pmaidhof

Tell Army "choppers" to go hunt elsewhere. This is the rightful domain of Marine Corps Cobra "helos".

Well?

I once participated in a Sink The Kiev pbem, it was tense hunting down that wounded animal with the gaggle of destroyers/frigates. Good Fun. First Team always peaked my interest from when it first appeared in a Harpoon Naval Review...94 I think. Red Beach always cought my interest given there is a GCS/amphibious assault piece to it in a sanctioned Harpoon scenario. Not many of those beyond the Harpoon Falkland Islands module.

It was just linking the highest rated subjects in the poll.

So, We will see in the very near future, a... Hypothetical fact based, hypothetical cold war to modern day to near future, forum based game, to be completed between 6 months to a year, utilizing a strict just a few days between turns, and an abstract yet fun rules set that gives us a plausible result?

Aircraft carriers gain clout in naval power (find original AP article here.) ABOARD THE CHARLES DE GAULLE – Despite growing controversy about the cost and relevance of aircraft carriers, navies around the world are adding new ones to their inventories at a pace unseen since World War II. The U.S. — with more carriers than all other nations combined — and established naval powers such as Britain, France and Russia are doing it. So are Brazil, India and China — which with Russia form the BRIC grouping of emerging economic giants. "The whole idea is about being able to project power," said Rear Adm. Philippe Coindreau, commander of the French navy task force that has led the air strikes on Libya since March 22. "An aircraft carrier is perfectly suited to these kinds of conflicts, and this ship demonstrates it every day," he said in an interview aboard the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, which has been launching daily raids against Moammar Gadhafi's forces since the international intervention in the Libyan conflict began March 22. The 42,000-ton nuclear-powered carrier has been joined in this task by another smaller ship, Italy's 14,000-ton Giuseppe Garibaldi. None of the U.S. Navy's supercarriers have been involved, despite American participation in the war's initial phase. The U.S. Navy still operates 11 nuclear-powered carriers, mostly Nimitz-class vessels displacing up to 100,000 tons. The floating fortresses became the backbone of U.S. sea power after WWII, projecting military might around the world in crises and in conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Lee Willett, head of the maritime studies program at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based military think tank, said the war in Libya illustrated the usefulness of carriers to other navies with more regional interests. France and Italy, the NATO nations closest to the North African coast, chose to deploy their ships on operations although they have air force bases within easy reach, he noted. "All around the world there are major and not-so-major navies now looking into getting into some form of sea-based airpower," Willett said. "They may not want to be global powers but they certainly want to have some regional power-projection capability." The exact number of aircraft carriers in service worldwide is difficult to establish because of the proliferation of vessels that are classified as amphibious warfare ships, helicopter carriers or even cruisers or destroyers — but that fit the classic definition of a carrier as a mobile air base with a flat deck from which aircraft take off and land. These include the United States' eight 41,000-ton Wasp-class amphibious warfare ships, whose standard complement includes Harrier jets and SuperCobra helicopter gunships, in addition to transport choppers. The French Mistral Class, Britain's HMS Ocean, and Spain's Juan Carlos I share the same concept of multipurpose ships that can carry strike jets, helicopters and hundreds of marines for amphibious landing operations. Even Japan's two Hyuga class "destroyers" have the characteristic flat deck, effectively making them carriers despite their official designation. "At the end of the day, the popularity of carriers is due to the fact that these are very flexible platforms that can be used for a wide variety of tasks and not just warfare," said Nate Hughes, director of military analysis at the U.S.-based think tank Stratfor. The U.S. Navy is scheduled to induct the Gerald R. Ford, the lead ship of a new class three-ship class of supercarriers, in 2015. Each is expected to cost about $9 billion. Other NATO nations adding flattops to their fleets include Britain, already building two ships, and France, which is considering procuring a second nuclear-powered vessel. Spain and Italy have just inducted two new flattops. China and India are both in the process of acquiring revamped Soviet-built carriers, and India is also building its first homegrown flattop. Russia will modernize its Admiral Kuznetsov carrier next year to extend its life until after 2030, and plans to acquire French Mistral-class ships. Brazil has completed an extensive refit of the recently acquired French carrier Foch — now renamed the Sao Paolo — which has become its navy's flagship. "The BRIC navies in particular are all getting into ... major aircraft carriers," said Willett. Military experts have long debated the relevance of aircraft carriers, which some have dismissed as relics of the Cold War. "What many countries don't realize is that sustaining operations at sea is a very complex task," Hughes said. "The magnitude of the expense necessary to get to that sort of fixed wing capability that the U.S. and French navy have is difficult to overstate." Some critics say the entire concept of the seagoing air base is now antiquated. They contend that advances in anti-ship weapons have turned the carriers into white elephants that are just too expensive to risk losing in a war. While the mammoth floating airports bristling with jets and missiles appear invincible, the reality is that since World War II they have mostly been used in conflicts with far weaker opponents. They have yet to face off against modern navies with their array of carrier-killing ballistic missiles, super-torpedos, and supersonic cruise missiles. "These new technologies make it easier to target carriers from much greater distances," said Benjamin Friedman, a research fellow with the Washington-based CATO Institute. "Those technologies are set to advance faster than the ability to defend against them, meaning that in a couple of decades the carrier business may not be viable anymore."

