From cz Thu Jan 24 11:02:23 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA12831; Thu, 24 Jan 91 11:02:23 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 11:02:23 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9101241902.AA12831@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #1 (msgs 1-3) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 24 January 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 1 First Message: 1 Messages: 3 Topics: (1) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (2) Sinking a CVN jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (3) Bug Coordinator gregs@meaddata.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: Thu 24 Jan 1991 10:26:47 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (1) Editorial New members since last issue: mgiven@dsac.dla.mil (Mott Given) onecom!sjk@ico.isc.com (Scott Kamin) GDW said this morning on the phone that SITREP #6 will be sent out "next week". So much for the quarterly schedule. Computer game players should be sure to read message number three in this issue. Greg Smith has graciously volunteered to coordinate the war against bugs. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 12:47:16 -0700 From: J. Taggart Gorman Subject: How to Win by Taking Advantage of the Computer Summary: (2) Sinking a CVN Or "How to Defeat the Capitalist Alliance by Sinking Their CVNs" By reading the hints in this mailing list, I had the happiest moment of my career as a Russian commander the other night when the USS Roosevelt went down with an extreme loss of life. Only a few S-3 and E-2 escaped by not being on the deck at the time of impact. The way to defeat NATO in the carrier attack on Iceland is Very Low altitude. Since the carrier has 24 F-14s, all loaded with 6 Phoenix missiles and looking for you to destroy, you just dip your planes down to VLow and Presto! The missiles all miss! I the nwould proceed to shoot down the F-14s with Su-27 Flankers and medium range AAMs. I shot down 23 F-14s and the stupid computer would not put any F/A-18 on CAP to replace the F-14s. I then took my 23 Su-24 Fencers and loaded 'em up with ARM's and terrorized the carrier group. Poor little Aegis cruiser couldn't handle 90 vampires. Just enough got through to take out both the Tico and the other missile cruiser. the Fencers returned to Iceland, loaded up again, and went out to sink the carrier. Around 90 ARMs fired, along with 3 nuke SS-N-3 for good measure were fired. About 70 AS-12s hit (I lost count) along with ALL FOUR SS-N-3s. Needless to say, the Roosevelt was vaporized. Poor US Navy. A good fleet commander would leave when his missile cruisers died, but who ever said the computer was a good commander? :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 09:21:15 EST From: gregs@meaddata.com (Greg Smith) Subject: Computer Harpoon Bug Request Summary: (3) Bug Coordinator Recently someone posted the compuserve email address for 360. I have contacted the 360 represenative that reads this mail. I went on to suggest that a list of known bugs would be useful to them. I also asked him to supply me with a list of bugs that they knew about. He didn't offer to do this but he did ask for a list of bugs from me (us). What I propose to do is have everyone out there in CZ land compile a list of bugs that they know about. I will volunteer to compile the list and send it to 360. I will also post it to CZ if everyone wants to see it and our administrator doesn't mind the bandwidth. [Admin Comment: As long as the list is succinct, I don't mind. Those of you participating in this project, should make sure, though, you send your bug reports to Greg, not CZ!] To help me out with the please follow a couple of rules. First, in the subject of your letter please include the following bits of information: Computertype (IBM, Amiga, Mac ect), the word Harpoon, and the version of the program you have. So my subject line would look like this: Subject: IBM Harpoon v1.1 Please number the bug reports in the letter. Also please put true bug reports first. Any general complaints should be put in another section after the bug reports (i.e. sub detection problem ...) Try to be descriptive enough for me to be able to avoid sending them duplicate reports but concise enough not to confuse me. Thank you all for your attention. Hopefully we can movtivate those people at 360 (who have nearly $100 of mine) to get their program together and bug free. This also is an opportunity to shape the direction of furture features. Supporting our troops in The Gulf, Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Tue Feb 5 09:30:36 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA05039; Tue, 5 Feb 91 09:30:36 -0800 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 09:30:36 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9102051730.AA05039@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #2 (msgs 4-5) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 5 February 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 2 First Message: 4 Messages: 2 Topics: (4) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (5) Gulf War Weapons 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: Fri 1 Feb 1991 13:17:06 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (4) Editorial New members added since last issue: umthom11@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Roger Johnson) netoprbl@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu (Christopher Brian Lane) thomas@udel.edu (Paul W. Thomas) Current list membership stands at 163. David Harr (wirehead@oxy.edu) reports that NACV is now available for the Macintosh. LA area residents may want to note that he got his copy for only $20 at Software House in Fountain Valley. If you are wondering about CZ, there is nothing wrong with your set. Article submissions have dropped off dramatically since the war started. I suppose everyone is glued to the TV watching CNN. 1/2 :-) -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 4 Feb 1991 18:24:23 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (5) Gulf War Weapons Here is a profile of two weapons which reportedly have been used in the Persian Gulf War by the USN. Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM) AGM-84E ------------------------------------------- dimensions: 13.5" x 177" weight: 1385 lbs. payload: 488.5 HE penetrating warhead propulsion: J402-CA-400 turbojet (600 lb. thrust) fuel: 100 lbs. speed: 0.85 mach range: 120 nm. SLAM is a long range air-launched ground attack weapon. It is based on the Harpoon ASM. SLAM uses the same propulsion and warhead as Harpoon. The airframe was lengthen slightly to add more equipment. It may incorporate some Harpoon Block II technology. Normal air-launched Harpoon is 151.2" long and 1145 lbs. SLAM is apparently only an air-launched weapon. Navigation to the target area is by GPS. Upon reaching the target area, target selection is made via data link. The data link is the same used in the Walleye II. After target selection is made, the weapon self guides using the same imaging IR seeker from the Maverick. Navy press statements about SLAM testing indicate that A-6E and F/A-18 aircraft have sucessfully launched SLAM. A test in June 1989 used a separate platform to launch and select target. The SLAM is an interim weapon. It replaces the role envisioned for the old cancelled Condor (AGM-53A) system. Eventually, SLAM will be replaced by some member of the US Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) program or NATO Modular Standoff Weapon (MSOW) program. The most likely candidate is the Navy's Advanced Standoff Weapon System (ASWS). The Condor system was cancelled largely due to the expensive long-range jam resistant data link used. The approach taken by SLAM is to use a less capable data link, but only for a very short period during target selection. The data link is not required for other functions such as navigation (handled by GPS) and guidance (SLAM is self-guiding, using an imaging IR seeker). Because it is in interim weapon, the Navy plans (at least in early 1989) were to procure only 290 SLAM at a fairly high cost. On 1 February 1988, McDonnell Douglas received a contract for 14 missiles. The first production delivery occurred on 3 November 1988. In the 1988 Standoff Weapon Master plan, SLAM was chosen by the Navy over AGM-130. In February 1989, authority for limited rate production (Milestone IIIA) was granted. Full production authority (Milestone IIIB) was expected sometime in 1990. I was not able to find specific information on the SLAM acquisition schedule. However, acquisition of all AGM-84 types was 138 in FY89, 190 in FY90 with 215 requested in FY91. In 1988, 116 AGM-84 were ordered, and 93 were ordered in 1989. Deliveries in 1988 totalled 116 and in 1989 they totalled 75. Recent media reports have indicated that SLAM has been used in the Persian Gulf War. Tomahawk BGM-109 ---------------- dimensions: 20.9" x 252" weight: 3181 lbs. payload: 200 kT W80 nuclear warhead (TLAM-N) 1000 lb HE warhead (TLAM-C) 166 BLU-97/B bomblets (TLAM-D) 1000 lb HE warhead (TASM) propulsion: F-107 turbojet plus booster range: 1350 nm (TLAM-N) 675 nm (TLAM-C) 472 nm (TLAM-D) 250 nm (TASM) versions (Navy procurement targets): BGM-109A TLAM-N (758) BGM-109B TASM (593) BGM-109C Block IIA TLAM-C (1486) BGM-109C Block IIB TLAM-D (1157) BGM-109D TLAM-D BGM-109E TASM BGM-109F TLAM-C anti-airfield (560) BGM-109G GLCM AGM-109C MRASM AGM-109I MRASM with IR seeker AGM-109J MRASM with Submunition Dispenser The Tomahawk cruise missile is deployed as a ship or submarine launched missile. Depending on payload type, it has four different roles: Antiship Missile (TASM), Nuclear Land Attack (TLAM-N), Conventional Land Attack (TLAM-C), Land Attack with Submunition Dispenser (TLAM-D). The Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) was a land-based theatre range strategic nuclear variant of the Tomahawk based in NATO countries. GLCMs are being destroyed as part of the INF arms control treaty. In addition, there was a proposed air-launched land attack variant called the Medium Range Air to Surface Missile (MRASM). This should not be confused with the strategic nuclear Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), which is based on a different cruise missile family. On surface ships, Tomahawk is launched from either Mk44 Mod 2 Armored Box Launcher with four rounds or from the Mk41 Vertical Launch System. On submarines, Tomahawk is launched from 21" torpedo tube or from Mk45 vertical launch tubes on the Improved LosAngeles class SSN. While TLAM variants are over water, they use inertial navigation. Over land, the TLAM uses TERCOM Aided Inertial Navigation System (TAINS). Most of the time the TLAM flies inertially. Periodically, midcourse corrections are made by using TERCOM (Terrain Contour Matching). TERCOM works by taking a series of radar altimeter readings and comparing them to preprogrammed contour maps. This means that the terrain patch must be surveyed ahead of time. Resolution of the maps increases as the missile approaches the target to increase accuracy. In addition, TLAMs also use Digital Scene Matching Area Correlator (DSMAC). DSMAC uses a camera to look at the terrain that the missile is flying over. This is compared to stored images. Presumably, TAINS is used to get the missile to the target area, while DSMAC is actually used for attack guidance in the final stages of flight. Once in the target area, TLAM-D can make multiple passes over different targets. A Novemeber 1987 test film shows a sub-launched TLAM-D attacking three different targets and diving on a fourth. Block IIA TLAM-C have some additional features. Course programming can take into account mobile launch points and alternate over-water course waypoints. Also, it can be programmed to do a terminal popup. The standard TLAM-C warhead is the same 1000 lb HE warhead used in the old Bullpup (AGM-12). Presumably, the anti-airfield variant uses some type of cratering munition. The TLAM-D warhead is 166 Aerojet Ordnance BLU-97/B combined effect bomblets, stored in 22 packages of 7 bomblets and 2 packages of 6 bomblets. Each bomblet is 2.5" x 6.6", weighs 3.4 lbs and has an incendiary fuze, fragmenting case and shaped charge. The TASM's long range has highlighted the need for a comphrensive Over The Horizon (OTH) targeting system. Equipment for programming the Block II guidance system is said to have interfaces for fleet intelligence and sensor data, presumably as an outgrowth of the Outlaw Shark program. Unlike TLAM variants, whose range is limited by warhead weight, the range of the TASM is limited by search requirements. TASM navigation is inertial. After arriving at the target area, published attack profiles show the Tomahawk climbing for target search. Tomahawk has Passive Identification/Passive Direction Finding (PI/DF) equipment fed by four flush mounted antenae for target discrimination. After acquisition, Tomahawk descends to seaskimming altitude and then makes an deceptive maneuver to approach the target from a different direction. Reacquisition and attack guidance is provided by active radar homing seeker. The General Dynamics Tomahawk was chosen in a flyoff against the LTV BGM-110. McDonnell Dougles is a second source for an annual competitive bid. The first guided flight of Tomahawk occurred in December 1976. Navy procurement targets are listed above. Recent Tomahawk procurement: Orders Deliveries 1988 1989 1988 1989 TLAM-N 19 10 51 350 TLAM-C 304 287 113 509 TLAM-D 72 92 6 61 TASM 80 121 125 433 Total FY89 Authorization 475 Total FY90 Authorization 400 Total FY91 Request 600 Block III missile improvements are under development. The enhancements include: improved turbofan engine with 19% more thrust and 3% less fuel consumption, time of arrival software for coordination with air strikes, insensitive munitions to improve safety, improved DSMAC and incorporation of GPS into the navigation system. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) on Block III is expected in 1993. The 30 January 1991 CENTCOM briefing indicated that more than 260 TLAMs had been used in the Persian Gulf War up to that point. Sources: World Naval Weapon Systems by Freidman (Naval Institute Press) USNI Proceedings May 1989 USNI Proceedings May 1990 -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 Mon Feb 11 09:40:51 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA08091; Mon, 11 Feb 91 09:40:51 -0800 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 09:40:51 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9102111740.AA08091@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #3 (msgs 6-9) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 11 February 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 3 First Message: 6 Messages: 4 Topics: (6) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (7) Surface Launched SLAM tcomeau@stsci.edu (8) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (9) Game Convention 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: Fri 8 Feb 1991 14:14:13 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (6) Editorial New members since last issue: etlgecs@juno.ericsson.se (Grahame Conbis) -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 1991 17:07:00 EST From: tcomeau@stsci.edu (Tom Comeau) Subject: SLAM also tested from surface combatant. Summary: (7) Surface Launched SLAM Comment: included message edited In v5 msg 5, tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) writes: > Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM) AGM-84E > ------------------------------------------- > >SLAM is a long range air-launched ground attack weapon. It is based on >the Harpoon ASM... > >SLAM is apparently only an air-launched weapon. This only _used_ to be true. Aviation Week September 3, 1990 reports that the US Navy successfully tested a ship-launched version of SLAM in late June on USS Lake Champlain, a Ticonderoga-class AEGIS cruiser. The article reports that SLAM was originally developed as an air-launched weapon, but was launched from a Harpoon canister, and controlled by a Navy Air Tactical officer aboard the ship's Seahawk helicopter using a Walleye data link on the SLAM and a reciever pod on the Seahawk. The video was also downlinked from the helo to _Lake_Champlain's_ CIC. This gives commanders a standoff Harpoon-like capability from surface ships, with an opportunity to select and engage targets over the horizon visually. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 7 Feb 1991 16:41:33 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (8) Recent Naval Developments In addition to Tom Comeau's comments above, I have since been told that SLAM is NOT offically operational. The SLAM firings in the Persian Gulf War are considered "tests". Another weapon just begining tests is the McDonnell Douglas/Hughes version of the Advanced Interdiction Weapon System (AIWS). According to February 1991 USNI Proceedings, the first AIWS test flight occurred in 10 December 1990. The AIWS is supposed to be a short range standoff weapon. It is supposed to replace such weapons as Walleye, Maverick, laser-guided bombs and Skipper. According to "World Naval Weapon Systems", the navigation/guidance system of AIWS is similar to SLAM. It flies using inertial guidance to the target area. A data-link is then used to lock-on an imaging seeker for attack guidance. This Lock-On After Launch (LOAL) capability should make it safer for the launching aircraft. In a typical attack profile, the launch platform would popup at a safe distance to fix the target location for the AIWS. The aircraft would then make a low altitude approach and launch out of target sight. Baseline configuration calls for a 5+ nm range, maximum weight of 2250 lbs with a choice of 1000 lb, 2000 lb and submunition warheads. The imaging seeker should be capable of 5-7 feet CEP. Variations on the seeker and the use of GPS have also been proposed. It is not clear whether AIWS will be powered or not. The production decision will probably be made around 1992. In February 1991 USNI Proceedings, it was reported that the Chernova Ukraina (Slava class CG) and the Bystryy (Sovremenny class DDG) dropped anchor in Petropavlovsk on 6 November 1990. The two ships will join the Soviet Pacific Fleet. -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 11 Feb 1991 08:57:56 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (9) Game Convention Over President's Day Weekend, I will be attending ORCCON 14, an LA area game convention. I am not sure if Harpoon will be played. But I am always glad to meet other gamers from the net. If you plan to be there too, send me some e-mail and maybe we can meet some where. -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 Thu Feb 14 08:19:18 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA10079; Thu, 14 Feb 91 08:19:18 -0800 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 91 08:19:18 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9102141619.AA10079@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #4 (msgs 10-11) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 14 February 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 4 First Message: 10 Messages: 2 Topics: (10) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (11) PBeM Players Wanted etlgecs@juno.ericsson.se "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 14 Feb 1991 07:58:01 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (10) Editorial New members since last issue: gt4586c@prism.gatech.edu (Thomas Carter Willett) Gee, where did all the article writers go? :-) -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 16:54:17 +0100 From: etlgecs@juno.ericsson.se (Grahame Curtis TM/JD rum5844) Subject: Harpoon PBeM Needs Players Summary: (11) PBeM Players Wanted Since I'm stuck here in Sweden away from my regular players, I want to start a Harpoon PBeM if there is enough interest. I'll deal with the refereeing including provision of scenarios but I need people who would like to command the ships. I'll start off with one person-one ship (or more if they're something like Osas) but if this proves successful I would like to get a campaign going with perhaps one player-one taskforce. If you're interested then please e-mail me and I'll start as soon as I have enough players. Grahame Curtis. P.S. Ownership of Ship/Sub/ASW forms is useful but not essential, I can send the relevant info. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Fri Feb 15 17:21:00 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA11477; Fri, 15 Feb 91 17:21:00 -0800 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 17:21:00 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9102160121.AA11477@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #5 (msgs 12-15) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 15 February 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 5 First Message: 12 Messages: 4 Topics: (12) Selectable Popup davisje@crdgw2.crd.ge.com (13) Re: Selectable Popup tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (14) Mk41 VLS tcomeau@stsci.edu (15) Aegis and Mk41 VLS 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: 14 Feb 91 15:24 EST From: Jonathan E. Davis Subject: (12) Selectable Popup One of the decisions that a user of either the Harpoon or Tomahawk missiles must determine is whether to have the missile perform a terminal popup when the missile encounters a surface target. The selectable popup feature of these weapons provides this choice. The advantage of a terminal popup is the crossing target modifier that gets applied to any anti-missile fire - typically from the CIWS gatling gun systems. This modifier is not insignifigant and can account for a large number of missiles penetrating the target's defenses. The disadvantage to terminal popup is the finality of the missile's trajectory should the missile miss its target. I assume that the missile's guidance system would not permit it to recover to a sea-skimming mode following a popup manuever, and thus would plunge into the ocean should the missile miss. The missile doesn't have the opportunity to select a second target if the first target is missed. Therefore the following tactical considerations are proposed for the use of terminal popup: A terminal popup manuever should be used against any military warship defended with a CIWS, or against any lone ship. No popup should be used when engaging ships without CIWS, such as patrol craft or merchant/tankers/cargo ships. An attack against a convoy would nearly ensure a hit against a merchant if the first target selected by the missile were missed and a second target selected. Jon Davis davisje@crd.ge.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 15 Feb 1991 16:39:50 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (13) Re: Selectable Popup Another consideration when using Selectable Popup is that a seaskimmer during popup enters Low (from VLow). Thus, some weapons which cannot engage seaskimmers, can enagage popups (though with the crossing target penalty). However, you should be careful to note minimum ranges on SAMs. Also, I believe Tomahawk is not selectable popup in the 90-91 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 1991 16:06:03 EST From: tcomeau@stsci.edu (Tom Comeau) Subject: Mk41 VLS treatment in Harpoon (Long) Summary: (14) Mk41 VLS Some modern missile systems do not really behave like traditional guns, or even older missile launchers. One particular example is the Mk41 Vertical Launch System (VLS), used first on the improved Ticonderoga class and now in service on Improved Spruance and Arleigh Burke classes. (The Vertical-Launch system used on Improved Los Angeles subs is a very different system.) The actual operation of these systems has implications for how they are handled in Harpoon. What follows are: 1) My understanding of the Mk41 VLS, based on a variety of sources including _Jane's_, _AvLeak_, US Navy descriptions to Congress in open session, and discussions with a Mk41 developer. All is from unclassified sources. The developer took particular care not to even discuss anything that might be classified, especially numbers related to weight, speed, and rate of fire. 2) My view on how the Mk41 and related vertical launchers, such as VL Sea Wolf, should be treated in Harpoon. This view does not extend to Soviet VL systems, which use a different system entirely. The Navy is understandably closemouthed about just the system works, how many components there are, and how they integrate, so my description may well be grossly wrong. If someone can point to an open source that better describes the system, I'll be eager to examine it. The Mk41 VLS is a system that includes several components. These include the launcher cells, control electronics, and interfaces to shipboard fire control systems. The launchers themselves come in 8-cell units, arranged as two rows of four: +--+--+--+--+ | | | | | +--+--+--+--+ | | | | | +--+--+--+--+ Each cell contains one missile, currently either one of the four Tomahawk variants, or one of two SM2-MR variants. The Mk41 will also support VL ASROC when available, and the possibility of equipping the Spruance destroyers with a VL version of Sea Sparrow was discussed with the Europeans in the 80s, but was apparently dropped. The system does not support Harpoon. Although it would likely fit into a Mk41 cell, the data interface (for targeting) is apparently very different and not compatible. There is a special variant of the unit that contains an at-sea replenishment crane: +--------+--+ | Crane | | +--+--+--+--+ | | | | | +--+--+--+--+ The cells are then grouped together to form 32 or 64 cell launchers, which contain 29 or 61 missiles, three cells being taken by the RAS crane: 29-cell launcher 61-cell launcher ---+ ++++ ---+ ++++ 1 ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ 2 ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ 3 ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ 4 ++++ ++++ 5 ++++ ++++ 6 ++++ ++++ 7 ++++ ++++ 8 The crane may reload only "nearby" cells, generally those in the closest 29 cells. The crane may be equipped with an extension boom to reload cells further away, but weight limits prevent RAS of Tomahawk in the "outer" 32 cells. Each cell has its own mechanics and electronics, and wiring bundles for interface to the fire control system. As a result the units operate as independent 8-cell launchers as far as the ship is concerned. Units are generally loaded with a mix of weapons, as each weapons takes a variable amount of time to program for launch. SM2s take "a little bit" to program, perhaps one or two seconds, while Tomahawks take "quite a while", perhaps 15 minutes. (Both numbers are guesses, based on how quickly they've been observed to fire. The stuff in quotes is the closest anyone who actually knows would come to a number.) Once programmed, the missiles can be launched as quickly as they can get launch commands. The limit is apparently in the ship's fire control, not the Mk41, which can apparently empty all eight cells in a matter of a few seconds. In general, missile launches in one unit will not affect launches in another unit, even an adjacent one, as long as the two missiles go in divergent directions. The units themselves seem to share only deck supports, and the fire control interface back in CIC. Installation of the unit is apparently very simple: Cut a hole in the weatherdeck, clear out space belowdecks, drop the Mk41 in place and secure it to the deck. Now run a cable bundle from the Mk41 to CIC. You're done, and may begin running diagnostics on the interfaces. (British installers tell a similar story, but since VL Sea Wolf is a shorter missile than either SM2 or Tomahawk clearing space belowdecks is easier.) The resulting installed unit is then surveyed to provide the precise distance from each Mk41 cell to the ship's INS platform. This permits very precise targeting of T-LAMs of all three types. When asked about launch rates, all sources say that the limit is the fire control system. When asked about the rate possible for any of the fire control systems, the sources become suddenly poker-faced and quit answering questions. However, experiments with videotape, stopwatch, and rulers show that AEGIS cruisers in the Carribean have launched SM2MR as often as every four seconds, or about 15 per minute per launcher. Tomahawk launches are harder to find, and seem to happen only one at a time. If there were ripple-fires of Tomahawks on the 17th of January, nobody got it on tape for CNN. However, the limit seems to be the rate at which the missile is _programmed_, and if you had 8 Tomahawks in 8 different units, you could program them simultaneously. You can even suspend a Tomahawk launch sequence to program an SM2, but not vice versa. The "quite a while" number may refer only to T-LAM variants of Tomahawk. T-ASM seems to be much faster to program, more in line with the speed (but not the methods) of prepping a Harpoon. Fire control systems again seem to be the limit. (Harpoons could in principle be launched about 20 feet apart, or faster than one per second, but they seem to be programmed one at a time, with a four-canister launcher sharing the interface among all four missiles.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SO, what does this mean to the game? In my view, this means that _all_ Mk41s should be treated as a single mount containing two (or three or four) types of weapon, as if it were one fast-firing single-arm launcher. (E.g. Mk13 on O. H. Perrys, but much faster.) Assume the fire control system picks an appropriate cell, programs the missile, and instructs it to launch. For AEGIS-equipped vessels, this means a launch rate of 30 missiles per tac turn regardless of missile type, with the following exceptions: 1) TLAMs must be targeted 15 minutes before launch, but may be fired any time once they are ready. 