CV32

It certainly didn't look like he was going to make it.

So, who watched the 2010 Winter Olympics? I am of course happy with how it turned out for Canada, especially the men's hockey win. Great game! (Very glad it did not end in a shootout ... Miller would probably have been the death of us). Now, just a matter of paying the huge bill that goes along with these events.

Yes, we did uncover an error like that in Scenario 11 'Hot Rocks'. PAK has uploaded a revised scenario to the Issue Tracker if you would like to double check. Thanks for helping with this!

To be clear, the reference to a 'kamikaze' issue has to do with changes to permit aircraft to effectively engage with their guns, and really nothing to do with trying to model the 'kamikazes' of WWII. They are not the same.

There are probably a handful of scenarios out there set during that period, such as Thanh Hoa Bridge, but in large part that conflict (and era) has not yet been exploited. It is something I plan to remedy within the next few months.

Both are already present in the HCDB.

Unlikely in the short term.

Simply put, the principal advantages of ANW over HCE are related to its greater overall level of sophistication (though there are still some things that HCE does which ANW cannot) and the availability of multiplayer.

We're glad you are enjoying it. You can find out more about adding photos here: FAQ - adding graphics to the DB The only obstacles to adding more pictures to the official database (DB) are: 1. Securing copyright privileges with respect to the photos. 2. Finding time to edit and add them, when there is so much more needing to be done. There are no specific plans to do this, but it certainly qualifies as a 'wish list' item. (I am not sure if anyone has added this as a 'wish list' item already). More on the wish list here: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showforum=35

They should just put the wives in charge of it. They were already going to spend a fortune, anyway ...

I would have said something like "low hanging fruit".

Heh, that would be the explanation if the Mk 45 shell was set that way (which it should be) in the DB. Thanks.

We need to keep in mind that the manner in which weapons are ordered in a ship's Mounts (within the DB) will also affect which weapons fire firstly. Because of the way this works, it is my habit to put the longest ranged, most capable air defense weapons into the ship's Mounts first. In your example, the Anzac ASMD's Mounts have the 8 cell Mk 41 VLS placed firstly, so correctly the longest ranged, most capable RIM-162 ESSMs fire first. I am not sure why the 5 inch Mk 45 Mod 2 gun (which appears next in the Mounts and has better range than Mistral), did not engage next but I'm guessing it lacked sufficient range at the time the ship's Mounts were queried by the GE. There is no DB reason why the 5 inch should not have engaged. I am guessing that you ran out of time during the engagement?

Better nip this one in the bud. Changing the 'Auto' field from '0' to '1' will have no effect. Apparently the info is passed to the Game Engine (GE), but the GE doesn't utilize this data.

AvWeek has provided a PDF of a PowerPoint presentation for the final request for proposals: Tanker final RFP

I'm as flexible as players need to be. I am thinking two weeks per phase, but that potentially could be longer. There would be no "day to day" demand on your time as such.

