From root@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Tue Jan 28 11:10:58 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/3.07pram7) id AA08648; Tue, 28 Jan 92 11:10:58 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 11:10:58 -0800 Message-Id: <9201281910.AA08648@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ v9 #1 (msgs 1-7) Errors-To: cz-request@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 28 January 1992 Volume: 9 Issue: 1 First Message: 1 Messages: 7 Topics: (1) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (2) Sparrow to MiG Ratio velmeran@u.washington.edu (3) Various dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com (4) Mac v1.01 gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (5) Re: Computer Virus Weapons yuqian@bvc.edu (6) Troubled Waters beacker@mips.com (7) Miniatures Game Update tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 28 Jan 1992 10:19:50 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (1) Editorial New members added since last issue: yvesb@melair.lockheed.on.ca (Yves Boudreault) penderga@hac2arpa.hac.com (Stephen L. Pendergast) SITREP #10 just came out. It's dated October 1991! At that time, "Troubled Waters" was still on schedule for Christmas. Obviously, it did not make it. See below for more on that. The WWII miniatures game will be called "Murderer's Row" and will not be published by GDW. Exactly who will publish it was not yet established. Work has also begun on an operational Pacific board game. A few issues back in the SITREP, the miniatures company "Viking's Forge" was mentioned. Their address is: 1727 Theresa Lane; Towhatan, VA 23139. I have gotten quite a few responses about the Desert Storm computer virus. Since the topic is periperal at best, I have decided to only include one article on the subject. This terminates that particular thread. Carl Norman, the president of the Harpoon Users' Group and editor of C3I, has taken over as 360 Customer Support Manager. Carl is also a CZ reader. If you have suggestions about how 360 can best support its Harpoon customers, Carl promises to listen. Let's be constructive here, no flaming please. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 21:32:36 -0800 (PST) From: velmeran@u.washington.edu (Jack Brown) Subject: 20 sparrows to get 4 MiGs Summary: (2) Sparrow to MiG Ratio In CZ v8 msg 51, David Lerman writes: >It is absurd that I had to use up over 20 Sparrows to down 4 MiGs. >The people at 360 say "It can happen", but every time? Do you have >any ideas? I like the game, but these types of incidents occur much >too often and I am seriously considering giving up the game to avoid >aggravation. Actually, using 20 Sparrows to shoot down 4 MiGs is really good! In general, radar guided air-to-air missiles do not work even close to as well as many people believe. Certainly, Harpoon vastly overestimates their effectiveness. Before the Gulf War, there were exactly 4 kills made at "beyond visual range" with missiles. (I don't know about the GW, but it wouldn't be a fair test given the mismanagement of Iraqui air assets.) Two were very carefully staged by the Israelis at the specific request of the USAF. One shot down an F4 instead of a MiG in Vietnam. Much of this is due to the need to visually id your target. However, in Vietnam, pilots tended to ripple fire all their sparrows at close range to try to get a hit. What this shows [I read this in a magazine. Can't for the life of me remember where...s that radar guided air to air missiles ain't that great. Note that the most successful air to air missile ever is the sidewinder (IR). Yes, in terms of Harpoon ratings, your shooting is abysmal. In reality terms, it's incredible. =========================================================================== Jack Brown Those on the moral high-ground, aka velmeran@u.washington.edu beware of low-flying aircraft ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 22:02:00 -0500 From: dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com (David Gillett) Subject: (3) Various Someone was asking about effectiveness of Udaloys in a surface engagement. Besides the computer version's tendency to overlook the guns of its units (or so it appears...), there are two potential surface-to-surface weapons systems on the Udaloy which I think the game ignores. One is the torpedo tubes; many Soviet classes mount large numbers of large torpedo tubes, and it's entirely possible that they have a torpedo for surface ship use with range like the sub- launched Type 65. Ouch! [Admin Note: Udaloy torpedo tubes are 533mm, only subs have the 650mm tubes.] The other possibility is the use of torpedoes delivered by SS-N-14 Silex's against surface targets. SPI's "Task Force" game allowed that, and SOME of my reference books show the Silex as "anti-submarine/anti-surface" -- but ONLY in their Udaloy entries, and not in the descriptions of any other class that carries the SS-N-14. I don't know who to believe. Mark Lam writes about attacking a base, and this reminds me of something I recently discovered: in some scenarios, some bases appear multiple times (in the same location). As an attacker, you need to destroy the base multiple times before it finally goes away. As a defender, you may overlook air units that are associated with lower instances of a base, and so may be playing a weaker position than the computer would. David Lerman asks about poor performance of Tomahawks and Sparrows, and of player weapons in general. I've noticed that MiG-29s are particularly hard to shoot down -- presumably this is supposed to reflect an unusually high level of ECM. (Radar-guided Sparrows seem to be far more susceptible to this effect than heat-seeking Sidewinders are, which makes some sense.) I also seem to occasionally see an entire missile wave vanish, which I had been attributing to successful (very low probability) jamming. My preferred approach to the "Duel" scenario is to use Seahawks or Ka-25Bs to get exact fixes using radar before launching weapons. I also like to split my missiles into as many separate units as possible, as this taxes the computer's area anti-air defences the most. I've never friendly-fired myself, but I've seen the computer do it. I presume that what I saw was a bearing-only salvo that picked up the wrong target at activation. With the scenario editor and some sort of database merge/editor (to steal units from the Med battleset?), there's a range of unexplored possibilities in the Baltic. (Probably fewer, or at least different, than two years ago....) I believe I saw a report somewhere that 360 was working on a Harpoon-style WWII game, and I'll be interested in playing that. (My local dealer still doesn't have IOPG. Wah!) Dave Gillett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 14:48:26 PDT From: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) Subject: Mac Harpoon Summary: (4) Mac v1.01 Is it just me, or does the Mac Harpoon (version 1.01 - not 1.0) seem to be crash proof, ever since I upgraded mine from 1.0 (that one crashed alot) to 1.01 (mislabeled at 1.1) I have not had a crash or freeze up since (and believe me I am thankful). Gary --- UUCP: clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/694-3276 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa ARPANet: clark!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 20:43 CST From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Qian Yu) Subject: Computer Virus as a Weapon? Summary: (5) Re: Computer Virus Weapons In CZ v8 message 47, junio@bo.twinsun.com (Junio Hamano) writes: | ABC Nightline last week had a special programming called the gulf | war -- untold story. In the programming, it was reported that | some computer components for radar equipment were deliberately | contaminated with computer virus before they were shipped to | Iraq, and the virus worked very effectively by stopping Iraqi | radar to help US forces sneak into Iraqi airspace. I find this | very clever but tad unbelievable --- does anybody have more info | to share? Excerpts from newsgroup sci.military (15-Jan-92): "Desert Storm: Desert Virus?" > zenk@hp-pcd.cv.hp.com (Zen Kurokawa) writes: > On Friday Jan 10, 1992 Ted Koppel's NIGHTLINE tv show featured > stories from the Desert Storm war. There was a claim made that > the Iraqi antiaircraft weapons systems were made inoperative by > a computer virus implanted via a French printer... thus contributing > to successful air raids on the first night. > > Anyone ever hear of this? No, it's not old news. However, it's also not accurate news. Evidently it was a case of Nightline basing its information on a U.S. New & World Report article which was quoting a book whose author got his/her information from a column in Infoworld. That original column was actually an April Fool's joke, but the author evidently didn't catch on to the fact that the article was intended as a joke and took it at face value. It should be quite obvious to most people from the tone of the article and from some of the silly computer stuff, as well as the explicit reference to April Fool's day, that the article was supposed to be a joke. Oh well, I guess that says something about the quality of journalism in this country. If you're interested, the article is Infoworld Vol 13, No. 13, April 1, 1991, p. 39. The article is about someone overhearing a conversation at some conference in which two people are discussing a "black" program at the NSA called AF/91. "Uncle Sam" had designed the AF/91 virus to attack peripheral systems like displays and printers. The virus supposedly had a neural network which enabled it to adapt to all different kinds of devices and made the virus just get smarter and smarter with time. The Allies planted this virus in a printer that was smuggled in through Jordan, and waited until the virus had permanently taken down half of the printers and displays in the Iraqi air defense system before attacking. However, the story went on to say that some of the aircraft that went to Iran had carried some infected printers on them, and the Iranians used them in their communications system, and now the virus is spreading all over the world. > What the NSA specialists hadn't realized was that AF/91 would act > differently in non-real-time systems. Now it infects a display's > software messaging. > > `It eats windows,' my friend said. `It starts gobbling them at the > edges merging all the various bit streams into a hopeless soup. > Unfortunately, the virus lives permanently in the display device itself.' > > The NSA now believes that any windowing technology is doomed, although > perhaps not immediately. The virus' setup time is much longer for > machines not in constant use, because the capability of the neural > network to learn is dependent on the total machine cycles. It could be > four years before end-users start seeing their windows blur. Maybe the > NSA can discover a cure by then. Finally the article gives away the fact that this is an April Fool's Joke: > And now for the final secret. The meaning of the AF/91 designation: 91 > is the Julian Date for April Fool's Day. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 11:19:18 PST From: beacker@mips.com (Bradley Eacker) Subject: Re: GDW & Troubled Waters Summary: (6) Troubled Waters Just received Sitrep #10, and the 1991 GDW catalog came with it. There is a new set of Ship forms and special rules for the Third world called "Troubled Waters". The catalog listed the release date as Nov of 91, so I gave GDW a call. Unfortunately it appears to have been delayed until April. But the amazing thing about it was that the delay has been caused by a review by the US Government. Seems that there are 4 pages that the military had some concerns about. I for one have not known GDW, Larry Bond, and Clancey to use any information that they could not get from a public source. So this seems a little odd to me that the military would want to do this. Hopefully it will come out later this spring. Brad Eacker (beacker@mips.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 24 Jan 1992 12:13:33 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (7) Miniatures Game Update The following material from SITREP #10 is summarized here with Larry Bond's permission. New rules for miniatures game: 1. Active Radar Launch: ARH AAMs can be launched active instead of waiting for the terminal phase of flight. This mode trades range for maneuverability (ATA Rating). AAMs with this capability will have dual range and ATA ratings in Annex H. 2. Launch Roll: AAMs now require a launch roll (similar to GDW's Air Superiority game). A single D10 is rolled. On a 9 or 0, something goes wrong and the missile is lost. Data Annex Updates: Annex A: France Charles De Gaulle CVN will have 3 E-2Cs for AEW. Japanese ships use RIM-7F (not -7M) and will eventually get -7H. Change data for Asagiri DDG, Haruna DDH, Hatsuyuki DD, Shirane DDH, and Takatsuki DD. Libya Nanuchka II SS-N-2C should have 2 Styx missiles per mount. US Seawolf SSN construction has been set back by faulty welds. Hull was 15% complete and all welds will have to be redone. Annex B: Stats for AJ37 Viggen and Yak-141 Freestyle. These will appear in future CZ issues. PRC will buy 24 Su-27 Flankers with deliveries starting in 1992. Russian A-40 Albatross has been given NATO designation Be-42 Mermaid. Annex H: SITREP #10 contained a new Annex H. Along with the usual updates to current systems, many older missiles are now also listed. The new Annex will appear in upcoming CZ issues. -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 root@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Wed Feb 5 14:15:28 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/3.07pram7) id AA15712; Wed, 5 Feb 92 14:15:28 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 92 14:15:28 -0800 Message-Id: <9202052215.AA15712@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ v9 #2 (msgs 8-16) Errors-To: cz-request@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 5 February 1992 Volume: 9 Issue: 2 First Message: 8 Messages: 9 Topics: (8) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (9) Top 10 Comments rohde@adcalc.fnal.gov (10) Amiga Status jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (11) Yak-141 tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (12) Scenario Converter junio@dew.twinsun.com (13) GIUK: Rapier yvesb@melair.lockheed.on.ca (14) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (15) Bugs & Complaints gregs@meaddata.com (16) Amiga v1.21 chbrin5@dknkurz1.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 5 Feb 1992 13:46:09 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (8) Editorial New members added since last issue: daryl@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Daryl Clarke) mnu@inel.gov (Rick Morneau) I finally have seen IOPG for the Mac, even though it's supposed to have been out for months. For those who want to compare prices, I got mine for $22.99. Greg Smith is making a renewed call to make a consolidated bug and complaint list. This is perhaps the best way for CZ readers to make these problems known to 360. Rather than flood 360 with incomplete and duplicated bug reports, Greg tries to sort them out and present a more comphrensible (and thus credible) picture to 360. See his message below for more details. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 16:38:10 -0600 (CST) From: rohde@adcalc.fnal.gov Subject: 10 comments from a veteran harpooner Summary: (9) Top 10 Comments I'd already mailed this directly to 360 before finding out Carl watched CZ. I thought it'd be worth sharing with the rest of you, just to see if other opinions matched my own. Perhaps not everyone's system runs by the same rules, so I'll mention that I'm running V1 for the Amiga. Here's what I wrote, I'll pass along any 360 comments that they care to pass along. - - - - - - - - Since I've spent an embarrassing number of hours playing this wonderful game, I thought I'd pass along some comments/suggestions which you can take or leave as you see fit. 1. An entire group of enemy ships shouldn't be able to be stopped dead by destroying the flag ship (ship 00). 2. Somewhat related to #1 is that an entire enemy group shouldn't be slowed by a heavily damaged ship. Perhaps once a ship is damaged it should simply be separated from the rest of the group. I understand that the group path would have to be copied to the new group... only you know how difficult that would be. 3. Perhaps it's realistic, but the repair-to-breakdown time and it's frequency of recurrrence is so frustrating that (after only a few games) I now just leave it turned off. 4. Under v1.0 [for the Amiga] it takes an incredibly long time to save a game. 5. Some provision should be made whereby ships can be resupplied with ammunition. Clever gamers sit back and pick away at the enemy with med-long-range aircraft weapons, since THEY can be resupplied. At the very least, docking a ship should resupply it, but taking the length-of-game into consideration, this would be too slow to be useful. 6. An extremely useful feature would be having the ability to select a group by entering its group-name. Trying to select a specific group out of a stack is a problem, as well as quickly finding the one you just received a report from. 7. I've "hung" (not crashed) a game by requesting it go too fast. It's confusing to find that trying to make the game go faster actually CAN have the opposite effect. The program should not allow you to select a speed beyond a level of diminishing return. 8. Most damaged ships tend to eventually sink, it seems only fair that SOME should actually repair themselves. Perhaps this IS the case and I've never noticed it. 9. Weather doesn't play a big enough part in the game. 10. Wouldn't it be great if you could tell a plane on ASW patrol to start dropping sonobouys at regular intervals along its path? Ok... that's 10... I'll stop now, lest you think I'm griping. [Has anyone heard...] Is an upgrade for the scenario editor soon to be released? Don Rohde ROHDE@FNALAD.BITNET ROHDE@ADCALC.FNAL.GOV ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 17:50:55 EST From: jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dutka) Subject: Carl Norman/360 Support of Amiga Version Summary: (10) Amiga Status Has anyone (including Carl) heard if 360 will be releasing a fix for the Harpoon Amiga 3000/2.0x fix? The fix will, according to 360, not work with a 2 Meg CHIP RAM machine, which is, as 2.0x and the new chipset comes with the more recently produced Amigas, surprising. Near constant Enforcer hits are detected when pictures (sinking ships stills, plus the area defense/hit/launching animations) are shown, plus some occur, albeit less frequently, during normal game play. Second, does anyone know if the SAM firing rate/range option, present in the PC version, will be added to the Amiga version? Also, does anyone know when/if the rumored extended 386+/Amiga 3000+ versions of Harpoon are scheduled for release? Thanks for any help. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 24 Jan 1992 10:56:00 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (11) Yak-141 This information is reprinted from SITREP #10 by permission of Larry Bond. Russia Yak-141 Freestyle Attack ----------------- Cannon ATA: 4.0 Def ATA: 4.0(3.0) Sensors: RWR, Slot Back radar w/ smaller antenna (est. ranges: 97/65/30 nm) Performance: Speed: Knots (nm/phase) ---------- Throttle Setting -------------- Altitude Cruise Military Afterburner ----------------------------------------------------------- VLow/Low 590 (2.5) 590 (2.5) 725 (3.0) Medium 460 (1.9) 550 (2.3) 850 (3.5) High 460 (1.9) 520 (2.2) 971 (4.0) Ceiling: 15,000+ meters Engine Type: Turbojet Endurance: Cruise Range: ? nm Internal Fuel: ? kg Inflight Refuel?: ? Drop Tank Fuel Weight Additional Range -------------------------------------------------------- Drop Tank (capacity ?) ? kg ? nm Ordnance Loadouts: Cannon: GSh-301 30mm Payload: 2600 kg * 4 AA-10 or AA-11 (? nm) * 2 AA-10 or AA-11, and drop tanks (? nm) * 4 FAB-500 M62 bombs or S-24 rockets (? nm) Remarks: V/STOL. In Service 1994. Triplex fly by wire control system, digital engine controls. Two prototypes in flight test stages. Russia is looking for partners to help fund development. They have approached India, among others. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 23:33:44 PST From: junio@dew.twinsun.com (Junio Hamano) Subject: Let's ask for Scenario file conversion utility Summary: (12) Scenario Converter I exchanged emails with Tim Jacobs of Three-Sixty on availability of user Scenario conversion tools among IBM/Mac/Amiga a while ago, and he kindly informed me that three-sixty does have an internal utility but we shouldn't expect it to be polished enough so that it can be released to users for at least a few months. The release of the utility would certainly benefit the Harpoon user community a lot by allowing us share user Scenarios regardless of which type of computer we use. Now Carl Norman, who reads CZ, has taken over as their Customer Support Manager as announced in the editorial of CZ v9 #1, maybe we can encourage it happen sooner by showing more interest in the release of the utility to him. -junio ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 92 9:13:44 EST From: yvesb@melair.lockheed.on.ca (Yves Boudeault) Subject: Computer: Seeking Tactical Advice on Rapier Summary: (13) GIUK: Rapier Hello, I am looking for some tactical advice... so here it comes... I am playing harpoon on the Macintosh. I am having major difficulties with a scenario from GIUK (Rapier) in which you attack soviet SSBNs. For those of you not familiar with the scenario, you are given 8-10 nuclear attack subs including 2 LA class, 2 Improved LA, 2 Trafalgar, (and 4 more older models of SSN I do not remember at this time). The goal is to destroy at least one SSBN parked in bays of the Barents sea. Lots of air ASW (helicopters and Mays) + and ASW group based on a carrier + escort s.a. Krivaks). A number of subs are also present (I have seen a number of modern diesels, victor IIIs and a single Sierra up til now) throughout the Barents. I know there is at least one modern attack sub at the entrance of the Bay I was trying to penetrate, and it is waiting at speed 0 (Sierra). Now, I have tried many tactics, deep & slow, deep & fast, attacking and bypassing the surface elements, and I am not having a whole lot of success. I have tried to get my subs to maneuver (sp?) at +/- 45 deg from the intended bearing (to reduce possibilities of a passive solution), operated at 5 knots, ran deep and still, I cannot get in range of the SSBN (I succeeded in detecting it once, but never got a solution on it and got hammered by the attack sub