2) One Tomahawk per unit of any type may be launched in any tac turn. Presumably each is launched from a separate Mk41 unit. To find the number of units, add three missiles to each "mount" in the data annex and divide by 8. For Ticonderoga CGs, 16 may be launched per tac turn. For Arleigh Burke DDGs, 12 per tac turn. For Improved Spruance DDs, 8 per tac turn. 3) One VL ASROC per unit may be launched per tac turn. Remember, however, that the targets must be widely separated or the Mk50s delivered by the ASROC will interfere with one another. Since Improved Spruance cannot carry anti-air weapons in the VLS, and have only one 29-cell VLS, the rates above limit the rate of fire to 8 missiles (Tomahawk or ASROC) per tac turn. For anti-air warfare, remember that the number of targets engaged by AEGIS is limited by availability of directors to guide the missile in the final stages of intercept. My guess (and it is little more than a guess) is that a director is needed only for the last few seconds, which would mean each director could switch targets each _phase_, rather than each tac turn. This would mean Ticonderoga's could direct 8 engagments per tac turn, Burke's could direct 6 per tac turn. Any number of missiles could be directed at a single target. However, this approach fails when computing damage, either for breakdowns or for critical hits. For damage control purposes, each 8-cell unit should be treated separately. For Ticonderogas, this means there are a total of 26 weapon mounts, (2xMk41 with 8 units each for a total of 16 Mk41 "mounts", 2xMk45, 2xMk15 Phalanx, 2xMk32 TT, 2xMk141 Harpoon, 2xSH-2F or SH-60B LAMPS.) So a weapons critical hit on a Mk41 would reduce the rate of fire for non-anti-air weapons by one per tac turn, and destroy any missile remaining in the unit. If the missiles in a unit explode in accordance with 7.3.2.1.1, Referees may also wish to consider a second roll to see if adjacent launchers are also damaged. (e.g. Roll D10, on 1-5 adjacent units are unaffected, 6-8 an adjacent unit is out of commission, 9-10 an adjacent unit catches fire and takes another Weapons Mount critical hit.) For breakdowns, roll for each 8-cell unit separately. While this makes breakdowns slightly more likely (more die rolls) it also makes the consequenses of a single unit failure less severe. This was, not suprisingly, one of the goals of the Mk41 program. (Breakdowns were the motivation for this note. In the last game I refereed an Arleigh Burke {DDG-53, USS John Paul Jones} took a launcher casualty (rolled a 100) on the aft VLS. I took the whole aft Mk41 mount away from the player. When my Mk41 developer friend was told of this, he said flatly it was "impossible for that to happen." A casualty of this sort would either take the entire VLS system (both fore and aft) down as the result of a fire-control failure, or would take only one 8-cell unit down as the result of a local mechanical or electrical failure. Taking all the aft units down, without affecting the forward VLS, would require some really bizarre failure such as losing all the communications aft of CIC, which would have other, unrelated, effects.) Referees (or players) must keep track of which cells in a Mk41 have been expended. A separate sheet of 16 lines of 8 boxes (for CGs; 12 lines of 8 for DDGs, 8 lines of 8 for DDs) with the first three boxes marked out at the start of the game (for the crane). Place an "S" in six cells of each row for SM2, a "T" for Tomahawk, and an "A" for ASROC in the other two cells. Cross out a box as each missile is fired, working down the columns to keep the launches evenly distributed among units. If an entire unit is damaged or breaks down, cross out the entire row. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This approach, in my view, is more realistic while not significantly more difficult for a player or referee to manage. Other components of the AEGIS system (and related systems) are unaffected: Director hits still take out SPG-62s, CIC hits still disable operations. Comments and questions are invited. tc> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Comeau | tcomeau@stsci.edu (Internet) Senior System Manager, ops support | tcomeau@stsci (BITNet) Space Telescope Science Institute | scivax::tcomeau (SPAN) 3700 San Martin Drive | Baltimore, MD 21218 | (301) 338-4749 (Ma ^G) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 15 Feb 1991 16:39:53 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (15) Aegis and Mk41 VLS Just some elaboration on Tom's article as they relate to Aegis: According to a letter I received from Larry Bond, if an Aegis ship does not use the full ROF during Planned Fire, it may use the remainder of the ROF upto a maximum of 1/2 of full ROF in Reaction Fire Phase. This is important if you detect new targets in Detection Phase between Planned Fire and Reaction Fire Phases. SITREP 3 has officially changed the Aegis rules so that, each Aegis controlled director can control two anti-air engagements per Tacical turn: one in Planned Fire/Movement Phase and one in Reaction Fire/2nd Air Movement Phase. -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 Feb 19 13:53:43 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA13191; Tue, 19 Feb 91 13:53:43 -0800 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 13:53:43 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9102192153.AA13191@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #6 (msgs 16-20) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 19 February 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 6 First Message: 16 Messages: 5 Topics: (16) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (17) Miscellaneous Questions gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (18) Hovering Targets tcomeau@stsci.edu (19) Soviet VLS tcomeau@stsci.edu (20) Re: Misc. Questions 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 19 Feb 1991 09:53:12 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (16) Editorial New members since last issue: bing@brahms.udel.edu (Ralph Bingham III) shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (James Blieden) sdeering@athena.mit.edu (Scott Deering) han@apple.com (Byron Han) ahill@bbn.com (Alan R. Hill) mike.horsten@uk.sun.com (Mike Horsten) ewm@mda.ca (Eric W. Mitchell) stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (James Stricherz) mtopham@bbn.com (Mark Topham) BTW, has anyone gotten SITREP #6 yet? -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 91 22:50:14 PST From: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) Subject: Re: CZ v5 #4 (msgs 10-11) Summary: (17) Miscellaneous Questions Comment: included article reference edited In v5 msg 10, cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu writes: >Gee, where did all the article writers go? :-) Man you got that right....its been pretty dead lately. Since I am kind of new to this mailing list, I have a few questions to throw out to the list readers. Q: I have been playing Harpoon, since the 1981 edition published by Adventure Games Incorporated. I have seen repeated mention of a periodical called SITREP HARPOON (or was it HARPOON SITREP), anyway, you get the meaning. What is this, and where might one get his hot little hands on a subscription (oreven just an issue)? I have never heard of this magazine before. Q: Is there a file somewhere (perhaps even FTPable) that list all known bugs in the Macintosh version of Harpoon? Q: Is there a file somewhere (also perhaps even FTPable) that lists complete errata for the tabletop version of Harpoon? Q: What is the difference between the Bunker Hill class ships, and the Ticonderoga class ships, and how come the Bunker Hill Class is not in the New 1990 Data Annex, but it is in the Captians Edition of Harpoon. These two ship classes have me baffled. Q: I have always been a little bit confused about the way that rates of fire are stated in the ship description, can someone clarify: ROF 8 msls per turn (both mounts) ROF 8 msls per turn (both mounts) at same target ROF 4 msls per turn (each mount) ROF 4 msls per turn (each mount) at same target ROF 8 msls per turn (all mounts) ROF 8 msls per turn (all mounts) at same target Thanks for any help that you can all give......... Gary --- UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 1991 15:20:04 EST From: tcomeau@stsci.edu (Tom Comeau) Subject: Using air-to-ground weapons against air target. Summary: (18) Hovering Targets Based on today's engagement it appears that some unconventional applications for guided air-to-ground weapons are possible. The CENTCOM briefer this morning, Marine Brigadier General Neal, reported that an F-15E engaged in "Scud Supression" was vectored to a helicopter by an E-3 AWACS. The F-15E determined that the helo was hovering, and dropped a single 2000 pound Laser Guided Bomb through the helo, destroying it. On reflection, this seems reasonable. A helo that is not moving is not much different from a truck on the ground or a small boat on the water. Precision guided munitions can be placed within a few feet of their target with high reliability. This should, in my view, be reflected in Harpoon as follows: 6.2.3.2bis Aircraft which are hovering (e.g. Helos, UK FRS.1 Harrier, USSR Yak-38 Forger) may be treated as ground targets with two restrictions. First, the attacker must be at least one altitude band above the target when the weapon is launched. Second, if the target moves after launch, it remains vulnerable to LOS weapons for one tac turn. If the attacker uses a _launch_&_leave_ weapon, the weapon loses lock as soon as the target moves. 6.2.3.3bis Aircraft which are hovering may be treated as ground targets, but the hit percentage of the attacking weapon is halved. Aircraft may evade unguided weapons by leaving hover. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "He used a _bomb_ on it?" -- unidentified reporter at the 15-Jan-1991 CENTCOM briefing. tc> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Comeau | tcomeau@stsci.edu (Internet) Senior System Manager, ops support | tcomeau@stsci (BITNet) Space Telescope Science Institute | scivax::tcomeau (SPAN) 3700 San Martin Drive | Baltimore, MD 21218 | (301) 338-4749 (Ma ^G) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 1991 17:15:57 EST From: tcomeau@stsci.edu (Tom Comeau) Subject: Soviet VLS Treatment in Harpoon (Long) Summary: (19) Soviet VLS Soviet Vertical Launch System, such as that used in the SA-N-9 VLS used on _Kirov_ class. Like the US Navy's Mk41 VLS, there are 8 missiles in each SA-N-9 unit. The similarity ends there. Other Soviet VLS systems have as many as 12 missiles in a launcher. What follows are: 1) My understanding of the SA-N-9, based on a variety of sources including _Jane's_, _AvLeak_, and other published sources. Nothing here is from classified sources; I don't have access to those sources. 2) My view on how the SA-N-9 and related vertical launchers, such as SA-N-6 This view is substantially different from Mk41, which I described in a previous note. The Mk41 VLS is a system that has separate connectors, doors, and interfaces for each missile, arranged in two rows of four: +--+--+--+--+ | | | | | +--+--+--+--+ | | | | | +--+--+--+--+ Each cell in a launcher may hold any of several weapons, including anti-air, anti-surface, or antisubmarine typs. By contrast, the Soviet SA-N-9 system appears to be a rotary launcher, capable of handling only one type of missile, and launching them one at a time through a door in the top of the launcher: Top Profile _____ <--- Door on top +---------+ +---------+ | o o | | ^ ^ ^ ^ | | o o | | # # # # | <--- Missiles on | o+-+ o | | # # # # | holder; door | |o|o | | # # # # | moved for +--+-+----+ | # # # # | launch. After one launch | # # # # | +---------+ | - - - - | | o o | +---------+ | o o | | o +-+o | | |o| |<- Note new position of door. +----+-+--+ It appears that the door rotates on both SA-N-6 and SA-N-9 systems to place the opening over the missile. Antiship missiles, such as SS-N-19, appear to have a separate door for each missile. Unlike the Mk41 Soviet launch systems are probably limited by the mechanics of moving the door and getting the missile lit off. This may be partly because Soviet weapons systems cannot use large numbers of cheap microprocessors to do prelaunch operations in parallel. The door can probably be moved fast enough to launch anywhere from one to four times a minute, and the launchers are probably controlled independently. For a system like SA-N-9 on Kalinin, this means 16 missiles could be launched at once, but then all the launchers would reposition the doors launch the second wave of missiles perhaps a minute later. For SA-N-6 Kalinin could launch 12 missiles at once, and move the doors for another launch 30 seconds later. For both systems overall the limiting factor is probably data handling, especially for SA-N-6, which is believed to use Track Via Missile fire control. Very little good information is available about the internal arrangement of the launcher, or the actual rate at which missile are fired and the hatches moved to permit another launch. The numbers in the data annex are as good as any, but future Soviet operations should be watched for clues to better number. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SO, what does this mean to the game? In my view, this means that each type of Soviet VLS on a vessel should be treated as a single mount containing one type of weapon in the quantity indicated in the data annex. For SA-N-9, the rate of fire is 16 every two tac turns, or to keep things simple 8 per tac turn. SA-N-9 is probably a command system, which probably means each missile much be assigned to a Cross Sword prior to launch. Once launched, the data handling capability limits each director to two targets, and each target to only two missiles. For SA-N-6 the rate of fire is 12 per tac turn. Top Dome would require similar data handling capacity using track-via-missile systems. Reports of the number of manageable targets range from two to six for each director, and unlike the AEGIS / SPY-1 / SPG-62 combination, the Top Dome director is tied up the whole time the missile is in flight. As a result, the Soviet system's rate of fire is even more constrained by director availabilty. As long as a director is in use to manage a flying missile, it cannot be used to launch another missile, even if many launcher rotaries are ready and able to fire. For damage control, like Mk41, each rotary launcher should be treated separately. This means _Slava_ has 30 mounts (8xSA-N-6, 2xSA-N-4, 1xAuto 130mm/70, 6xAK630, 2x533mm TT, 2xRBU 6000, 8xSS-N-12, 1xHelix-B.) A weapons critical hit on an SA-N-6 would destory the launcher, and would leave any missiles still in the launcher unavailable. Like the Mk41, referees may want to re-roll to see if adjacent launchers are damaged should remaining missiles in the launcher catch fire or explode. For breakdowns, roll for each rotary separately. Like the Mk41 this makes breakdowns more likely, but makes a single failure less severe. Referees (and players) must keep track of how many missiles remain in each launcher. Again, use a separate sheet with the same number of rows as there are launchers, and the number of columns as there are missiles in each launcher. As each missile is fired, work down the columns to keep the number of missiles in each launcher balanced. If a launcher is damaged or breaks down, cross out the entire row and reduce the rate of fire for that type of weapon. Again, comments and questions are invited. tc> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Comeau | tcomeau@stsci.edu (Internet) Senior System Manager, ops support | tcomeau@stsci (BITNet) Space Telescope Science Institute | scivax::tcomeau (SPAN) 3700 San Martin Drive | Baltimore, MD 21218 | (301) 338-4749 (Ma ^G) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 19 Feb 1991 13:12:59 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (20) Re: Misc. Questions In v5 msg 17, gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com writes: >Q: I have been playing Harpoon, since the 1981 edition published by Adventure > Games Incorporated. I have seen