As if you have ever been discouraged from speaking your own mind around these parts. Well, there is no 'product' as such being sold, but I think I get your point. While I have more than a sneaking suspicion that people are very busy and do not wish to make commitments they cannot keep (a look into the HCE beta testing forum will tell you that much is true), perhaps more detail is in order. Team Composition I am envisioning two teams: Team USA (aka the proverbial BLUFOR) and Team USSR (aka REDFOR), each comprised of four (4) players: 1. Player One - controls all ICBM forces 2. Player Two - controls all SLBM forces 3. Player Three - controls all strategic bomber forces 4. Player Four - the National Command Authority For each team, Players 1-3 would together control the strategic nuclear triad for their team (nation). They would also collectively make decisions about conventional force and non-strategic deployments, and more importantly, global posture. These three players would have their own subforum where they would receive their order of battle (OOB) and intelligence, and make their command decisions. Another, separate forum is for Player 4, the national command authority. This player would not have direct access to the rest of his team's deliberations, but rather he would receive a 'brief' from them. This brief would be a summary of their deliberations and a set of recommendations. The NCA would use the brief as the basis for making 'directives' to be delivered back to his team. Directives would be focused on overall national defense posture and policy rather than specific control of forces. A third type of forum would be what I call the 'Hotline'. This is where the NCA on each team can have access to his opponent opposite, with no access possible by other members of the teams and where communications between respective NCAs are 'filtered' rather than being direct communications. The 'Hotline' forum would thus contain a running record of the 'filtered' conversations between the respective NCAs, which only the NCAs and the umpires could access. NCAs would in turn pass information gained within the 'Hotline' back to their own teams through their respective 'directives'. Phases of Game Progress I have envisioned four (4) phases of game progress, encompassing the following: Phase 1: 1. Teams are given a basic set of information about their OOB, both strategic and conventional, in a broad sense. 2. Teams develop a nuclear strategy based on their own values. In other words, they 'value' their own assets (strategic forces, conventional forces, national infrastructure, cities, etc) and decide what should be targeted on their opponent's side of the equation (i.e. counter-force, counter-value, etc). They do not know for sure what their opponent 'values'. 3. Teams are offered the opportunity to pour R&D efforts in developing certain 'secret weapons', only one of which will (or rather, may) remain secret, and the other will become immediately apparent to your opponent. This might be a special strategic weapon, anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capability, better early warning, etc. Phase 2: 1. Teams receive a complete list of what strategic weapons they have at their disposal and likewise, that of their opponent (to the best of their knowledge). 2. A more detailed list of potential strategic targets is delivered to each team. 3. Working from what they know of their opponent's 'stated' nuclear strategy, which may or may not actually be accurate, teams develop an early strategic nuclear targeting plan against their opponent. Phase 3: 1. Teams receive updated, latest available information (strategic level intelligence) about their opponent's strategic forces and posture. One of the two secret programs chosen earlier by their opponent is now revealed. 2. Teams further refine their strategic nuclear targeting plan and posture based on what they have learned. Phase 4: 1. Teams adjust their conventional forces posture and in response to their opponent's own moves. The remaining secret program chosen by their opponent is revealed or not (by a die roll). 2. The main event. A crisis of global proportions pushes both sides to the brink of global thermonuclear war. All the while these phases are progressing, the timeline is advancing from 1975, with intelligence and 'news' fed to each of the teams (filtered as necessary) to influence strategic tensions and their perception of their opponent's intentions.

I would love to have more flexibility in the way ocean depths are modeled. To recap, the depths are reflected as follows: Surfaced Periscope (1-50 m) Shallow (50 m to the Layer) Intermediate (Layer to 300 m) Deep (300 to 600 m) Very deep (600+ m) For me, however, its not so much that VDeep should be further away (though this is obviously preferable in some shallow areas like the Persian Gulf, for example), but that you should be able to get a submarine (and a ship, for that matter) much closer to land than you currently are able. This would greatly improve navigability in confined waters and within archipelagos. I would like to see the depth rating 'Periscope' pushed right up to the beach. Unfortunately, modifying the depth model is a large undertaking and for now remains a "Wish List" feature.

Yes, and much, much more!

So, are you folks ... 1. Not interested in these MBX kind of wargames 2. Not interested in the subject matter 3. Need more details about this one 4. Too busy with other things in life 5. Too busy ducking and covering

