How much weapons is enough... (Full Version)

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



Message

Spearfish -> How much weapons is enough... (8/21/2010 10:50:42 PM)

...to kill most powerful warships?

I have made some tests with Harpoon 3 ANW. First I selected most well defended surface vessel today i.e. BCGN "Petr Veliky". I understand such tests are not representative because warships usually sail grouped in CSGs or SAGs and joint defense is distributed between them what especially applies to US Navy strategy (CEC system and similar net-centric stuff). But anyway...

In several Databases BCGN Petr Veliky's defensive armament slightly differs but in approximation it is usually armed with SA-N-6c system (two FCRs with 96-128 missiles), SA-N-9 system (two FCRs with 128 missiles) and six CADS-N-1 CIWS (eight missiles and two 30 mm cannons each). Of course all those SAMs are multichannel (CADS-N-1 isn't but its number gives some equivalent).

I only attacked this cruiser with Western weapons to be more in line with reality. So my premiere anti-ship weapons were Harpoons, SLAM-ERs, HARMs, JSOWs, JASSMs carried mainly by carrier based aviation. In every test results were quite similar: I launched 50-100 missiles in salvos from two directions. In return BCGN "Petr Veliky" launched about 150 SAMs in defense. After reading AALog files I must say most often "Petr Veliky" was able to shot down all incoming vampires or several (usually less than ten) vampires finally hit her. All other results were quite rare.

If that is true it seems now US anti-ship missiles are not very deadly. Probably Harpoon 3 ANW portrays present situation quite well because weapons like Harpoons and SLAM-ER even being sea-skimmers are subsonic designs and not very stealthy. On the other hand quite VLO weapons like JSOW and JASSM fly to target at middle altitudes and thus are easy to spot by shipborne radars.

Quite ironically I discovered another easy method to disable this monster. First I launched TALD decoys from A-6Es or F/A-18s at him what triggered insane SA-N-6 salvos wasting almost all of her long range missiles stockpile. Later I sent planes with LGBs ot L-JDAMs flying at very high altitude outside SA-N-9 and CADS-N-1 range and dropped dozens of those weapons on Petr Veliky. It turned out SA-N-9 and SA-N-11 missiles cannot engage bombs and CADS-N-1 cannons are in fact ineffective being able to shot down only several guided bombs. As a result rain of my bombs fell on Petr Veliky and sunk her very fast.

Maybe I discovered some great tactics to sink powerful ships today? [:D]



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/21/2010 11:01:35 PM)

Employment of TALD, ECM, and HARM during airstrikes is a commonly accepted strike practice for western militaries.



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/21/2010 11:06:02 PM)

To be honest I did not make those test strikes under any ECM cover (no Prowlers, Growlers in the area). I was not sure how good ECM model is in Harpoon 3 ANW, different databases etc. Therefore I did not want to obnubilate this issue.

Yes, I know it is common practice but I wonder if it also applies to anti-ship strikes. TALD and HARM employment could be a bit debatable...



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/21/2010 11:10:18 PM)

Here is how ECM is currently employed by ANW:

http://wiki.computerharpoon.com/index.php?title=ECM

Not everyone liked/agreed with how it was changed between H3 and ANW, but it seems to work as described/designed with few bugs.



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/21/2010 11:26:11 PM)

Having read stuff under link above I think ECM model in Harpoon 3 ANW and Harpoon 4 miniatures is quite simple. If ECM platform starts offensive jamming in its radar horizon range all enemy radars will have reduced maximum detection ranges depending on their type and ECCM factor. So if I had used Prowler in those tests it is highly likely that Petr Veliky's radars would have detected incoming vampires too late? 

PS. What ECM model was present in old Harpoon 3.6?



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/21/2010 11:31:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

As I read it ECM in Harpoon 3 ANW and Harpoon 4 miniatures is quite simple. If ECM platform starts offensive jamming in its radar horizon range all enemy radars will have reduced maximum detection range depending on their type and ECCM factor. So if I had used Prowler in those tests it is highly likely Petr Veliky radars would have detected incoming vampires too late?

I believe you are correct in your understanding. The ECM can knock back the detection/engagement range of both the detecting radar and the SAM Fire-Control Radar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

PS. What ECM model was present in old Harpoon 3.6?

I believe it was based more upon range between the jammer and radar. Arguments were made that this was better than the 'automatic 75% reduction' in ANW. However, there was also a huge bug in H3 over ECM, too. i.e. A radar in USA could detect a jammer in Russia. This problem has been fixed in ANW.



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/21/2010 11:59:10 PM)

Well, it really works!

Now I carried out similar test with Prowler actively jamming Petr Veliky. I fired salvo of 48 HARMs and 48 Harpoons from 24 planes. It turned out that SA-N-6 was completely disabled. Only 20 Gauntlet and 48 Grisons were fired at HARMs but with mixed results - 19 HARMs penetrated Petr Veliky's SAM shield and 14 of them actually hit her. Later salvo of Harpoons arrived but Petr Veliky was defenseless due to majority of her radars being disabled by HARMs a moment ago. In effect Veliky took 33 hits and Harpoons finished her.

I think AN/ALQ-99 jamming system is still really powerful, even now...heck, this is forty years old (but heavily modernized) grandpa! [:D]

BTW - Do anti-radar missile also reduce hit ship's damage points in ANW?



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/22/2010 12:20:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

BTW - Do anti-radar missile also reduce hit ship's damage points in ANW?

This is dependent upon how the database editor set up his weapon. Some databases have the ARMs strike and only kill the sensor system (I think) while others, have it hit the sensor and also deliver additional damage points like a normal SSM.



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/22/2010 12:32:59 AM)

Let's briefly look what AN/ALQ-99F can now jam: radars in 0.5-12 GHz band and communication networks in 64-270 MHz band. Possibly comm networks are not well implemented in Harpoon 3. So let's concentrate on Soviet radars that can be jammed by this system now:

- C band: P-15, P-15M acquisition radars
- D band: P-35, P-37 GCI radars, Soviet IFF systems
- E band: P-40 GCI radar, PRV-9, PRV-11 radar heightfinders, part of SA-2 and SA-5 FCRs band
- F band: SA-2, SA-5, SA-10 acquisition radars, both SA-12 acquisition radars of 9S15, 9S19 types, 9S18  SA-11 FCR
- G band: part of SA-2 FCRs band, 1S91 SA-6 FCR, SA-15 acquisition radar
- H band: PRV-17 radar heightfinder, 1S32 SA-4 radar, SA-6 and SA-11 illumination radars, SA-8 acquisition radar
- I band: all SA-3 radars, 9S32 SA-12 illumination radar
- J band: several Soviet fighter radars, SA-8 FCR     

Outside AN/ALQ-99F range are only SA-15 and SA-19 FCRs but block EA-6B Block 89A upgrade should have added those radars to its jamming list, too.






hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/22/2010 12:39:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

Let's briefly look what AN/ALQ-99F can now jam: radars in 0.5-12 GHz band and communication networks in 64-270 MHz band. Possibly comm networks are not well implemented in Harpoon 3.

To the best of my knowledge, radio communications cannot be jammed in any computer Harpoon version. I have tried and could not find a way to do so.



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/22/2010 12:43:31 AM)

What a pity...SIGINT also does not work.

As for ARMs causing additional damage - I think it depends on specific ARM type. For instance small HARM warhead was designed to destroy radar antennas in mind so it cannot harm entire warship much. However anti-radar versions of AS-4 and AS-6 missiles could cause a lot of additional damage if hit AEGIS radar antenna mounted on warship's superstructure! Hopefully AS-4 was withdrawn from Russian service three years ago and AS-6 much earlier together with Tu-16 Badgers back in 1990s. [;)]

PS. Second test with Prowler coming a bit closer to Petr Veliky. This time not only SA-N-6 but also SA-N-9 radars were paralyzed. One salvo of 48 Harpoons was enough...almost 50% vampires hit her.



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/22/2010 7:20:25 AM)

You seem to enjoy testing for a conventional Sierra Strike scenario.  I've written a simple scenario just like that; Air Wing vs. Soviet surface strike group.  It is tested in H3, but not in ANW.  Since you already enjoy testing the concept, would you like to try it to see how it runs in ANW?



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/22/2010 2:54:47 PM)

Where can I find this scenario?



hermanhum -> Harpoon (8/22/2010 2:57:37 PM)

It has not yet been published.  Which e-mail address shall I send it?  The same one as before or do you have a new one?



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon (8/22/2010 9:56:42 PM)

It is not necessary. I created similar scenario using PlayersDB modified by me: A 1980s era US CSG airstrike on typical Soviet CSG (Kiev, Kirov, 2 Udaloys, 2 Sovremennys, 1 Krivak). I sent 12 A-6E with Harpoons and 24 A-7E with HARMs and Walleyes under Hawkeye and Prowler support. After two missile salvos Kiev, Kirov and one Udaloy sunk and other Soviet warships were damaged. No casualties being reported on US side. Soviet SAM defense facing close Prowler jamming proved to be very weak: SA-N-3 and SA-N-6 long range systems did not fire at all, SA-N-4 and SA-N-9 launched only several missiles each. Only SA-N-7 fought quite well yet entire Soviet CSG missile defense managed to shot down only 21 of incoming 122 vampires while 56 hit Soviet ships.

I think this result is quite realistic...it suggests in those days Soviet warships could not head too far away from ground based fighters air cover because silly Yak-38 was no enemy for F-14A. [:D]




hermanhum -> Harpoon 3 scenarios for the PlayersDB (8/22/2010 11:43:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

I created similar scenario using PlayersDB modified by me:

That is excellent and the intent behind the Database editor -- if you do not like the values I enter, use your own. It is good to see that you are going to maintain a variant of the PlayersDB for your personal use with values that make you happy. Rest assured, no will try to deliberately sabotage your database or scenarios. [:)]



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon 3 scenarios for the PlayersDB (8/23/2010 12:05:04 AM)

Will you advice to test scenarios in Database Editor, Scenario Editor or in the game?



hermanhum -> Harpoon 3 scenarios for the PlayersDB (8/23/2010 12:40:39 AM)

There are problems in using either of the editors to test scenarios.  The biggest problem is the fact that they do not return the same results as the game engine.  For example, if you run a test scenario in the Game Editor (what you called the Database Editor), you may see different results from what you would if you played the game normally.

If you have a simple scenario with two sides (Blue/Red) and run the file with the Game Editor / Scen Editor, the AI controls all sides at the same time.  You will see certain results behaviours for both Blue and Red.  Now, if you play that same scenario as either Blue or Red, the AI-controlled side is likely to behave differently.

For this reason, I recommend that you only test with the Game Engine.  This is a real Pain in the Ass, but is probably the best method because you will see exactly what the players will see when they try out your scenario.  If you want to see what is going on, you save the game and re-open it in either ScenEditor or Game Editor.  This is my testing technique.  Others may do things differently, but I believe that this will give you the best results.

There is another possible technique that I use for viewing results in ScenEditor Game Editor, but it is also a PitA to set up and is awkward to use.  I can explain it if you insist.  Thus, I avoid writing scenarios in ANW whenever possible.



Spearfish -> RE: Harpoon 3 scenarios for the PlayersDB (8/23/2010 1:26:29 AM)

So I was right! I also noticed some behaviors are different in ScenEdit than in the game.



hermanhum -> * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 1:54:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

So I was right! I also noticed some behaviors are different in ScenEdit than in the game.

This has been known for a loooong time. It is not on the list of List of Known ANW Issues because they have enough problems already. No one else asked about it so I didn't say anything. There are only a few scenario writers using ANW at the moment so I suspected that they were happy with their testing regimes.

All the guys I work with know about it. I think that only AGSI doesn't.



Spearfish -> RE: * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 11:44:20 AM)

So this bug applies only to ANW? Do ScenEdit and DBEdit work exactly as game engine in Harpoon 3.6.3?



hermanhum -> * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 12:48:19 PM)

This problem is also present in H3 version of ScenEdit and (I think) Game Editor.  However, as with most known game problems, they are are not as severe in H3, IMO.

If you are familiar and comfortable with the ScenEditor functions, I can give some suggestions on how you might get around this problem and use the ScenEditor to test your scenarios.



Spearfish -> RE: * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 5:29:39 PM)

Bye, bye Herman... [;)]



FreekS -> RE: * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 5:29:41 PM)

Testing newly made scenarios is tricky and a Lot of work.
I usually Run the Szenarios in the SE just to observe if the missions i programmed
work, Air strikes are STOT etc. Often i delete all Sides except the One im Testing to See
If all Runs As i want.

I always Fellow that up by Testing each playable Side in the GE.
I always create my Scens in H3.6.3SE and Test in H3.6.3 As well in in ANW Version 4.9.6.

Regards
Freek



Spearfish -> RE: * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 5:47:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

I always Fellow that up by Testing each playable Side in the GE.
I always create my Scens in H3.6.3SE and Test in H3.6.3 As well in in ANW Version 4.9.6.


So scenarios created in Harpoon v3.6.3 SE runs flawlessly in Harpoon ANW v3.9.4 game engine and vice versa? What about both games compatibility and scenario conversion?



FreekS -> RE: * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 6:41:20 PM)

My Experience is that scenario's built in H3.6.3 run in ANW. They don't run flawlessly by themselves, but there is a 'rebuild' function in the ANW SE
to convert H3 scens.

Scenario's made in ANW SE never run in 3.6.3. However, scenario's made in ANW SE do also NOT always function in later versions of ANW.

This is THE reason I build scenario's in H3.6.3, AGSI does not guarantee forward compatibility and I cannot afford the time to rebuild my scens with every ANW update (however rare these have become)

All existing scenario's also need a rebuild when the database is changed in any way. This is done for each update of the PlayersDB.

So in spite of not benefitting from some ANW features, I still design in H3.6 as untill now it has given me forward compatibility.

Freek



Spearfish -> RE: * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 6:50:16 PM)

Maybe all this will change when Ultimate Edition is released...



FreekS -> RE: * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 7:05:22 PM)

I doubt it. Ultimate edition is a nice name, but in my testing of 4.10 (which it is), this has not changed. Im not as good in searching old Posts as HH, but Agsi have stated more than once they are not interested in forward compatibility.

Freek



Spearfish -> RE: * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 7:17:35 PM)

Do you mean 3.10?

I mean rather fact that all Harpoon versions will be available for every interested Pooner so the community won't be split or maybe even merge again.

BTW, I often read computer Harpoon is based on Harpoon miniature games family and more precisely on its so called paper rules designed by Bond & Carlson. As understand those rules are still improved with each new Harpoon board game version and now there is possibly Harpoon 5 paper rules set ready. So I have questions:

- Do those paper rules really represent modern naval warfare realistically enough as far as unclassified data allow this?
- How to play Harpoon board game?
- Will Harpoon 3 UE be fully compatible with Harpoon 5 paper rules set (no ASM armed balloons)?
- Where can I find detailed text description of this rules?
- Is Harpoon 3.10 beta patch still accessible for testing?



CV32 -> RE: * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues (8/23/2010 8:28:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spearfish
BTW, I often read computer Harpoon is based on Harpoon miniature games family and more precisely on its so called paper rules designed by Bond & Carlson. As understand those rules are still improved with each new Harpoon board game version and now there is possibly Harpoon 5 paper rules set ready.


The Harpoon 4.1 paper rules game can be acquired through Clash of Arms.

The Harpoon 5 version of this effort is presently in the works, and not yet publicly available.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125