repeated mention of a periodical called > SITREP HARPOON (or was it HARPOON SITREP), anyway, you get the meaning. > What is this, and where might one get his hot little hands on a > subscription (oreven just an issue)? I have never heard of this magazine > before. The SITREP is available from GDW. Each issue is about 8 pages of black and white low-res Macintosh style text and graphics. It is edited by Larry Bond. The material so far has only been applicable to the miniature version of the game. The publication schedule is erratic. Cost was $8/year for 4 issues last time I looked. >Q: Is there a file somewhere (also perhaps even FTPable) that lists complete > errata for the tabletop version of Harpoon? Not in a single file. All errata that I know about for the current (3.2) edition, has been published here in CZ. In particular, look at v4 msg 31. Note, edition 3.2 = edition 3.1 plus 90-91 Data Annex. >Q: What is the difference between the Bunker Hill class ships, and the > Ticonderoga class ships, and how come the Bunker Hill Class is not in the > New 1990 Data Annex, but it is in the Captians Edition of Harpoon. These > two ship classes have me baffled. There are two types of Aegis cruisers. The first few (Ticonderoga was the lead ship of the class) has two twin-arm Mk26 missile launchers. The Bunker Hill (and all constructed after) has the two Mk26 replaced by two Mk41 61-cell VLS. Officially, I think the Bunker Hill is not considered a separate class, but just a later "flight" or "block". >Q: I have always been a little bit confused about the way that rates of fire > are stated in the ship description, can someone clarify: > > ROF 8 msls per turn (both mounts) There are two of this type of mount. The total rate of fire of both of the mounts together is 8 per tactical turn. Each missile can be fired at a separate target. > ROF 8 msls per turn (both mounts) at same target There are two of this type of mount. The total rate of fire of both of the mounts together is 8 per tactical turn. All of missiles fired from these mounts in a single tactical turn must be fired at the SAME target. This usually implies there is only one director for both mounts. > ROF 4 msls per turn (each mount) There is more than one of this type of mount. The rate of fire for each mount is 4 missiles per tactical turn. Each missile may be fired at a separate target. > ROF 4 msls per turn (each mount) at same target There is more than one of this type of mount. The rate of fire for each mount is 4 missiles per tactical turn. All missiles from a SINGLE mount in a single tactical turn must be fired at the SAME target. This usually implies that there is one director per mount. > ROF 8 msls per turn (all mounts) There is more than one of this type of mount. The rate of fire for all the mounts together is 8 missiles per tactical turn. Each missile may be fired at a separate target. > ROF 8 msls per turn (all mounts) at same target There is more than one of this type of mount. The rate of fire for all the mounts together is 8 missiles per tactical turn. All of missiles fired from these mounts in a single tactical turn must be fired at the SAME target. This usually implies there is only one director for all the mounts. -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 Feb 20 12:56:06 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA14010; Wed, 20 Feb 91 12:56:06 -0800 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 12:56:06 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9102202056.AA14010@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #7 (msgs 21-23) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 20 February 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 7 First Message: 21 Messages: 3 Topics: (21) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (22) Mac Bugs shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (23) Bug Status gregs@meaddata.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: Wed 20 Feb 1991 08:54:50 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (21) Editorial Members added since last issue: gdm@cedar.cs.columbia.edu (George Michaels) spolsky@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu (Steve Polsky) jar42733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeff Randall) craig@mixcom.com (Craig L. Stodolenak) zimerman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Jacob Ben-David Zimmerman) It looks from the message below that Greg (gregs@meaddata.com) has been busy as computer game bug coordinator. I encourage everyone who has a computer version of the game to send in clear, concise reports to him, instead of clogging the mailing list with vague descriptions. That way we have the most chance of getting through as a credible source to 360 and actually having bugs fixed. If you are going to talk about bugs on the mailing list, the most helpful thing would be a clear, concise description on how to avoid them, rather than a blow by blow description about how they ruined your perfect attack on the Frunze. The full explanation of Greg's role is in his article v5 msg 3. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 21:33:18 CST From: shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (James Blieden) Subject: Re: CZ v5 #6 (msgs 16-20) Summary: (22) Mac Bugs Comment: message reformatted About the Macintosh version: I've been playing it since November (I had a copy the day after I called 360, and they said they hadn't shipped it to suppliers yet ???!!!) I'm very careful about saving it after crucial launches and direction changes. There seems to be a few 'similarities' in the crashes I've had and those I've heard of, lots of things going on. I run under multifinder and found it to be only slightly more stable under finder, so I'm not sure what exact bugs are. I have only one reproducable crash in NACV scenarios. In the second scenario with several missle strikes airborne from one ship (Imp. Spruance w/ VLS) at various (3-4) serface targets I go to ship description and try to get infomation (that is [D]isplay) on the Soviet cargo ship, it dies (the whole computer). There also have been reports (it has happened to me as well) that you goto save and the machine makes you think that it did when it didn't. I've quit games to find no saved game after I expressly did... I've sent several letters to 360 and am still waiting a reply. I am next sending a screen shot of a group of planes on afterburner going 19kts!!! I kid you not. Love 20th cent technology! jAMES Soapbox! I wish that the editor would allow editing of both scenarios AND elements. What if new planes, new bases, modifications to existing equipment becomes available? All you can do is WAIT for 360 to decide to produce another add-on. How about a map disk!!! that way you can create scenarios around the world, 360 could even produce a 15 best users disk... oh well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 12:32:21 EST From: gregs@meaddata.com (Greg Smith) Summary: (23) Bug Status Comment: message reformatted Here is a compilation of the bug reports I sent to 360's email address. AMIGA BUGS ========== >Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 19:59:58 EST >From: jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) >Subject: Amiga Harpoon 1.0 This report comes from Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering, 1200 Wilson Dr, West Chester, Pa 19380. (215)431-9305. Amiga Harpoon has the following bugs: It doesn't update the time scale on screen if you select it from a menu. Under 2.0, many of the requesters (which are actual windows) have IntuiText structures with NULL pointers for the string (thus the text is missing). This happens mainly with informational windows, to the gadget text. The Virginia class has two sets of Mk26 Mod 3 launchers, but only the forward ones can have ASROC loads. Under AmigaDos 2.0, if you click outside the pause window, the system locks up. Under 2.0, the boxes for the ok/cancel gadgets for change group speed overlap. The ranges on Tomahawks seems low (250 miles). Also, the number of reloads seems very low (12+16) given current action in the Gulf. Imp. Los Angles class subs seem to be missing mast-mounted Stingers, which I think they have. These following reports were made using the tool "enforcer", which is available to all our developers (and in fact has been sent on various 2.0 Beta disks, and is available for download from BIX). These tests were done under 2.0, but I suspect they same results under 1.3. It does a read-word from location $0c while displaying the title screen (Captain's Face). ($0c is in the exception vectors) When I started a game of "The Duel", when it started and went to display the lower-right window, I got two hits to low-memory (location $0e, write-byte's of data $01.) This is very bad, since it trashes one of the exception vectors. I see occasional read-bytes of location $78 (in the exception vectors). These happen fairly often. After ordering an attack (from out of range), I noticed a write to location $0 with a pointer, probably from register d0 (which had the same value). Right after it played an animation of a missle launch it did a read-long of location $0 and a read-byte of $66. While putting up a request after ordering an attack (from within range with a submarine group), I got 2 sets of read-long of $0c and read-byte of $0. When a Knox class ship was sunk, I got a read-byte of location $c7. I continued to get them fairly often until I selected a unit. Once I had a few air groups up, I got occasional read-bytes of $0f. "Mungwall" (a debugging utility that sets freed memory to funny values, and adds space to all allocations so it can detect programs that write outside their allocations) found it writing $20 and $00 to two bytes after an allocation of $57 bytes (looks like the end of a string), after launching some anti-sub aircraft at a sub (may not be the cause, though). Overall, it seems like a number of NULL pointers are being used (which is not legal in C or on the Amiga). If you don't have these utilities, you can download them from BIX (perhaps elsewhere as well), or you can call CATS and see about having them sent to you. I assume your Amiga porters are registered Amiga developers; if not, they should register ASAP. 2.0 support is important, as a recent letter to developers stated, since it's likely that all Amigas shipped from Commodore will soon be coming with 2.0 in ROM. I'm a senior software engineer here (in charge of the DOS, Trackdisk, Ramdisk, and several other modules). I'm willing to lend a hand when I can in tracking down problems (like this report, or catching certain problems using an analyzer (we have both 68030 and 68000 analyzers). Enhancements that should be added: There should be a way to cancel changes in the Enter Group Course requester. I believe the Amiga is missing one of the sensor screens for some reason. There are a number of bugs in the ship/plane/sub/weapon database, which others have worked out in detail. Here are some quotes from other messages regarding problems, reviews, etc. (I've been saving them in a file). Warning, they're long! [From a review posted in a mailing list (digital-games):] Air units have an endurance which depends on their loadout and determines their range. This is probably the source of most of the game's flaws. There's an option to show a radius around air groups to show how far they can go before reaching "bingo" fuel (10% more than needed to return to base), but this is not calculated correctly. (If it were, it would not be a circle centred on the aircraft, and it would change immediately according to the throttle setting.) Once an air group has past this point, there is no way to find out its fuel status. (Neither is there a way to check its gun ammunition supply.) There are other problems with air unit endurance. The game doesn't seem to include the range of standoff weapons in determining whether an air unit can reach to attack a selected target. An air unit which reaches "bingo" fuel while in the process of landing can create phantom units of 0 aircraft -- which may in turn make real air units no longer accesible. Finally, if you group landbased air units in with a surface group (say, a couple of P-3s escorting a convoy), the endurance circle disappears because surface groups aren't supposed to need one, and you need to separate the air unit into its own group to find out its status. ... There's also a problem with the interception course approach. Suppose you have two groups of interceptors vectored against an incoming airstrike. The first group comes within range and launches missiles, and the intruders turn away to try to dodge the missiles. Often, the second wave of interceptors will be unable to find an interception course for this evasive maneuvre, and only quick player action will prevent them from aborting the intercept -- when in fact the enemy group will revert to its original course in a few seconds. ... The small, glossy manual describes what every key and menu choice does, and includes a small glossary. A few accompanying documents try to convey some of the underlying principles of modern naval warfare, but a few of the best tactical suggestions are hidden in the textual descriptions in the database. A few key game concepts, like patrols and interceptions, don't seem to be covered at all. [Here's a message that someone sent me after I mailed to him (Felix Hack):] ... I hacked around on the SimCan games "Grey Seas, Grey Skies" and their Fleet series some time ago (Atari ST versions) using a sector editor to fix mistakes in the data files, change systems as new data became available, and so on. I'm happy to have succeeded in doing so with Harpoon. When I noticed that the game used the 'old' Data Annex from the boardgame, I wanted to fix it up. Using NewZap I have figured out the formats for the weapons and sensors (at least most of the info, stuff like speed, range, accuracy, and so on). I also found how platforms have sensor information coded. I did this over the last 24 hours and have already totally redone ASW stuff. Sonars in the New Data Annex are very different (much weaker) than in the previous edition (represented in the computer game). I've made all the modifications. I've also checked the torpedo data and found it largely accurate, though I did replace the generic Tigerfish with its Mk2 version. I took out some sonars and inserted others, mostly to benefit the Soviets because they require more sonars in the platforms of the GIUK battleset than are actually provided. For example, the MF Hull sonar is now split into the ship's Bull Horn and the Sub's Shark Fin sonars (they differ slightly in active detection probabilities). Anyway, if people are interested I could post a message describing the data layout. Now to the problems: I run the game on an Amiga 2500/20 with 1 Meg Chip Ram, 2 Megs 32-bit RAM, and 2 Megs 16-bit RAM. When I run Harpoon out of hard disk or RAM disk I get crashes almost automatically whenever I try to examine weapons systems on platforms during a game. I also experience crashes when animations are starting, it looks like graphics garbage is 'sprayed' across the screen and the program often GURUs right away. This last problem looks like random memory trashing. I've already posted on GEnie mentioning these bugs to Three-Sixty. I had hoped we wouldn't see these sorts of bugs, but I also know what the real-world limitations are when doing such a large and complicated piece of software. I also lobbied for a weapon/sensor/platform editor, mostly to let players update them as new information becomes available. I take it a scenario creator is also planned. I also told them I most wanted to see a 640x400 screen option, as well as head-to-head modem play. If you buy the game and feel the same way I do about these and other concerns about the game, please let Three-Sixty know. We're just now joining the computer Harpoon club; IBM types have been in for a year and Mac types will be in soon. It's going to be great fun. [and from a later message:] In my previous post I neglected to mention some more things. 