From BBC News 18:53 GMT, Monday, 22 February 2010 Drilling for oil begins off the Falkland Islands A British company has begun drilling for oil in the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands, despite strong opposition from Argentina. The platform has been towed to a point 100km (62 miles) north of the UK territory in the South Atlantic. Argentina claims sovereignty over what it calls the Islas Malvinas and has imposed shipping restrictions. UK Defence Minister Bill Rammell said the government had a "legitimate right" to build an oil industry in its waters. Desire Petroleum, which is overseeing the operation, said drilling had started on the Liz 14/19-A exploration well at 1415 GMT. In a statement to the London Stock Exchange, it said: "The well is being drilled to an estimated target depth of circa 3,500 metres (11,480 feet). "Drilling operations are expected to take approximately 30 days and a further announcement will be made once drilling is completed." Mr Rammell told the House of Commons the government would take "whatever steps [were] necessary" to protect the islands and that it had made Argentina "aware of that". Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said "no amount of intimidation" from Buenos Aires could alter what was a "fundamental issue of self-determination". Argentina has threatened to take "adequate measures" to stop British oil exploration in contested waters around the islands, and is seeking support from Latin American countries at a regional meeting in Mexico. It wants its neighbours also to impose restrictions on shipping in the area. Argentina can already count on support from President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who said Britain was being irrational and had to realise the "time for empires was over". Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has called for "Britain to return the territory of the Malvinas to its real owners - to return it to Argentina" on Venezuelan Telesur television. Argentina has long claimed the islands. It invaded the Falklands in 1982, before a UK taskforce seized back control in a short war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British service personnel. But it has ruled out military action and is trying to pressure Britain into negotiations on sovereignty. Last year Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the island chains governed by the UK. It is due to raise the issue at the UN later this week. Desire Petroleum spokesman David Willie said: "Desire is an oil company and it's exploring for oil and not getting involved in what Argentina is saying about going to the UN. The rig is sitting firmly inside UK waters." He added that Argentina was beginning its own oil exploration programme in the waters west of the islands. Mr Willie said oil exploration in the Falklands was at an early stage, and even if commercially viable amounts were found it would be many years before the oil would start to flow. The platform, the Ocean Guardian, has been towed 8,000 miles from the Cromarty Firth in Scotland. Last week the Falklands Legislative Assembly, which sold the licence to explore for oil to Desire, said it had "every right" to develop "legitimate business" in hydrocarbons. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said British oil exploration in the area was "completely in accordance with international law". UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown also said the government had "made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland islanders are properly protected".

Yeah, the gun arcs of fire do not work and have not for a long time now.

From The Province Argentina rallied regional support at a summit in Mexico on Monday as a British oil rig began drilling in the disputed seas around the Falkland Islands. After losing a short but bloody war over the south Atlantic islands with Britain in 1982, Argentina is furious over the British oil-drilling operations in the potentially rich seabed around the archipelago. Leaders from Latin American and Caribbean nations at the two-day summit in the Mexican resort of Cancun were expected to sign up for a resolution backing Argentina, the country's officials said here. Argentine foreign ministry spokesman, Javier Porta, said that all 32 countries participating in the summit, due to end today, had offered their support. Earlier Monday, Desire Petroleum said in London that exploration drilling had begun off the Falklands. "The well is being drilled to an estimated target depth of circa 3,500 metres," Desire said in a statement to the London Stock Exchange. "Drilling operations are expected to take approximately 30 days and a further announcement will be made once drilling is completed." Desire's drilling platform Ocean Guardian was towed some 12,900 kilometres from Scotland to the Falklands.

Its the Mowj (also given as Moudge or Mowdge) class vessel Jamaran. I hesitate to call it a destroyer, cuz its only 1,400 tons and not very heavily armed. More akin to a corvette or a light frigate, perhaps. Main armament is a reverse engineered 76mm Compact, 4x C-802 anti-ship missiles and, possibly, a quad Yazahra (Chinese HQ-7) SAM launcher. Some light AA guns aft too, maybe 37mm. Sensors are pretty sparse, but are believed to include an Italian RTN-10X and a couple or three other radars.

JoeK, we're going to take this discussion off channel (as you are already aware), and try and deal with it sensibly there. To the rest of you folks, I apologize for this banter having taken HarpGamer into an area where we sorta promised to ourselves not to let it stray. It is not what we are about. Carry on.