keeping watch with standoff + air units). I would like to know if anyone has successfully completed the mission and what tactics were used (or would you suggest). Thanks, Yves Boudreault (yvesb@melair.lockheed.on.ca) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 30 Jan 1992 12:17:12 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (14) Recent Naval Developments President Bush's new budget proposal cancels the Seawolf SSN program after finishing up the first one now under construction. "Flight International" (from 29 Jan) reports that all ships being built in Ukraina less than 50% complete will be sold as scrap. This includes the Commonwealth Navy's partially built Ulyanovsk CVN, though not the Varyag CV (second Kuznetsov class) both at Nikolayev South (Shipyard No. 444). Press statements indicate the Ukraina yards are looking to fill foreign orders. A quick check of "Guide to the Soviet Navy" (5th edition) reveals that the other Ukraina yards are likely to only have frigate and smaller size combatants currently under construction, including: Krivak III class FF Dergach class SES FFL Muravey PGH various air-cushion vehicle landing craft The same volume states that Kresta I and Kynda cruisers are being taken out of service to be scrapped. It appears that AEW on Commonwealth carriers will be performed by a Ka-27 Helix variant, not the An-74 Madcap as previously thought. According to the Feb 92 USNI Proceedings, Admiral Chernavin is about to retire. Currently, there are no known Commonwealth navy units on station in the Med. The Kuznetsov CV is now with the Northern Fleet. She left the Black Sea on 2 Dec 91, probably hurried along by the squabble with Ukraina over Black Sea fleet control. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 92 09:30:03 EST From: gregs@meaddata.com (Greg Smith) Subject: Bug Report Summary: (15) Bugs & Complaints I have recently been contacted by Carl Norman, 360 Customer Support Manager about sending him a bug list that I compiled last year. I think it would be a good time for everyone in CZ land to send me up to date bug reports. Please put "HARPOON BUGS - machine_type - version" in the subject line to make it easier for me to sort. Please limit these reports to ACTUAL bugs and not complaints about game mechanics or AI limits. I'll also accept reports of this type in a separate letter with the subject of "HARPOON COMPLAINTS - machine_type - version". My email address is gregs@spot.meaddata.com Thanks everyone and let's help 360 make this the game that lives up to it's potential! Greg Smith ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Feb 92 11:49:17 MEZ From: chbrin5%dknkurz1.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Kai Hortmann) Subject: Amiga Harpoon Version 1.21 Summary: (16) Amiga v1.21 Recently I saw Amiga Harpoon Version 1.21 advertised. Does anybody here use that version or is it just vaporware? What is the difference to version 1.0? I couldn't get version 1.1 to run on my Amiga 2000 for longer than five minutes before it crashed, but version 1.1 was not any different to 1.0, except that it was supposed to run under 2.00 which nobody uses. Does version 1.21 have the advanced staff options, like showing sonobuoys and setting SAM defence level? <* Kai Hortmann - University of Konstanz - Germany *> <* chbrin5@dknkurz1.bitnet or chbrin5@nyx.uni-konstanz.de *> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From root@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Mon Feb 24 17:06:00 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/3.07pram7) id AA27209; Mon, 24 Feb 92 17:06:00 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 17:06:00 -0800 Message-Id: <9202250106.AA27209@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ v9 #3 (msgs 17-22) Errors-To: cz-request@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 24 February 1992 Volume: 9 Issue: 3 First Message: 17 Messages: 6 Topics: (17) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (18) IOPG stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (19) v1.1 on AmigaDOS 2.04 sinkhole!tlvx!system (20) IOPG: Glidepath to War yvesb@melair.lockheed.on.ca (21) Sub Creep Speeds w.michael.todd@dartmouth.edu (22) Annex H, Part 1 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: Mon 24 Feb 1992 16:19:43 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (17) Editorial New members added since last issue: bsd9554@ultb.rit.edu (Brian S. Davidson) frel@rand.org (Dave Frelinger) gall@nexus.yorku.ca (Norm Gall) omh@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett) opsrjh@uccvma.ucop.edu (Richard Hintz) ajohnson@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Johnson) kaplan@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Joseph Kaplan) salaing@eos.ncsu.edu (Scott Laing) paulm@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl (Paul Molenaar) olds@vab02.larc.nasa.gov (John Olds) jriemer@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Riemer) seth_schiesel@yccatsmtp.ycc.yale.edu (Seth Schiesel) w.michael.todd@mac.dartmouth.edu (W. Michael Todd) nautilus@acm.rpi.edu (John M. Twilley) unglenie@ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Unglenieks) The latest unconfirmed radio report has the two-thirds done Varyag (Kuznetsov class) CV on sale to the highest bidder. I suppose continued CIS Navy financing didn't look very attractive. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 92 19:43:39 GMT-0500 From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (James Stricherz) Subject: IOPG on the Mac Summary: (18) IOPG > I finally have seen IOPG for the Mac, even though it's supposed to > have been out for months. For those who want to compare prices, I got > mine for $22.99. I got mine for $26 from MacConnection. I find that, tho it is neat to have those nifty weapons, the battleset itself seems....poorly constructed. The orders are vague, and worse, the wining conditions are not well defined, as they are in the other sets. For instance, I played the Desert Storm scenario, and whiped out ALL of Iraqi's bases, ships and aircraft. Did I get total victory? Did I even get victory? NO! THE GAME WAS RULED A BLOODY DRAW!!!!! AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH! And I had to wait around for the game clock to go to 00:00:00. I took screen snapshots (shift-command-3) after I had annihilated the enemy, and the "It's a draw" message, so I have proof. I wouldn't want anyone wasting all that time to get that frustrated!!! :) This isn't the first time this happened, either. James [BTW, are there SCUD type weapons available???] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 07 Feb 92 08:59:25 EST From: sinkhole!tlvx!system@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (Temporal Vortex BBS SysOp) Subject: Harpoon v.1.1 for Amiga using DOS 2.04 Summary: (19) v1.1 on AmigaDOS 2.04 It turns out that you can get Harpoon 1.1 to run under AmigaDOS 2.04, if you watch out for a couple of things. I'm including a quote which helped me get running, and I hope this helps others. I would still recommend saving OFTEN since it's still a bit flakey.... Don Rohde posted to comp.sys.amiga.games: > This is true. The reason I call it "Non-serious" is because it > can be gotten around by removing the "Repeatable Air Patrols/Attacks" > option from the "Staff Configuration" menu. Thereafter, when you > send a plane on patrol it takes off and then asks for its orders. > > You CAN change the course of a group, but what you cannot do is > insert a point in a path. -- system@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) Temporal Vortex BBS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 11:05:36 EST From: yvesb@melair.lockheed.on.ca (Yves Boudeault) Subject: Mac IOPG: Ambush of Soviet Force Summary: (20) IOPG: Glidepath to War Hello, I have recently bought the IOPG battleset for the Mac. I have experienced a few bugs, but in general, everything goes smoothly. I was playing the scenario where the blue force stops a red carrier group from crossing the Indian ocean. Kind of an interesting game. [Probably "Glidepath to War" scenario.] I was having quite a problem until I noticed that the red units ran out of missiles, I came in with my fast patrol boats and frigates and finished the group with ... guns. Yves Boudreault ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Feb 92 09:33:54 EST From: w.michael.todd@dartmouth.edu Subject: Difference in creep speeds for subs Summary: (21) Sub Creep Speeds (This is for the MAC v1.1 of Harpoon) I've noticed that if you use the set group speed and depth command for a sub and choose creep, the speed specified in the command will not neccesarily be the actual speed the sub will go. This happens if your sub is covering several zones in the formation ( a smart move I think to keep passive bearings off and to confuse the enemy a little) and the subs speed will actually be 5 knots faster. I was wondering if this makes any difference for sub detection? Does the computer use the creep setting to determine the possibility of detection or the actual speed as shown on the unit map? Mike Todd W.Michael.Todd@mac.dartmouth.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 24 Feb 1992 15:55:22 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (22) Annex H, Part 1 Here is the first part of the new Annex H from SITREP #10. It is presented here by permission of Larry Bond. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H.I.J.K. L. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- France Mica 27/5.4 2295 9.6 I/M/TARH or TIIRH 25 110 Y Y Y 4.0/5.0 Mistral 3 1492 6.2 IRH 25 20 Y Y N 5 R.530 10 1549 6.5 IRH or SARH 25 195 Y N N 2 1 Super 530F 15 2582 10.8 SARH 21 245 Y N Y 3 2 Super 530D 22 2008 8.4 SARH 25 265 Y N Y 3.5 2 R.550 Magic 5 1147 4.8 IRH 18 90 N Y N 4.5 R.550 Magic 2 8 1721 7.2 IRH 18 90 Y Y N 5 3 FRG AIM-9B FGW Mod 2 2 1147 4.8 IRH 15 76 N Y N 3.5 4 International AIM-132 ASRAAM 8.1 1721 7.2 IRH 18 80 Y Y N 6 Israel Shafrir 2.5 1147 4.8 IRH 18 93 N Y N 4 5 Shafrir 2 3.2 1434 6.0 IRH 18 93 N Y N 4.5 5 Python 3 8.1 2008 8.4 IRH 18 120 Y Y N 5 6 Python 4 5.4 2008 8.4 IIRH or EO 18 120 Y Y N 5.5 7 Italy Aspide 27 2295 9.6 SARH 25 220 Y N Y 3.5 8 Japan AAM-1 3.8 1434 6.0 IRH 18 79 N Y N 4 9 AAM-3 10 1434 6.0 IIRH 18 70 Y Y N 5.5 10 PRC PL-2 (CAA-1) 3 1147 4.8 IRH 15 70 N Y N 3 11 PL-2A 5.4 1147 4.8 IRH 15 76 N Y N 3.5 PL-2B 5.4 1147 4.8 IRH 15 76 N Y N 4 PL-4 5.4 1147 4.8 SARH 18 76 Y N N 2 12 PL-5B 8.6 2582 10.8 IRH 15 85 N Y N 4 13 PL-7 7.8 1147 4.8 IRH 15 90 N Y N 4 14 PL-8 8.1 1978 8.2 SARH 15 300 Y N N 2 15 PL-9 2.7 1434 6.0 IRH 18 120 Y Y N 4.5 16 UK Fire Streak 4.3 1721 7.2 IRH 15 136 N Y N 3.5 17 Red Top 6.5 1721 7.2 IRH 18 150 Y Y N 4.5 18 Sky Flash 27 2295 9.6 SARH 23 193 Y N Y 3.5 19 Column Key A. Country/Name E. Guidance I. Dogfight B. Range (nm) F. Max Altitude J. Snap Up/Down C. Speed (kts) G. Hang Weight (kg) K. ATA Rating D. Dist/Phase H. All Aspect L. Comments Comments 1. both seekers all-aspect 2. max altitude separation 9000m 3. also Abu Dhabi, Egypt, Greece, India, Peru 4. produced in FRG for European use 5. also Argentina, Chile, Taiwan 6. replaces Shafrir 2 7. in limited service with Israeli Air Force 8. max altitude separatuib 8000m 9. similar to AIM-9E 10. replaces AIM-9L in Japanese service 11. copy of early AIM-9 or AA-2 12. SARH version of PL-2 13. resembles AIM-9L or AIM-9M, replaces PL-2A 14. resembles Magic 15. air-lauched version of HQ-61 SAM 16. not yet in service 17. production terminated 1969 18. also called Fire Streak Mark IV 19. also Sweden, max altitude separation 6100m -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 root@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Mon Mar 9 10:25:25 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/3.07pram8) id AA04344; Mon, 9 Mar 92 10:25:25 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 10:25:25 -0800 Message-Id: <9203091825.AA04344@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ v9 #4 (msgs 23-27) Errors-To: cz-request@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 9 March 1992 Volume: 9 Issue: 4 First Message: 23 Messages: 5 Topics: (23) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (24) Creep Speeds fig.citib.com!gjb@fig.citib.com (25) 386 Version? nick.zentena@canrem.com (26) Annex H, Part 2 tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (27) Evading Torpedoes fontana@pavia.infn.it "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 9 Mar 1992 10:15:43 PST From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (23) Editorial New members added since last issue: ran@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Pratt) trr@centerline.com (Terry Rasmsussen) a760@dmt03.mcc.virginia.edu (Kirby Stiening) SITREP #11 (Dated January 1992) is out. More details in the next issue. USNI members can get the PC version of HArpoon (and the various battlesets) at a discount through the USNI book service. However, I find my local discount store still does better than the offered discounted prices. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 17:28:01 EST From: fig.citib.com!gjb@fig.citib.com (Greg Brail) Subject: Re: Difference in creep speeds for subs Summary: (24) Creep Speeds A section in the Harpoon Battlebook seems to say that the chances of a sub or ship being detected depend on only a few speeds, rather than being modified continuously based on speed. Here's basically what the Battlebook says: A sub or ship travelling at five knots and under cannot be detected by sonar as easily or at as long a range. Plus, a sub at that speed can detect other ships and subs more easily. This speed is higher for some subs -- likely 10 knots for Improved L.A. and Trafalgar class subs, and at least 19 knots for the Seawolf. At 20 knots and above, hull-mounted sonars on subs and ships no longer function. Also, a cavitating sub can be detected more easily. I don't remember all the numbers for this, but subs cavitate at Deep depths at 30 knots and above. The cavitation speed is lower at lesser depths, and the Seawolf never cavitates. A few other parameters make diesel subs on batteries quieter than nukes, make subs with anechoic coatings quieter than ones without, and make older Soviet subs noisier than the newer ones. All this implies that there's no difference between a sub going 6 knots and a sub going 19 knots, or a sub creeping at 5 knots and one that's stopped. It also doesn't imply much difference in "quietness". Whereas computer Harpoon rates each aircraft on its agility -- making an F-16 more likely to evade an incoming missile than a Bear -- there seems to be no "quietness" database for submarines. I can post more detailed information from my Battlebook if anyone's interested. Is submarine detection in Harpoon really this simple, or am I missing something? greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 19:00:00 -0500 From: nick.zentena@canrem.com (Nick Zentena) Subject: 386 version of harpoon? Summary: (25) 386 Version? Hi, Does anybody know when the 386 version of harpoon will be released? Also does 360 have a disk replacement program? Nick --- ~ DeLuxe} 1.21 #9621 ~ nick.zentena@canrem.com -- Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat 7 Mar 1992 12:58:50 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (26) Annex H, Part 2 Here is the rest of the new Annex H from SITREP #10. The first part was presented in last issue (v9 msg 22). The information is presented here by permission of Larry Bond. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H.I.J.K. L. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- USA AIM-4 Falcon 2.7 1606 6.7 IRH 15 50 Y N N 1.5 20 AIM-4A Falcon 2.7 1721 7.2 SARH 18 54 Y N N 1.5 AIM-4B Falcon 5.2 1721 7.2 IRH 18 59 N Y N 3 AIM-4C Falcon 5.2 1721 7.2 IRH 18 61 N Y N 3.5 21 AIM-4D Falcon 5.2 1721 7.2 IRH 18 61 Y Y N 4 22 AIM-4E Falcon 6.1 1721 7.2 SARH 18 64 Y N N 2 23 AIM-4F Falcon 6.1 1721 7.2 SARH 18 68 Y N N 2.5 23 AIM-4G Falcon 6.1 1721 7.2 IRH 18 68 Y Y N 4.5 24 AIM-7E Sparrow 12 2295 9.6 SARH 20 205 Y N N 2 AIM-7E2 Sparrow 12 2295 9.6 SARH 20 205 Y N N 2.5 AIM-7F Sparrow 24 2008 8.4 SARH 20 230 Y N N 3 25 AIM-7M Sparrow 24 2008 8.4 SARH 25 230 Y N Y 3.5 AIM-7P Sparrow 24 2008 8.4 SARH & IRH 25 230 Y Y Y 4 26 AIM-9B Sidewin. 1.7 1147 4.8 IRH 15 70 N Y N 3 27 AIM-9C Sidewin. 9.6 1147 4.8 SARH 15 84 Y Y N 2 28 AIM-9D Sidewin. 2.2 1434 6.0 IRH 15 89 N Y N 3.5 AIM-9E Sidewin. 2.2 1147 4.8 IRH 15 75 N Y N 4 29 AIM-9F Sidewin. 2.2 1147 4.8 IRH 15 76 N Y N 3.5 30 AIM-9G Sidewin. 6 1434 6.0 IRH 15 84 N Y N 4 31 AIM-9H Sidewin. 10 1434 6.0 IRH 15 84 N Y N 4.5 32 AIM-9J Sidewin. 7.8 1434 6.0 IRH 15 78 N Y N 4.5 33 AIM-9L Sidewin. 9.6 1434 6.0 IRH 18 85 Y Y N 5 AIM-9M Sidewin. 9.6 1434 6.0 IRH 18 85 Y Y N 5.5 AIM-9R Sidewin. 9.6 1434 6.0 IRH 20 85 Y Y N 6 AIM-26A Falcon 4.3 1147 4.8 SARH 18 92 Y N N 3 34 AIM-26B Falcon 5.2 1147 4.8 SARH 18 119 Y N N 3 35 AIM-54A Phoenix 110/11 2869 12.0 SARH/TARH 25 447 Y Y Y 2.5/4.0 36 AIM-54C Phoenix 110/11 2268 9.5 I/M/TARH 25 460 Y Y Y 3.0/4.5 AIM-120 AMRAAM 40/10 2295 9.6 I/M/TARH 25 152 Y Y Y 4.0/5.0 37 AIR-2A Genie 5.4 1893 7.9 None 20 363 N N N - 34 USSR/CIS AA-1 Alkalai 3.8 1434 6.0 SARH 20 93 Y N N 1 38 AA-2B Atoll 3.5 1434 6.0 IRH 15 70 N Y N 3 39 AA-2C Adv. Atoll 4.3 1434 6.0 SARH 15 110 Y Y N 2 AA-2D Atoll 3.5 1434 6.0 IRH 15 70 N Y N 3.5 40 AA-3 Anab 10.5 1434 6.0 IRH/SARH 18 275 Y N N 1.5 41 AA-4 Awl 54 1147 4.8 SARH 18 400 Y N N 1 42 AA-5A Ash 30 1147 4.8 SARH 20 436 Y N N 2 AA-5B Ash 11 1147 4.8 IRH 20 450 N N N 2 AA-6A Acrid 43 2582 10.8 SARH 20 800 Y N N 2.5 43 AA-6B Acrid 13 2582 10.8 IRH 20 750 Y N N 3.5 43 AA-7A Apex 19 2008 8.4 SARH 25 320 Y Y Y 2.5 44 AA-7B Apex 8 2008 8.4 IRH 25 300 N Y Y 4 45 AA-8 Aphid 3.5 1721 7.2 IRH 25 55 N Y N 4.5 46 AA-9 Amos 80/5 2008 8.4 SARH/TARH 25 580 Y N Y 3.0/4.0 47 AA-10 Alamo A 12 2008 8.4 SARH 25 155 Y N Y 3 48 AA-10 Alamo B 12 2008 8.4 IRH 25 155 Y N N 4.5 48 AA-10 Alamo C 25 2008 8.4 SARH 25 200 Y N Y 4 49 AA-10 Alamo D 25 2008 8.4 IRH 25 200 Y N Y 4.5 50 AA-11 Archer 12 1500 6.3 IRH 20 125 Y Y N 5.5 51 Column Key A. Country/Name E. Guidance I. Dogfight B. Range (nm) F. Max Altitude J. Snap Up/Down C. Speed (kts) G. Hang Weight (kg) K. ATA Rating D. Dist/Phase H. All Aspect L. Comments Comments 20. must be guided like SARH 21. Sweden designation Rb28 22. uses IR seeker of AIM-4G; Canada designation F-101, Japan F-4J, Sweden Rb28 23. "Super Falcon" 24. "Super Falcon", IR counterpart to AIM-4E 25. production terminated 1981 26. dual-mode seeker 27. full name of AIM-9 series is "Sidewinder" 28. home on jam (HOJ) on jammer aircraft 29. modified AIM-9B with improved warhead 30. NATO modification to AIM-9B for improved guidance 31. AIM-9D with improved lock-on and target acquisition 32. solid state electronics, better seeker 33. updated AIM-9B and AIM-9E with improved seeker 34. nuclear warhead 35. Sweden designation Rb27, used on J35 and Switzerland Mirage III 36. climbs to 31500m after launch, HOJ mode 37. HOJ mode 38. USSR designation RS-2US, minimum launch altitude 1981m 39. copy of AIM-9B, USSR designation R-3S or K-13A, minimum launch altitude 40m 40. copy of AIM-9D 41. USSR designation K-9 42. USSR designation K-8, unsucessful 43. minimum launch altitude 5030m, no dogfight launch 44. USSR designation R-23R, minimum launch altitude 40m 45. USSR designation R-23T, never deployed 46. USSR designation R-60 47. nuclear warhead option 48. short-burn motor 49. long-burn motor 50. long-burn motor, not yet in service 51. USSR designation R-73 -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: Fri, 6 MAR 92 18:23 N From: fontana@pavia.infn.it Subject: (27) Evading Torpedoes Hello from Italy to all the Harpooners around the World! Here some topics related to naval and underwater warfare, real and simulated on our PC: Sometimes when a naval group is under a torpedo attack we have the chance to counterfire with a torpedo launch in the direction of the attack (let's suppose we have only a bearing contact). But what is the effectiveness of this measure? In the real world what are the countermeasures to evading a torpedo directed on a naval task force? And for a submarine the best tactic we've found is to check the depth of the torpedo and evading it by setting a very different depth, changing often direction of motion and using sprint and drift technique. But often this doesn't work and we're hit. The question is: Are there alternative techniques to escape on a torpedo attack? In real world submarines carry noisemakers (the old pillenwerfer of Uboots) to do so, but in Harpoon what are the chances available? Hope to read many suggestions!!! BTW, never forget that "Best equipped is he who can wield all the tools available!", and our advice is to play in this spirit. Andrea Fontana Andrea Fontana INet:fontana@pavia.infn.it Department of Nuclear and Theoretical Physics Voice:39-382-392423/4 University of Pavia - Italy "...We may lose, we may win, but we will never be here again!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From root@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Fri Apr 10 11:17:26 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/3.07pram8) id AA06334; Fri, 10 Apr 92 11:17:26 -0700 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 11:17:26 -0700 Message-Id: <9204101817.AA06334@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ v9 #5 (msgs 28-35) Errors-To: cz-request@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 9 April 1992 Volume: 9 Issue: 5 First Message: 28 Messages: 8 Topics: (28) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (29) FFG-7 & SLQ-32 beacker@mips.com (30) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (31) Torpedo Return Fire lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (32) AJ37 Viggen tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (33) Ukraine Navy junio@tori.twinsun.com (34) Status of Board Game? lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (35) Launched ASW Patrols olds@vab02.larc.