1. If you get Harpoon you should get the Harpoon Data Annex (from GDW, it's for the boardgame). It's full of tons of data, much of it otherwise available only in expensive reference books. 2. When I stated that I 'threw out' some sonars I should have been more careful. I threw out those sonars that were not used by any units. For example, after I applied the sonar upgrade to the Oberon class, the type 186 and 187 sonars she used to have were no longer needed. Thus I have two 'slots' to play with. In this particular case I replaced them with type 2026 and type 2051 sonars in the data files. 3. I just looked at Belknap's radars. Something funny here ... looks like she has BOTH the air search radars where one is for earlier, the other for later ships. Looks like I have more work to do. [and from a yet later message:] I am gratified by the e-mail response to my message about editing the data files for Amiga Harpoon. Some asked for me to post my modified data files. My problems with that are first that it's probably illegal, second at 700K (uncompressed, pre-UUencode) it's way to long, third that I am not anywhere near done with the corrections and changes I wish to make, and last that you may not agree with the changes that I made. Instead I'll give a description that'll allow anyone to modify the data files themselves. As to what changes to make, that depends on your taste and energy, though I am sure some modifications are almost obligatory (like changing the Type 65 torps on the Echo II to something different; unfortunately I don't know platform weapon codes yet). ... Main changes: Replaced the type 162/162M with a passive version of Shark Gill (for Kilos), the 162 is so pathetic (0.6 mile detection range) that it should not be missed. Naturally I had to delete all references in the ships that carry it (mainly older UK ships). The types 186 and 187 were replaced by type 2026 and 2051. They weren't needed when I upgraded the Oberon's sonars. The type 197 (previously for Swiftsure) was replaced with Bull Nose, a Soviet ship sonar. The older MF Hull type is now represented by three sonars and this is one of them. Type 2001 replaced by Steer Hide, a Soviet dipping sonar distinct from Mare Tail. Type 2052 replaced by passive Shark Teeth for Tango. I couldn't find any unit that used the 2052, it's a UK sub sonar. BQS-15 replaced by Shark Fin, the sub variant of old MF Hull. LF Type A -> Moose Jaw LF Type B -> Shark Teeth LF Type C -> Horse Jaw LF Type D -> Shark Gill LF VDS -> Horse Tail MF Hull -> Bull Horn I also noticed that the data for the Soviet sonobuoy was blank; I provisionally placed some data in it because the US sonobuoys (DIFAR and DICASS) do have data. Perhaps this is a bug. >Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 20:00:56 EST >From: jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) >Subject: Amiga Harpoon 1.0 This is a report of Peter Cherna's investigation of problems with Harpoon under AmigaDos 2.0. He was investigating the missing gadget GadgetText pointers and the "click in the main window while paused" lockup problem. He's the programmer in charge of Intuition here at Commodore. (Peter can be contacted at peter@cbmvax.commodore.com, (215)431-9444 or on BIX as "pcherna".) - Randell Jesup, Sr. Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc. Please inform the person who will inform 360 about Harpoon illnesses that we cannot accomodate their existing binary under 2.0. They hold the layer lock on their 640x200 window's layer the whole time. I have no idea why. In any case, it's not legal to call Intuition functions or wait for Intuition when you're holding a layer lock. When you click away from a requester, Intuition tries to obtain the screen's layer_info and the new active window's layer lock, which is held by Harpoon. Deadlock results. Perhaps V34 Intuition didn't obtain the lock until it ascertained whether it had a border or gadget to refresh. V36 Intuition grabs the lock first, in order to make life more efficient. I don't expect this to change, since it's fairly deeply attached to that section of code. I have no idea why the requesters come up with blank text and misplaced buttons. The button gadgets quite clearly have NULL GadgetText pointers. How they got that way is a mystery that will have to be solved for an update of Harpoon. MAC BUGS ======== >Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 13:46:31 -0700 >From: jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) >Subject: Macintosh Harpoon 1.0 Bugs: (1) The inability of long range NATO missiles to hit airborne targets at Very Low altitude. Soviets do not have long range missile, so they are not affected. (2) The ocasional time when a plane is loitering directly above an enemy surface group, but cannot see any ships. This problem does not occur constantly. Sometimes the ships will be seen from a good 10nm, other times you can orbit over their exact position at any altitude and not know they are there until they destroy your planes. General Complaints (1) The awful performance of area anti-air weapons, ie. Udaloys taking out entire air strikes, while a nearby Kiev sits still. Also, I have never seen a Sovremennyy fire at anything. (2) The short lives of subs, and the amazing ability of airborne ASW to destroy subs. No specifics, but subs in Harpoon are almost always useless, unless the target is going 20 or more knots, then they are invincible, which is another complaint. That about covers my complaints. >Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 09:35:08 -0500 >From: carlton@apollo.com (Carlton B. Hommel) >Subject: Re: Mac Harpoon Bug Report I have reported both of these bugs to the CS telephone line, but here they are for completeness. They are for the latest version of the Mac software. 1. Mac Plus Hangs During Screen Update This is not terribly repeatable, but every now and again the computer freezes. Running UniFinder, or removing inits like Superclock or BigFoot, that do things on the screen, reduces the frequency of the bug. 2. Hitting Two Keyboard Commands Stops Game If you use the keyboard commands, like Cmd-1 for Attack, or Cmd-6 for Launch Aircraft, and accidently hit two in quick sucession, things break. The first command will complete sucessfully, but the game will stop working while trying to complete the second. The game is saveable, but if you try and select on anything in either map, the Mac will freeze up. PS: Thanks for taking this on! >Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 17:58:06 EST >From: jch@jargon.whoi.edu (Jon Howland) >Subject: Mac Harpoon v 1.0 Sorry if this bug isn't too descriptive, but when playing the "Tightening the Noose" scenario on my 1Meg Mac+, I have never been able to complete a game. Furthermore, when I save the game before it dies, and try to restart after it dies, I get a message which tells me that my saved game is incompatible with the version of the game I am using. It then loads a mapset, covers the map with junk, and says that since neither side has achieved its minimal victory conditions, the game is a draw... because I have no units left! I can easily send 360 a copy of the saved game if they think that would help. A feature I don't like... When I am attacking an enemy force, but choose to stay slow (usually encountered with my subs), I should be able to keep attacking even if I decline the request to increase speed so as to intercept my target. Thanks very much for collecting the bug reports. Harpoon is a terrific game, and if the bugs are fixed, it'll be even more addictive than ever. IBM PC BUGS =========== >Date: ? >From: ? >Subject: ? Here are some suggested features. I have the IBM version. I think you should be able to put ASW forces in some sort of patrol box. Like the formation editor but the box is simply drawn with the mouse. Maybe this could be done from the path editor also to allow multiple patrol boxes. ASW units should drop sonobouys in these boxed areas. You should also be allowed to see the number of remaining sonobouys when you do a [F]ull Report on that unit. It's sometimes better to return to base for more buoys and torps rather than stay patrolling. I think each side should get satellite photos at appropriate intervals. I even think one should be able to launch attacks based on satellite recon. Of course these would be bearing only type attacks but with at very small "diamond of uncertainty". It would also be useful to be able to see in numeric form how much fuel a group of planes has. I sometimes lauch from one base but will land elsewhere and the range circles are either too hard to see or show minus fuel to the wrong base. I think you should be able to click on a plane group in the closeup box and have all range circles (for fuel) disappear on the other window leaving only the circle for that selected group. The computer opponent needs to launch fighters ahead of bombers for cover. It also needs to launch air-to-air missiles at longer range (not necessarly all the missiles) but at least a couple. The computer doesn't turn-and-afterburn to try and avoid missiles. It really needs to. The computer also should split the bombers into a couple of groups and try and attack from different angles to make intercept more challenging. If the computer is playing the Soviet it should use the Tu-95's and Tu-22's to keep poking at a target. If CAP moves to intercept they can turn around fly back and try a different angle. They have a great range. The Backfires can even outrun fighters if the fighters don't have a full tank of gas. I've afterburned around CAP, Launched my missiles and then avoided the CAP on the way out. Toying with the CAP can also cause them to burn up too much fuel and have to land prematurely. The computer opponent should also try to coordinate missile attacks so that the missiles arrive at the same time. Orders from the Path Editor should (as someone suggested) have the option to be time oriented (good example was the sub Sprint-and-Drift order). There should be some sort of screen like the Sensor Screen for this. You should be able to call this from the Set Sensor Screen too. One would want to time the sensors with the drift, etc. so each needs the same duration/variance values, as well as having the random variance be the same for both the sensor command and the speed/depth command if so desired. This would also be useful for planes and ships. It should also be possible to put a plane into the Formation Editor that didn't start there. For example, planes committed to an intercept that weren't needed because some group already got the bad guys. Those planes should be able to go back to Formation Editor land. Maybe something like let plane groups join airbase/carrier groups as long as they are within the Max Range Circle setting (of the Formation Editor). I also think it would be nice to toggle on or off a formation-plane viewer. Hit a button and the planes on formation will show up on the Main Screen (in a different color or using a different icon). This will help you make sure you have CAP in the right places relative to other planes you might have doing CAP but are no longer in the Formation Editor. You might want a Global button (showing all) and a Show Only the Formation Planes button for a certain group. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Mon Feb 25 18:16:56 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA17172; Mon, 25 Feb 91 18:16:56 -0800 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 18:16:56 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9102260216.AA17172@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #8 (msgs 24-30) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 25 February 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 8 First Message: 24 Messages: 7 Topics: (24) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (25) Re: Hovering Targets xrtnt@iaf.gsfc.nasa.gov (26) IBM BattleSet 3: MED frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (27) MED: Carrier Breakout frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (28) Nuking Bases frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (29) Satellites jch@jargon.whoi.edu (30) Re: Satellites 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 25 Feb 1991 09:28:47 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (24) Editorial New members added since last issue: pjenny@bbn.com (Peter Jenny) Greg has informed me the last set of comments (which I marked as being from "?") in his Bug Status report (v5 msg 23) belong to himself. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 1991 16:06:34 EST From: xrtnt@iaf.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel ?) Subject: Re: CZ v5 #6 (msgs 16-20) Summary: (25) Re: Hovering Targets Comment: included article edited In v5 msg 18, tcomeau@stsci.edu (Tom Comeau) writes: > Based on today's engagement it appears that some unconventional > applications for guided air-to-ground weapons are possible. > > The CENTCOM briefer this morning, Marine Brigadier General Neal, > reported that an F-15E engaged in "Scud Supression" was vectored to a > helicopter by an E-3 AWACS. The F-15E determined that the helo was > hovering, and dropped a single 2000 pound Laser Guided Bomb through the > helo, destroying it. It actually is in the classic air combat book (which I can't remember the name of...something like Fighter Combat. Required reading for all AF fighter jocks and I assume Navy as well - very neat book. If you play Falcon it is quite useful ;-) that the 2000lb bomb makes a quite reasonable anti-helicopter weapon. I'd lay even odds that the pilot of the F15 made some comment along the lines of "damn...it works?!?". > On reflection, this seems reasonable. A helo that is not moving is not > much different from a truck on the ground or a small boat on the water. > Precision guided munitions can be placed within a few feet of their > target with high reliability. Er...in general I believe that it works only with "area effect" types weapons. I think the theory is that the blast either stalls the blades or merely flips the chopper over. It wouldn't work with a Maverick (or similar "small" pgm) I don't think. It has been a while since I've read the book but I do recall the the weapon specified was a standard iron bomb. It should work about as well on a Harrier but you don't find them hovering very often. Oh yes. An addendum should be added...the target must be in VLow altitude...or your bomb hits the ground way below the target and while it may rock em a bit I doubt again that it would cause significant harm. It may not be possible in the rules to hover in anything BUT VLow altitude but I seem to remember that in the computer version my ASW choppers hover at Low. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 19:07:30 -0500 From: frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Frank J. Schick) Subject: The Med (BS #3) Summary: (26) IBM BattleSet 3: MED I just purchased the MED, battleset3 for the IBM and I have found some interesting things. I was playing the breakout scenerio where the Ruskie's try to escape from the black sea. Well, the first thing that happens is the Ruskie fleet sails right though Turkey. They happily shell the airbase in the middle of Turkey, and then they continue on. (I sent planes to bomb them and they did). This seems a little wierd. I know that fleets can sail through land, but not in the initial setup!!!!! frank schick frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 19:13:35 -0500 From: frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Frank J. Schick) Subject: Breakout of Carriers Summary: (27) MED: Carrier Breakout I was playing the NATO (US) Carriers try to escape scenario (I don't remember the exact name). I was using an IBM clone. The initial setup of my carriers gave air units with initial nuclear loads. I tried to use them, but the game claimed that they had no weapons. I think the reason this happened was that there was no *official* notification of Nuclear Release. Also, one cannot load regular air units with nukes until release is given. So, how did they get so armed. (A little though in the scenario setup should have been to either grant Nuclear Release at scenario onset, or just arm the planes with other loads.) I set the planes and helos on patrol, hoping for release. I got tired of waiting, and readied them with conventional loads. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 19:24:04 -0500 From: frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Frank J. Schick) Subject: Nukes -- A bug or a Feature Summary: (28) Nuking Bases I was playing on my IBM clone one of the scenario's with airbases within each others range. I was the USSR and having a good time. The NATO player was bringing in a convoy to Narvik. I was finally granted nuclear release and down to 5 planes. I readied them all as Nuclear and remembering a old wives tale (a plane that drops nukes, nukes itself) I sent one plane to Nuke Narvik. Total success. And amazingly the plane returns. I check the base, all my other planes are gone. The base reads out at -1537 damage. I assume since I have seen damage from 0 to 100% that this is what happens when the world goes to a strategic nuclear exchange and boy are those ICBM's fast. It took my plane 4 minutes to go from Narvik to my base. At first, I never tried to Nuke land bases. Then when I finally got nuclear release and planes, I started using nuclear depth charges on subs. These work great. Got sub problems, call NUKE. No effect on bases. I use nuclear ASuW missles and they nuke boats real good. No effect on bases. I use a nuclear bomb against a airfield and the world goes to pot. Sic transit gloria mondi frank frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 11:57:26 EST From: jch@jargon.whoi.edu (Jon Howland) Subject: Satellite Use in Harpoon Summary: (29) Satellites A response to a recent comment: "I think each side should get satellite photos at appropriate intervals. I even think one should be able to launch attacks based on satellite recon. Of course these would be bearing only type attacks but with at very small "diamond of uncertainty". " Satellite capabilities are very widely misunderstood by lots of people--particularly imaging satellite capabilities. A quick preface: I have no access to classified imaging system details. Everything I say is based on unclassified reading and simple logic and physics! I don't think it would be easy to use imaging satellites to find ships. The ocean is so big and the ships are so small...I haven't worked out all the math in a while, but it would take a certain resolution pixels to be able to classify something as a ship, a certain better resolution to be able to tell what kind of ship it was, and even better to be able to identify the ship. Lets assume that our spaceborne sensor has a resolution which will allow only identification of a ship as a (for example) Soviet cruiser. What's the area of the ship? How much larger of an area needs to be search to find that ship? What is the ratio of ship pixels to "empty" ocean pixels? Who is going to look at all of that data, even assuming that our sensor can do a wide area search in *tactically significant* time periods? Automated target detection would certainly help, but we're talking about *many* gigabytes of image data. And don't forget, those "empty" ocean pixels aren't really empty. There are other ships out there, friendly, neutral, and hostile. So we better be able to do a real good job of identifying that target, which implies an even higher resolution sensor, with commensurately more pixels for a given search area. Cloud cover, of course, adds further complications. And if this is a radar sensor, not an optical sensor, the data problem gets even worse. Shipborne reception of imagery data would probably be possible, but I'd be surprised if shipboard processing of optical satellite recon data could take place in time to be useful in a search. All of the previous comments apply to *searching* for ships with optical sensors. If you know where you want to look, a large part of the data problem goes away, but not all of it. But that doesn't help us with a detection problem. It would be an aid in target classification. There are probably readers out there with access to current information on classified systems, who are chortling about some of what I've written. I have little doubt that there are capabilities I don't even suspect exist. However, I doubt that they would make optical search for ships a viable prospect. If you can tell me how it could work, please do so. I think that a much more likely use of satellite systems in naval warfare is in an electronic detection mode. I have read some stuff about a system which does supposedly exist for this purpose, but a cluster of satellites could triangulate on radio/radar emissions from a radiating enemy platform. Some classification would certainly be possible based on the nature of the received emissions, This could be implemented in the game in a similar fashion to ECM detections now, except that it would be periodic, based on orbital cycles, and would provide a position and not just a bearing. Only radiating platforms could be detected. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 25 Feb 1991 16:54:38 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (30) Re: Satellites >From a random smattering of vaguely remembered books and articles, I offer these comments on satellites. Visual satellite imagery is not very useful for searching. Most visual satellite imagery was designed for high resolution pictures. It's like looking for something with a microscope. There is lots of sharp detail, but you are looking at a very small area. This is a severe limitation when the targets are in motion. In theory, you ought to be able to build wider field surveillance satellites that use visual imagery. In a USNI Proceedings article, a shuttle astronaut took pictures of ship wakes. But for some reason, you don't hear much about this approach. Maybe it's all classified or maybe it just doesn't work too well. Radar equipped satellites seem to be a more successful approach. At least, the Soviets did deploy a whole bunch of RORSATs. Also, they deployed an ELINT series, the EOSATs (spelling?). It's not clear if the ELINT satellites are good for searching or just for building up intelligence about frequencies and codes used, etc. Apparently, the US has deployed some too, but I don't have my copy of "World Naval Weapon Systems" in the office. So how does this impact Harpoon? Rather minimally. Processing of the satellite data is done on land and then fed into fleet level intelligence databases. After taking into account the evaluation time, orbital periods and problems with target identification, it's not clear how timely the information is. Ideally, you would like to get things to turn around fast enough so that good quality data could be available for tactical use. My guess is that it isn't quite there yet. (And it's only a guess; I don't have any classified access to such things.) But, people are probably working on such things and who knows maybe in a few years ... So, any satellite information in a Harpoon context is probably part of that vague intelligence stuff given in the scenario setup. I imagine dialogue something like this: Intel Officer: "Fleet reports Soviet SAG aproaching from North." Captain: "Tell me something I didn't know." Intel Officer: "Last known position 2 hours ago, 287nm bearing 347 T." Captain: "Draw me a 60nm radius uncertainty circle. Find the chief and get someone to fix that coffee machine. We are going to be up all night!" -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 Feb 27 09:06:01 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA18374; Wed, 27 Feb 91 09:06:01 -0800 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 09:06:01 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9102271706.AA18374@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #9 (msgs 31-34) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 27 February 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 9 First Message: 31 Messages: 4 Topics: (31) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (32) Re: Hovering Targets jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (33) Archives and Compress shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (34) Re: Satellites sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.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 25 Feb 1991 18:21:09 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (31) Editorial New members added since last issue: busey@milton.u.washington.edu (Thomas Busey) guidry@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (David A. Guidry) lentz@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Robert A. Lentz) -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 21:11:46 -0700 From: jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) Subject: Re: CZ v5 #8 (msgs 24-30) Summary: (32) Re: Hovering Targets Comment: included article edited In v5 msg 25, xrtnt@iaf.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel ?) writes: >Er...in general I believe that it works only with "area effect" types weapons. >I think the theory is that the blast either stalls the blades or merely flips >the chopper over. It wouldn't work with a Maverick (or similar "small" pgm) I >don't think. It has been a while since I've read the book but I do recall the >the weapon specified was a standard iron bomb. > >It should work about as well on a Harrier but you don't find them hovering very >often. Oh yes. An addendum should be added...the target must be in VLow >altitude...or your bomb hits the ground way below the target and while it may >rock em a bit I doubt again that it would cause significant harm. It may not >be possible in the rules to hover in anything BUT VLow altitude but I seem to >remember that in the computer version my ASW choppers hover at Low. I don't think this is how the helicopter has taken out. I believe since the copter was stationary, they put the laser dot _ON_ the helo. This is the sure way to down a stationary target. I beleive this is what the original posting was about, too. I know the US Army has trained some ATGM troops to shoot TOWs at stationary copters, so why not light up a copter and put a Hellfire, or maybe a Copperhead right through the middle of it? Forget about disturbing the blades, knock the copter out from underneath the blades! Like the original posting said, there is little difference between a hovering copter and a moving tank, so why not? Go for it! If you miss, then you "Gave it your best." If you hit, then you get mentioned in the press briefing! | John Taggart Gorman Jr. | "I'm a no rust build up man myself." | | -Christian Slater | jtgorman@caslon.cs.arizona.edu | in 'Heathers' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 00:55:09 CST From: shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (James Blieden) Subject: Re: CZ v5 #8 (msgs 24-30) Summary: (33) Archives and Compress Just a note of interest to people trying to look at the archives... I download the archives several times, each was try was on a new set. 1) First tried to download to mac and use MacCompress 3.2. Bzzzzzt. Sorry crash. No problem because... 2) uncompress i1 running on hp... Bzzzzzt. Nothing. Tried again on v1. Bzzzzzt. a 46k file grows to 2.5 Megs. Several pages of real text and then 97% 3's the rest of the file was the number 3, ok as far as I bothered to look anyway. 3) I now notice that the archives are on a sun, hmmm I think, could that be a problem. Nah,UNIX is the wonderful cross-platform universal OS... I goto our SPARC I lab. uncompress v1. Works wonderfully. Go figure. Is there a reason behind the Sun compress only working? or am I just unlucky? jAMES shaggy@cs.utexas.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 11:12:20 -0700 From: sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu Subject: (34) Re: Satellites Actually, I believe that surveillance satellites are better for searching than they seem to be getting credit for in this newsletter. Most US satellites are equipped with a wide variety of different types of sensors, so they can, for example, use a low resolution camera as a search tool, use radar imaging on cloudy areas, and use high resolution cameras as an identification tool. The US routinely uses satellites to monitor various naval "chokepoints" around the world, and rumor has it that the latest satellites are capable of detecting submarines at depths up to 100 feet or so. An excellent book, BTW, on overhead surveillance is "Deep Black" (I can't remember the author at the moment), but it covers the history of satellite and aircraft recon up to the mid 80's or so. Count on it being dated information. Now, as far as Harpoon is concerned, I think Ted's comments are right on the money. The response time is simply too long to be of use on a tactical scale. By the time satellite images are received, processed (needed in many cases to enhance quality, especially radar photos), perhaps interpreted, and sent to the proper ship, too much time has passed to launch an attack based on satellite info alone. Now if we are talking about stationary targets on land, that's something else. But for now, I believe the satellite intel is built into the game in the set-up phase. If you want to given one side an advantage based on superior overhead recon capability, give them more accurate info on number and type of ships, location, direction, etc. Ralph Keyser Albuquerque, New Mexico ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Fri Mar 1 15:00:18 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA20130; Fri, 1 Mar 91 15:00:18 -0800 Date: Fri, 1 Mar 91 15:00:18 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9103012300.AA20130@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #10 (msgs 35-38) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 1 March 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 10 First Message: 35 Messages: 4 Topics: (35) Ticonderoga Variants tcomeau@stsci.edu (36) Re: Archives and Compress gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (37) Re: Archives and Compress dan@engrg.uwo.ca (38) Re: Hovering Targets 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 (129.100.100.12): pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 1991 12:52:33 EST From: tcomeau@stsci.edu (Tom Comeau) Subject: More on _Ticonderoga_ Variants Summary: (35) Ticonderoga Variants In v5 msg 17 gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) asks: >Q: What is the difference between the Bunker Hill class ships, and the > Ticonderoga class ships.... and our moderator replies in msg 20: >There are two types of Aegis cruisers.... Actually there are five "baselines" for the AEGIS class CGs. There's a long discussion of this in the various budget requests for '85, '86, and '87, but _Jane's_Fighting_Ships_ gives an excellent summary in their 1990-91 description of the "CG-AEGIS". It is quoted here without permission (but within copyright limits): ...[F]our baselines were planned and five have evolved. _Ticonderoga_, equipped with LAMPS I, represents Baseline 0. Baseline I starts with _Vincennes_ equipped with LAMPS III, RAST haul down filght deck system and Block 2 Standard missiles. Baseline II, beginning with _Bunker_Hill_, adds Tomahawk, and the Vertical Launch System. Baseline III, starting with _San_Jacinto_ adds the SQQ 89 sonar. Baseline IV, beginning with _Princeton_, incorporates the advanced AN/SPY-1B radar... For the game, this means that _Ticonderoga_ and _Yorktown_ have SH-2F to be upgraded to SH-2G, while all the rest of the class have SH-60B. _Ticonderoga_ through _Thomas_S_Gates_ have twin-arm Mk26 launchers, while the rest (starting with _Bunker_Hill_) have Mk41 VLS and can carry Tomahawk and VLASROC in place of SM2 in the VLS. The SQQ-89 sonar is simply the SQS-53 and SQR-19 (now carried by all of the AEGIS crusisers) combined into a single tactical system. The capabilties of SQS-53 and SQR-19 are unchanged, so this has no effect on the game. The AN/SPY-1B externally looks to ESM systems like a regular SPY-1. Internally SPY-1 has new displays along with new computers for tactical displays, so again it has no effect on the game. [Mod Note: The SQQ-89 is in the 90-91 Data Annex, though it's not clear how much of the total system this entry is meant to represent.] Note that _Princeton_, which is just two years old, is the first of Baseline IV. This is the cruiser that was damaged by a mine in the Northern Persian Gulf last week. tc> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 13:44:42 PST From: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) Subject: (36) Re: Archives and Compress Comment: included article edited In v5 msg 33, shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (James Blieden) writes: > 1) First tried to download to mac and use MacCompress 3.2. > Bzzzzzt. Sorry crash. No problem because... > ... > Is there a reason behind the Sun compress only working? or am I just > unlucky? Thats very strange, because when I first got on this list, I FTPed all of the back issues (of which I have laser printed all of them out and put in a 3 ring binder). I recieved all of them in UUENCODE format, and I then preceeded to UUDECODE them on my Mac, and then UNCOMPRESSED them on my Mac (with MacCompress 3.2), and all went well. Can't really figure out what your problem could have been. Gary --- UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 12:53:33 EST From: Dan Corrin Subject: (37) Re: Archives and Compress Comment: included article edited In v5 msg 33, shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (James Blieden) writes: > 2) uncompress i1 running on hp... > Bzzzzzt. Nothing. Tried again on v1. > Bzzzzzt. a 46k file grows to 2.5 Megs. Several pages of real text > and then 97% 3's the rest of the file was the number 3, ok as > far as I bothered to look anyway. > > 3) I now notice that the archives are on a sun, hmmm I think, could > that be a problem. Nah, UNIX is the wonderful cross-platform > universal OS... I goto our SPARC I lab. uncompress v1. Works > wonderfully. Go figure. > > Is there a reason behind the Sun compress only working? or am I just > unlucky? Ah yes, but there are two versions of UNIX right? Sys V and 4.2 BSD. The Sun's run a version of 4.2 and the HP runs Sys V, as for the Mac..... Unfortunately there are several different implementations of "compress" ie. to reduce the space taken by a file. Even on the suns there are three methods (compress, pack, and compact) of compression. BTW. The ip address of the archive server changed recently it is now 129.100.100.12 (note the third byte). [Mod Note: references to the archive site in the guidelines and masthead have been updated.] -Dan Dan Corrin, System Manager, Mechanical Engineering, UWO, London, Ontario TML/CZ FTP site coordinator: dan@engrg.uwo.ca. (519) 661-3834 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 1991 13:52:38 EST From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: CZ v5 #9 (msgs 31-34) Summary: (38) Re: Hovering Targets Comment: included article edited In v5 msg 32, jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (John Taggart Gorman, Jr.) writes: > I don't think this is how the helicopter has taken out. I believe since >the copter was stationary, they put the laser dot _ON_ the helo. This is >the sure way to down a stationary target. I beleive this is what the original >posting was about, too. I never saw the clip (if there was one...it'd be neat though) so I have no clue. > I know the US Army has trained some ATGM troops to shoot TOWs at stationary >copters, so why not light up a copter and put a Hellfire, or maybe a >Copperhead right through the middle of it? Forget about disturbing the >blades, knock the copter out from underneath the blades! With what are you painting the helo with? And how long before you call the fire mission for Copperheads? (We are talking about Harpoon here where are you getting fire missions from?) How often will you find a chopper pilot nice enough to play target for any period? Hellfires maybe. Then again the odds are the hellfire is sitting on an Apache...and it has a nice cannon to pot the guy with... I'm not saying you can't do it. But this game system tries as hard as it can to be a Naval simulation...add rules about ground combat or even real air to air combat without thinking things through will lead to some oddball mechanics. As listed the hit probabilities are a bit high against airborne targets and it assumes that all pgms can be used in this mode. Use the rules if you want...they seem a tad bogus if ask me. The problem with this rule is that it makes strike aircraft fairly potent against helos. We don't have any reason to believe this and we are trying to model reality to some degree. The problems with MAD gear and sub combat in general (not as bad with the new detection figures) are bad enough without adding a rule that allows Migs to drob bombs on my asw helos ;-). What would be more interesting would be to figure out the effects on tactics (especially US) if stealth cruise missles were deployed. Or stealth fighters for that matter. Someone want to take a wild guess at the probability of detection an Ageis would have on a F117? How about a cruise missile that had been coated with RAM? There's been a couple of articles in the Proceedings about the pros and cons of cruise missiles (mostly from the standpoint of nuclear verification etc). Deploying F117s with mavericks against Soviet SAG would be interesting. I don't recall how many mavs a F117 can carry but it might be enough to tag the primary AAW ship and allow the rest of the strike to get in and finish off the group. The Slavas are no slouches and taking them out early would be a great help to your A-6 buddies ;-). The problems with trying to model this is that we have no real data on how well the radar on the Ageis cruisers will detect otherwise stealthy objects. An extra problem is whether or not (even if you get enough of a return to "see" it) the target will reflect enough energy for an SM2 to lock onto. Steath technology may be a big problem for our Navy. Most of our AAW capability could dissapear making it even more difficult to protect convoys on an Atlantic run. Eeeech. I don't want to think about it. I have enough problem in those scenarios as it is. Anyone want to figure out how to protect carriers without the Hawkeyes? NT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Wed Mar 20 08:57:36 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/3.06pram) id AA10030; Wed, 20 Mar 91 08:57:36 -0800 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 08:57:36 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9103201657.AA10030@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #11 (msgs 39-42) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 20 March 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 11 First Message: 39 Messages: 4 Topics: (39) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (40) Stealth and Hawkeyes shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (41) IBM v1.2 Features bruce@bonnie.astro.ucla.edu (42) Sovremenny SAM Fire rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet "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 (129.100.100.12): pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed 20 Mar 1991 08:47:29 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (39) Editorial New members since last issue: mfc@talcott.harvard.edu (Mauricio F. Contreras) tpmonai@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Unknown) cz@aardvark.pdx.com (Steve Willoughby) It's been a long time since the last CZ issue. Mostly, this has been due to a lack of articles coming in. When articles did start to come in, I got busy and had some adventures in mail configuration. So things got delayed a few days. Finally, I must apologize to James Blieden for fogetting about his article and sitting on it for 2 weeks. Now, if GDW could just get my address straight and send me my SITREP #6 ... -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 12:46:10 CST From: shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (James Blieden) Subject: Re: CZ v5 #10 (msgs 35-38) Summary: (40) Stealth and Hawkeyes Comment: this message refers back to v5 msg 38 Rmember that the navy (and air force for that matter) have no (and I mean NO) interest in finding that out either. I believe that there were a few congress persons, and alot of press, interested in a B-2 (or F-117 vs. an AGEIS cruiser. Everybody smile and said NO. Neither one wanted to risk being seen as the weaker platform and even think about the possibility of being cancelled. AS for your carrier question: Why ask when you have them? Actually, When I have a force within 256 miles of shore (friendly) I used either E-3 & P-3s or Nirods and E-3 so as to theoretically conserve ship board fuel, manpower, and equipment. I also am more liberal in the use of emissions, radar and sonar since I figure everyone knows I left or am arriving. At least that as been my experience. People always seemed to know that we were coming into port... (even around lake Med). my $.02 jAMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Mar 1991 14:41:06 EST From: bruce.macintosh@bonnie.astro.ucla.edu Subject: SAM rates of fire in version 1.2 Summary: (41) IBM v1.2 Features Comment: article reformatted slightly The documentation, and some discussion in this newsgroup, seem to imply that version 1.2 includes the following features: -display of sonobuoy positions -display of towed-array-sonar status -selection of rates of fire for SAMs -selection of engagement distances for AAMs I have seen the Mac version, which does seem to have these features; the rate-of-fire commands are under (I believe) the "Staff Opitions" menu entry. My PC version 1.2 has sonobuoy display, but seems to lack all of the other features. Does have a PC version that does have these features? Does anyoneknow if they were definitely supposed to be there? Does anyone have any idea if there will be a version 1.3 that does incorporate these? Bruce Macintosh Department of Astronomy/UCLA bruce@bonnie.ucla.astro.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Mar 91 13:50 EST From: rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet Subject: BITNET mail follows Summary: (42) Sovremenny SAM Fire I have finally seen a Sovremenny fire SAMs! This minor miracle occured during the Opposed Soviet Assault Scenario (#9). It appears that the computer prioritizes SAM platforms based on the number of incoming missles, presumably to avoid firing all the SAMs. After a series of standoff Harpoon attacks emptied the SA-N-6 batteries of the Kirov and Slavas in the task force, the smaller ships began to open up. This would appear to explain a lot of the weak air defense behavior of the computer. One other odd bug - the Russian fleet in this scenario has two subs attached to the surface fleet. After the long range SAMs were gone I sent Orions after the subs. I was unable to hit the subs while they were attached to the surface group (indeed, the torps I launched never appeared on the map screen). Once the last Krivak was down, the subs quickly followed. Both of these problems are serious liabilities for the program, and need to be fixed. For reference, I am using the Mac version of the program. Paul Westkaemper ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Tue Mar 26 12:42:24 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/3.06pram) id AA00525; Tue, 26 Mar 91 12:42:24 -0800 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 12:42:24 -0800 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9103262042.AA00525@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #12 (msgs 43-47) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 26 March 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 12 First Message: 43 Messages: 5 Topics: (43) Re: IBM v1.2 Features guidry@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (44) SAM and ASW Problems guidry@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (45) Re: IBM v1.2 and Stealth shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (46) Re: IBM v1.2 Features dgil@pa.reuter.com (47) SITREP 6 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 (129.100.100.12): pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 12:19:43 CST From: guidry@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (David A Guidry) Subject: Re: CZ v5 #11 (msgs 39-42) Summary: (43) Re: IBM v1.2 Features Comment: original article edited and split into two In v5 msg 41, bruce.macintosh@bonnie.astro.ucla.edu writes: > The documentation, and some discussion in this newsgroup, seem to imply > that version 1.2 includes the following features: > -display of sonobuoy positions > -display of towed-array-sonar status > -selection of rates of fire for SAMs > -selection of engagement distances for AAMs > > My PC version 1.2 has sonobuoy display, but seems to lack all of the other > features. Does have a PC version that does have these features? Does > anyoneknow if they were definitely supposed to be there? Does anyone > have any idea if there will be a version 1.3 that does incorporate these? opens up the menu for these options (including turning sonobuoy display on/off) Amazingly, this was not documented in the update that I got. In fact, there are quite a few combinations which are not documented. One very useful item is to show how much memory is available (if I launch that airstrike now, will it crash the machine?) A question of my own is: How well does Harpoon run with memory managers(Windows, Qemm, etc)? I never seem to have the time to try this out at work and don't have any managers at home. -- There are those who will never be happy with the status quo, Those who must have the new, Those who define themselves bywhat others are not, Those who never follow, yet they are the ones right at the center. They are where the party is. | David A. Guidry, Student Consultant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 12:19:43 CST From: guidry@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (David A Guidry) Subject: Re: CZ v5 #11 (msgs 39-42) Summary: (44) SAM and ASW Problems Comment: original article edited and split into two In v5 msg 42, rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet writes: > a series of standoff Harpoon attacks emptied the SA-N-6 batteries of > the Kirov and Slavas in the task force, the smaller ships began to > open up. This would appear to explain a lot of the weak air defense > behavior of the computer. Granted there are a lot of bugs in the way the computer handles missile attacks. It should be impossible to attack a group with an Aegis cruiser in it, but I lose ships all the time because the Aegis isn't targetted and doesn't fire (and the ships which are targetted are not in the center of the formation). A fix to this is to put all your eggs in one basket by placing every ship in the center ring... air defense goes way up, but you lose all the bonuses of having ships in the outer rings (like emmiting from only a few ships). > One other odd bug - the Russian fleet in this scenario has two > subs attached to the surface fleet. After the long range SAMs were gone > I sent Orions after the subs. I was unable to hit the subs while they > were attached to the surface group (indeed, the torps I launched never > appeared on the map screen). Once the last Krivak was down, the > subs quickly followed. What problem are you referring to? Your torps not appearing or the subs being attached to the surface fleet? As far as the torps not appearing, That's a programming flaw and I have noticed that this is prevalent in the Mac version. Subs are almost always attached to battle groups. Our carrier groups usually have two subs attached to them to provide long range ASW detection and I assume the Soviets would do something similar for their large groups. -- There are those who will never be happy with the status quo, Those who must have the new, Those who define themselves bywhat others are not, Those who never follow, yet they are the ones right at the center. They are where the party is. | David A. Guidry, Student Consultant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 12:46:12 CST From: shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (James Blieden) Subject: Re: CZ v5 #11 (msgs 39-42) Summary: (45) Re: IBM v1.2 and Stealth I must learn not to type faster than I can spell... The Macintosh version does not have towed arrays that are visiable. I must say this though, the color version is very much like the IBM version (I think I played 1.2), It allows you to see (in x1) accross the entire map. The color scheme seems to be the same but the speed is a little better than the ps/2 ihad played on. I think that is IS worth the $15 bux whenever we finish beta testing it. About radar and such. I was speaking of the real world, where steath of a task force (in peacetime anyway) is non-existant. With satelites, subs, bears, and a trawler/merchants everywhere it is never a secret the fleet is coming to town. In July of 87, this guy who owns Rumple's (a bar in Benidorm,Spain) said they know we were coming a week before hand. This while we were still off France for the fourth... Hmmm. I guess in war it would be different, but you can't hide for long, even in the North Atlantic in winter. I liked the idea used in Red Storm. Trianglate the E2's EM and track those... jAMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Mar 91 08:44:49 PST (Wed) From: dgil@pa.reuter.com (Dave Gillett) Subject: Re: CZ v5 #11 (msgs 39-42) Summary: (46) Re: IBM v1.2 Features My PC 1.2 upgrade arrived, and although it still has bugs, it's a great improvement. (In one scenario, I can't change the load-out of my Harriers; the list of load-outs comes up titled "Buccanneer S.2B", and is empty. If part of an air group runs out of fuel during landing, the entire group (including planes already on the ground!) dies. These are aggravating.) If a ship or sub (a) has a towed-array sonar, and (b) can take advantage of it (usually means "is moving at <20 knots", although I believe it takes a while to re-deploy after turns or high-speed movement), its symbol on the unit display has a small tail visible. I believe Alt-F7 and/or Alt-F8 calls up the anti-air settings menu. [I'd like to see a better algorithm for allocating anti-air defences, too. A Slava's SAN-6s may stand a better chance of shooting down a flight of Harpoons than a Krivak's SAN-4s, but if the Harpoons will be on the Krivak before the SAN-6s arrive then the SAN-4 is the launcher to use. Of course, maybe one needs different algorithms for different ship combinations: a task force with an Aegis system present might do launcher allocation "better" than an equivalent force without....] Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 26 Mar 1991 11:50:03 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (47) SITREP 6 Well, SITREP #6 finally arrived. It is dated October 1990! According to the GDW lady on the phone, though, it went out around early March. I suspect everything at GDW was pushed back to make room on the presses for their "Desert Shield Fact Book". All the information in the "Product Update" column was out of date, though perhaps correct for the October 1990 timeframe. In addition, the SITREP came with an ad stating that the long delayed "South Atlantic War" (the Harpoon Falklands Module) was "Coming in October 1990"! There is a correction to the Tomahawk article in SITREP 5 and one official rules change, quoted here with permission of Larry Bond: MAD Detection Rule Change Halve the MAD range described in rule 5.6. ... The searching aircraft ... will automatically detect a submarine within ONE HALF nm at Periscope or Shallow depth and ONE QUARTER nm at Intermediate depth ... This is an official rule change. -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 Mon Apr 22 10:16:41 1991 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/3.07pram) id AA10644; Mon, 22 Apr 91 10:16:41 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 10:16:41 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9104221716.AA10644@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v5 #13 (msgs 48-52) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 22 April 1991 Volume: 5 Issue: 13 First Message: 48 Messages: 5 Topics: (48) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (49) Individual Unit Sensors lcline@agora.rain.com (50) Distributing Scenarios wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (51) Volume 5 Index cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (52) 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 (129.100.100.12): pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 22 Apr 1991 09:24:42 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (48) Editorial New members since last issue: jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dutka) wcsswag%ccs.carleton.ca@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) valentin@btr.com (Valentin Pepelea) pas111@psuvm.psu.edu (Paul Sabourin) It has been a long time since last issue (again!). There haven't been many submissions lately and I have been busy. Nevertheless, I still should have squeezed an issue out earlier. Sorry folks. SITREP subscribers should have received issue #7 by now. I thought my continual SITREP delivery problems were just bad luck. Finally, I discovered that my address somehow got dropped from their subscription lists! (They promised me #7 "real soon".) Anyway, if you suspect something is amiss, here is my tip: When you call GDW, ask to talk to the SITREP subscription manager. Have her look you up in their computerized subscription lists. It also helps if you have your subscription number and order invoice. I have noticed that many people use the mailer subject line (eg CZ v5 #10 msgs 35-38) in their followups. Generally, that isn't a very useful subject line to use. So from now on, I will be substituting a new more specific subject line in those cases. Finally, this issue wraps up volume 5 with the usual end of volume administrative stuff. The volume will appear in the archives soon. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 11:36:06 PST From: Larry Cline Subject: (49) Individual Unit Sensors [My apologies to Larry for sitting on this article for so long. -ted] In v5 msg 44, guidry@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (David A Guidry) writes: >Granted there are a lot of bugs in the way the computer handles missile >attacks. It should be impossible to attack a group with an Aegis cruiser >in it, but I lose ships all the time because the Aegis isn't targetted and >doesn't fire (and the ships which are targetted are not in the center of >the formation). A fix to this is to put all your eggs in one basket by >placing every ship in the center ring... air defense goes way up, but you >lose all the bonuses of having ships in the outer rings (like emmiting from >only a few ships). On the Amiga version of Harpoon, you can have an individual unit's sensors on by selecting that unit in the 'Unit Window' and either selecting Set Sensors from the menu or by pressing F9. This appears to be one of the few commands that work while you are in the unit window. If you go back to the group window, you will find that those sensors for that group are set for mixed. If you muck about with that groups sensors while in the group window, you will undo this. I have used this when my AEW aircraft is in the main body and I didn't want all the ships in the main body to be radiating. I have also used this to turn on sonar for an individual unit in the ASW picket ring when faced with incoming torps. The drawback to this method of activating sensors is that if you are doing it to aircraft, then every time that aircraft lands or changes its sensor status you have to go back and reset it. -- Larry Cline lcline@agora.rain.com C_________ Industrial Graphics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 91 00:34:11 EDT From: wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (The Charlatan) Subject: Harpoon Summary: (50) Distributing Scenarios Comment: article edited [This was originally sent to cz-request, but since I am not very knowledgable about PC file up/down loading, I thought I would open things up to the general list. -ted] ... 2) I am sure, many PC Harpooners out there have the scenario editor. I wondering if it would be possible to somehow FTP scenarios. Is this feasible? I have created a couple good ones, I think. ;-) Thanks for any info. Alex ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 22 Apr 1991 10:03:48 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (51) Volume 5 Index Volume Issue Date Messages Author ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 1 24 January 1991 (1) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (2) Sinking a CVN jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (3) Bug Coordinator gregs@meaddata.com 2 5 February 1991 (4) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (5) Gulf War Weapons tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3 11 February 1991 (6) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (7) Surface Launched SLAM tcomeau@stsci.edu (8) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (9) Game Convention tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 4 14 February 1991 (10) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (11) PBeM Players Wanted etlgecs@juno.ericsson.se 5 15 February 1991 (12) Selectable Popup davisje@crdgw2.crd.ge.com (13) Re: Selectable Popup tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (14) Mk41 VLS tcomeau@stsci.edu (15) Aegis and Mk41 VLS tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 6 19 February 1991 (16) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (17) Miscellaneous Questions gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (18) Hovering Targets tcomeau@stsci.edu (19) Soviet VLS tcomeau@stsci.edu (20) Re: Misc. Questions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 7 20 February 1991 (21) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (22) Mac Bugs shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (23) Bug Status gregs@meaddata.com 8 25 February 1991 (24) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (25) Re: Hovering Targets xrtnt@iaf.gsfc.nasa.gov (26) IBM BattleSet 3: MED frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (27) MED: Carrier Breakout frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (28) Nuking Bases frankie@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (29) Satellites jch@jargon.whoi.edu (30) Re: Satellites tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 9 27 February 1991 (31) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (32) Re: Hovering Targets jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (33) Archives and Compress shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (34) Re: Satellites sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu 10 1 March 1991 (35) Ticonderoga Variants tcomeau@stsci.edu (36) Re: Archives and Compress gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (37) Re: Archives and Compress dan@engrg.uwo.ca (38) Re: Hovering Targets xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov 11 20 March 1991 (39) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (40) Stealth and Hawkeyes shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (41) IBM v1.2 Features bruce@bonnie.astro.ucla.edu (42) Sovremenny SAM Fire rbeypw@rohvm1.bitnet 12 26 March 1991 (43) Re: IBM v1.2 Features guidry@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (44) SAM and ASW Problems guidry@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (45) Re: IBM v1.2 and Stealth shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (46) Re: IBM v1.2 Features dgil@pa.reuter.com (47) SITREP 6 tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 13 22 April 1991 (48) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (49) Individual Unit Sensors lcline@agora.rain.com (50) Distributing Scenarios wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (51) Volume 5 Index cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (52) CZ Guidelines cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 22 Apr 1991 10:03:45 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (52) CZ Guidelines Guidelines for The Convergence Zone Last Update: 1 March 1991 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" (129.100.100.12) 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 * **********