Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!olivea!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!ted
From: ted@cs.utexas.edu (Ted Woodward)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Harpoon
Message-ID: <117@kara-kum.cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 90 17:48:36 GMT
References: <90331.173154LSB103@psuvm.psu.edu> <1501@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> <1990Dec10.175412.10694@uswmrg2.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 25

In article <1990Dec10.175412.10694@uswmrg2.UUCP> steve@uswmrg2.UUCP (Steve Martin) writes:
>So far I have played the first six scenarios and find that I can easily
>win as NATO.  The real challenge is winning as the Russians.  Has anyone
>else noticed this?  Do you think it is because of the inherent weapon
>systems differences, or just improper play balance?

SOme of the scenarios are inherently easier for one or the other.  I find
the 1st one is easier for the Russians because they have 80 nm range missiles,
vs 8nm of the Norwegians.  The one I can't handle is Rapier, the sub attack
on Murmansk.  AUGH!

Slight Spoiler:

The Duel is a lot easier if you put your subs in his path, speed zero.  He runs
over you.  I killed Frunze with my missiles, and my torps killed all but one
Sovremeny (two missed it).  Iowa's Tomahawks finished it off.

Notice I said IT.  In western navies, ships are known as SHE.  In the Soviet
navy, ships are known as HE.  So western navies call Russian ships IT.


-- 
Ted Woodward (ted@cs.utexas.edu)

"Mad scientists HATE shopping for shoes!" -- Peaches