I wavered on that and can definitely see the benefits inherent in a "forum-based" game. That was the problem for me and why I dropped some year and a half to two years ago, although I still do lurk and read Blufor.

Or "Red Banner"

I would prefer a game where turns are every couple of days and that is complete within a year. Players need to understand upfront that if order deadlines are missed, the umpire will step in via standing orders and act in the player's stead. This is to keep the game moving. The umpire has the devine right to decide any issue within the game. The equipment, assets available, etc are all determined up front. Once the game starts, no newly discovered gear or capability can be brought into the game. A source document is a good idea, H4 Data Annex for example, but no stitrep updates unless addressed at the start. Perhaps a more abstract rule set could be used to adjudicate the game, yet still give plausible results, remember that it a game, and therefore fun. Perhaps Shipwreck instead of Harpoon to relieve the umpire from overload in calculating results to the nth degree. IMO the main rule should be "keep moving!"

KC, See TRAP using MBT for an old take on gaming a TRAP.

Too bad for the pilot having to eject during his egress KC. Will you game out the "Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel" (TRAP)?

KC, the old GDW Harpoon booklet "Troubled Waters", as well as many of the "Harpoon Naval Reviews", is a good source for some smaller scenarios. Battle generators appear in a handful if not all of them which provide for easy set up of relatively small scale engagements. Also take a look at Israeli-Syrian, Israeli-Egyptian, Iran-Iraq, and Indo-Pakistani naval engagements for either details or inspiration for your own devised scenarios. Here is my H4.1 on a scenario based on USN-Iranian actions in the late eighties, it was found in Troubled Waters. Good Luck, Pete

This miniatures game is a well supported franchise. I've had and enjoyed FFT2 for some years now. FFT is a fast playing rule set. FFT's one "model" equals 1 platoon. Basing is decided by the user. 1 inch = 100m, or simply 1cm = 100m. Turn is about 12min per turn. A pdf is currently available at the wargamevault and spiral bound and hard cover versions coming to Lulu.

Active Counter Measures. As opposed to to Passive? Correction 6.7.7 Acoustic Countermeasures (ACM). H4.1 Page 6-35.

Active Counter Measures. As opposed to to Passive?

Thanks guys. Found my info on the old computer, went to findmyorder, and viola. I now have TOAW working on the new box, and downloading the current patch release within the past 24-48hrs.

Thanks Warhorse. I'll see what I can make of that.

I've looked, and am still looking for my original disk. I'll let you know what may or may not develop.

At this point, I just want to play around with it in anticipation of Stephen's proposed game. I figure that I'll need to patch up to current. I hadn't played with it in a bout a year. Right now, can't even get that far.

I burned a copy of TOAW III from my previous WinXP box to a CD and loaded it onto the new Win7 box. When I double-click autorun application, it goes to a TOAW III splash screen. If I choose ", I get play" It give me the error message "The is an error with your serial number as entered. Please contact support@matrixgames.com for assistance. Error Code: 200" If I doubl-click resgister, it leads me to a Members Area of matrixgames.com where I cannot provide them with the requisite credentials to enter. Behind that "door" apparently is where I can "register" a game I've owned since 2006. Contacting matrix is the problem. Maybe there is a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do, but on the other hand there should be nothing wrong conceptually with me having purchased the sofware, move it from my old computer and move it to my new one. I've sent the obligatory email to support@matrixgames, I've posted in there support forum, in the TOAW support forum, and the Gamesquad TOAW hoping to evoke anything. Thanks for listening Tony.

Still waiting for Matrix to register a game that I've owned since release, not to mention TOAW, TOAW II, and TOAW Century of War before Matrix' TOAW III.

Still waiting on Matrix... Can get into the forums, but not the member area to register the game engine.

Well, transferred my TOAW III directory from the old XP box to the win7. Good new and bad news. Good News, I have my serial number. Bad news, cannot seem to get through the matrix games members club interface to register it again. My email is already registered. I appear to have enabled a cookie with my password. Over and over, I have typed in everything including the anti-spambot code without luck. Requests for password to be sent to my email, yawn, guess its not automatic. Don't they know wargamers are an impulsive bunch?

The one TOAW item that I always had a hard time to get my arms around conceptually was the getting the reserve orders down, in particular getting my artillery to fire in support of a threatend combat unit (yes artillery is combat support)

Stephen, Like the game that you pointed to? I think that I can commit to a shorter, perhaps less complex scaneio. Is it a pre-made scenario or have you put together one, and if so have you mastered the events editor? Also, Brad mentions that you do not have to have TOAW III to play, so are you running it hotesat like a cpx where you run the game and report back to the players? Finally, how many participants are you looking for? Pete