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: Fri 10 Apr 1992 11:02:29 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (28) Editorial New members since last issue: scott@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (Scott Bronson) gee7759@eeidf002.boeing.com (Glenn Elliott) kallela@ptx001.pt.cyanamid.com (E. Adam Kallel) edk@rafos.gso.uri.edu (Eddie Kearns) lam@hyper.com (Edmund C. Lam) pcat@nero.safb.af.mil (Doug Muise) Its been a long time since last issue. Mostly, this is due to the slow pace of submissions. I would encourage you to try to write something if you have the least bit of inclination to do so. Otherwise, you will have to put up with more whining from your administrator :-). SITREP 11 (dated January 1992) states that work is now underway on Harpoon 2.0, which will have all sorts of new features. Long range plans for "Harpoon Gold" (which will have lots more) are also starting to form. Apparently, it won't be cheap and the IBM version will require 386/VGA or better. It will appear in 1993 at the earliest. SITREP 11 also reports that someone has compiled a very comprehensive survey of Harpoon miniatures running 8 pages. The listing is available for $2 from: Mr. Frederick P. Kiesche III 123 Rachel Court Franklin Park, NJ 08823 [Note this is not an endorsement. Just passing along the info.] -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 15:44:57 PST From: beacker@mips.com (Bradley Eacker) Subject: FFG-7's and SLQ-32 variants Summary: (29) FFG-7 & SLQ-32 I was reading thru the March, 1992 USNI Proceedings when I came across a reference to a set of FFG-7s that have been upgraded with a new ECM system that the add labeled SLQ-32. Does anyone know the particular set of platforms (9 I believe) that these have been added to and what the characteristics would be in relation to using them in a game of Harpoon? Thanks, Brad Eacker (beacker@mips.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 3 Apr 1992 16:04:39 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (30) Recent Naval Developments Ripples from the collapse of the Soviet Union continue ... Probably, the West has finally gotten a look at a number of Soviet systems. According to March 1992 USNI Proceedings, a Tarantul was given outright to the US by Germany in November 1991. The April issue reports that various combatants (including the big units) from the CIS may be on sale, or in the case of nuclear submarines available for lease. Yeltsin may have ordered cancellation of SS-N-21, AS-15 and Backfire production. In January 1992, the USN submitted the following shipbuilding program. Of course, this is not likely to be the final word on the subject, so don't revise your Data Annex just yet. Type Class FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 - ------------------------------------------------------------------- CVN 68 Nimitz - - - 1 - - DDG 51 Arleigh Burke 5 4 3 4 4 4 LX - - - 1 - 1 LHD 1 Wasp - - - - 1 - MHC 51 Osprey 3 2 - - - - MHC(V) - - - 1 - 2 AGOR 2 - 2 - - - T-AGOS 1 - 1 2 - 1 AOE 6 Supply 1 - - - - - AR - - - - 1 - Differences from January 1991 USN Budget Plan Removed: 7 SSN (Seawolf) Added: 2 DDG (Arleigh Burke) 2 LSD (Harpers Ferry) 1 LHD (Wasp) 3 AGOR 1 T-AGOS 3 ARS -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 20:27:40 MDT From: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Subject: (31) Torpedo Return Fire Went over to my friends dorm room today and played Computer Harpoon on his machine. We were playing a user scenario downloaded from the HSWBBS. Anyhow, we started to attack a sub with a Nimitz carrier group. It turned out that there were two subs in the group, but we didn't get another sub contact; we got a torp contact (and then seven more!). After popping up the "We have detected inbound torps" dialog box, the Staff Assistant came up and asked if we should return fire down the same bearing. In my year-plus of playing Harpoon, I have never, ever seen this option. I asked, and my friend has seen it many times. We're both running version 1.21 for the IBM, but he had seen it on 1.2 before. My question is this: is there something special that I need to set up to get this option? I don't recall off-hand what my user settings are (haven't changed them for quite some time.) If you know anything about this, I would appreciate hearing from you. Thanks! -- Mark R. Lam InterNet Address: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu Colorado State University lam@lamar.colostate.edu Fort Collins, Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 24 Mar 1992 09:17:59 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (32) AJ37 Viggen This aircraft description is based on information from a number of sources, including: "Fast Convoy" scenario by Kurt Moller (from SITREP #10) Feb 91 issue of FlygvapenNytt (Swedish AF magazine) World Naval Weapon Systems, 1991/92 by Norman Friedman GDW Air Superiority/Air Strike Games Modern Aircraft Armament by Christopher Chant information obtained from various net contacts Much of the data is estimated. Hopefully, it reflects a reasonable approximation of reality. Anything that didn't turn out quite right, though, is my responsibility. -ted Annex B Sweden AJ37 Viggen Attack ----------- Cannon ATA: 0 Def ATA: 3.5(2.0) Sensors: Ballistic bombsight, PS-37/A radar, RWR. Performance: Speed: Knots (nm/phase) ---------- Throttle Setting -------------- Altitude Cruise Military Afterburner ----------------------------------------------------------- VLow/Low 460(1.9) 560(2.3) 792(3.3) Medium 460(1.9) 580(2.4) 970(4.0) High 460(1.9) 600(2.5) 1147(4.8) Ceiling: 15,500 meters Endurance: Cruise Range: 1000 nm Engine Type: Turbofan Internal Fuel: 6800 kg Inflight Refuel?: N Drop Tank Fuel Weight Additional Range -------------------------------------------------------- 1400 L Drop Tank 1120 kg 118 nm Ordnance Loadouts: Cannon: None Payload: 6000 kg Attack loadouts: 900 nm (drop tank added: 1006 nm) * 4 M70X rocket pods, 2 Rb24J * 16 120kg bombs, 2 Rb24J * 2 Rb04E or Rb05A or Rb15F anti-ship missiles, 2 Rb24J * 4 Rb75 missiles, 2 Rb24J Air-to-Air loadouts: 950 nm (drop tank added: 1006 nm) * 2 Aden 30mm cannon pods (Cannon ATA 3), 2 Rb74, 2 Rb24J * 4 Rb74, 2 Rb24J Remarks: AJ37 Viggen with AJS upgrade. Estimates used for missing data. Name Hang Wt (kg) Annex ------------------------------------------------ Bofors M70X rocket pod 400 G1/Sweden Virgo M/71 120kg bomb 120 G1/Sweden U22 defensive ECM pod 200 G2/Sweden KB chaff/flare pod 200 G2/Sweden (BOP 300) Aden 30mm cannon pod 400 G3/UK (Aden Mk4 30mm) Rb04E ASM 600 G4/Sweden Rb05A ASM 305 G4/Sweden Rb15F ASM 598 G4/Sweden Rb75 ASM 210 G4/US (AGM-65B Maverick) Rb24J AAM 78 H/US (AIM-9J Sidewinder) Rb74 AAM 85 H/US (AIM-9L Sidewinder) Hardpoints: UW3 UW2 UW1 CL UW1 UW2 UW3 Rating (kg): 500 1000 500 2000 500 1000 500 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1400L Drop Tank 1 M70X Rocket Pod 1 1 1 1 M/71 120kg Bomb 4 4 4 4 Self-Defense U22 KB 30mm Cannon Pod 1 1 Rb04E 1 1 Rb05A 1 1 Rb15F 1 1 Rb75 1 1 1 1 Rb24J 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rb74 1 1 1 1 ANNEX G1 Country Name Range Ph Hang Wt Damage Remarks (nm) (kg) Points - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sweden M70X 4.0 .25 400 5 6x135mm rocket pod Sweden M/71 - .15 120 11 120kg bomb ANNEX G2 Country Name Type Range Ph Mod Hang Wt Remarks (nm) (kg) - ------------------------------------------------------------- Sweden U22 Defensive ECM - -0.15 200 ANNEX G4 Country Name Range (nm) Ph Hang Wt Damage Speed Dist/ Min Max (kg) Points (kts) Turn Flight Guide VSmall Remarks - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sweden Rb04E 3.0 17.5 .70 600 60 595 5.0 VLow Cruise I/TARH Y Sweden Rb05A 1.0 5.0 .60 305 20 791 6.6 Ballistic Cmd Y Sweden Rb15F 3.0 80.0 .75 598 50 595 5.0 VLow Cruise I/TARH Y ANNEX L Country Name Range (nm) Pd Function Large Small VSmall - ------------------------------------------------------ Sweden PS-37/A 31 21 10 .70 AS,SS Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 11:45:02 PDT From: junio@tori.twinsun.com (Junio Hamano) Subject: (33) Ukraine Navy After reading yesterday's news about Ukraine trying to gain control over Black Sea fleet, I was interested in finding out the Naval balance between Ukraine and Russia, hoping that the confrontation between the two would make an interesting and a probable scenario. The only numbers I got from the news were that Black Sea fleet has 90,000 men, 345 surface ships, 28 submarines and 159 warplanes. The Data Annex describes how many platforms of each class exist but unfortunately I found no description as to how many belong to which fleet. Can anybody point me to some good sources? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 20:30:00 MDT From: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Subject: (34) Status of Board Game? I was wondering what the next project to be released for the paper version will be. Any idea when? How much? What about the new scenario set for Captain's Edition I've heard about? Thanks! -- Mark R. Lam InterNet Address: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu Colorado State University lam@lamar.colostate.edu Fort Collins, Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 14:17:18 GMT From: olds@vab02.larc.nasa.gov (John Olds) Subject: Sub hunting using P-3s Summary: (35) Launched ASW Patrols Here's a newbie question...when using P-3s (or Nimrods or even helicopters) to hunt subs, I generally use the launch patrol option and designate a spot for the patrol to go. When the aircraft gets there, it just sits in that one spot. I'd like it to search in an area similar to the patrol zone that you can set in the formation editor for surface groups. Is there a way to designate a "search box" for P-3s when on patrol? A related question is, if you set the P-3 to cruise speed and give it a pretty tight pseudo-search course, does it ever drop its sonobouys? I've found a couple of subs with the MAD using this method, but I'd like the plane to use its sonobouys without having to manually tell it to move, loiter, move, loiter... BTW, I'm using color Harpoon for the Mac if it makes a difference. Thanks, John _ ____________________________________________________________________ John Olds Internet : olds@vab02.larc.nasa.gov NASA-Langley Research Center NASAmail : JOLDS MS 365 Telephone : (804)-864-2746 Hampton, VA 23665-5225 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From root@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Fri Apr 24 13:10:54 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/3.07pram8) id AA06672; Fri, 24 Apr 92 13:10:54 -0700 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 13:10:54 -0700 Message-Id: <9204242010.AA06672@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ v9 #6 (msgs 36-48) Errors-To: cz-request@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 24 April 1992 Volume: 9 Issue: 6 First Message: 36 Messages: 13 Topics: (36) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (37) Re: Status of Board Game rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil (38) Re: Status of Board Game 72330.1244@compuserve.com (39) Torpedo Return Fire dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com (40) Submarine Hunting junio@tori.twinsun.com (41) More Submarine Hunting lcline@agora.rain.com (42) ASW Wish List junio@tori.twinsun.com (43) Aircraft Formation Editor miketodd@coos.dartmouth.edu (44) More Suggestions r_dover@icrf.ac.uk (45) Coordinated ASuW Strikes qxn102@uriacc.bitnet (46) Black Sea Fleet deichman@cisco.nosc.mil (47) SITREP starflt@athena.mit.ed (48) Unpacking PC Scenarios randy@ms.uky.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: Fri 24 Apr 1992 12:05:26 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (36) Editorial New members added since last issue: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) jon@netlabs.com (Jonathan Biggar) raggy@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Paul Bravey) tom@rosemount.com (Tom Brennan) uphsttb@trex.oscs.montana.edu (Lee Bruner) a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) starflt@athena.mit.edu (Derrick Kong) amahmood@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Amar Mahmood) tbn@csd.cri.dk (Torben Bang Nielsen) kparten@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Kurt Parten) kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) tray@mars1.gps.caltech.edu (Terrill Ray) rsocia@renaissance.cray.com (Rick Socia) plt@eng.ufl.edu (Pete Taylor) peju@research.att.com (Unknown) The SITREP 11 stuff was pushed off to next issue. New board game stuff is covered in the next two messages. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 15:33:38 EDT From: rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil (Robert S. Dean) Subject: (37) Re: Status of Board Game In CZ v9 article 34, lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu writes: > I was wondering what the next project [for the board game] to be > released ... will be. Any idea when? How much? What about the new > scenario set for Captain's Edition I've heard about? The latest from GDW on GEnie is that "Troubled Waters" has just arrived at their warehouse and will be shipping this week to distributors. That's when. How much is a question I can't answer... They did mention recently that a Captain's edition expansion was no longer in the current plans. Rob Dean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Apr 92 02:33:37 EDT From: 72330.1244@compuserve.com (Robin D. Roberts) Subject: (38) Re: Status of Board Game The next item for paper Harpoon is "Troubled Waters". Loren Wiseman of GDW reports [ on GEnie ] that it should hit the store shelves with a week or two. Robin Roberts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Apr 92 23:10:42 UT From: dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com (David Gillett) Subject: (39) Torpedo Return Fire Mark Lam asks about the 'incoming torpedo; fire down that bearing' message. The message doesn't always appear, because the launching platform (in general, the submarine that fired the torpedo) must be within weapon range for you to have a chance of hitting it. I think maybe it also has to be undetected, on the theory that engaging a detected target that's in range is your own business. A torpedo has a high-speed propeller, making it (relatively) easy to detect on passive sonar. It's not too unlikely that you might detect the torpedo without having detected the sub. It's a good gamble that a torpedo fired toward the point where the incoming torpedo was first detected will pass pretty close to the sub. Although submerged torpedo launch technology is quieter than it used to be, sonarmen can probably estimate how close to the detection point the launch was, in many cases. Even if the incoming torpedo doesn't give you enough of a fix to *hit* the sub, your counterfire may prompt the sub to take evasive action and give his position away. An incoming torpedo course is a good place for ASW aircraft to start searching with MAD and sonobuoys, too.... Dave Gillett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 13:50:17 PDT From: junio@tori.twinsun.com (Jun Hamano) Subject: (40) Submarine Hunting [computer version] Recently I saw the same `return file' dialog as the one Mark Lam reports (v9#5-32), too. The version I am running is 1.0 for the Mac and the scenario was something from NACV (I do not know if it makes any difference). Regarding John Olds' question (v9#5-35), there is no way to specify patrol pattern. The closest thing I can think of is to enable repeatable patrol and launch, which is still too far from being useful. Also scheduling move-loiter-move-loiter-... sequence in advance (with "Enter group course") does not help since once an aircraft start lointering, it never starts moving unless you manually tell it to start moving. As John suggests, letting us to use formation editor for air groups would make a lot of sense here. One thing that annoys me when I am hunting submarines is that the staff asks me if I want my ASW units to continue their search _only_if_ the enemy group still has submarines I haven't detected. I found that it is guaranteed that I killed all of them in the same group if the staff doesn't ask. This spoils a lot of fun. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 11:14:53 EDT From: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) Summary: (41) More Submarine Hunting Re: Torpedo Return Fire I have seen this option come up on both the IBM and Amiga versions of Harpoon. The option to fire a counter-fire down a bearing is based on what available weapons systems you have and whether or not that system has the capability. It may also include some AI on the computer's part as to whether or not there is a sub detected near that bearing. If you already have detected the sub, there may not be a need for counter- firing a torpedo. Re: Launched ASW Patrols There is no way I know of to do that without manually plotting the unit's path. That would be a nice addition though, to be able to define a search area (like drawing a box) then selecting a search type (expanding square, crossover star, and the like; there are many predetermined search patterns) and letting the computer take care of the paths according to the track width required (usually a track spacing of about 5 miles because your primary sensor would be a MAD). I don't think you would want to drop sonobouys because that would be an awful waste of resources. You only have about 250 of the things. One option that might work in the current systems is that if the area you want to search is within 255 miles of the base you can assign it the appropriate sector from the base. -- Larry Cline lcline@agora.rain.com C_________ Industrial Graphics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:07:02 PDT From: junio@tori.twinsun.com (Jun Hamano) Subject: (42) ASW Wish List [computer version] Hoping Greg Smith (v9#2-15) can help organizing our wish list, here are some of my wishes as to ASW. This list includes what I've already said in a separate message. 1. Formation editor should be usable for an air group for area patrol purposes. The current implementation doesn't let us use formation editor for an air group. 2. Staff should always ask if I want my ASW units to continue their search, regardless of the remaining number of submarines in the enemy target group. In the current implementation, staff asks if and only if there are more undetected submarines in the group. 3. Bingo fuel warning should be available for aircrafts joined a surface group (or base). In the current implementation, they simply crash. 4. Aircrafts joined a surface group (or base) should be available for ASW patrol in the formation editor without first landing. In the current implementation, aircrafts cruise around the patrol area but never loiter nor drop sonobuoys. 5. There should be some way to find out remaining range of an air unit. The current implementation sometimes allows this if there is an enemy unit to intercept, but not always. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 10:16:31 EDT From: miketodd@coos.dartmouth.edu (W. Michael Todd) Subject: (43) Aircraft Formation Editor (Macintosh v1.1) (in response to v.5 msg 35) John Olds question brought up something that I would like to see in future releases, some sort of formation editor for aircraft. Wouldn't it be nice if you had a flight of bombers and escorts and you were able to put the escorts say 10 miles in front of the bombers. As of v1.1, the only way I have found to make patrol aircraft search an area is to do it manually or to use the formation editor of a base that is near water. Aircraft fly in formation just like ships sail in formation so how about an editor. Mike Todd Dartmouth College ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 8:24 BST From: r_dover@icrf.ac.uk (Giving Entropy A Hand) Subject: (44) More Suggestions I completely agree with John Olds in CZ 9 #5. Being able to define a patrol area and have an anti-sub unit drop a sonobouy pattern would be a big improvement. I too use the Mac version, even being able to draw the pattern in the "orders" dialogue box and simply clicking a button that tells the unit to loiter and drop a sonobouy would be a help. I also get annoyed that when a unit is launching or landing that it is often impossible to select the base underneath to issue new orders. Couldn't we have some way to do this? (Don't give me a hard time if it exists and I've missed it....Mac users get an IBM manual and a brief sheet listing differences, so it is not the clearest set of imnstructions you could wish for.) Third and final, for now, why can't we have the full information shown for detected groups? Why do I have to hit "F" to get ther number of units and speed? There is enough room for this in the window already and it slows the game to have to do this each time to see what strength of reply to the threat is appropriate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 15:57:34 EDT From: qxn102%uriacc.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Armando Heredia) Subject: (45) Coordinated ASuW Strikes I would like to raise the issue of coordinated surface-to-surface and air-to-surface ASuW strikes. I was playing IOPG, Battleset #4, the scenario where the Kusnetzsov BG is caught between the remains of the Iranian Air Force at Bandar Abbas and a Forrestal BG, playing Blueside. Essentially, I was disappointed at the lack of resistance from the Kusnetzsov, with all of those Fulcrums and Flankers that were embarked. I outlined the events trying to find better tactics to set up a good come-as-you-are ASuW strike. Problem: Reduce OPFOR's fighters so that they have bare minimum to CAP their CV instead of conducting offensive sorties. Also, try to kill their AEWs. Solution: It seemed really simplistic, but I drew out most of the fighters by baiting a Hawkeye orbiting at about 100 nm from my CVBG and putting two Hornets at low level patrol with radars off. The Hawkeye was was emitting continuously (air and surface), and the CAP was always reinforced by two sections of Hornets at ready five alert. Results: The Fulcrums came out first, and when I had splashed four of them, Kusnetzsov put up an AEW Helix, presumably to provide command and control for the follow on waves. Then came about six Flankers in sections of two, who all promptly got splashed. I downed about twelve aircraft for a loss of two F-18s. I then used a four plane section of Hornets to close on the AEW Helix. Turns out that there was a group six helos which were subsequently downed. I believe that I got all of his AEW capable helos, so on to phase two. Problem: Reduce the AAW capability of the OPFOR BG. Preliminary ESM indicated at least *one* Slava class CG and *two* Kirov class BCGNs, and a whole slew of Sovremmenny DDs. This means a heck of a SAM umbrella that a strike package would have to penetrate if I didn't have enough standoff weapons to go around. To quote Barret Tillman's "Sixth Battle," it was a Navy Cross waiting to happen. Solution: Send a maximum effort Wild Weasel strike on the BG using Hornets with two HARMs each. I felt a particularly strong measure of concern as I watched the OPFOR BG's SSM circle creep closer and closer to my BG. Results: It took two packages of six Hornets each to knock out most of the directors and radar mounts on the major AAW platforms. I spaced them about 10 min. apart, from two opposite directions to make the AAW computers work harder at determining target priority. The AAW circle was reduced to an acceptable radius, about 10 nm. Problem: The OPFOR CVBG is now half an hour from SSM strike range. An all-hands evolution gets underway as I prep all Intruders and Hornets for Standoff attack with Harpoons. The Intruders will be off first, followed by the Hornets. As a backup strike package, I prep eight S-3 Vikings for Standoff attack as well. Results: The Intruders were capped by two sections of Hornets with AMRAAM loadouts, about twenty nm from the target, in case OPFOR fighters made a surprise showing. They didn't. I orbited two strike packages of ten Intruders each, offset at 45 degrees from OPFOR BG's true heading. Estimated time of arrival was for a two volley TASM launch from Forrestal's BG spaced two minutes apart was about 20 and 22 minutes respectively. The Intruders launched while the first TASM volley was about two minutes out from the first target. Higher priority was given to Kusznetsov, and I selected the other targets based entirely on their size. I never got a clear identification of all ship classes and numbers in the BG. Despite the HARM attack, the Slava beat off a thirty TASM attack, but fell prey to the follow on wave by the Intruders and the second TASM volley. All ships sank within an hour, with no losses from the strike packages. CRITIQUE: I trust the EW community isn't insulted by my obvious mistake. I failed to use the Prowlers on the Forrestal, but I felt it was already overwhelming to try and control the number of aircraft I already had airborne. I did like the Prowler ability to have HARMs, which gives it a flexible "soft-kill" and "hard-kill" capability. Quite frankly, I felt that I had not achieved air-superiority over the target, and I would lose my EW aircraft to remaining fighters. I understand that someone from Three-Sixty reads this digest. Hopefully, they are reading this. I would really like to know how effective the Prowlers are at jamming FC and aquisition radars. ECM effectiveness becomes a real worry if I had played with realistic loadouts. I would hate to think what would have happened if there weren't enough Harpoons to go around and the strike packages had to run the Slava's and Kirovs' gamut to deliver LGBs and Mavericks. As to game or opponent intelligence, I would have expected the Kusnetzsov to launch his own ASuW force, a la The Coral Sea. I was sorely disappointed, but not that much, because I was limited to Hornets for fleet defense. It would have been more overwhelming if I had a squadron of Tomcats dedicated to the fleet defense role. Well, that's how the sixth carrier battle (simulated) ended. I also failed to use the IAF forces to the maximum. I did end up sacrificing one Iranian F-4 and an Orion. I sent the Orion off to try and localize the Kusnetzsov, and ran into a CAP of two Fulcrums. The MiGs got splashed, but at the cost of a Phantom and the P-3. The last F-4 outran the follow on pair of Flankers and made it under the SAM umbrella at Bandar Abbas. The majority of the IAF strike packages were composed of F-5s and Su-17s, which really need a good idea of target location before launching. I would really appreciate hearing from other players about how sound these tactics might be, and any suggestions. Is the battlebook included in the Harpoon package helpful? If so, I would like to purchase it separately if possible. Armando J. Heredia | "Fly Navy -- It's the most fun you Academic Computer Center | can have with your clothes on." University of Rhode Island | "Think strategic, act tactical." Kingston R.I. 02881 U.S.A. | "No, no. It's pillage, THEN burn." Int: QXN102@uriacc.uri.edu | "Let's party. I'm on point." Bit: QXN102@uriacc.bitnet | ********************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:15 PDT From: deichman@cisco.nosc.mil (Shane Deichman) Subject: (46) Black Sea Fleet Re: Junio's CZ posting asking about the fate of the Black Sea fleet and how the 345 surface combatants, 28 subs, 90,000 men and 158 planes are divided up: there is NO source at the present time. The fleet is essentially under one administrative body, which answers to Marshall Shaposhnikov (CIS Chief of Staff). The news item which you referred to stated that Ukraine laid claim to the Black Sea fleet, based in Sevastopol in the Crimea (a gift to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev back in the '50s). Since the fleet is essentially on Ukrainian soil, they DO have a certain claim to it. However, Russia is not prone to allow such a significant portion of its fleet fall into a neighbor's not-so-trustworthy hands.... Late last week, Yeltsin and Kravchuk decided to let an independent body negotiate a compromise over the fleet; however, the fleet is presently experiencing a minimal OPTEMPO due to the lack of lubricants for the engines... Russia, to my knowledge, lacks a suitable base in the Black Sea for the portion of the fleet they will reclaim. I suspect they'll probably send most of it to the Northern Fleet... (it's kind of like having half of our Third Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor, having to leave Oahu -- do you send them to Maui and build a whole new base, or do you bring 'em to San Francisco, San Diego, Yokosuka, etc., etc.... :-) Just my five rubles, 87 kopecks worth.... -shane @--------------------------------------------------------------------@ |deichman@cisco.nosc.mil |"There's no heavier burden than a | || great potential!" -Linus Van Pelt | @--------------------------------------------------------------------@ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 14:08:02 EDT From: starflt@athena.mit.edu (Derrick Kong) Subject: (47) SITREP Are there any other people who subscribe to SITREP direct from GDW and have had problems receiving it? Last fall, I sent them a check and got back issue #9 fairly soon. However, after that I received nothing until I finally sent them a letter in January reminding them of my subscription. That impelled them to send issue #10. Now, in reading CZ v9 #5, I find that SITREP #11 is out, and yet again GDW has utterly failed to bother sending it to me. Is this a typical experience or am I missing something? Will nudging someone high up help? [Admin Note: I got the subscription manager on the phone and had her check and correct their subscription database. After that there was no trouble. It might help also to have your GDW receipt handy.] Thanks. Derrick Kong starflt@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 02:26:38 EDT From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) Subject: How do I use the scenarios? Summary: (48) Unpacking PC Scenarios I have downloaded the files, but I'm not sure how to use them. I have a P.C. [Admin Note: I believe Randy is referring to files from Karl Buck's scenario FTP site.] Thanks -Randy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From root@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Tue May 5 15:57:42 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/3.07pram8) id AA19596; Tue, 5 May 92 15:57:42 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 May 92 15:57:42 -0700 Message-Id: <9205052257.AA19596@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ v9 #7 (msgs 49-58) Errors-To: cz-request@PRAM.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 5 May 1992 Volume: 9 Issue: 7 First Message: 49 Messages: 10 Topics: (49) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (50) Re: More Suggestions lcline@agora.rain.com (51) Re: More Suggestions gsnow@clark.edu (52) SITREP 11 Data tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (53) Non-Carrier Landing uphsttb@trex.oscs.montana.edu (54) Re: ASW Wish List shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (55) Re: ASW Wish List gsnow@clark.edu (56) Rules Changes tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (57) Volume 9 Index cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (58) 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: Tue 5 May 1992 15:50:26 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (49) Editorial New members added since last issue: mgjblok@cs.vu.nl (Maurice Blok) stb@isbank.is (Steintor Bjarnason) creps@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) sekullbe@athena.mit.edu (Scott E. Kullberg) lcdata@uiuc.edu (Christopher A. Parrinello) The "Troubled Waters" supplement for the miniatures game is out. List price is $10. The 80 page book covers Middle Eastern operations. Most scenarios involve fast patrol boats. About 50 of the pages are Ship Form type material. The remaining 30 are scenario and background material. Two of the scenarios (Battle of Latikia, Battle of Baltim) are recycled from SITREP 5. Someone without FTP access requested that I send them previous volumes. Unfortunately, I lost their request. Could the person in question please resend the request? I promise not to lose it again :-). This issue closes volume 9 and thus includes the usual administrative stuff. Hopefully, I will get around to making the next volume RFC 1153 compatible. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 3:35:26 EDT From: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) Subject: (50) Re: More Suggestions In CZ 9 #6 (Msg. 44) r_dover says: > I also get annoyed that when a unit is launching or landing that it is > often impossible to select the base underneath to issue new orders. > Couldn't we have some way to do this? Usually I have the opposite problem. I try to select the unit taking off and end up getting the base. When this happens I just hit space or backspace (which should select the next unit to the north or south) until I get the unit I want. I guess there just isn't enough resolution to be able to select one of two units which are stacked. > Third and final, for now, why can't we have the full information shown > for detected groups? Why do I have to hit "F" to get ther number of > units and speed? There is enough room for this in the window already > and it slows the game to have to do this each time to see what > strength of reply to the threat is appropriate. When you don't have an exact position on the enemy unit, then not knowing full information is appropriate. I don't know why they don't put that information on the screen when their exact position is known. -- Larry Cline lcline@agora.rain.com C_________ Industrial Graphics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 11:28:03 -0700 From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Subject: (51) Re: More Suggestions r_dover@icrf.ac.uk (Giving Entropy A Hand) writes: |I also get annoyed that when a unit is launching or landing that it is |often impossible to select the base underneath to issue new orders. |Couldn't we have some way to do this? I sometimes find it useful to hit the spacebar, or the backspace (to go in the opposite direction of selection) to select units that are close to each other. Gary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 24 Mar 1992 09:43:07 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (52) SITREP 11 Data What follows are selected items summarized from SITREP 11. The material is presented here by permission of Larry Bond. The AGM-137 Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM) is a newly revealed stealth cruise missile in development. The air-launched version can be carried by A-6E, B-2, B-52, F-16 or F/A-18. The ground launched version (with a range of 270nm) will be fired from a MLRS variant. Other stats: Ph as high as 85%, 1044kg air-launch hang weight, est. 60 damage points, 324kt speed (dist/turn=2.7). The guidance is probably inertial with combination terminal homing (eg IR and mm-wave). The Harpoon ID is now under development. Further information over what was given in SITREP 9 has become available. Stats: range doubled over IC version, Ph 85%, 632kg air-launch hang weight, 45 damage points, 560kt speed (dist/turn=4.7), VLow Cruise, I/TARH guidance, VSmall Target, BOL launch allowed, selectable pop-up, upto 3 preset waypoints and reattack capability. If the missile misses, it flys a cloverleaf search pattern (as a crossing VLow target) in the weapon danger space (see rule 6.6.3). If it finds a target, the reattack is at full Ph. New information about the MiG-31 has been revealed. It is capable of being refueled inflight. The cannon system is the GSh-6-23 23mm rotary cannon (Cannon ATA: 4.0). It has four hardpoints, each of which can carry: 1 big missile (AA-6 or AA-9) or 2 dogfight missiles (AA-8 or AA-11). A brief entry for the ADM-141A Tactical Air Launched Decoy (TALD) is given in Annex G2. SITREP 11 gives further details. It can be traded with a Mk82 bomb in loadouts on a 1:1 basis. The TALD is unpowered and has a glide ratio of 10:1. Its speed can be varried from 250-500kts by changing its glide angle. Example flight profiles include: lob toss from low altitude with range 15nm, 250kt glide from 11km altitude with range 68nm and 400kt glide at 7km altitude with range 25nm. The RF TALD version is a radar decoy that appears to be a small air radar contact (it's true size is VSmall). The Chaff TALD version can lay a 1nm barrier. Multiple chaff TALD can lay a longer chaff barrier. A powered version under development, called the ITALD, has a range of 175nm with a speed of 460kts at 6100m altitude. It also a radar altimeter allowing terrain following flight. One flight profile shows terrain following flight with a pop-up at the end. -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: Sat, 25 Apr 92 15:47:03 -0600 From: uphsttb@trex.oscs.montana.edu (Lee Bruner) Subject: A bug in pc version Summary: (53) Non-Carrier Landing This is an unusual bug I encountered while playing a user built scenario. GIUKAF01.SC1 from 129.130.6.1 I split the carrier from the main group and sent it off alone at max speed to reduce the distance to some aircraft that were going to be short on fuel. Other aircraft which were returning to the carrier group landed on the Wisconsin! Quite a shock at 2:00 am to have the computer tell me 12 intruder A6-E were ready on the Wisconsin. These aircraft were able to take off again, and when they returned they landed on the carrier, which was back with the group. I am running version 1.2 for the PC on a 12 Mhz 286, 1 meg ram with DRDOS 6.0 as the operating system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 12:56:44 -0500 From: shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (James Blieden) Subject: (54) Re: ASW Wish List Comment: slightly edited About junio@tori.twinsun.com (Jun Hamano)'s wish list (v9 msg 42). There actually are 2 (two) ways to findf the range remaining on flying aircraft. On the Macintosh: 1) under the (R)ange circles, there is a fuel radius (minus fuel to base), and I think one for just range. 2) in the unit window, select the group and type (F)ull information. This brings up a window showing the specs on the type of plane AND instead of the types range, the number is replaced with the groups remaining range at current speed and alititude. As to #4 (in the original message), that is why you NEVER join mixed platforms in a group. If you want ships and planes in the same group, land them and use the formation editor for their patrols. Otherwise they should operate separately (but coordinated). As to #3, same reason. NEVER join a base and aircraft. It is not logical, the aircraft should be assigned to the base and then sent on patrol. This allows a more realistic approach and the planes start a patrol a full strength/fuel. I agree with #2, it gives it away. #1 however, can you imagine how SLOW the machine would run if every flying group had a formation, and had to patrol only instide that formation while traveling to a destination. On top of this everone would want to set height for each plane, speed, search patterns, all of this changing from minute to minute. The computer would want some of this fun for its side. Then detection would be have to been computed differently for each plane (different values as opposed to the same just a percentage)... But perhaps it could be done. Just don't try it on a 386sx or SE/Classic. jAMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 11:27:29 -0700 From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Subject: (53) Re: ASW Wish List junio@tori.twinsun.com (Jun Hamano) writes: |5. There should be some way to find out remaining range of an air |unit. The current implementation sometimes allows this if there is an |enemy unit to intercept, but not always. There is a way to find out the remaining range of an aircraft, but its sort of a kludge. Click on the offending aircraft group in the Group window, and then center it in the unit window. Click on the aircraft unit in the unit window, and then type F (or Command F/Alt F/whatever your equivalent) to get a full report on the unit and pull up its specs. The listed aircraft range is the remaining aircrafts range. Gary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 24 Mar 1992 09:45:58 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (56) Rules Changes SITREP 11 contains two rules modifications for the Miniatures game. They are summarized here by permission of Larry Bond. 1. Offensive Jamming - Effects from an offensive jammer aircraft or pod have been characterized in HARPOON by modifying the Ph of radar-guided weapons and reducing enemy radar range to half of normal. These two effects only occured within a certain range from the jammer. In light of Desert Storm, these effects have been increased. All old figures should be revised as follows: double the Ph mod, reduce enemy radar range to one third of normal, double jammer range. The effects are limited by radar horizon. Defensive jammer effects are unchanged. 2. Towed Array Aircraft Detection - This was originally presented as an "experimental rule" in SITREP 6. I don't know if it is "official" now. The new version allows submarines with deployed towed arrays to detect hovering helicopters or turboprop planes within 0.25nm. The aircraft must be at Low or VLow. The detection is not usable for a passive fire control solution. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 5 May 1992 15:49:57 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (57) Volume 9 Index Volume Issue Date Messages Author - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 1 28 January 1992 (1) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (2) Sparrow to MiG Ratio velmeran@u.washington.edu (3) Various dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com (4) Mac v1.01 gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (5) Re: Computer Virus Weapons yuqian@bvc.edu (6) Troubled Waters beacker@mips.com (7) Miniatures Game Update tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 2 5 February 1992 (8) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (9) Top 10 Comments rohde@adcalc.fnal.gov (10) Amiga Status jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (11) Yak-141 tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (12) Scenario Converter junio@dew.twinsun.com (13) GIUK: Rapier yvesb@melair.lockheed.on.ca (14) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (15) Bugs & Complaints gregs@meaddata.com (16) Amiga v1.21 chbrin5@dknkurz1.bitnet 3 24 February 1992 (17) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (18) IOPG stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (19) v1.1 on AmigaDOS 2.04 sinkhole!tlvx!system (20) IOPG: Glidepath to War yvesb@melair.lockheed.on.ca (21) Sub Creep Speeds w.michael.todd@dartmouth.edu (22) Annex H, Part 1 tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 4 9 March 1992 (23) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (24) Creep Speeds fig.citib.com!gjb@fig.citib.com (25) 386 Version? nick.zentena@canrem.com (26) Annex H, Part 2 tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (27) Evading Torpedoes fontana@pavia.infn.it 5 9 April 1992 (28) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (29) FFG-7 & SLQ-32 beacker@mips.com (30) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (31) Torpedo Return Fire lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (32) AJ37 Viggen tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (33) Ukraine Navy junio@tori.twinsun.com (34) Status of Board Game? lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (35) Launched ASW Patrols olds@vab02.larc.nasa.gov 6 24 April 1992 (36) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (37) Re: Status of Board Game rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil (38) Re: Status of Board Game 72330.1244@compuserve.com (39) Torpedo Return Fire dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com (40) Submarine Hunting junio@tori.twinsun.com (41) More Submarine Hunting lcline@agora.rain.com (42) ASW Wish List junio@tori.twinsun.com (43) Aircraft Formation Editor miketodd@coos.dartmouth.edu (44) More Suggestions r_dover@icrf.ac.uk (45) Coordinated ASuW Strikes qxn102@uriacc.bitnet (46) Black Sea Fleet deichman@cisco.nosc.mil (47) SITREP starflt@athena.mit.ed (48) Unpacking PC Scenarios randy@ms.uky.edu 7 5 May 1992 (49) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (50) Re: More Suggestions lcline@agora.rain.com (51) Re: More Suggestions gsnow@clark.edu (52) SITREP 11 Data tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (53) Non-Carrier Landing uphsttb@trex.oscs.montana.edu (54) Re: ASW Wish List shaggy@cs.utexas.edu (55) Re: ASW Wish List gsnow@clark.edu (56) Rules Changes tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (57) Volume 9 Index cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (58) CZ Guidelines cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 5 May 1992 15:49:58 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (58) CZ Guidelines Guidelines for The Convergence Zone Last Update: 6 January 1992 Author: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim - CZ Moderator) Welcome to The Convergence Zone! Goal "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. The Harpoon products include Harpoon, Captain's Edition Harpoon, Computer Harpoon, Harpoon SITREP, and various supplements for the print and computer versions. Naval topics are discussed in so far as they are related to the game or provide useful background. The goal of CZ is interesting discussions and material and just plain fun. Submissions Messages for submission to the mailing list should be sent to "cz@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. A few other items appear under separate names. The complete list is in the file "INDEX". There is also an independent scenario archive run by kxb@math.ksu.edu (Karl R. Buck) on ftp.math.ksu.edu (129.130.6.1) which allows anonymous FTP. The details are on that site in the file "pub/harpoon/00readme". Please be polite and FTP during off peak hours. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * **********