From cz Thu Jul 26 16:59:51 1990 To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #1 (msg 1) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 26 July 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 1 First Message: 1 Messages: 1 Topics: (1) Welcome 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: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 10:30:20 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (1) Welcome Guidelines for The Convergence Zone Last Update: 26 July 1990 Author: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim aka CZ Administrator) 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". All messages are subject to possible rejection or editing by the moderator. Rejection should be pretty rare and only occur 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. Finally, I am looking for an archive site. If anybody has any leads please contact the administrative address. Well, that's all the administrative stuff for now. -ted ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Sat Jul 28 13:59:24 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA21547; Sat, 28 Jul 90 13:59:24 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 13:59:24 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9007282059.AA21547@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #2 (msgs 2-8) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 28 July 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 2 First Message: 2 Messages: 7 Topics: (2) Starting Conversation tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (3) List Membership cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (4) Harpoon Products tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (5) Harpoon History tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (6) Computer Versions dan@engrg.uwo.ca (7) Re: Computer Versions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (8) Captain's Edition uswmrg2!steve@uswat.uswest.com "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 23:27:27 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (2) Starting Conversation Well, now that the list is underway, I thought I would break the ice and start some discusions. Yes, most of the messages are from me, but I don't expect that to continue. I just got a jump on the rest you all, since I am the administrator and no one else even knew the list was operational. So start typing, the lines are open, operators are standing by, etc. :-) -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 23:33:52 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (3) List Membership Currently I have these people on the mailing list: dirkb@hpdmd48.hp.com (Dirk Bodily) dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin) jfd@lanl.gov (John Davis) davisje@crd.ge.com (Jonathan E. Davis) dove@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Daniel L. Dove) edwards@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Jon S. Edwards) beacker@mips.com (Brad Eacker) dh@ferris.cray.com (Dave Holst) djenner@sun.com (Douglas Jenner) tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) yngve@softlab.se (Yngve Larsson) dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au (David J. Low) rabbit@eddie.mit.edu (Warren J. Madden) uswmrg2!steve@uswat.uswest.com (Steve Martin) mccarthy@gomets.enet.dec.com (Mike McCarthy) psychlo@eecs.umich.edu (Psychlo) rossh@umd5.umd.edu (Hollis Ross) rs0@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Bob Slaughter) rwagoner@sun.com (Rick Wagoner) robert.webb@bbs.acs.unc.edu (Robert Webb) ted@cs.utexas.edu (Ted Woodward) There are a couple of others, but I have not gotten mail through to them successfully yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 23:44:41 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (4) Harpoon Products As far as I know this is the current list of products. Please send me any corrections. GDW Games Harpoon (version 3.2 includes new Data Annex) Data Annex 1990-1991 Ship Forms Sub Forms ASW Forms Battles of the Third World War South Atlantic War (scheduled for September) Captain's Edition Harpoon Harpoon SITREP (currently on issue 5) 360 Pacific Inc. Computer Harpoon (version 1.1 for IBM PC) (Macintosh version scheduled for fall) Scenario Editor Battleset 2: North Atlantic Battleset 3: Middle East (scheduled for October) -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 23:49:58 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (5) Harpoon History What do people know about Harpoon's pre-GDW history? Harpoon as published by GDW was the third edition (currently 3.2). I have seen copies of Harpoon II (ie the second edition) at some game conventions. I think it was published by a company called "Adventure Games" or something like that. It was a single booklet with a red and black cover picturing two crewmen in a CIC. Does anyone know anything about the first edition? -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 01:30:37 EDT From: Dan Corrin Subject: Harpoon Mailing List Summary: (6) Computer Versions I would be interested in joining a Harpoon mailing list. Do you know which platforms the Harpoon program runs on? I have only seen it so far for the IBM. -Dan Corrin (dan@engrg.uwo.ca) Dan Corrin dan@engrg.uwo.ca System Manager D.Corrin@uwo.ca Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Unbeliever@uwovax.BITNET University of Western Ontario ...!watmath!julian!engrg!dan London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5B9 (519) 661-3834 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 00:05:14 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (7) Re: Computer Versions The latest information I have is from SITREP #5 (July 1990). The only version of Computer Harpoon available now is for the IBM PC. A Macintosh port is under way, but will not be completed until the fall. Atari, Apple IIgs and Amiga conversions are being worked on, but many technical issues still have to be solved for these versions, so no release data is yet scheduled for these verisions. Anyone know the people at the software place (ie 360 Pacific Inc.) doing the work? -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 13:31:37 -0700 From: Steve Martin Subject: Re: Harpoon Mailing List Summary: (8) Captain's Edition In article <37283@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> you write: >I am thinking about starting a HARPOON mailing list, if there is >sufficient interest. Perhaps, you have lots to say about the game, but >no where to say it. Well here is your chance. > >If started, the mailing list will be called "The Convergence Zone" or >just "CZ". > >The subject of the mailing list would include all HARPOON products: I would be very interested in getting involved with such a mailing list. Please add my name. Also, some friends and I have not yet tried the "Captains Edition" could you comment on this game? Have you played it, and if so what did you think? Thanks, Steve Martin -- Steve Martin | Nothing I say can be held against U S West Marketing Resources Group | Me or my employer! (...uswat.uswest.com!uswmrg2!steve) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Mon Jul 30 10:31:55 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA22461; Mon, 30 Jul 90 10:31:55 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 10:31:55 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9007301731.AA22461@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #3 (msgs 9-14) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 30 July 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 3 First Message: 9 Messages: 6 Topics: (9) Depth Change rabbit@eddie.mit.edu (10) Re: Depth Change tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (11) Rules Versions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (12) New List Members cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (13) PBeM Harpoon randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (14) Mac Version in Beta Test frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk "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: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 10:10:03 EST From: Warren J. Madden Subject: Harpoon Summary: (9) Depth Change Hi! I'm interested in getting on the CZ mailing list. I have most of the Harpoon products (still waiting for the game on the Mac), but I don't get to play too much because of a lack of both time and opponents. Still, I'd like to read about the game. While I've got this going, let me ask a question that has always bugged me about the rules: just what _are_ the right numbers for submarine changes of depth? Are the time increments in Tactical turns (30 sec) or the 10 minute variety? The rules seem to contradict both themselves and the examples. Well, gotta run. May your torpedoes always run true! Warren J. Madden rabbit@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 09:11:40 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (10) Re: Depth Change The correct depth change table (for rules section 4.2.3) as ammended by the errata is: (This change should already be made to 3.1 edition rules.) Depth Move Up Move Down ------------------------------------------------- Surface - 3 (nuclear) / 1 (conventional) Periscope Depth 1 1 Shallow Depth 1 1 Intermediate Depth 1 1 Deep Depth 1 1 Very Deep Depth 1 - The number listed is the number of 30-second Tactical Turns. The sub assumes the new depth at the end of the listed number of movement phases. Subs with nuclear propulsion take longer to submerge due to a lack of special ballast tanks. Example: SSN (nuclear attack sub) plots to submerge on 0700.0. It is in the process of submerging during the movement phases of 0700.0 and 0700.5. At the end of 0701.0 movement phase, it is considered at periscope depth. Example: SS plots to move from Intermediate to Shallow on 1100.0. It is considered to be at Shallow at the end of 1100.0 movement phase. The text of 4.2.3 should also be amended appropriately. -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 09:42:40 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (11) Rules Versions Unfortunately, Harpoon has had a whole lot of errata. Here is a list of all rules versions I know about. Harpoon II: pre-GDW, probably quite different I have never actually read this version Harpoon, version 3.0: original printing from GDW, 1987 Data Annex GDW Errata: updates version 3.0 to 3.1 Harpoon, version 3.1: second printing from GDW, incorporates errata Harpoon, version 3.2: same rules as 3.1, but with 1990 Data Annex Also there have been a number of "official" rules updates in the Harpoon SITREP. (There were also some "experimental" rules too.) Here are the "official" changes: Pilot Issue: Autonomous weapons given the ability to fire in BOTH Planned Fire and Reaction Fire phases as long as ammunition and ROF hold out. Errata for Battles of the Third World War. Issue #1: ARM Loitering Capability. Issue #2: Corrected Line of Sight Charts. Issue #3: Fire Critical Hits from Air Burst weapons are treated as "no effect". (Note that Engineering and Flooding results from Air Bursts are also treated this way according to the errata.) Fire Damage is assessed when the weapon hits. Thereafter rolls for fires (and damage, if it's not put out) are made once each 10-minute intermediate turn (during plotting phase). Flooding damage is not assessed immediately. The rolls for stopping flooding (and damage if it's still leaking) are made once each 10-minute intermediate turn (during plotting phase). Issue #4: Laser Dazzle Weapons. More detailed Tube-Launch Torpedo Rules. Issue #5: Revised Aircraft Dogfight Rules. I recommend players check their rules before playing to make sure everyone agrees what version and data you are playing with. Also, I would strongly recommend version 3.0 owners get the errata. It is FREE if you write to GDW and enclose a stamped self-addressed envelope. It corrects a lot of errors and typos. Getting the new Data Annex is also recommended, though it will cost you. The Pilot Issue of the SITREP is also FREE. All you have to do is write GDW, though from time to time they run out. The Pilot Issue given out is actually not exactly the original pilot issue. It is an updated version, containing more recent product news, but has the same articles. I will try to post the SITREP rules changes as time permits. -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 09:46:19 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (12) New List Members There are three new members of the list: frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (Frank Dunn) gopin@att.com (Alan Gopin) randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Randy J. Ray) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 1990 11:11:48 CDT From: randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Longshot) Subject: (13) PBeM Harpoon I tried a while back to referee Harpoon by e-mail. This met with very little success, partially because I got called away shortly after starting, and partially because the people playing did not know the rules, despite assuring me they had, and the people who claimed to be familiar with the scenarios (taken from the game, since I was testing my system I wanted simple scenarios) were not. Has anyone run a game or three with any success? If so, any tips? Perhaps, with this mailing list, the game will become more familiar to others on the net. Randy -- Randy J. Ray University of Oklahoma, Norman Campus (405)/325-5370 !chinet!uokmax!randy randy@uokmax.uucp randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu "He's not afraid of the judgement. He knows of horrors worse than your Hell." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jul 90 00:50:34 BST (Sun) From: Frank Dunn Subject: Re: Harpoon Mailing List Summary: (14) Mac Version in Beta Test Put me down for the Harpoon mailing list if it takes off. Just got Capt. Ed and am busily punching it out right now. Looks as if there are plenty of other areas that would be amenable to this rules system, the Baltic for one. BTW I'm beta testing 1.11 of the computer game and regularly keep in contact with Larry Bond over RN material. The Mac version is just starting in beta now. Cheers, Frank Dunn London, UK. fdunn@cix fdunn@bix 100012,23 CIS Frank Dunn@MacTel "It must be jelly 'cos jam don't shake like that" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Tue Jul 31 08:17:03 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA23535; Tue, 31 Jul 90 08:17:03 -0700 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 08:17:03 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9007311517.AA23535@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #4 (msgs 15-21) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 31 July 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 4 First Message: 15 Messages: 7 Topics: (15) Introductory Scenario beacker@mips.com (16) PBeM Harpoon - GM Tips davisje@crd.ge.com (17) PBeM and CZ cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (18) Re: Captain's Edition tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (19) Archives cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (20) More New Members cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (21) First Team Scenario tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 11:08:27 MST From: beacker@mips.com (Bradley Eacker) Subject: (15) Introductory Scenario In the intro scenario in the rules, Kinkaid (Spruance class) vs 2 Osa II's, I feel that the real advantage that the Libyan's have is the rules of engagement. I have not run this possibilty but wonder what would happen if the osa's ran straight at the Kinkaid. The Kinkaid would not be allowed to engage due to his orders: "The US ship has standing orders not to fire except in self-defense." The real question is how close could the osa's get before the skipper of the Kinkaid would consider his ship under attack? I am not familiar with the navy regs regarding this, but in the scenario as played in the rule book the osa's don't look like they stand a chance if they don't get in real close. The minimum range for the styx looks to be 5 nm. If the osa's could get within about 8 nm they could get all 8 styx missles off in a single turn and maybe roll back the defenses of the Kinkaid. Is this just my way of reading the capabilities of the crafts or am I missing something that would even out the odds? Brad Eacker (beacker@mips.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jul 90 14:34 EST From: Jonathan E. Davis Subject: (16) PBeM Harpoon - GM Tips I had made a post to rec.games.board many months ago regarding PBeM Harpoon and the lessons learned from those who made the attempt to GM a game. I have an interest in GMing, but wanted to get some feedback from the ongoing games over the net. I'm sorry to hear that Randy's games failed to get off the ground (or deck). This mailing list would probably be a better forum or test bed for a PBeM system for Harpoon. Part of the difficulty would be reconciling the tactical turns with the intermediate turns if one side has made contact while the other has not. The players on the "intermediate" turn side will wonder if the GM has died or something, when they don't get results for a couple weeks or days while the other side in tactical mode is manuevering into position for an attack. Any thoughts on how to handle this discrepancy? How often should turn deadlines be set? Jon Davis davisje@crd.ge.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 14:07:18 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (17) PBeM and CZ I would just like to comment on the relationship between this mailing list and PBeM. I don't think CZ is right forum for actually RUNNING a PBeM game of Harpoon. That is you should not communicate with your players via this list, nor show hidden information on CZ while the game is in progress. After all, if your players subscribe, it is difficult to control access to information. Second, I don't guarantee that I will produce a digest a day. So timely delivery is not assured. I would suggest you set up your own mailings for running a game. But, CZ is the right forum if you want to discuss such games, show the results of a game, analyze the players moves after the fact, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 12:33:02 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (18) Re: Captain's Edition Captain's Edition Harpoon (CE) is pretty much a totally a different game from the "normal" Harpoon. It covers modern naval warfare at a higher scale in terms of time (8 hr turns), distance (60 nm hexes) and command level (players can command several task forces). I hear the computer version also covers events at a higher level. (I have never played the computer version.) CE is also much simpler than Harpoon and as a result much more abstracted and much faster to play. Ships are printed on cards. The cards are kept face down in piles. Each pile represents a task force whose position on the board is kept track of with a counter. The on-board task force status shows it's position, speed and whether it is raditating. Dummies are mixed in with real ships, so it's hard to tell which task force is important. Some task forces might be wholly made of dummies. Ships are rated for sensors, weapons, speed and size. Sensor ratings include air search radar range, surface search radar and sonar rating. Weapons include long-range SAMs, short-range SAMs, point defense, long-range SSMs, short-range SSMs, guns (or torpedos on subs) and ASW. Each weapon type is abstracted as a single factor which represents the number of die rolls allowed on a table. Ranges are generally standardized (eg long-range SSMs have a range of 3-hexes). The combat system can best be illustrated with an example of an SSM attack on a task force. The attacker fires his missiles. Each firing ship places one missile counter with a value equal to the number of missile factors it is expending. The defender totals his long range SAMs. He then makes that many rolls. Each hit scored reduces one factor from one of the incoming missile counters. Now the defender lays out his ships, grouping them in pairs. The attacker places surviving counters on the target ship cards. The defender now may fire short-range SAMs. Each ship may only fire it's short-range SAMs at a single incoming missile counter directed at it or the ship paired with it. Each rolled hit reduces a counter by one factor. Finally, each ship may fire it's point defense at missiles targeted on itself. Each rolled hit reduces a counter by one factor. After that, all surviving missiles roll and possibly score hits on ships. The hits are marked against the hull rating. Damaged ships loose some weapon systems. When the hull is completely marked off (there is a record sheet), the ship sinks. Aircraft come in two varieties: patrol and tactical. The patrol aircraft stay on station trying to detect things. Their current patrol station is represented by a plastic plane model. The tactical aircraft appear to attack things. Air-to-air combat, CAP, and in-flight refueling are all possible. The game is very quick to play. Even the largest scenarios play in a few hours. The rules are programmed instruction with a scenario to play after each section of the rules. The graphics and presentation are good. The rules do have a few ambiguities in them, which I have written to Larry Bond about. I think it's a fun game and simulates quite a bit of modern naval warfare in amazingly simple rules. It definitely is not as realistic as normal Harpoon. On the other hand, you don't have to know what a SPS-49 is either. It's also nice for the normal Harpoon player when you want to play something simpler or see the larger scale events in a naval campaign. It is simple and fast enough that you can get your non-wargaming friends to play it and maybe convert them into wargamers. -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 13:11:57 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (19) Archives Due to the kindness of Dan Corrin , we now have an archive location. After each volume is complete, it along with an index will be placed on "sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca" (129.100.4.12) for access by anonymous FTP. The CZ archive volumes will appear under the "pub/cz" directory in compressed format. There is nothing there now, because the first volume is not complete yet. When the archives have something in them, please be polite and don't FTP from 08:00 to 18:00 US Eastern time during a workday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 13:59:31 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (20) More New Members Here are some more new members (now upto 27!): johnh@pram.cs.ucla.edu (John Heidemann) mwe@sundog.caltech.edu (System) lord_zar@ucrmath.ucr.edu (Wayne Wallace) I actually don't think that "System" is the real name of the person using the account. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 14:50:26 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (21) First Team Scenario The First Team Scenario (included with Harpoon) is interesting because it presents the American player with a lot of choices about how to attack. The basic situation is a carrier air wing against a Soviet surface group consisting of the Frunze and escorts. I am wondering what choices people have made about the aircraft ordnance and what tactics they have used in this scenario. (eg, how much air defense suppression do you do with HARMs?) Beyond just this scenario, what aircraft ordnance and tactics are effective, in general, in a high threat, tough anti-air situation? -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Wed Aug 1 09:49:49 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA24359; Wed, 1 Aug 90 09:49:49 -0700 Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 09:49:49 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008011649.AA24359@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #5 (msgs 22-26) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 1 August 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 5 First Message: 22 Messages: 5 Topics: (22) Battles of WWIII Errata tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (23) New Dogfight Rules tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (24) Scenario Musings randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (25) Computer Harpoon randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (26) New Members cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 08:54:41 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (22) Battles of WWIII Errata Here is the errata for the "Battles of the Third World War" supplement summarized from the SITREP Pilot Issue. Tattletale Scenario HMS Ariadne is a Leander Batch 3B class ship ("Broad Beamed" Leander). Add HMCS Huron (Canadian Iroquois class) to the Blue forces. (STANAVFORLANT is always composed of 5 vessels: US, UK, FRG, Canadian and Dutch, in addition to an auxiliary.) Incoming Mail Scenario HMS Andromeda is a Leander Batch 3A FF class ship ("Sea Wolf" Leander). Lone Wolf Scenario The Mirka class FFL is a Mirka I. All relevant data for ships and aircraft needed for the scenarios is in the 1990 Data Annex. (Some were missing from the 1987 Data Annex.) -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 11:13:43 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (23) New Dogfight Rules Here are the new Dogfight rules summarized from SITREP 5. They are described as "official" changes to Harpoon rules, though Larry Bond notes that "they can be changed at anytime". This is part of an ongoing effort to provide links between Harpoon and the Air Superiority game series. IMHO, there are a few ambiguities as presented, so I have added some comments in brackets. 6.2.2.3 Dogfight Change the distance at which a dogfight can be declared [and kept up] from 3 nm to 5 nm. [Targets are switched from turn to turn only per the target selection procedure given below.] 6.2.2.3.1 Gaining Attack Position in a Dogfight Add the following: All aircraft plotting to enter or remain in a dogfight can attack and are subject to attack. Dogfights are resolved in the Resolution Phase, in three steps: Target Selection, Attack Position Determination, Attack Resolution. Target Selection Each aircraft in the dogfight is represented by a counter. [Actually it might be easier to use two sets of counters or even a deck of normal playing cards.] One player picks targets and then the other player. [If only one player has declared a "dogfight", then only he can select targets.] The selection procedure goes as follows. Mix all enemy aircraft counters. Mix all friendly aircraft counters in another pile. The enemy draws two of his aircraft at random. The friendly player draws two of his aircraft at random. The friendly player decides which of his aircraft will attempt to attack which enemy aircraft. Only one can be assigned to each enemy aircraft at this time. Repeat this process until one side or the other runs out of aircraft. If the enemy runs out, then the friendly player may assign his remaining aircraft any way he wishes. However, players should keep in mind that only two actual attacks can be made on a single target in a single Resolution Phase. If the friendly player runs out of aircraft first, the remaining enemy aircraft are safe from attack this Resolution Phase. Record target assignments. Attack Position Determination Make a D100 Position die roll to determine if a plane can get a shot off at its target. Record the number rolled. Use the Missile formula in the rules, but change the Gun Shot formula to (2 + Atk - Def) x 0.1. The number rolled is compared against both formulas and the available weapons to determine what types of attack can be made. Remember, non-dogfight missiles have their Atk factor halved in a dogfight. [This changes the example in the rules to a 45% chance of getting a gun shot. The missile shot is now 30% better and assumes an ATA missile rating of 3.] Attack Resolution Attacks are not simultaneous. Planes, that have sucessfully gained attack position with an available weapon, attack in descending order of Position die rolls. [Only exactly equal die rolls attack simultaneously.] Only two planes can attack any one target in a single Resolution Phase. If more than two gain attack position on a single target, only the two highest rolling planes can attack [unless one (or both) are shot down first, in which case the next (two) highest gets a chance and so on]. When planes attack, they can use any one available weapon, that they have the position to use, against their target. 6.2.2.3.3 Ending a Dogfight Add the following: After a dogfight, each aircraft has its position, course and speed determined individually as follows. Subtract (D6 * 50) kts from starting speed (minimum of stall speed). Heading is (D6 * 60) degrees. [Position is along a course from the center of the dogfight along the determined heading.] Planes will be (D6 + 4) nm from the center of the dogfight. All planes will be at the same altitude level as at the start of the dogfight. -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, 31 Jul 1990 11:36:46 CDT From: randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Longshot) Subject: (24) Scenario Musings 1) In the Gulf of Sidra I don't know what would happen if the Osas came in close. Everyone I've played or refereed were too afraid of being that close to try. However, while it may not have been reflected in the scenario notes, the U.S. has a policy of only allowing potenially hostile contacts within a certain distance of U.S. ships. Before the Osas got to 8 nm, a skipper would send a warning shot from his Mk 45/127mm over their bows. However, if the Osa commander plans his attacks well, he can still roll back the destroyer's defences. The first time I played this scenario, I controlled the destroyer, and lost heinously. Went to the bottom, and no Osas hit to show for it. Unlikely, but it happens. 2) The First Team Although I have not played this one yet, looking over it, I would recommend a three-wave attack. Wave one would soften up their sensors with HARM, and be supported by EA-6B. The second wave would consist of the Harpoons, and be fired from range. The third would be the close-in weapons, and also be supported by EA-6Bs. Obviously, until I get the time to sit down and evaluate each weapon and it's effectiveness, I cannot be very specific, but this sounds like it would have the best chance. Randy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 1990 11:51:32 CDT From: randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Longshot) Subject: (25) Computer Harpoon This game is, in my opinion, wonderful. It sounds very much like the Captain's Edition is similar in scale. Your forces are grouped into task forces, but you can separate this into individual ships if you wish. AA defences are handled automatically, and you can also set it so that air patrols are done automatically. Full data is available on the ships and planes and subs (along with very impressive graphic pictures), and performance data is available on the weapons. One thing I have noticed that irritates me is that when an air strike is organized against a target, the strike will make it's attack at maximum range and turn back to go home. It can usually strike only 20%-30% of the surface force, which usually means overkill on the weapons allocation. Best solution for this is to group aircraft in pairs or some such, and space them a few minutes apart. You can't attack individual units, even when you have a fix on them. You can only attack groups. In one scenario, I kept detecting an Il-28, but the game would not let me attack it, because it was a sub-group to an airbase, and therefore not an individual group in itself. Overall, very playable. I have barely read the rules, and I am doing fine, so basic knowledge of Harpoon will help you a great deal. Worth the money, I think. I got it at a software house for 25% of list. Randy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 09:33:09 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (26) New Members Three new members have been added to the mailing list: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) rogers@pnet51.cts.com (Bob Rogers) terryr@cse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) Some of you may recognize Terry as he is a frequent poster to the rec.games.board newsgroup and has been published in various wargame magazines. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Thu Aug 2 10:00:54 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA25271; Thu, 2 Aug 90 10:00:54 -0700 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 10:00:54 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008021700.AA25271@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #6 (msgs 27-32) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 2 August 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 6 First Message: 27 Messages: 6 Topics: (27) Re: Scenario Musings tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (28) Re: Computer Harpoon dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au (29) Re: Scenario Musings d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (30) Re: Computer Harpoon d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (31) Re: PBeM Harpoon & CZ davisje@crdgw2.crd.ge.com (32) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 10:06:16 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (27) Re: Scenario Musings In (24) Scenario Musings, randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Longshot) writes: > 2) The First Team > > Although I have not played this one yet, looking over it, I would > recommend a three-wave attack. Wave one would soften up their > sensors with HARM, and be supported by EA-6B. The second wave would > consist of the Harpoons, and be fired from range. The third would be > the close-in weapons, and also be supported by EA-6Bs. I will admit right off that I haven't played this one either. Thus, you should consider what follows as speculation. I think the HARMs ought to be timed to arrive at about the same time as other attacks, rather than as a "separate wave". If fired separately, they may be rendered much less effective by shutting down the targeted radars. Also, they are subject to being shot down, themselves, and you rarely have enough HARMs, that they present the overwhelming numbers often required to get through a tough SAM screen. Therefore, IMHO, it's best to roll them in with the other attacks. They ought to arrive when it is necessary for the defender to shoot at other ordnance. Though, this is tricky with the speed differential. The defender needs his radars to target and direct his SAMs. But he risks loosing his radars if he keeps them on. Even if no HARMs get through, you have made his SAMs less effective, by making them shoot at the HARMs rather than your "real" ordnance. The classic "shootout" occurs when the ship launches a SAM at an aircraft which launches a HARM back at the ship. It's a race to see if the HARM can blow up the SAM director before the SAM hits the plane. In addition, you should throw in the Prowlers to cut his radar ranges and give him the least amount of reaction time. The down side of all this is that it takes quite a bit of planning and precise timing. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 9:52:43 CST From: David J. Low Subject: (28) Re: Computer Harpoon Comment: message reference headers edited In (25) Computer Harpoon, randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Longshot) writes: > 1) One thing I have noticed that irritates me is that when an air > strike is organized against a target, the strike will make it's attack at > maximum range and turn back to go home. It can usually strike only 20%-30% > of the surface force, which usually means overkill on the weapons allocation. > Best solution for this is to group aircraft in pairs or some such, and space > them a few minutes apart. > > 2) You can't attack individual units, even when you > have a fix on them. You can only attack groups. > > 3) In one scenario, I kept > detecting an Il-28, but the game would not let me attack it, because it was a > sub-group to an airbase, and therefore not an individual group in itself. I'm a player of 360's _Harpoon_ simulator, so here are some hints for Randy and anyone else experiencing the same annoying problems: 1) When making an air strike (in my opinion, the only "way to go"), DON'T attack when you get the first option. Instead, cancel the attack window and set a path for the air group directly towards the target. You can then attack in your own good time by simply ordering the strike (_F1_ on the IBM). The software is simply _allowing_ you to attack at the first opportunity - of course, you don't _have_ to attack then!! 2) Once units in a surface group have been detected, they _can_ be individually targeted. However, depending on the degree of contact (bearing only, visual, P/A sonar, etc...) you may have to set weapon activation distances or the like. Note that it's no good "knowing" that there are 20 units in that Russkie group; you must actually have a current solution on any desired target. Air units are handled differently - you can only attack groups of aircraft. However, for the most part this is all you want since different platforms are assigned to different groups, even if they are moving together. 3) If you want to attack a unit which is associated with a base, for example, simply use a variation of note 1) above - set a path for the attacking units directly towards the target, and when they are close enough switch to the Unit Map and guide your aircraft manually towards the target plane. When you are within AAM range, your aircraft will fire (and within seconds you will hear the wonderful sound of an AEW platform falling towards the ocean). Personally, I think that 360 have done an excellent job of bringing Harpoon to the PC. In particular, I was impressed by their customer service - they mail me the updates (four 5.25" disks each time) at their expense, which is pretty good considering my Australian location! They also seem committed to continual improvements and backup - a pleasant change from most! David. [Adelaide, Australia - home of the Submarine Project] P.S. I just realized that no one would recognize the "way to go" quote - it's the current recruitment catch-phrase of the Royal Australian Air Force (...love them Hornets...) -- ___ ~~ | David J. Low / /-----^-/~~~ "I'll be back" | Atmospheric Group, Dept. Physics / /-------/~ -- Arnie | Adelaide University, Sth.Australia <__/ | E-Mail: dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 10:24:42 MET DST From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se Subject: (29) Re: Scenario Musings Comment: message reference headers edited In (24) Scenario Musings, randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Longshot) writes: > 2) The First Team > > Although I have not played this one yet, looking over it, I would recommend a > three-wave attack. Wave one would soften up their sensors with HARM, and be > supported by EA-6B. The second wave would consist of the Harpoons, and be > fired from range. The third would be the close-in weapons, and also be > supported by EA-6Bs. Obviously, until I get the time to sit down and evaluate > each weapon and it's effectiveness, I cannot be very specific, but this sounds > like it would have the best chance. The trouble with letting the HARM's go first is that their range is only 40nm, while the SA-N-6 onboard the Frunze has a range of 50nm. A possible way of offsetting that is to go in low, pop up and launch and get out of there as fast as possible. (I have only the 1987 data annex book here, and I don't know the radar horizon for large ship and a/c at low altitude. If it is less than 40nm, then this approach is ok.) On the other hand, an article from 1988, either in 'Military Technology' or 'Internatinal Defence Review' about the SA-10 (Land version of SA-N-6) claimed that the missile had an LD/SD radar and could engage targets that were in radar shadow from the launcher. So if the Frunze know that the planes were just below the horizon, they could be in for a rude surprise. In any case, I think that a more efficient approach would be to launch the Harpoons first and have the planes with HARM's arrive just when the Harpoons come in range of the SAMs of the taskforce. That way the AA crews would have the choice between firing at the incoming Harpoons and having their radars and directors blown up, or holding their fire and letting the Harpoons attack unhindered. -bertil- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 11:00:49 MET DST From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se Subject: (30) Re: Computer Harpoon Comment: message reference headers edited In (25) Computer Harpoon, randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Longshot) writes: > One thing I have noticed that irritates me is that when an air > strike is organized against a target, the strike will make it's attack at > maximum range and turn back to go home. It can usually strike only 20%-30% > of the surface force, which usually means overkill on the weapons allocation. The method I use against this is to put the whole a/c group on course straight at the enemy surface group (with 'set course', not 'attack'). Then, when they are in range of the whole group (preferably before they are in the AA envelope :-), I use 'attack' to launch all weapons. > You can't attack individual units, even when you > have a fix on them. You can only attack groups. In one scenario, I kept > detecting an Il-28, but the game would not let me attack it, because it was a > sub-group to an airbase, and therefore not an individual group in itself. Such units don't show up on the group plot, just on the unit plot, so choose the unit plot and use space and backspace to find it. When you have found it, look at the location of the red rectangle that shows the unit plot's area to find out where it is, and launch a 'patrol' mission to within a few nm's of it. When the fighters reach it you will get a 'firing AAM's' message, and the 'invisible' unit is history. I have a few gripes about the Harpoon on computer. Stuff like fighters on patrol using the 'formation' display trying to attack everything that flies on the whole map, and then discovering that they can't catch it (due to speed or fuel), so they fly home and *land*. It is a real nuisance to have your whole airforce suckered out on wild goose chases and then going home to land, and being out of comission for one hour. And the thing I miss most is that it isn't possible to play against a human opponent, using the computer as referee. It might sound as I don't like it, but I do. Compared with all other computer games I have seen it is (IMHO) the best. But since it is the computer version of Harpoon, I have much higher demands upon it than on any 'ordinary' computer game. BTW, Have anyone out there had trouble with the computer mixing units? (fighters listed on the airbase list, EW flights trying to attack enemy subs or fighters or surface units and strange stuff like that.) -bertil- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Aug 90 09:41 EST From: Jonathan E. Davis Subject: (31) Re: PBeM Harpoon & CZ Comment: message reference headers edited In (16) PBeM Harpoon - GM Tips, I wrote: > This mailing list would probably be a better forum or test bed for > a PBeM system for Harpoon. In (17) PBeM and CZ, cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu wrote: > I would just like to comment on the relationship between this mailing > list and PBeM. I don't think CZ is right forum for actually RUNNING a > PBeM game of Harpoon. > > But, CZ is the right forum if you want to discuss such games, show the > results of a game, analyze the players moves after the fact, etc. What I meant by my statement was that CZ is a forum for finding experienced and interested individuals for participating in a PBeM game of Harpoon and Discussing the results in order to gain a level of expertise in running introductory scenarios before tackling more ambitious ones. I agree with Ted's statement that CZ is entirely inappropriate for running a game. That would be conductly independently via e-mail due to hidden intelligence aspects of the game. Jon Davis davisje@crd.ge.com -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 08:37:30 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (32) Editorial One new member was added this issue: joe@umbc5.umbc.edu (Joseph Poole) Certainly, randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Randy Ray) gets the prize for having stimulated the most discusion so far. Four articles this issue are related to messages he posted before. Though this mailing list is new, I would like to solicit comments on it. Readers should feel free to make any comments or suggestions. While I may not implement all suggestions, I will certainly take them under consideration. Soon, I will attempt to introduce more automation into the production of these issues. Before I spend too much time setting up the system, I want to be sure people are satisfied with the format. -ted (disguised as cz-request) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Fri Aug 3 09:30:01 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA25967; Fri, 3 Aug 90 09:30:01 -0700 Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 09:30:01 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008031630.AA25967@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #7 (msg 33) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 3 August 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 7 First Message: 33 Messages: 1 Topics: (33) Captain's Edition Errata tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 10:06:49 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (33) Captain's Edition Errata There are a number of errors and typos in Captain's Edition Harpoon. Currently, there is no "official" errata for the game, though Larry Bond is working on one which will hopefully come out in a future SITREP. I wrote a letter to Larry Bond about the errors I knew about in the game. What follows is a compilation of responses by Larry Bond about the game and my personal opinion. It is in no way considered "official". A separate message will contain suggested new rules. (TF = Task Force) Data Cards 1. The silhouette of the Bunker Hill is wrong. [The Bunker Hill is a VLS ship, but the silhouette shows Mk26 launchers.] 2. As mentioned in the rules, the Spruance should have a hull rating of 2. 3. The Ivan Rogov ships should have a speed of 2. 4. The Amphibious ships should have a speed of 2. Map 1. Change the 1712/1812 hexside into an all land hexside. [As printed, you can go from 1712 to 1812 to 1713 without transiting an all land hexside, even though there is plainly no water connection.] 2. Change the 1714/1813 hexside into an all land hexside. [same problem] Game Reference Chart 1. Add to the previous detection modifier description: "in current or previous turn". Roster Pad 1. The Nimitz should have 6 hull boxes. 2. The Knox should have 1 short range SSM box. Captain's Rules 1. Movement (p.3): Sometimes a moving TF is required to expend an additional movement point to get another attempt at some activity (eg pursuit after a gun battle, visual search). Other activites of this type not already mentioned in the rules include: ESM roll, sonar roll, torpedo attack, ASW attack. Remember, this only applies to a moving TF and not to any other type of unit. 2. Maximum Speed (p.3): TFs start a scenario at speed 0. 3. Combining Task Forces (p.3): When combining TFs, retain the highest speed. [Players would combine fast TFs with a slow one consisting solely of dummies and take the slower speed to lower the chance of sonar detection.] 4. Defensive Deployment (p.5): A TF with an odd number of ships must place an unpaired ship. [Allowing threesomes only when there are an odd number of ships created some anomalies.] 5. Missile Attack Procedure (p.6): All missiles from a single ship in a single attack on a TF are represented as a single counter. 6. SAM Defense Diagram (p.6): In the example, substitute O.H. Perry for Arleigh Burke and Spruance for Iowa. [None of the original ships have short range SAMs.] 7. Surface Search Radar (p.8): TFs may start a scenario radiating. [I recommend making up some speed 0 counters for the game.] 8. Sonar (p.8): The +1 modifier for previous detection only applies, if the target was detected in the current or previous turn. This also applies if only part of the target TF was detected previously (ie the current TF was combined with/split from a previously detected one). As noted on the Game Reference Chart, a roll of 6 always fails. [Players interpreted the previous detection modifier too loosely.] 9. Sonar Example (p.9): The designations in the diagram should be switched. TF A does not start in the sonar range of TF 1. In the last paragraph, sonar detection for TF 1 is not a certainty, because it would fail on a roll of 6. In the last paragraph, the base sonar rating of TF A should be 4, not 3. 10. Detection (p.10): Submarines may not use visual detection. [The periscope is not really an effective search sensor.] 11. Torpedoes (p.11): Regardless of how many screen ships are attacked (and survive), only one can counterattack the submarine. 12. ASW Attacks (p.11): If an enemy submarine TF is moving and is detected in the same hex as friendly forces, then one ASW capable surface ship and all ASW capable planes in the hex can attack it. This is true, unless the only ASW capable friendly forces in the hex are submarines, in which case, one friendly submarine may attack it. If a friendly TF is moving and detects an enemy submarine in the same hex, the same limits apply to the moving TF. Thus, if the friendly TF is not composed of submarines, one of the ASW capable ships and all the ASW capable planes in the TF may attack the enemy submarine. If the friendly TF is a composed of submarines, only one of the friendly submarines may attack the enemy submarine. [Note, the only way ASW capable planes could be moving with a TF is to use carrier ASW patrol planes acting as tactical aircraft via the Crossover Mission rule.] 13. Torpedo Example (p.11): The Akulas have a torpedo rating of 5, not 4. Therefore, the Akulas should get an extra roll each. The arrows in the diagram represent hits. There should only be one arrow from Nimitz to Akula-1. 14. Patrol Aircraft (p.12): Patrol aircraft start scenarios at their bases (ie not on the board). If no base is specified in the scenario setup, any friendly base of the appropriate type may be chosen. Each patrol aircraft is based at a particular airbase. The radius for an aircraft is measured from the base it is operating from. When moving a carrier, players should be careful not to move the carrier outside the radii of patrol planes based on it. [I find moving the plane counter with the plane model unwieldy. I recommend making up some patrol plane ID counters and some base name counters. Place the aircraft counter under the ID counter rather than under the plane model. Place the base name counter under the ID counter to show where the plane is operating from.] 15. Detection (p.12): The ESM range of 3 hexes is, of course, 2 greater than that of surface ships. Patrol aircraft using sonar detection may only attempt to detect targets in the same hex. [Patrol aircraft usually use short range sonobouys.] 16. Detecting Aircraft (p.12): Aircraft and Soviet long range missiles can be detected at a range equal to the non-zero ASR rating. Other missiles can only be detected in the same hex. [Seaskimming missiles cannot be detected far away.] 17. SAM Attacks (p.13): Long range SAMs have a maximum range of 1. Thus, patrol aircraft can only be attacked when in the same or adjacent hex. In an adjacent hex, the ship with the highest long range SAM strength is used. In the same hex, the ship with the highest combined short and long range SAM strength is used. The combined strength is used to attack patrol planes in the same hex. [Before, the range of long range SAMs was equivalent to ASR range, which is much too great.] 18. Air Search Radar Diagram (p.13): The shaded portion indicates ASR coverage. Given the changes above, TF 2 and 3 should be moved closer to TF 1, and we must assume Soviet TF A is using long range SSMs. The shaded portion must be adjusted appropriately. It was not correct even for the old assumptions. 19. Attacks by Aircraft (p.13): When there is a choice of anti-surface ordnance, players should record what type is being carried. Bombing attacks may be carried out using the same procedure used by tactical aircraft. In this case, the patrol plane is considered to be equivalent to a one plane flight. The ordnance load may be changed each time the plane's movement counter is drawn. [I recommend making some ordnance counters (None, Bombs, SR ASM, LR ASM, Fuel). Place the appropriate ordnance counter under the plane's ID counter. The fuel counter is used for A-6s being used as tankers.] 20. Movement (p.14): At the start of a turn, place all tactical aircraft at a base in the "Ready Aircraft" section of the base display. When a flight performs a mission, place it in the "Flown Aircraft" section. Tactical aircraft generally do not have to show their path on the mapboard unless they potentially pass close enough to a radiating unit to be detected (ie 4 hexes from a NATO patrol plane or radiating TF, 3 hexes from a radiating Soviet TF, or 2 hexes from a Soviet patrol plane.) Airplanes from more than one base may participate in a single attack. It costs one additional hex in radius for each additional base involved in the attack for all participating aircraft. Wherever the paths of the various aircraft groups coincide, the planes are considered to be traveling together, should they be attacked by CAP or SAMs. 21. ASM Attacks (p.14): When making an ASM attack on a TF, potentially more than one missile counter may be placed. The total number of ships in the defending TF is the number of "groups". Each plane may contribute its ASM strength to one group. All missile factors in the same group are combined into one missile counter. Zero strength groups do not produce a missile counter. When the missiles reach the target TF, only one missile counter can be placed on any single ship. [The rules were quite vague here. Some players claimed each plane could place a missile counter, which then allowed so many counters to be placed that short range SAMs are unfairly overwhelmed.] 22. Bomb Attacks (p.15): All planes attacking a single ship are considered to be a single counter for purposes of short range SAM targets. [Before, some ships could only shoot down four planes (ie one physical counter) despite having very high short range SAM strength. Also, sometimes players would purposely fly one plane flights to overwhelm the short range SAMs.] 23. CAP (p.15): CAP planes wishing to use radar are not actually considered to be using it until the carrier TF counter is radiating. Therefore, if the carrier TF is not radiating at the start of the turn, the CAP cannot use radar until the carrier TF movement counter is drawn and it is changed to radiating side. In the last paragraph, it should say that shot down AND ABORTED aircraft never get to fire their missiles. 24. CAP Example (p.16): The shaded area represents the CAP radar coverage. Three hexes on the right side of the diagram should not be shaded. 25. Commonly Asked Questions (p.16): If a patrol aircraft detects an enemy TF, ANY tactical aircraft in range can attack (not just land-based ones). Captain's Briefing 1. Aerial Tankers (p.2): For A-6s, this is considered to be a type of Crossover Mission. [If using ordnance counters for patrol planes, use the fuel counter for an A-6 acting as a tanker. This replaces all normal ordnance.] 2. Capturing Bases (p.2): If a base falls, all tactical and patrol aircraft based there are eliminated. 3. Aircraft Crossover Missions (p.3): Players change aircraft status at the start of a turn. Tactical planes used in a patrol role should have IDs and plastic models assigned and a movement counter added. Patrol planes used in a tactical role are removed from the board and placed in the appropriate base display. [For tactical planes used in a patrol role, place initial ordnance and base counters under the ID counter.] Patrol planes operating as tactical aircraft may join CAP missions, if they have non-zero ASR ratings. Such planes don't actually participate in combat should an intercept occur. [This allows the E-2C to provide airborne early warning for carrier CAP. If it performed this function as a patrol plane, it's pretty obvious where the carrier is.] Patrol planes operating as tactical aircraft may conduct ASW attacks, if they have a non-zero ASW rating. But players should keep in mind the restrictions in the ASW rules, which limit attacks to enemy submarines in the same hex. Each plane attacks a detected submarine individually using the same procedure used by patrol planes. 4. Surface Encounter Scenario (p.4): There is only one Soviet TF. 5. Cruise Missile Attack Scenario (p.4): Add a movement counter for the submarine. When it is drawn, it can attack. If it foregoes its first attack, it can make a combined attack on the second draw with missile strength 5. 6. Hunter Killer Scenario (p.4): The Soviet line should be anchored on hex 0816, not 1816. 7. Sink the Nimitz Scenario (p.5): The Soviet line should be anchored on hex 0816, not 1816. NATO forces may not enter hexes 0115, 0215 or 0316. [Before, NATO forces can simply go around Iceland to the northwest and avoid the Soviet forces entirely.] 8. Support Mission (p.5): Delete the material in parenthesis. [Dummies are automatically part of any scenario past number 4 anyway.] 9. Midway 2000 (p.6): The NATO line should be anchored on 1321, not 1421. 10. Bases (p.7): If the Soviet player is informed that the NATO player has drawn 1-4, the Soviet player must use the "alternate" descriptions, if any. 11. O.H. Perry (p.10): The description should mention the ship is also equipped with SAMs. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Mon Aug 6 09:26:42 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA26886; Mon, 6 Aug 90 09:26:42 -0700 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 09:26:42 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008061626.AA26886@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #8 (msgs 34-38) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 6 August 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 8 First Message: 34 Messages: 5 Topics: (34) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (35) New CE Rules tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (36) Unilateral Detection randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (37) GIUK: Dawn Patrol randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (38) Re: CE Errata tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 16:19:07 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (34) Editorial New members added since issue 6: sandia!marms@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Mike Arms) kevin@clearpoint.com (Kevin Campagna) As you have probably noticed, once in a while I put in "summary" fields into message headers. This is done when I don't think the subject line is really descriptive or when the subject line won't fit into the topic summary column. -ted (disguised as CZ admin) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 16:07:12 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (35) New CE Rules Here are some suggested rules for Captains's Edition Harpoon. Most of this comes from a letter I wrote to Larry Bond and his responses. I am still developing an idea Larry Bond had for a minefield rule. These rules are in no way considered "official". (TF = Task Force) Interceptors 1. Make up some CAP and DLI counters. There should be six DLI counters, each labeled with the name of an airbase: Bodo, Keflavik, Leuchars, Nimitz, Sevromorsk, Tbilisi. There should eight CAP counters, each labeled with the name of an airbase and one each for the NATO and Soviet Airborne Tankers. The CAP counters should be in black on the front and red ("radiating" side) on the back. 2. When players designate DLI (or CAP), the aircraft counters should be placed beneath the appropriate DLI (or CAP) counter. CAP counters should be placed with the appropriate side face up. 3. The opponent may not examine the contents of a DLI or CAP stack, until those forces attack or are detected. [Before, players had too much knowledge about enemy DLI and CAP dispositions.] Rebasing 1. At the start of a turn, aircraft may change bases. Aircraft may change to any friendly base (of the appropriate type) within double their radius from their current base. 2. Planes changing bases cannot fly missions for one whole turn. This represents the time it takes to setup their support facilities. Tactical aircraft should be placed in the "Flown Aircraft" section of their new base. Patrol aircraft should be removed from the board and their movement counter removed from the movement cup. 3. In the following turn, these aircraft are available for missions. Place tactical aircraft in the "Ready Aircraft" section of the base display. Put patrol aircraft movement counters back in the movement cup. [If you are using base counters, place the new base counter under the patrol ID counter. Players can now evacuate a base in danger of falling.] Helicopter OTH Targeting 1. Some helicopters are equipped with surface search radars. Certain ships have this type of helicopter permanently assigned to them. These ships are Bunker Hill, Belknap, Spruance, O.H. Perry, Knox, Tbilisi, Kirov, Kara, Sovremennyy and Udaloy. If these ships have not suffered half damage, they are capable of operating helicopters. TFs which include one of more of these ships may attempt Over the Horizon (OTH) targeting once during their move. 2. After entering a new hex, a TF may announce it is attempting OTH targeting. Either the same hex or one adjacent hex may be detected by helicopter surface search radar. A task force which has a speed of zero may also attempt OTH targeting of either its hex or an adjacent hex. 3. Because these helicopters are used for other duties and becuase of their limited endurance, this detection stays in effect only until the task force moves to another hex. If not entering another hex, the detection lasts until the end of its turn. 4. The TF does not have to radiate to use OTH targeting. [The 1990 Data Annex shows US CV helicopters as having their SSR removed to put other gear in.] Electronic Warfare Aircraft 1. Add another 4 plane tactical aircraft counter to the Nimitz and add one aircraft box to the Nimitz aircraft display. The new counter represents the EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft. The EA-6B uses the A-6 data card with the following modifications: SSR=1, no ASMs, no bombs, radius=8, def=3. 2. When one or more EA-6Bs accompany a tactical aircraft attack, the Prowlers may attempt to jam enemy radars. Total the number of EA-6Bs in the attack and add 2 to get the final EW strength. Roll one die. If the roll is equal to or less than the final EW strength, the EA-6Bs have succeeded in jamming enemy radars. 3. The effect of jamming is to make SAMs fired against the aircraft in this raid miss on a roll of 4 (normally that roll would hit). It also effects long range SAM fire against long range ASMs launched by the aircraft. 4. The Prowler aircraft may be attacked in the same manner as other strike aircraft in the attack, except in a bombing attack they are not actually placed on a ship card (and thus cannot be hit by short range SAMs during the bombing attack). Destroying the Prowlers only effects future aircraft availability and does not cancel any jamming currently in effect. 5. Each task force which fires SAMs at the aircraft should roll separately for jamming. [I am not sure what type of Soviet EW aircraft are based at Sevromorsk. Jamming reduced expected SAM hits from 2/3 per roll to 1/2. Adding 1 to SAM rolls makes it 1/3 per roll. I thought this was too powerful.] -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 1990 14:37:20 CDT From: randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Longshot) Subject: A Good Question Summary: (36) Unilateral Detection Let's back up to the question of what to do in PBeM or even in blind play, when one side detects the other, without the other detecting. In PBeM, this is not too hard to keep secret, it just makes the blind side suspicious when their messages from the ref become farther between. In a refereed blind game, it would be harder. Consider the implications of ESM detection when one side is using active radar, and it gets very messy. What do the rest of you think? What would you do? What could the ref do without arousing your suspicion too much? Randy -- Randy J. Ray University of Oklahoma, Norman Campus (405)/325-5370 !chinet!uokmax!randy randy@uokmax.uucp randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu "Quick to judge, Quick to anger, slow to understand; Ignorance, prejudice, and fear go hand in hand..." - Neil Peart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 1990 14:46:00 CDT From: randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Longshot) Subject: GIUK: Dawn Patrol (Computer Harpoon) Summary: (37) GIUK: Dawn Patrol I have played this scenario several times, and have not yet been able to achieve a NATO victory. Is it really that heavily favored towards the Soviets? I have tried several different tactics, but they all result in the same thing: Soviets fire munitions from farther away than I can, and several of the boats have no AAM capability. Anyone done well as NATO? Randy -- Randy J. Ray University of Oklahoma, Norman Campus (405)/325-5370 !chinet!uokmax!randy randy@uokmax.uucp randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu "Quick to judge, Quick to anger, slow to understand; Ignorance, prejudice, and fear go hand in hand..." - Neil Peart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 08:37:48 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (38) Re: CE Errata In (33) Captain's Edition Errata, I said: > 14. Patrol Aircraft (p.12): Patrol aircraft start scenarios at their > bases (ie not on the board). I should have said: Patrol aircraft can start on the board, unless based on a carrier, which has not yet entered the board. They may always start at their base. Patrol planes based on an off board carrier do not have movement counters in the movement cup. If the carrier is on the board at the start of a turn, add the movement counters for its patrol planes to the movement cup. This puts makes things consistent with the Advanced Game scenario setup rules. In general, you should have a lot of task forces enter on the same turn as a carrier, to keep the enemy confused. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Tue Aug 7 09:55:15 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA27878; Tue, 7 Aug 90 09:55:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 09:55:15 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008071655.AA27878@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #9 (msgs 39-43) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 7 August 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 9 First Message: 39 Messages: 5 Topics: (39) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (40) Computer Review tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (41) No Challenge att!druco!fidder@uunet.uu.net (42) Re: GIUK Dawn Patrol dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au (43) Combat Fleets of the World tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 09:36:13 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (39) Editorial New members added since last issue: att!druco!fidder@uunet.uu.net (Ted Fidder) wilson@issun3.stc.nl (Tony Wilson) jwolcott@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Jason Wolcott) My guidelines for CZ limited discusion of naval topics to that which is related to the game or useful background. Originally, I thought I might get too many naval background articles. But I must have scared everyone off, because I haven't gotten any. So I have decided to write an example of an acceptable background article. It's a book review of a well known naval reference. -ted (disguised as CZ admin) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 09:35:43 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (40) Computer Review In the August 1990 issue of The Proceedings of the US Naval Institute, Lieutenant Dille reviews Computer Harpoon under the "Get With the Program" column. Some of his main points are summarized below. He feels that Computer Harpoon has some problems with realism in that it allows too much control in three different areas. One, it has players playing more than one level of command. Participants can play the strategic, operational and tactical commanders all at once. (But IMHO, it probably enhances the game playing value.) Second, players have perfect intelligence and communications with all friendly units, including submarines. Thirdly, all units have equal targeting solutions regardless of geographical separation. This being said, he goes on to say that Computer Harpoon is a "more comphrensive simulation of modern naval warfare than any other product currently available. In terms of variety alone, [Computer] Harpoon offers a greater breadth of threat scenarios than the Navy's own tactical gaming system, NAVTAG." He goes on to discuss the training potential of the program. The article notes that 360 Pacific Inc. offers a free copy to any (USN?) ships and commands as long as the request is made on official stationary and is signed by the CO or XO. -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, 4 Aug 90 00:57:45 -0400 From: att!druco!fidder@uunet.uu.net Subject: Harpoon List Summary: (41) No Challenge Ted, I would be interested in being on a mailing list if you start one, although I am losing interest in the computer version of the game. Is it just me or is the game poorly balanced ? Granted I am playing on a XT clone... which is painful but doable. It seems that the computer makes brain damaged decisions. If I take NATO I walk all over USSR, if I take USSR in the same game that I won with NATO... the USSR now walks all over NATO. It does not even seem to be a challenge anymore. As noted anything above about the 7th level is to slow to play, but I expect more then the blowouts I get. Just curious if others see the same problem. I am running version 1.1. Ted Fidder UUCP: att!druco!fidder ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 11:40:27 CST From: David J. Low Subject: (42) Re: GIUK Dawn Patrol Comment: message reference id edited [admin note: Osa is a Soviet model, the NATO patrol boat must be named something else] In (37) GIUK: Dawn Patrol, randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Randy) asks about the Dawn Patrol scenario in 360's Harpoon game: The one way I have found to beat this scenario as NATO is rather bloodthirsty - but then again, war is hell.... Simply put, you sacrifice one of the small patrol boats (Osa's ?) in order to locate the Nanchukas. Send one Osa off north(?) at full speed with its sea-search radar on, and follow it some 50-odd nm back with the remainder of the surface fleet. The lone Osa will eventually find the Nanchukas, at which point it either charges, attacks, and sinks; or, flees and sinks (there is a major problem, since the Pact group has missiles with a longer range than your surface radar 8-( ). Meanwhile, the "large" NATO fleet (!), which has been approaching with radar OFF (!!!) can now split into two groups: one with the rest of the Osas, which steam at full speed (40 kts) towards the battle area to engage the enemy, and the other with the frigates (~25 kts). By the time the frigates get within range the Pact forces should have been sufficiently damaged (or at least low on ammo) and distracted by the Osas that you can destroy them at leisure. This is quite a nasty scenario - your weapons are outranged, and the enemy has a larger detection radius. However, it is possible to beat it. My own personal bugbear was the second scenario (Gauntlet) as NATO. Basically, it pits a NATO convoy of two merchants, an O.H.Perry FFL and a Type 22/2 FF, against a detatched Pact force of a Victor III SSN, two Nanchukas, and a small air contingent (6 Floggers ?). I finally managed to beat it on the weekend - if anyone has their own "tale to tell", send it in!! I may write up my weekend's effort in detail if I get the time - it ended in a gun duel between the FF and one of the Nanchukas! At the moment, I'm playing the 12th scenario (Boomer Bastion) as NATO - played about a day's game time, lost one Improved L.A. SSN, but seem to have distracted the bulk of his picket force 8-). Of course there's always the torpedo you haven't seen yet..... David. -- ___ ~~ | David J. Low / /-----^-/~~~ "I'll be back" | Atmospheric Group, Dept. Physics / /-------/~ -- Arnie | Adelaide University, Sth.Australia <__/ | E-Mail: dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 17:34:10 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (43) Combat Fleets of the World Combat Fleets of the World 1990-1991 edited by: A.D. Baker III and Bernard Prezelin Naval Institute Press ISBN 0-87021-250-8 9" x 12", 992 pp., approx 3700 photos & line drawings $120 ($96 for USNI members) Jane's Fighting Ships 1990-1991 Jane's Information Group ISBN 0-7106-0904-3 8.5" x 12.5", approx 800pp., approx 2000 illustrations $185 The new edition of Combat Fleets of the World is out. This book is an excellent guide to today's fleets. The book is quite comphrensive covering all navies and in many cases Coast Guard services. Ship class descriptions usually include photo or line drawings. Class variations are discussed. For example, Udaloy class ships with zero, one or two Cross Sword directors for their SA-N-9 systems. Short descriptions and pictures are given of major systems. It's fairly up to date (latest developments up to about May 1990), and I have only caught a couple of typos so far. Inevitably a comparison must be made with Jane's Fighting Ships. I have not seen their latest edition. But I have compared previous editions. I would say their coverage is pretty much equivalent. If I had to offer an opinion, I would say Combat Fleets is slightly better in technical coverage and Jane's slightly better in the political history of ships (eg congressional budget battles). (Jane's used to have some pretty spectacular technical errors.) Some people vehemently prefer one or the other. For me the deciding factor between the two is cost. Jane's lists for $185. As a USNI member, I can get Combat Fleets for about half the cost. None of these books is cheap, though. But if you are really looking for comprehensive coverage, you need to spend real money. If on the other hand you just want something a little more lively than the Data Annex, get something like "Modern Naval Combat" by Chris & David Miller (Crown Publishers). It's got lots of color and goes for $20 or less. Of course, you should not expect such a book to be an authoritative technical source. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Thu Aug 9 07:42:04 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA29792; Thu, 9 Aug 90 07:42:04 -0700 Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 07:42:04 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008091442.AA29792@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #10 (msgs 44-47) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 9 August 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 10 First Message: 44 Messages: 4 Topics: (44) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (45) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (46) ECM tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (47) Tube-Launched Torpedoes tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 12:11:31 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (44) Editorial New members added since last issue: mongol@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kevin A. Geiselman) sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Ralph Keyser) Current list membership stands at 38. If others in your local area or network would like to read CZ, I suggest setting up local redistribution. If anyone is interested I can give you the details. The main advantage for me is that I can distribute the responsibility of list administration. Some local person would administrate the local redistribution. That way, I can get out of the business of tracking down local mailer errors. -ted (disguised as CZ admin) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 17:34:27 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (45) Recent Naval Developments Most of this is a rehash of articles I posted to sci.military before. They summarize some recent USNI Proceedings articles. Here are some items of interest taken from the article: "The Soviet Navy in 1989: A US View" by RADM T.A. Brooks, USN (May 1990) RADM Brooks is the Director of US Naval Intelligence. The article summarizes events related to the Soviet Navy in 1989. The fifth hull in the Kirov class was cancelled. The sixth and probably last Typhoon SSBN was launched. The sixth Delta IV was also launched. Most ships and subs scrapped in 1989 were long obsolete already. (Three of the old subs sank en route to foreign scrapping yards.) Soviet Naval Aviation replaced more Badgers and added some Su-17 and Su-24 aircraft, which were transferred from Frontal Aviation. The MiG-23 squadron at Cam Ranh Bay was shipped back to the Soviet Union. All flyable Badgers left also, leaving Bear D and Bear F aircraft. One submarine and some small combatants remain. Deployments and flights to the Mediterranean, Cuba, Syria (Tartus), Libya, and Angola (Luanda) were cut in 1989. Here are some items of interest from the following two articles: "The US Navy: A (Much) Smaller Fleet" by Norman Polomar (April 1990) "Tommorrow's Fleet" by Scott C. Truver (July 1990) The Navy publication "Highlights of the FY1991 Budget" describes the USN and USMC budget request as the "first year of transition to the new realities". The goal of a 600 ship navy is "gone forever" according to Navy budget official Charles Nemfakos. In FY90 and FY91, 54 ships will be retired including these ships: 1 USS Coral Sea (CV-43) 2 Iowa class BBs 22 DDGs in Charles F. Adams and Coontz classes 14 SSNs in Skipjack, Permit, Sturgeon and Glenard P. Lipscomb classes In FY92, USS Midway (CV-41) will be retired. In FY92 and FY94, the CGNs Bainbridge and Truxtun will be retired. In January, the DoD budget request included the following shipbuilding plan. No doubt it will have to be modified when the final budget is approved. Type Actual ----------Proposed---------- FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ohio class SSBN (Trident) 1 1 1 1 1 Improved LA class SSN 1 - - - - Seawolf class SSN - 2 - 6 - Arleigh Burke class DDG (Aegis) 5 5 10 - 10 Wasp class LHD - 1 - 1 - Harpers Ferry LSD class 1 1 1 1 1 Avenger class MCM 3 - - - - Osprey class MHC (Coastal Minesweeper) 2 3 4 5 - AE (Ammunition Ship) - - - 1 2 Supply class AOE (Fast Combat Supply) 1 1 - 3 - T-AGOS (Towed Array Surveillance) 1 - 2 3 - AGOS (Ocean Surveillance) - - 1 - 2 AGOR (Oceanographic Research) 3 1 2 1 2 AR (Repair Ship) - - - - 1 ARS (Salvage Ship) - - - - 2 LCAC (Landing Craft, Air Cushion) 12 12 12 12 12 Special Operations Craft 9 - - - - Constellation (CV-64) SLEP 1 - - - - Enterprise (CVN-65) RF/COH 1 - - - - CV-66 or CV-67 SLEP - - - 1 - AO (Jumbo) (Oiler, will be lengthened) 1 - - - - An average of 3 Seawolf and 5 Arleigh Burke will be ordered per year. But starting in FY91, alternating purchases will be made every two years with double the yearly number. The Enterprise upgrade is similar to a SLEP. Here is an item from "World Naval Developments" by Norman Friedman (August 1990) Sweden has decided to procure the Trinity 40mm air defense system. It can engage aircraft and missiles and can be adapted to many craft including surface effect ships. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 12:10:14 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (46) ECM What do people think about how ECM is treated in Harpoon? Modern warships carry threat recievers, chaff launchers and active jammers to degrade the effectiveness of TARH ASM missiles. They may also have flare launchers to distract TIRH missiles. All of this equipment may be part of an integrated system. The rules state that ECM effect is already accounted for in the hit probabilities. While I personally think that is preferable to having detailed rules about each possible ECM and ECCM interaction, I think we might be lumping too many ships into the same category. Some ships such as merchants and tankers don't any countermeasures equipment. Many older ships, smaller combatants and auxiliaries will have less sophisticated equipment. Maybe there should be a +10% hit modifier for TARH ASMs against ships with no ECM equipment. For ships with less sophisticated equipment, 5% is added. For simplicity, we will assume ships will have an equivalent level of countermeasures against TIRH ASMs. What do you think? Can anyone give an estimate of ECM effectiveness? Are these percentages way off? How effective is ECM in such games as "Warship Commander"? -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 Aug 90 12:15:20 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (47) Tube-Launched Torpedoes What follows is a summary of an article in SITREP 4. This article presents more detailed rules for tube-launched torpedoes. It's not really clear to me whether these were meant to be "official" changes to the standard game or an optional rule. There are two basic types of homing torpedoes. One is the "search pattern" air-dropped or standoff weapon. These torpedoes circle (or run some other pattern) after entering the water searching for a target. The current rules handle their search time and interference possibilities. Tube launched torpedoes can be set to travel along a straight course until they acquire a target. Wire guided versions can feed course corrections along the way. Tube launched torpedoes can be fired in "spreads" such that their seekers do not see each other and don't interfere with each other. The following rules simulate tube-launched torpedoes. Players may fire tube-launched torpedoes on a fixed bearing. The torpedo must pass within 0.5 nm of the target (1 nm for US Mk48 and UK Spearfish). After coming into acquisition range, the torpedo makes its attack in D10 turns. Wire guided torpedoes may be steered after launch. There is a 25% chance that the wire will break on launch or after each each guidance command is sent to the torpedo (change depth, course or speed). [I assume "dual-wire" torpedoes roll for each wire separately.] The wire will automatically break if the launching platform turns more than 90 degrees, moves faster than 15 kts or changes depth. The wire may also be voluntarily cut. If a wire guided torpedo is still running, reloading its launch tube will cut the wire. A cut wire reduces hit chance by 5%. After a wire is cut, the torpedo uses the existing torpedo rules. Players should remember that only two wire guided torpedoes may be controlled at once. The down side of this new rule is that precise plots must be made of the torpedo position. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Fri Aug 10 13:10:34 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA00651; Fri, 10 Aug 90 13:10:34 -0700 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 13:10:34 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008102010.AA00651@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v1 #11 (msgs 48-52) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 10 August 1990 Volume: 1 Issue: 11 First Message: 48 Messages: 5 Topics: (48) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (49) Re: ECM terryr@cse.ogi.edu (50) Re: ECM tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (51) Comparing Games tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (52) Ocean Depths tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 07:44:21 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (48) Editorial New members since last issue: slouie@ocf.berkeley.edu (Shelley Louie) In case you are wondering, this is the procedure I use to sign people up. First, I send the guidelines out to the address they list in their e-mail. If that doesn't work, I try other ones extracted from the mail header. Sometimes, I also have to contact their system administrators to fix their mail. One business day after a successful message goes out (gives time for mailer errors to come back to me), I send out the previous issues of the current volume. In particularly difficult cases, I request a reply. -ted (disguised as CZ admin) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 08:22:25 -0700 From: Terry Rooker Subject: (49) Re: ECM The ECM in Harpoon is basically non-existent. Compare the probability to locate a target with other games (specifically Warship Commander), or other data sources, and they are better in some cases than the good condition performance of the equipment. From personal experience I find it hard to believe that any radar has a 80% chance to locate a target in an intensive ECM environment. There are a lot of subtle effects of ECM that are not captured by Harpoon. There are many counter-measures that give the commander a trade-off. You can minimize the effect of a jammer, but at the cost of reducing your overall radar coverage. It is possible to burn through jamming. That is one reason for the big radar in the F-14. Yes it gives 100+ NM detection ranges, but it also allows the F-14 to operate its radar at normal engagement ranges in an intense ECM environment. There is an additional problem with the ECM being built into the hit probabilities. This assumption means that every unit is always immediately ready for combat. There have been numerous historic and recent examples where ships simply didn't prepare in time and had equipment turned off. The Sheffield and Stark come to mind. In addition, ECM suites by nature are generally in very exposed locations on the superstructure. It is very likely that they would be rendered inoperative by the first attacks. Yet in Harpoon they continue operating at full effectiveness until the ship goes to meet Davy Jones! It is the vulnerability of such electronics that makes CBUs and fragmentation warheads popular for the initial attack on ships. Harpoon doesn't have rules to reflect the different types of damage inflicted by different weapons. If there is sufficient interest I can summarize the major differences between Harpoon and Warship Commander, especially in the EW area. Remeber that Warship Commander makes the level of simulation in Haproon approach that of Risk. They are very different rules. I am not knocking Harpoon. It has made many more naval gamers available and for that I am eternally grateful. The level of abstraction in the rules does make it more of a game than a simulation (and I don't want to get into that ongoing debate, I just use it for reference). Warship Commander compared to Harpoon is sort of like Air War compared to Air Superiority, in the sense that WC uses a lot of more low level simulation of systems, where Harpoon tends to abstract that function into the higher level performance. For example in WC the radar detection probably is influenced by the range and target size (no big surprise :-). In addition detection is rolled for on every turn to re-create the contact fading in and out (this is a simple modification to Harpoon. try it sometime, especially when trying to establish your passive sonar fire control solution). Then there is ECM. The type of radar radiation (pulsed, doppler, etc) is referenced to the type of jamming (not all jamming is effective against all radars), then you reference ECCM of the radar (jitter, moving target indicator), and then you can determine the final probability of detection. It sounds cumbersome, but it flows smoothly. The results can make the effort worthwhile. If there is interest in the difference between the two rules I can dig out my WC and summarize whatever anyone is interested in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 08:30:22 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (50) Re: ECM As Terry notes, Harpoon consciously trades off detail for a simpler more abstract view. Some further development of jamming in Harpoon was given in a SITREP article as optional rules. However, they were considered too complicated for general use. I would like to elaborate a little on Harpoon's coverage of some of things Terry mentioned. The air-burst rules are supposed to simulate the vulnerability of electronics to CBUs, etc. (cf. USS Worden incident). But because ECM equipment is not explicitly represented, it can't be knocked out, even though everything else has been smashed. Harpoon's view of detection is abstracted at the level of big, small, very small targets. So Harpoon's detection is not a smooth, continuous function. Jamming for search radars just subtracts a modifier or reduces effective range. For ASMs, some level is build in the hit probability. Personally, I would like to preserve the basic, simple system. (Though I certainly wouldn't want to discourage any discusion about other approaches!) But that does not mean we have to accept the probabilities as given. I would like to make up some modifiers to cover the situations the rules don't take into account. For example, adding a hit modifiers to ASMs when a ship isn't alert or subtracting a modifier from detection probabilities in a heavy ECM environment. Terry, if you can suggest anything, please do. I am especially interested in knowing what reasonable numbers would be. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 90 09:00:12 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (51) Comparing Games I play other modern naval games like Victory Game's Fleet series. (Okay, I admit it, I also play "Modern Naval Battles".) Terry has mentioned "Warship Commander". I am sure a whole bunch of other modern naval games and computer games exist. While many of these other games have a different focus than Harpoon, I am interested in other people's opinions comparing these games to Harpoon. Do these games generally give the same results as Harpoon? Or do they give radically different results in similar situations? Do they give the same results, but for different reasons? If only from a game design view, I would like to know how these other games approach things. Terry, any comparison with Warship Commander is welcome by me. You needn't send in any comparisons with MNB. :-) -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 Aug 90 08:32:46 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (52) Ocean Depths The rules state that convergence zone sonar techniques are only possible where the water is pretty deep. The rule of thumb figure of at least 1000 to 1500 fathoms (1800 to 2700 meters) is given in the rules. (Does anyone have more detailed information than this?) Many potential battles can occur where the water is not nearly that deep. However, most scenarios don't mention this possibility. The biggest offender is ASW Forms, whose random scenario generator has a lot of possible coastal locations. Below is a list of average ocean depths extracted from the "World Almanac 1989", p. 515. If the scenario area is substantially less than 1800 meters deep, no convergence zones should be allowed. If the depth is close to that figure, make some die roll to determine if you are in a deeper than average area that allows convergence zones. In very shallow cases, there might not be any Very Deep, Deep, or Intermediate depths. Name Average Maximum --------------------------------------- Artic Ocean 1,038 5,450 Atlantic Ocean 3,575 8,605 Indian Ocean 3,840 7,125 Pacific Ocean 3,940 10,924 Andaman Sea 1,118 Baltic Sea 55 Bering Sea 1,491 Black Sea 1,191 Caribbean Sea 2,575 East China Sea 189 Mediterranean Sea 1,501 5,150 North Sea 94 Red Sea 538 Sea of Japan 1,667 Sea of Okotsk 973 South China Sea 1,464 Yellow Sea 37 Gulf of California 724 Gulf of Mexico 1,615 Hudson Bay 93 Persian Gulf 100 Depths listed in meters. Reports of areas deeper than the maximums listed here exist, but have not been verified by scientific agencies. -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 * **********