Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!dftsrv!amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov!xrtnt From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games Subject: Re: Harpoon... Message-ID: <4039@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: 29 Nov 90 03:51:13 GMT References: <4036@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1990Nov28.235413.14604@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: news@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov Reply-To: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD, USA Lines: 95 News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4 In article <1990Nov28.235413.14604@agate.berkeley.edu>, felixh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Felix Hack) writes... ^ ^ Re: Harpoon Sub Ops, ^ I too have obliterated the computer opponent in every scenario EXCEPT ^those involving just subs on my side. I believe there are two major factors ^at work causing the difficulty: ^ ^ 1. The game data (in this case for sonar effectiveness) is based on the ^ Harpoon boardgame data as of last year, whereas this summer a new ^ updated data annex was published which strongly downgraded all sonars. ^ Where a typical submarine sonar might have a passive detection range ^ of 15 miles in the current computer game, the new data downgrades it ^ to maybe 6 miles. ^ Also, almost all convergence zones were degraded by 1 in the new ^ data. Here's a specific comparison: ^ USA BQQ-5 Old Passive Range: 25 miles Old CZ 2 ^ New " " : 10 " New CZ 1 ^ ^ As you can see the reductions are large. Right now the US LA sub ^ has a better sonar than the Victor II you're trying to engage, so ^ you can hear him at 2 CZ, (with towed array) while he can't. But ^ he CAN hear you at 1 CZ, and has a weapon to do something about it ^ (SSN15/16) while you don't. If you can get inside the 1st CZ you ^ should be OK since Mk48 torps greatly outrange Soviet ASW torps ^ in the game. Problem is you have to survive a lot of SSN16s first. Something else I noticed after pulling the boardgame out was that the sonar modification chart gives you the "silent running" bonus (detect is at half range and -10% plus the CZ detection is halved) for under 5 knts. I think I recall the creeping mode puts the LA at 10 knts. I'm not sure if they give you the bonus in that case. ^ ^ 2. The ASW system of the computer game is based on that of the board ^ game, and it is flawed. The essential problem is that there are ^ detection rolls every half minute, not whenever conditions that ^ affect sonar contact probabilities change. Sure, creeping reduces ^ your chances of being detected, but the odds don't drop to zero. ^ It may take you a time on the order of tens of minutes to cross ^ a hostile CZ at slow speeds. During that time the enemy gets ^ on the order of 50 detection attempts. Even if the chances are ^ only 5% (they're usually higher) simple rules of probability ^ dictate that you will be picked up. After that the chances for Hmmm...LF Type B 40% vs anecholic coating -10% is 30%. Maybe 15% for silent running. Great. Am I wrong to assume that a LA at 0 knts is a hole in the water that does not emit noise much (if at all) above ambient? ^ staying detected rise (at least in the boardgame) so you'll have ^ a hard time breaking track. Yeah...changing depth should do it but evidently the model does not allow for it. From the descriptions and the pictures the CZ range should be valid mostly at shallow or surface. The deeper you are the closer you should be able to get before you enter the CZ. The diagram does note that it is not to scale so I may be all wrong about that. Can anyone tell me if the Red Storm Rising model is reasonably accurate? I ususally drive a Permit in the late 1990s to make things more "fun". Life is deadly and short at ultimate level but I usually much better than I would expect such an old sub to be able manage. ^ The miniatures game Warship Commander seems to have a better ASW ^ system in its Sea Command module (long out of print). Instead of ^ fixing detection ranges and playing with the probabilities, it ^ uses a variety of factors to determine a basic detection range for ^ some situation (noise, sonar type, etc). A random element is ^ used to modify the range up or down, and it is then compared to ^ the true range to see if detection occurred. ^ You can see how Harpoon's system has problems, how does it make ^ sense to let some detection influencing factors alter the odds of ^ detection and others alter the range? It seems that the Warship ^ Commander approach of a unified system makes more sense. ^ ^ Felix Not having seen it I can't agree or disagree. Harpoon ASW seems a bit off (like I got a MAD detection transiting to the patrol area with a Nimrod) and could use a bit of revision. I gotta go out and buy that new data annex. NT BTW: Anyone have stats for AMRAAMs? I'd like to free up my F18s from fighter status a little earlier in one of the scenaros. It be nice if the F16s could punch back a little farther out. Is there a F16 model that allows AMRAAM usage or can all F16s use them? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.