Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!emory!wuarchive!ukma!psuvax1!psuvm!asb110
From: ASB110@psuvm.psu.edu (Andre Sean Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Suggestions about Harpoon
Message-ID: <91078.190946ASB110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 00:09:46 GMT
References: <12812@ur-cc.UUCP> <253@syrian.cs.utexas.edu>
 <1991Mar19.200815.28301@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Penn State Campus Crusade for Cable
Lines: 13

If you think this scenario is anything like GIUK, you'll be in for a big
surprise.  In the first scenario, it is relatively easy to beat the computer
if you play the NATO side.  However, this scenario has been given me a lot of
problem beating the computer, especially when you play the NATO side.  The sub
threat itself is more than I can handle most of the time, not mentioning about
the air and surface threats.  The long range backfires and its fighter variants
are a awsome force in its own right.  However, you usually get a carrier if you
are the commander of NATO.  ALl in all, I think this scenario is a better
representation of what a real war would be like.  It follows a logical order
unlike GIUK.  And you better be prepared to spend a lot more time than before
to finish each scenario.  Uhu, almost forgot, there are 16, count them, 16
scenarios in the battleset.  Can't wait to play the MED battleset, are you
listening?  How about adding the all new Soviet CVN Kremlin?