dylanjones

Would love to hear more about your mods to HCE!

Admiralty Trilogy Group published a series of articles on the S300 in its magazine "Sitrep" (available on Wargame Vault). They have full updated stats for all the variants. Basically, there is a ship-based variant S300F called "Fort" by the Russians and many land-based variants S300P/PS/PMU/PMU1/PMU2 etc. Also do not be confused by the S300V. This is a completely different missile than the Grumble.

It is interesting, because only 8.1.4 about autonomous weapons specifically says "they operate independently of the ship's combat system". To me that indicates the weapons in 8.1.3 do not operate independently of the ship's combat system (unless under local control).

I think it is a botch-up in the rules. It should read "These radars will pick up surface contacts (and VLow air contacts at one-tenth the normal range)". In other words, the one-tenth thing only applies when you're searching for air contacts at Vlo. This is sadly a product that hasn't been play-tested and proof-read thoroughly by people who are new to the system - and it shows.

Thanks, yes you're absolutely correct - that is how they're doing it. For aircraft it is a bit of a mystery, and subsequent clarification has said that for helos that are ship-based they take the combat system generation of the ship.

Yes, but where is this noted in the Harpoon-V rules? I can't see it, and in fact the whole datalinks issue seems underspecified to me. If you're going to include it, and make it such a limiter on engagements as they have, you need to do it well.

The main range limiter - then and now - is the horizon. SH-60s (and Seasprites before them) had to stay at a range with the ship on the horizon or climb to a greater height in order to keep the ship in view for the datalink to work.

I've found the whole datalink thing the hardest bit of H-V. I feel like some essential information is missing or hidden in the rulebook and the databooks that would make it all clear. Kevin, you say "there is a datalink between them, but it is very limited..." - where are you getting this information from in the rules or in the data books please? Why can't I use 6.3.10 in this circumstance?

"Harpoon with miniatures"?

Excited about this new version. And about the new version of Harpoon 4 in development.

As already mentioned, none of those Russian aircraft have a radar. So you have to use the visual sighting rules in H4.1 to spot your target vessel.

Cool, I'd like to try running a basic surface engagement if there are a couple of keen players.

Can you give a step-by-step how you'd use it to run a multiplayer PBEM game?

Reality is another thing, I agree. But the rule is very clear - it only applies to "pure SARH missiles". And the data annex doesn't list the SA-N-4 as a SARH missile. Nor is the SA-N-7 for that matter a pure SARH missile in the annex. The explanation you cite is actually explaining why the rule doesn't apply to Cmd guided missiles - because they already follow a much more aerodynamically efficient pursuit path as compared to SARH. The rule exists precisely because SARH is inefficient pursuit against a twisting and turning target - so when the target is flying nice and steady the SARH missile gets better range (in H4.1 abstracted as 1.5 times the range it has against a manoeuvring target).

Funny stuff. I should point out that the scenario did not require the Soviets (Red) to offer any warning prior to defending themselves against hostile action, or even how that hostile action might be defined or interpreted. The radio calls we offered were purely politeness on our part, lol. In any event, I think it is clear (and fairly defensible, as you seem to yourself admit) that, in the context of the rising tensions, missile craft approaching at 30 knots is pretty hostile behaviour. Wow, we were more up against it than I thought at the time. I assumed the Soviets would have restrictive RoE preventing them firing until they detected us doing so.