the Duel as one of >them because I always put up a patrol chopper with it's RADAR on to find >his fleet. Who needs a sacrificial lamb of a Frigate; use a Hormone B or >a Seahawk. Oh, the sacrificial lamb of a Frigate isn't for radar detection but for sopping up missiles. I refered to it as a cheat because the computer automatically fires as soon as it has a target it can hit. So this hapless Knox or Leander soaks up 5-6 Sandboxes and disappears. Onward ho for the fleet as the Soviets reload and yet another suicide ship sallies forth to soak up more missiles. This way you run the Soviets out of long range missles as you cruise into Harpoon range. Since you're out playing target anyway you might as well have your radar on...if only so they can try a launch on your ESM contact... A trifle hard on your Frigate crews and I'd sure expect a few Captains to sail the other way...after firing his volley of Harpoons at your flag. NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE/SMEX Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov or xrtnt@vx730.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 22:45:05 -0700 From: J. Taggart Gorman Subject: Re: CZ v4 #7 (msgs 32-38) Summary: (42) Controlling Fire In v4 msg 38, ted@cs.utexas.edu writes: > And why do ships shoot at max rate during reaction fire? I don't know about ships, but I figured out why how to stop planes from firing at max range. Have you ever fired a volley of 24 Phoenix missiles, only to see every one of them miss? This was driving me crazy. It finally took a good long look at the manual and there is an option that lets you turn off plane auto-fire. I haven't fully tested it, but I think it will keep planes from throwing away missiles. Whether or not it helps ships, I don't know. I also have seen a Sov sit there and get hit by 10 Harpoons. It's missiles have a range of about 15 miles, right? What's the deal? Has anyone with the Mac version ever seen a Sov. fire? Maybe it's a bug? And my lastest pet peeve it stealth ships. Have you ever known exactly where an enemy ships is, but can't get a plane to find it? I had Su-24 at High alt and they never saw the 3 frigates and 4 tankers that blew them out of the sky. I even dropped the last Fencer to Low, hoping to get off 4 missiles, but it was toast. I would kill to be able to launch a missile with the bearing inputed by me. How hard would this be, eh? 360, are you listening???? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jan 91 11:23 EST From: rbeypw%rohvm1.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu Summary: (43) Mac Version As a new HARPOON owner I just spent about half my Christmass vacation playing with the game. For the record I have a Mac IIcx with 5 Mb RAM and a 19" monochrome monitor. I also occasionally use a Mac II/8Mb/13" color system. I have found crashes to be infrequent under Finder or Multifinder, less than 1 per 10 games. Some crashes are recoverable. Try hitting <.> a few times when the game freezes. This may liberate the menu bar, so that you can save the game. It will not start the clock however, even if you reload it, so quit and start up again. I have found the program to run flawlessly under Multifinder, running in the background until it requires a response. I have NOT noticed the menu bar problems noted in the last cs. HARPOON does not, alas, use additional space on my large screen monitor, but is content to sit in a 9" window in the middle of the screen. By the way, has anyone else noticed that if you turn of the ship run aground alert in the Staff Menu, that you can sail merrily across any land on the map? (The computer does this as well sometimes) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 13:40:30 -0600 From: digi!rschirme@uunet.uu.net (Reynold Schirmer) Subject: (44) Splitting the Mailing List Since I presently don't own the computer version of Harpoon, all the submissions about the computer version of Harpoon I skip over. I would rather not have to deal with them and cut down slightly on the amount of email traffic that goes on. So my vote is to split the mailing list. That way if people are interested in both sides of harpoon, they could just suscribe to both mailing lists. --Joe Schirmer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 12:43:13 -0800 From: robinro@ism.isc.com (Robin Roberts) Subject: Computer Harpoon Problems Summary: (45) TLAMs and TASMs ted@cs.utexas.edu listed some computer harpoon problems in CZ vol 4 #7, and a comprehensive list it was. One item "Why don't the Improved LA subs in the assault on the Kola scenario carry conventional TLAM's instead of anti-ship Tomahawks?" actually is a subset of a serious TOE error in all the Computer Harpoon scenarios/battlesets. Specifically each side is allowed to use either anti-ship missiles for land attack missions or land attack missiles for anti-ship missions. On a few cases { mainly the anti-radar configured missiles } the missiles can be considered dual use so long as the missile is capable of being tuned to the target radars { oh and also the Electro-optical missiles such as SALH and TV can probably be considered dual role }. But no way can active-radar homing anti-ship missiles be used for a base strike. And of course no way can an inertially guided land attack missile have any chance of homing on a ship target. Of course ted was complaining mainly that he didn't like having to sneak within the ASM Tomahawks limited range of a Soviet base, a sentiment I can certainly share ;-) Robin D. Roberts robinro@ism.isc.com Usenet: ..!uunet!scorp1!roberts CompuServe: 72330,1244 GEnie: R.ROBERTS10 [At the start of World War I, the Romanian general staff ordered that only officers above the rank of major could wear makeup. -Oxford Military Anecdotes] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Thu Jan 17 09:58:41 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA08767; Thu, 17 Jan 91 09:58:41 -0800 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 09:58:41 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9101171758.AA08767@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v4 #9 (msgs 46-49) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 17 January 1991 Volume: 4 Issue: 9 First Message: 46 Messages: 4 Topics: (46) Against List Split carlton@apollo.com (47) GIUK: Keflavik Scenario rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet (48) 360 Email Address carlton@apollo.com (49) Computer Bugs 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@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 16:19:15 -0500 From: Carlton B. Hommel Subject: Re: Splitting the List - Against Summary: (46) Against List Split While the boardgame/minature players might not be interested in the discussion of computer-game tactics, this computer-game player *is* interested in the boardgame/minature discussions. If the list were split, most of the computer people would want to be on the other list, increasing the administration. Carl Hommel carlton@apollo.hp.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Jan 91 10:59 EST From: rbeypw%rohvm1.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu Summary: (47) GIUK: Keflavik Scenario Yet another example of the computer's astonishing stupidty - as the NATO side in the attack on Keflavik (11.0) scenario, the computers first attack on Keflavik was launched, not by F/A-18's, not by A-6s, not even by SSMs, but by long range SAMs after the carrier group sailed to within surface radar detection range of Keflavik. Go figure. An additional comment on this scenario. Has anyone else noticed that long range AAMs cannot hit planes flying at VLow? This appears to apply equally well to Sparrows and Phoenixes. I've had 20 Su-24s get to guided launch range against a carrier group simply by hopping down to VLow whenever missles get to close. Is there any rational reason for this type of performance? Paul Westkaemper ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 21:40:40 -0500 From: Carlton B. Hommel Subject: (48) 360 Email Address According to the latest 360 brochure, they can be reached on compuserve. There address from the internet would be 71310.2664@compuserve.com Carl Hommel carlton@apollo.hp.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 11 Jan 1991 13:46:39 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (49) Computer Bugs I would like to encourage everyone who finds bugs in the computer game to isolate, document and report them to 360 via email, postal mail or customer support phone number. While it's nice to know what software dangers lie in wait and how to avoid them, the best solution is to have them eventually fixed in the next release. The same goes for suggested changes and new features. How to reach 360: Customer Service & Development: Three-Sixty Pacific, Inc. 2402 Broadmoor, Suite B-201 Bryan, TX 77802 Harpoon Customer Support Line: (409)776-2187 (Mon-Fri, 0900-1700 US Central Time) Electronic Mail: 71310.2664@compuserve.com -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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Tue Jan 22 11:12:48 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA11276; Tue, 22 Jan 91 11:12:48 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 11:12:48 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9101221912.AA11276@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v4 #10 (msgs 50-55) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 22 January 1991 Volume: 4 Issue: 10 First Message: 50 Messages: 6 Topics: (50) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (51) TLAM-D Hit Percentage tcomeau@stsci.edu (52) Oil Platforms sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (53) Staff Options bmpospec@mtus5.bitnet (54) Volume 4 Index cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (55) CZ Guidelines cz-request@pram.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@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 22 Jan 1991 10:26:04 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (50) Editorial This issue wraps up volume 4. The usual end of volume index and administrative stuff is included. The volume will appear shortly on the archive site. Some statistics: Volume Start Issues Msgs Size (kB) ------------------------------------------------- 1 26 Jul 90 11 52 105 2 13 Aug 90 16 51 147 3 18 Sep 90 17 55 147 4 12 Dec 90 10 55 134 -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 1991 13:38:49 EST From: tcomeau@stsci.edu (Tom Comeau) Subject: (51) TLAM-D Hit Percentage Arguably the part of the game that least reflects reality is the numbers used for hit percentages. In part this is because the game essentially ignores Electronic Warfare, which is know to produce highly variable results, but in part because "[D]ata like weapon kill probabilities and exact ranges can vary widely from source to source... Performace information is suspect in any case because it is based for the most part on test firings made under ideal conditions. There is only a small body of combat data by which to judge effectiveness." We have reached a defining moment in history, and will get the opportunity now to, among other things, update the Data Annex. ABC reports that of the first 52 missiles launched in Desert Storm, 51 hit their targets. While I hesitate to broadly generalize from small number statistics, it seems that the hit percentage for Tomahawk TLAM-Ds is in excess of 98%. The press pool has interviewed a US fighter pilot who tells us that AIM-7 has been used in one case. He remarked in the course of the interview that he expected to fire two missiles, but when he realized he was not being jammed he launched only one. His target was destroyed. The US forces, on the other hand, have apparently made extensive use of EW and Electronic Countermeasures. Early reports indicated that EA-6B and EF-111s accompanied the first wave, which were led by F4-G Wild Weasel SAM suppression aircraft. While the balance of EW/ECM may be more equal for US v USSR engagements, the treatment of these factors in hit percentages is not a reasonable simulation in US v 3rd world or USSR v 3rd world engagements. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 12:43:01 -0700 From: sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu Subject: (52) Oil Platforms The recent actions against the Iraqi oil platforms in the gulf looked like they might make for a good small ship scenario, but my first attempt yielded a virtual cake walk for the Allied forces (1 Knox class Frigate and 2 Assad class Kuwait patrol boats). The oil platforms were armed with Russian 57/70 mounts and shoulder fired SAMs, but the Knox just stood off out of range and shelled the suckers into submission. This scenario may have realistic results, but I'm looking for more details. Does anyone have any details about the armament on these "oil platforms"? I'd have mounted some sort of anti-surface gun system in addition to the anti-air stuff, but I haven't seen any mention of such systems in the media. Also, does anyone know the exact composition of Allied forces in this action? Ralph Keyser Albuquerque, NM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 13:59:42 EST From: bmpospec%mtus5.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu Summary: (53) Staff Options Comment: message reformatted I've had a copy of Harpoon for my Amiga for about a month now and enjoy playing it. However, the fact that the Alt-F8 command for Additional Staff Options is not included in the Amiga version upsets me somewhat. The computer always has better SAM and AAW performance than my forces do and the fact that with these options you can see the towed array sonars and especially sonobuoys I can't help but feel a little cheated. I would really like to see WHERE my sonobuoys are so I could have better manual control of dropping them. Does anyone know if this feature will be added to the Amiga version in a future update? (SOON i hope) Thanx, Joe..aka Dr. Shmoofender ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 22 Jan 1991 10:26:04 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (54) Volume 4 Index Volume Issue Date Messages Author ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1 12 December 1990 (1) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (2) Re: GIUK Scenario 4 ted@cs.utexas.edu (3) Torpedo Defense malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (4) Re: Torpedo Defense tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (5) Silly SAMs frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (6) Silly Subs frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (7) Various Harpoon Gripes frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (8) Warship Commander allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu (9) SS-N-14 Silex kato@rpi.edu (10) Re: SS-N-14 Silex tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 2 14 December 1990 (11) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (12) 1989 Convention Scenario tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (13) Tbilisi's New Name tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (14) Yet Another Mac Bug jch@jargon.whoi.edu (15) Re: Warship Commander trooker@paxrv-nes.navy.mil (16) Re: Where Did My ... lcline@sequent.com 3 7 January 1991 (17) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (18) Amiga BattleSet 2: NACV caw@miroc.chi.il.us (19) Old Ships & C3 tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 4 8 January 1991 (20) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (21) GIUK: Duel Scenario carlton@apollo.com (22) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (23) MEDC BattleSet jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (24) Re: Where Did My ... nelson@ee.udel.edu (25) New Sonar Table tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 5 9 January 1991 (26) AAW Settings csmsets@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (27) AAW and Sub Problems jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (28) Computer Strategy fidder@druhi.att.com (29) AAW and Rollback xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (30) Changing Computer Data xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov 6 10 January 1991 (31) Errata Update tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 7 11 January 1991 (32) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (33) AAW and Versions jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (34) Scenario Editor jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (35) Re: Changing Computer Data jjszucs@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (36) Re: GIUK: Duel Scenario rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet (37) More Computer Problems ted@cs.utexas.edu (38) Missile Attack Strategy jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu 8 15 January 1991 (39) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (40) Aegis Capabilities artabar@mtus5.cts.mtu.edu (41) Evasion, Standoff, Pickets xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (42) Controlling Fire jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (43) Mac Version rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet (44) Splitting the Mailing List digi!rschirme@uunet.uu.net (45) TLAMs and TASMs robinro@ism.isc.com 9 17 January 1991 (46) Against List Split carlton@apollo.com (47) GIUK: Keflavik Scenario rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet (48) 360 Email Address carlton@apollo.com (49) Computer Bugs tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 10 22 January 1991 (50) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (51) TLAM-D Hit Percentage tcomeau@stsci.edu (52) Oil Platforms sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (53) Staff Options bmpospec@mtus5.bitnet (54) Volume 4 Index cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (55) CZ Guidelines cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 22 Jan 1991 10:26:04 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (55) CZ Guidelines Guidelines for The Convergence Zone Last Update: 10 August 1990 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@pram.cs.ucla.edu". CZ is published in digest form. 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@pram.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 "sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca" (129.100.4.12) for access by anonymous FTP. Please be polite and don't FTP from 08:00 to 18:00 US Eastern time during a workday. The CZ archive volumes appear under the "pub/cz" directory in compressed format. The volumes are named v1.Z, v2.Z, etc. The index files are named i1.Z, i2.Z, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * **********