Harpoon (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare



Message

hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/22/2010 11:30:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

ANW is buggy, PlayersDB is buggy, DB2000 is buggy - so what isn't buggy???

The PlayersDB is the least buggy version according to the definition of bug as something not working. If your weapons fire, hit the target, do damage, then they work. You may think that they have a different range or capability than I or others do but, as long as those three tenets are fulfilled, the weapon works.

No other database can make that claim according to that definition. I can point out plenty of specific examples of planes unable to launch, missiles that will never hit their targets (i.e http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2551144 ), etc. This is the quintessential definition of broken.

If you happen to find something broken in the PlayersDB, it will get fixed right away (not 3 months/years later). Of course, you have different expectations from weapons parameters so it is good that you are customizing your own personalized edition of the PlayersDB. [:)]



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 12:02:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

No other database can make that claim according to that definition. I can point out plenty of specific examples of planes unable to launch, missiles that will never hit their targets


OK - so give us brief list of DB2000 major bugs. Then we shall see if you get banned or not. [;)]




hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/23/2010 12:31:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

No other database can make that claim according to that definition. I can point out plenty of specific examples of planes unable to launch, missiles that will never hit their targets


OK - so give us list of DB2000 major bugs. Then we shall see if you are banned or not. [;)]

Sure. I am not in the habit of de-bugging other databases, but I can certainly post a few to whet your curiosity. It will only take me a few minutes. No one is going to be banned for this list on Matrix. This is not hhq forum. Matrix does not issues bans capriciously.

I'm looking at the latest version of the Y2kDB dated Feb 25, 2007 v10.0.0:

Plane #156 - Tu-22KD Blinder B|Russia/1980-92 has a Communication system mismatch with its AS-4 missiles. It is missing the datalink necessary for launch so those missiles will never come off the plane.

A similar problem will occur for:

Plane #265 - SA.365 Dauphin|France/1983-93 and the Mistral she carries. They will fire, but can never hit a target.

Plane #201 - F-4E Phantom II|Israel/1989/Kurnass will be able to drop its GBU-15(V)1/B CWW EO [Mk84]|1983 but they will never hit for the same reason.

I found all this within 15 minutes. I hope that this is satisfactory for your purposes. I can send a test file to show you this for yourself, if you like.



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 12:40:53 AM)

Maybe clear explanation how entire CADS-N-1 system works will be helpful. Each module get target's bearing from ship's acquisition radar or specially designed MR-352 radar (yet not present on all ships equipped with CADS-N-1). Then two channels are designed to track assigned target: Hot Flash radar and auxiliary TV (but not IR) channel to assure better resistance to electronic countermeasures. Later one missile is launched. SA-N-11 missiles are not IR homing but command guided. They are only tracked by CADS-N-1 second optical channel constantly spotting IR tracker placed in the missile's rear. Next CADS-N-1 computes and sends proper guidance commands via radio datalink to missile. Every module is single channel system so next engagement is possible only after previous missile hit target or miss it. However the trick works that way: each module is designed to be able to carry out four sequential engagements - three missile firings and one cannon shot. So in ideal conditions one CADS-N-1 module should kill four incoming vampires or at least tries to kill one vampire four times. Of course there are several CADS-N-1 modules on one ship so in sum CADS-N-1 firepower is multiplied and limited only by module firing arcs.


So you should change CADS-N-1 modeling in PlayersDB.



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 12:50:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

I found all this within 15 minutes. I hope that this is satisfactory for your purposes. I can send a test file to show you this for yourself, if you like.


Thanks! I am not interested in debugging DB2000, either. But you can always PM this list to MikMyk. [:D]



mikmykWS -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 12:50:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

Maybe clear explanation how entire CADS-N-1 system works will be helpful. Each module get target's bearing from ship's acquisition radar or specially designed MR-352 radar (yet not present on all ships equipped with CADS-N-1). Then two channels are designed to track assigned target: Hot Flash radar and auxiliary TV (but not IR) channel to assure better resistance to electronic countermeasures. Later one missile is launched. SA-N-11 missiles are not IR homing but command guided. They are only tracked by CADS-N-1 second optical channel constantly spotting IR tracker placed in the missile's rear. Next CADS-N-1 computes and sends proper guidance commands via radio datalink to missile. Every module is single channel system so next engagement is possible only after previous missile hit target or miss it. However the trick works that way: each module is designed to be able to carry out four sequential engagements - three missile firings and one cannon shot. So in ideal conditions one CADS-N-1 module should kill four incoming vampires or at least tries to kill one vampire four times. Of course there are several CADS-N-1 modules on one ship so in sum CADS-N-1 firepower is multiplied and limited only by module firing arcs.


So you should change CADS-N-1 modeling in PlayersDB.



Harpoon doesn't model all systems like they exist in real life. You have to model them within the design.
That being said...how would you model this in Harpoon? What db fields etc.?



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/23/2010 12:52:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

So you should change CADS-N-1 modeling in PlayersDB.

Look, I appreciate what you post regarding weapons, but I do not tell you what to put into your modified Database. How about the same courtesy regarding PlayersDB, okay? As before, the definition PlayersDB operates under is:

If it fires, if it hits, if it delivers damage, then it isn't broken.
In fact, there are other some things that I know are not done in real life, but are employed in PlayersDB (and other databases) simply because they make the game play better. For example, some databases (including the PlayersDB) have datalinks on weapons such as Stinger missiles. I know that this does not happen in real life. However, for PlayersDB, this is done primarily to keep the AI from killing its own units. Otherwise, the AI ends up shooting down its units and defeats itself without any help from the player.

Not every database does this, but PlayersDB in the spirit of making the game more fun and enjoyable by making the AI a little more challenging. Should you decide to not employ this technique for your personalized database, that is your prerogative.



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 12:53:24 AM)

@MikMyk: Look at various databases: in one SA-N-11 missile has "2nd generation Soviet IR seeker", in another this is "SAHR Blk 1 seeker"...both are not real. I am not sure how this affects missile performance but it is worth clarifying.

@Hermanhum: I see. Simply Harpoon 3 game engine has its own limitations and real weapon modeling is not always possible. However I cannot agree with your statement: "If it fires, if it hits, if it delivers damage, then it isn't broken." That is too little because weapons can hit with different Pk, ROF etc. which has a huge impact on game balance.



mikmykWS -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 12:56:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

I found all this within 15 minutes. I hope that this is satisfactory for your purposes. I can send a test file to show you this for yourself, if you like.


Thanks! I am not interested in debugging DB2000, either. But you can always PM this list to MikMyk. [:D]


Ha! Don't worry he won't [:)]




hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/23/2010 12:57:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

I found all this within 15 minutes. I hope that this is satisfactory for your purposes. I can send a test file to show you this for yourself, if you like.

Thanks! I am not interested in debugging DB2000, either. But you can always PM this list to MikMyk. [:D]

I'll help anyone (including hhq and AGSI) who asks for it, but I will [not] force my help upon anyone who does not want it.

When you finish your personalized edition of the PlayersDB and decide to de-bug or promote it, I'll help if you ask me to do so.

Edit: added "[not]" [:)]



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 1:03:34 AM)

Well, I focus primarly on US-Soviet naval encounters during last Cold War period circa 1975-90 so I won't check all database, also because this is titanic task for one person. However after finishing my job I can send you my personal database if you wish.



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/23/2010 1:06:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

@Hermanhum: I see. Simply Harpoon 3 game engine has its own limitations and real weapon modeling is not always possible?

IMO, remember first and foremost that this is a game. It is supposed to be fun. Fanbois will scream and shout that it is a 'simulator', but it is a game with limitations. Everyone (editors and players, alike) does the best they can given those limitations (including all the bugs).

There are some databases that claim to be 'the most realistic'. Then they set up their weapons in what they deem the most realistic fashion only to find that they won't ever fire, or won't ever hit, or deliver no damage, etc.

That is why the PlayersDB never makes this boast. However, I will say that all the weapons for PlayersDB work. If you can find an error in this statement, I'll have it fixed within a day.

The point being, "Who cares how 'realistic' your setup may or may not be if it doesn't work?"



mikmykWS -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 1:07:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

I found all this within 15 minutes. I hope that this is satisfactory for your purposes. I can send a test file to show you this for yourself, if you like.

Thanks! I am not interested in debugging DB2000, either. But you can always PM this list to MikMyk. [:D]

I'll help anyone (including hhq and AGSI) who asks for it, but I will force my help upon anyone who does not want it.

When you finish your personalized edition of the PlayersDB and decide to de-bug or promote it, I'll help if you ask me to do so.


What a guy!



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 1:12:43 AM)

Therefore I think good database is database which assures realistic weapons behavior regardless of hidden tricks like unrealistic guidance methods etc. enabling this correct behavior.  



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/23/2010 1:13:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

However after finishing my job I can send you my personal database if you wish.

There are already two other guys working on personalized variants of the PlayersDB. Guess what? They do not agree with my database values, either! [:)]

They are making scenarios with their personalized designs and will probably want me to distribute them along with all the PlayersDB scenarios at the same time in the Complete PlayersDB Harpoon ANW Library. I encourage this.

I (unlike AGSI) do not play favorites. I will promote anyone who asks me to do so. Our Complete PlayersDB Harpoon ANW Library is wildly popular and successful. I can see no reason not share that success with others who ask for it.



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 1:17:30 AM)

But you'll have to include their databases in this combined bundle...

Besides I guess this success overshadowed DB2000... [:D]



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/23/2010 1:26:10 AM)

If Y2kDB and other databases want their material bundled with mine, I cannot foresee a reason to not make this happen. 

However, I won't be chasing anyone (including AGSI) down and demanding to help them.  As a player, wouldn't you prefer having all the databases and scenarios bundled together into one nice convenient installer instead of searching the interweb for them one at a time? 

PlayersDB has over 400 scenarios in our bundle.  Adding a couple hundred more is not a problem and can only serve to benefit the players.  Of course, only people who really care about providing premium service, convenience, and benefits to their users and followers would think this way.



mikmykWS -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 1:39:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

But you'll have to include their databases in this combined bundle...

Besides I guess this success overshadowed DB2000... [:D]


Crushed it. That why we talk about it 3 or so years after its last update.[:D]



mikmykWS -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 1:46:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

If Y2kDB and other databases want their material bundled with mine, I cannot foresee a reason to not make this happen. 

However, I won't be chasing anyone (including AGSI) down and demanding to help them.  As a player, wouldn't you prefer having all the databases and scenarios bundled together into one nice convenient installer instead of searching the interweb for them one at a time? 

PlayersDB has over 400 scenarios in our bundle.  Adding a couple hundred more is not a problem and can only serve to benefit the players.  Of course, only people who really care about providing premium service, convenience, and benefits to their users and followers would think this way.


Oh..despite the great pitch I don't think you'll have many takers.

My understanding is the next Harpoon will have an updated DB schema etc. so will wait to see how your db works after before signing on the dotted line..hehe



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 2:04:26 AM)

All databases employ either tricks or tweaks to make the game more challenging. Some of them are more extreme than others.

For example, DB2000 employs invisible "KGB agents on weather balloons", or SS-N-19s on similar balloons to simulate an Oscar striking a CVN with the player unable to stop it (because there is no Oscar to be found via ASW tactics in the first place). You are not forced to employ this kind of tricks, but some scenario do.

At the end it comes down to two things: your philosophy about what is "fun" and the objective fact that scenario/DB designers must confront the (increasing) number of unfixed bugs in the basic game.

I agree that it is time for a new generation of games. But in the meanwhile it would be cool to play with a game that - as you may have noticed - has such passionate following. The reason why they, sadly, are unable/unwilling to fix it is, by now, beyond me - and something I sometimes can only compare with "writer block".



mikmykWS -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 2:38:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

All databases employ either tricks or tweaks to make the game more challenging. Some of them are more extreme than others.

For example, DB2000 employs invisible "KGB agents on weather balloons", or SS-N-19s on similar balloons to simulate an Oscar striking a CVN with the player unable to stop it (because there is no Oscar to be found via ASW tactics in the first place). You are not forced to employ this kind of tricks, but some scenario do.


Kinda gives you a headache doesn't it?

quote:

At the end it comes down to two things: your philosophy about what is "fun" and the objective fact that scenario/DB designers must confront the (increasing) number of unfixed bugs in the basic game.


I agree Vince however I wish people would be a little more focused on helping fix the bugs then run every AGSI programmer through the ringer. The atmosphere around 3.6.x was more congenial which may have contributed to its success and popularity. Perhaps its time to copy this[:)]

quote:

I agree that it is time for a new generation of games. But in the meanwhile it would be cool to play with a game that - as you may have noticed - has such passionate following. The reason why they, sadly, are unable/unwilling to fix it is, by now, beyond me - and something I sometimes can only compare with "writer block".


Have you ever actually asked? Or do you just deal in what you think might be the reason? Just asking.



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 3:52:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

All databases employ either tricks or tweaks to make the game more challenging. Some of them are more extreme than others.

For example, DB2000 employs invisible "KGB agents on weather balloons", or SS-N-19s on similar balloons to simulate an Oscar striking a CVN with the player unable to stop it (because there is no Oscar to be found via ASW tactics in the first place). You are not forced to employ this kind of tricks, but some scenario do.


Kinda gives you a headache doesn't it?


Chasing phantom subs while using a DB that stresses "realism"? Well, of course it gives me an headache: one would expect, using such a DB, for realistic ASW tactics to work. [:)]

Luckily, shortly after that there was a rant by DB2000 mantainers about how "some players cheated by opening the scenarios in the editor!" As a rule of thumb, these rants usually try to pre-empt behaviour that lead to funny and/or embarassing discoveries. This was an hint to actually check the scenario with the editor - and, lo and behold! - the uncanny Oscar was actually a bunch of SS-N-19 armed balloons. So much for realism... [8|]

quote:


I wish people would be a little more focused on helping fix the bugs then run every AGSI programmer through the ringer.


Beside giving them a complete buglist complete with situations showing the bug created with the scenario editor and the official ANW DB, what it could be done?

No amount of friendly help, research and open brainstorming can make a blocked writer write: it won't happen until he admits the block's existence and starts working seriously on its roots - squirming, rage and bitter accusations actually becoming how attempts to be helpful are greeted. This is why I compare the current bug-fixing situation to a writer block.

quote:


The atmosphere around 3.6.x was more congenial[:)]


As long as everyone agreed to the "omerta'" climate. As soon as buglist were compiled and problems with DBs pointed out, bans ensued.

quote:


Have you ever actually asked? Or do you just deal in what you think might be the reason? Just asking.


Regarding "asking", I think you can throw a stone in this forum and you will find a post asking about something to be fixed. The reasons why this doesn't happen... these I can only surmise.

Just to be clear, in the meanwhile "War in the Pacific" got the AE, and TOAW III got patch 3.4 - whose readme could be turned into a "Cantata" by J.S. Bach. What we got were whines against "people asking for perfection" - and more bugs.



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/23/2010 4:11:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

All databases employ either tricks or tweaks to make the game more challenging. Some of them are more extreme than others.

For example, DB2000 employs invisible "KGB agents on weather balloons", or SS-N-19s on similar balloons to simulate an Oscar striking a CVN with the player unable to stop it (because there is no Oscar to be found via ASW tactics in the first place). You are not forced to employ this kind of tricks, but some scenario do.

I remember that situation now. It was hilarious. [:D]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1224499

[image]local://upfiles/2692/7DDE592E9D194B86A480E6BAE2383F54.gif[/image]



mikmykWS -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 4:52:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

All databases employ either tricks or tweaks to make the game more challenging. Some of them are more extreme than others.

For example, DB2000 employs invisible "KGB agents on weather balloons", or SS-N-19s on similar balloons to simulate an Oscar striking a CVN with the player unable to stop it (because there is no Oscar to be found via ASW tactics in the first place). You are not forced to employ this kind of tricks, but some scenario do.


Kinda gives you a headache doesn't it?


Chasing phantom subs while using a DB that stresses "realism"? Well, of course it gives me an headache: one would expect, using such a DB, for realistic ASW tactics to work. [:)]

Luckily, shortly after that there was a rant by DB2000 mantainers about how "some players cheated by opening the scenarios in the editor!" As a rule of thumb, these rants usually try to pre-empt behaviour that lead to funny and/or embarassing discoveries. This was an hint to actually check the scenario with the editor - and, lo and behold! - the uncanny Oscar was actually a bunch of SS-N-19 armed balloons. So much for realism... [8|]


So you didn't like what he did in that scenario. So what? I can think of a few scenarios I didn't like the design but I'm not going wee..wee..wee..about it some forum 3+ years later. I just went on to the next scenario and did my thing. Its weird your that hung up on this but maybe its all you can hang your hat on. Beats me!

In all seriousness I think that people learn by doing things and sometimes failing. That guy eventually posted some of the most popular scenarios and got better at the craft. More importantly somebody out there had a good time with it and Harpoon. Nothing beyond that really matters.

quote:


I wish people would be a little more focused on helping fix the bugs then run every AGSI programmer through the ringer.


quote:

Beside giving them a complete buglist complete with situations showing the bug created with the scenario editor and the official ANW DB, what it could be done?

No amount of friendly help, research and open brainstorming can make a blocked writer write: it won't happen until he admits the block's existence and starts working seriously on its roots - squirming, rage and bitter accusations actually becoming how attempts to be helpful are greeted. This is why I compare the current bug-fixing situation to a writer block.


Wow good thing we're not all writers Vince. Sounds like a real bummer.

quote:

quote:


The atmosphere around 3.6.x was more congenial[:)]


As long as everyone agreed to the "omerta'" climate. As soon as buglist were compiled and problems with DBs pointed out, bans ensued.


Yes getting along was important to success. You have to pick your battles well, measure your responses and act where you can be the most effective to be productive. A good team is able to do this and still go for beers after. This is why I think 3.6.x worked out so well and hope they do the same in the future.

The buglists have been around since the beginning of all the projects. There wasn't anything new with Herman's initial copy of it although I realize the value in depicting it that way[;)]

quote:

quote:


Have you ever actually asked? Or do you just deal in what you think might be the reason? Just asking.


Regarding "asking", I think you can throw a stone in this forum and you will find a post asking about something to be fixed. The reasons why this doesn't happen... these I can only surmise.


Not what I mean. Have you ever actually asked somebody at AGSI what the challenges are? You don't seem shy about telling people what you think the reasons are but there seems to be some sort of block about actually asking the source. Writer's block or just afraid your theories might be wrong?

quote:

Just to be clear, in the meanwhile "War in the Pacific" got the AE, and TOAW III got patch 3.4 - whose readme could be turned into a "Cantata" by J.S. Bach. What we got were whines against "people asking for perfection" - and more bugs.


People are still around though so maybe somewhere in the middle.



mikmykWS -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 5:07:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

I remember that situation now. It was hilarious. [:D]


Between you and your partner maybe but the units are still in the database and are not hidden at all. Fact think they're still there and in the initial versions of the pdb as well. If you added your own to your db it must of been an okay idea at the time.

<shrugs>

Anyways...I understand you lost the scenario though and may have been mad. Sorry! His work overall is outstanding and had a great time with his scenarios and Harpoon.



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 6:33:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
So you didn't like what he did in that scenario.


No, I didn't. And even less while "realism" and "research" were branded about as prizes on that site's mantlet. Try to put "invisible M1A1 tanks" in a scenario for WitP AE, and you will discover that its community won't like it, too.

quote:


but I'm not going wee..wee..wee..about it some forum 3+ years later. I just went on to the next scenario and did my thing. Its weird your that hung up on this but maybe its all you can hang your hat on. Beats me!


God wills! But, as it happens, people are going "wee..wee..wee.." about the greatness of the past DBs and the dire state of current ones *in this very thread*, not 3 years ago. I don't think that sprinkling these tall tales with a little bit of truth is a bad thing.

quote:


In all seriousness I think that people learn by doing things and sometimes failing. That guy eventually posted some of the most popular scenarios and got better at the craft.


Of creating scenarios... maybe. Of maitaining DBs, no, as we saw. And playing with a DB that makes scenarios crash renders the first point moot.

quote:


Wow good thing we're not all writers Vince. Sounds like a real bummer.


No, it is actually a nice job/hobby. Of course it requires honesty, responsibility and humily - as basically every job requires.

quote:


Yes getting along was important to success. You have to pick your battles well, measure your responses and act where you can be the most effective to be productive.


If asking for a bug to be fixed is "picking a battle"... Well, this explains a lot of things. However, I just noticed that what you wrote is even more meaningful if spoken with "The Sopranos"' New Jersey accent [:D]

quote:


A good team is able to do this and still go for beers after.


Agreed: a beer and a "thank you" to someone who finds and points out a problem are better than a ban. No question about this.

quote:


The buglists have been around since the beginning of all the projects. There wasn't anything new with Herman's initial copy of it although I realize the value in depicting it that way[;)]


No. The real value was to have it *in a public place* - a corageous act given the climate of the time. I'm glad to hear that now it will be beer and friendship. Will those who pointed out bugs and crashes get unbanned in this new "Perestrojka" climate? [:'(]


quote:


Not what I mean. Have you ever actually asked somebody at AGSI what the challenges are? You don't seem shy about telling people what you think the reasons are but there seems to be some sort of block about actually asking the source.


Do you know how many psychiatrysts you need to change a light bulb? None: it's the ligh bulb that should choose to change itself. Having said that...

quote:


Writer's block or just afraid your theories might be wrong?


"Theories?" What "theories"?!

The buglist is in the open for everyone to check and test (thanks to Herman, not to some "I did it before and then sat on it!!). For the examples the official DB is used, as requested. You can find open requests for AGSI to fix the bugs in this very forum (stalking them and molesting them in their houses not being my habit). Other games get fixed with much less effort by they costumers...

Having pointed out that, Now *I* ask to you: who is looking afraid to be discovered being unable to do what requested?



Nebogipfel -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 10:28:19 AM)

quote:

Have you ever actually asked somebody at AGSI


Dear mikmyk,

insulting people doesn´t seem to be the right way to encourage them.

You and Mr. Koelbach (btw. I apologize for my country, its a shame for me to see a german behave like that in a world-wide forum) do not encourage anyone to do something productive, if you´re going on with this childish behavior.

I can´t really judge, who is wrong or who is right. But all the people reading this posts here, can judge, if something is childish or not.

Nebogipfel






Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 11:33:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

I remember that situation now. It was hilarious. [:D]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1224499

[image]local://upfiles/2692/7DDE592E9D194B86A480E6BAE2383F54.gif[/image]


ROTFL! I have played this scenario the day before yesterday and I was very surprised! The situation is even worse than you think. Note those balloons do not imitate SSGN because they carry SS-N-12, not SS-N-19 missiles. This means they imitate...Soviet large surface combatant (CVHG Kiev, CG Slava) which is also completely stealthy! This is much more unrealistic than invisible SSGN and thus I was very surprised when NATO warships were suddenly attacked by salvo of SS-N-12s incoming from nowhere. In real life it would be almost impossible for Soviet SAG to close to such powerful NATO fleet without radar detection and followed by devastating NATO airstrike. You should also check prompt SS-N-9 salvo striking British carrier group...Sirens are also hanging on balloons?

Yet this is "Clash of Titans" scenario made by guy who supposedly knows Soviet naval strategy very well...please add several invisible NATO balloons armed with GBUs and flying over captured Soviet airfields in Norway to save game balance! In those days US were much more familiar with stealth technology than Soviets - actually then top-secret F-117A was in service since 1981.[:D]



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/23/2010 1:36:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

You should also check prompt SS-N-9 salvo striking British carrier group...Sirens are also hanging on balloons?

I believe that your reported SS-N-9 salvo is an error on your part; possibly confused with another scenario. There is not a single submarine in that scenario. I also looked for SS-N-9s hanging from a weather balloon and did not find any. Plenty of other invisible "Combat Weather Balloons", but none armed with SS-N-9.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

Yet this is "Clash of Titans" scenario made by guy who supposedly knows Soviet naval strategy very well...please add several invisible NATO balloons armed with GBUs and flying over captured Soviet airfields in Norway to save game balance!

This design technique appears to be this author's "signature" and is found in at least two other of his scenarios. But, to be honest, other authors and databases also have "invisible helper platforms" included for their users, including the PlayersDB. It is the manner in which they are used (or, possibly abused?) wherein lies the difference, IMO. If you design a scenario with the PlayersDB, you could re-create a similar scenario. No one will stop you. However, I find that most other authors use these types of units/platforms to help the AI be more challenging without affecting the outcome of the scenario.

For example, some scenarios might have helper platforms to get the AI to delay launching SSM strikes because there is a known game limitation that makes all SSM strikes launch one second after the game starts. In this way, the helper platforms make something happen without ever affecting the final outcome of the scenario and (hopefully) the player notices nothing.

This is different from the employment you are seeing. In Clash of the Titans, it does not matter how you run (not 'play') the scenario, you are always going to lose 2 CVNs in the end. You could shoot down every enemy bomber and it would not affect the result. If you do not touch a single key and just let the AI attack you, you will lose the same ships each and every time. So, what's the point of 'playing' the scenario? You may as well rent a video to watch since the outcome is always the same and pre-ordained.

To be fair, I would not describe Clash of the Titans as 'broken', either. The Victory Conditions work, the strikes launch, the planes fly, etc. IMO, this constitutes a functional scenario (regardless of any opinion on realism).



iriyak -> RE: Harpoon (8/23/2010 2:49:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: koelbach

...and now we should give this thread back to Kazunori and ASW tactics! [:'(]

Ahaha, that's OK. Will build a new thread [8D]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.21875