miller7219

The question came up before about how within a 10 minute IMT (imtermediate turn) a contact would be gotten. I see the computer handling 20 TTs (tactical turns) per 10 min IMT and under the hood "playing" out the 30 sec TT but only displaying movement location results every 20th TT. If in TT 15 out of 20 in an IMT a contact is made the computer stops and displays location of all assets as of that 15th TT. Again the key is the 30 sec TT. Since the 30 sec TT are the core I think we should develope it first then "chain" them together to create the 10 min IMT playing out in 20 TT per 10 min IMT. I like the idea of 10 min turns ticking away until the player decides to stop and enter orders...the player can stop the 10 min IMT at any time to enter orders (by clicking a button or pressing a key or something). The program will stop and display location as of whatever x/20th of the 10 min IMT the player pressed the stop button (just like if the computer automatically stops IMT due to a contact described above). I would think that there would be 2 different paces: 1) Strategic - Plays out at the 10 min increments with rapid under the hood calc of the 20 TT per 10 min IMT and 2) Pure Tactical - Plays out at 30 second intervals with stopping of action to enter orders every 30 seconds, however player could tell the computer to simulate say 2 minutes where the computer would run 4 TT then stop. I mentioned examples of this style of play in prior post. Ideas?

I vote CH31 - Computer Harpoon, 3.1 Ruleset

2 more Grigsby/SSI examples (and naval simulations too) of turn/realtime hybrid: Battlecruiser and Warship. Another program I can recall was an old Avalon Hill computer game called Under Fire (designed by Ralph Bosson). All can be seen too at the link in the prior post's link. Tony, you mentioned you are familiar with Battlefront's TacOps. I played the original TacOps back in the day when Arsenal Publishing first realeased it. I've not played the current TacOps 4 puplished by Battlefront, but the original TacOps was a turn/realtime hybrid. You plot your moves and give your orders wile in turn then a specified amount of realtime ticks away and your plots/orders are carried out realtime until that phase is complete then you're back to turn.

There have been some great hybrid turn-based/realtime wargames. Most recently the Combat Mission series (Beyond Overlord, Barbarossa, and Afrika Korps...not the new stuff Battlefront is marketing as Combat Mission, but play more like the realtime Close Combat) shows a strong example. The great Gary Grigsby's early works like Kampfgruppe, Battlegroup, Mech Brigade, Kampfgruppe, Panzer Strike, Typhoon of Steel, and Overrun were all hybrids (all published by Matrix's prior SSI enterprise) . These programs go back to the Commodore 64/Apple II/Atari 800 days of computing. Another example (and a naval simulation to boot) would be SSG's Carriers at War. If anyone wants to check out these old examples of turn/real-time hybrid gaming look here: http://www.gb64.com/search.php?h=0 Essentially the program plays out in reatlime phases but stops at preset intervals or can contine indefinitely until the player stops and wishes to enter turns. I think this kind of hybrid will serve the purpose of "speeding up" the action by default. If the player doesn't wish to alter prior movement plotting or weapon/sensor orders then simply let the 30 sec phases tick away. Whether the program visibly emulates the paper rules turn sequence for the player to see and be involved with or it happens quietly under the hood is irrelevant to me, so long as it is faithful to the paper rules turn sequence. I assumed for years that what I read in the 3.1 ruleset was happening under the hood but over the past 10 years have come to accept the fact that "Computer Harpoon" was just a shell of a paper to PC conversion simply using the good Harpoon name for marketing and data. I'll take true paper Harpooning gone PC any way we can get it...real-time, true turn based, so long as it's all happening just like the book say!

Interestingly enough while I was tinkering with the old original Harpoon Signature Edition released by Three-Sixty yesterday I clicked on the "about" menu to check version and noticed the program is copyrighted as "Computer Harpoon ©1989". Since we are proposing a project that goes back to the Three-Sixty roots of the Harpoon franchise a fitting name to the project would be "Computer Harpoon II" or CH2 for short. "Computer Harpoon" apparently has already been used. I see what we are doing as truly picking up where they left off and even back-tracking to take a more literal translation from paper to PC. The 3.1 ruleset could be called CH231 and the 4.1 ruleset CH241. Ultimately the name is less important than the substance of adherance to a faithful translation from paper to PC, but I like simple and it doesn't get much simpler than Computer Harpoon II!

Intermediate Turns - Well, I think we will back to discussing them down the line, because I believe thier implemnetation in some fashion will be the key to adding a strategic element to Computer Harpoon -CH (or whatever we end up calling it!). At it's core Harpoon is a tactical game not strategic. Assets have already been positioned within a few hundred NMs (or less) of one another and it's time to hunt and kill! Everyone knows the enemy is in the general area, but where exactly and how best to use the technology/weapons at hand on the platforms within the group? Maneuver, patience, luck....that's all of what paper Harpoon was/is. The strategic nature of Harpoon can (should) be implemented without the 10 minute tac turns in my opinion. We got to create the faithful core first, then we can look at adding a strategic layer on top and the 10 min tac turns will inevitably become relevant in my opinion. Some may argue that Bond made paper Harpoon tactical only because of the human limitations presented when working a board game. Probably true to a degree, but I think he porposely intended to create a model to emulate modern naval tactical and he succeeded with the paper rules. Can we succeed with a true port to computer where others have gotten derailed? We'll see? As we move forward, remember our mission is a faithful recreation of paper Harpoon. We aren't setting out to make a Jane's Fleet Command or an "ultra" realistic sumulation that sacrifices faithfulness for prettiness. All that has been done already and we seek a unique and different Computer Harpoon. Simple, true, tactically challenging, and above all else fun! If we have to sacrifice any faithfulness along the way then it should be improve the fun factor!

#1 - Computer Harpoon or CH - We're esstentially for the first time creating a faithful converstion of Harpoon paper rules to computer....not just "inspired bye" or "featuring the data from" as the original and all the versions that have come since really were. Simple and describes exactly what we're doing. #2 - Call this first module 3CH31...again simple and accurate (we're porting the 3.1 ruleset). Next Module CH41...H4.1 ruleset conversion. I think if we keep the names simple and true to a literal conversion project we can hopefully keep everyone focused on the mission and not get embroiled in discussion of things that take the project outside of its scope...then we end up with HCE again or worse ANW!

Ok. I got the Harpoon Signature Edition (HSE) converted from 5.25 floppy to 3.5 (CD) and it installed perfectly and runs great (15,000 frameskip) in DOSBox! I also have original boxed Designer Series I (HDSI) and II (HDSII) on 3.5 in floppy and they installed perfectly over the HSE. Haven't had time to tinker yet, but the HSE is v1.31se and the HDSII updates to v1.32a and also installs a "harp386.exe" that runs v1.386a. Not for sure the difference between v1.31se and v1.386a, but I did boot up both and the graphics on the v1.386a are sharper. I think it esentially is an ega addition with little changes (if any) to game mechanics. Another neat thing, the HDSII installeda complete Harpoon Data Annex of all platforms, weapons, bases, sensors, etc used in all battlesets that opens nicely with Word/Excel! Didn't play with these files much, but looks to have all the flags set for each weapon/platform and a glossery explaining a bunch about the flags and system calculations. Could be pretty cool info! Welcome discussion on Classic Harpooning and I'll add any particularly interesting things I find while relieving Harpoon's formitive years.

Weird language in warning to turn on radar confirmed fixed.

Confirmed fixed. All guns on Nassau engage AS-4 with snap up/down flag set. Thanks Tony! To Go 0:23:52:13 DEBUG Nassau PointDefense GUN Ph=40 Name=127mm Shell, Incoming Count=6, Targets=1, Shots=2 Tony, what does the "Shots = 2" in the above string indicate??

Tony...I added the snap up/down flag to the AS-4 and increased the air range for the Phalanx from .8 to 1.0. No go. The Phalanx still won't engage the AS-4. Here's what the .028 message log shows: The message log is attached. MessageLog.txt

Tony....when I get the staff message window alerting me I should turn on my radars, here's what it says: "Sir, ÂëN, Group AAC should turn their radars on!" What's the weird characters after the "Sir,"???

Thanks...I found a place locally that will transfer from 5.25 in floppy. I'm going to stop in and get it done sometime this week!

Well, it was worth the idea!

While I was trying to break the SAM ROF this morning I came across something else of interest, so I experimented with it a bit too. The test scenario I was using for the SAM ROF consisted of AS-4 Kitchens being fired at a naval surface target. I couldn't get my CIWS/guns to fire at them during point defense. Initial database configuration: Phalanx - max alt = low and min alt = vlow AS-4 - max alt = vhigh and min alt = vhigh Altered database configuration: Changed Phalanx max alt from low to vhigh and now they do engage in point defense. Changed AS-4 to low and vlow, but Phalanx still will not engage. I would take from this that the max altitude determines what can engage what in point defense. I'm not a naval weapons scholar here! I would suspect missiles like ths Kitchens are designed possibley to counter CIWS systems like the Phalanx by flying very high? But, I would think what goes vhigh has to ultimately come down to vlow! Should the Phalanx (or any gun for that matter) get a shot at the Kitchen in point defense? If yes, I could simply change all CIWS/gunnery max altitudes to vhigh so they'd be able to engage all missiles in point defense, but what problems would that create with their engaging aircraft flying within range that prurpsely won't come down? Could create unrealistic gunnery vs. aircraft engagements. I've attached the scenario for testing and would appreciate discussion on the issue. Miller_CIWS_Test.zip

I experimented with SAM ROF this morning and I'm comfortable with how it's working. Because we're working with 10 second checks (instead of every second) it's not going to be perfect in how it looks on the surface, but I can say the program seems to not allow more than whatever is in the ROF field to be fired within any given 1 minute span. At least I couldn't get get it to break! Additionally the program will fire no more missiles at any given time than whats in the TARGET field....will fire what's in the TARGET field or less if that amount would violate what's already been fired in the previous minute. How difficult would it be to have non-SAM/gunnery mounts honor 10 second checks too/ROF field = shots per minute? Ideally, however many weapons are allocated during weapon allocation would be "ripple fired" to adhere to ROF limitations.... Example: Allocate 4 Harpoons from a quad mount (database is set to ROF = 16/min (8 per 30 sec tac turn per Harpoon rules = 16 per min)). It will fire 2 immediately and then 2 at the next 10 second interval. Explanation: 60sec/16ROF = 3.75, 10sec/3.75 = 2.66 (drop fraction) = 2 to fire ASAP (max rate per 10sec cycle), next 10sec cycle --- orginally alocated = 4 - 2 (already fired) = fire last 2 (but not exceed max rate per 10sec cycle calculated previously)...in these secon 2 fired = the number allocated, but if it didn't then the algorithm continues to the next 10 second cycle, etc until all allocated originally are fired. Sorry for the crude algebra grammer...I'm not a math guy! I would think what I crudely decribed is probably the layman version of how the new gunnery model works to a degree.

Tony...if you can get your hand on v1.3 or v1.31 you'll see mount ROF limits...acording to the 31-page v1.31 manual supplement and from my recollection this was the version that mount cycling limits were added to all mounts. I believe this was the last version Three-Sixty published. I dug out all my old Harpoon boxed games and looks like v.1.3 was realesed with the HDS II battleset and Three-Sixty's Challenger Pack Signature Edition (had all 4 original battlesets and the scenario editor in one big box). v1.31 tied up some loose ends and bugs in v1.3. Unfortunately everything's on 5.25 in floppy, so all I have that will run is Harpoon Classic (Win and DOS version) from Alliance Interactive (the ones I blame for breaking this fine product!). I do have HDS II on 3.5 in floppy, but I don't have the original Harpoon on 3.5 in to install it over thus upgrading to v1.3. I tried installing it over Harpoon Classic DOS (to roll back the version from 1.5x, but it won't work. If anyone has a working version of v1.3 or v1.31 I'd love to play with it!

You guys will have to email me in advance and I'll try to attend. As you suspected putting 255 in targets field has absolutely no bearing on number of SAMs fire any more th putting 1 in the field. ROF field is the sole determiner it appears. Now, what is in the target field is what appears in the "platform display" annex. It appears 10 second intervals has something to do with SAM ROF. It's unpredictible though in the sense that sometimes the program will fire every 10 seconds x number of missiles and other times not. Not sure why or what its doing. Bottom line, seems like whatever it's doing it's not doing it the way any of us would like. I can tell you that the early versions of Harpoon (DOS/Amiga versions 1.2 or something early like that) had code that controlled all mount firing (SAM, SSM, Torpedo, etc). If you allocated 8 Harpoons or torpedoes to fire it would fire 1 then x number of seconds would pass then the next would fire, etc....similar to Harpoon ANW. Sometime after Three-Sixty went under and Alliance got it's hands on the code and produced The "Classic" versions of the program it all went to hell. I've got these early versions of Harpoon for PC, but they're on 5.25 inch floppy and I don't have a 5.25 inch drive! Anyway, I'll help with testing/debugging mount ROF/Target matters if the mission is issued to in earnest correct and improve that portion of the code.

I understand ROF for gun mounts is per minute, but please explain what ROF = for missile mounts. For example a Mk41 VLS has ROF of 30 per tactical turn (30 seconds) per Harpoon Data Annex. What value would you put in the database for ROF for the Mk41 mount? Example Mk26 has ROF of 6 missiles per tactical turn (30 seconds) per Harpoon Data Annex. What value would you put in the database for ROF for the Mk26? From testing it appears the ROF is irrelevant for non-SAM mounts. SSM missile or torpedo mounts for example fire as many round as allocated in the attack menu all at the same time. I'm more concerned about getting a good understanding of how SAM ROF works and how to use the ROF field in the database for them. What impact does the target field have? It appears it should be the number of fire control radars aboard the platform. Testing shows that the target field has little if nothing to do with the number of SAMs fired and that the ROF field is the real determiner of how many SAMs are fired. Please help me understand how these 2 fields work within the program, so that we can troubleshoot it.

Very nice Tony! Look forward to seeing the final product of the new, new unit window. Is it it possible to release the beta's (and upcoming patch) with the old unit window (until the new, new one is ready for prime time)? That choppy, blocky, unit window is driving me nuts!

Love the ability to zoom out further with the unit window! Looks like the new unit window is essentially identical to the group window, just it shows individual units within formation. Very handy, but is anyone else noticing the "choppy" movement of units/missles when you zoom into 16x or smaller? Seems that once you get 16x or smaller the unit window become almost unusable. Is there anything that can be done to smooth out unit/missile movement in the smaller zooms of the new unit window?

Version .025 - Scenario Editor Error: 1. Create a group and a path with more than 1 waypoint and the 2. Orders2/alternate path and create an alternate path at a waypoint (and give it more than 1 waypoint too) and give it say 65% probability and click OK 3. Select the 65% alternate path entered and click edit 4. Orders2/alternate path and create an alternate path at one of the waypoints and give it say 33% probability. When you click OK to the 33% alternate path you'll then get window asking you to click OK/cancel for the linked prior 65% alternate path (created in #2 above). When you click OK or cancel you'll get an error window and crash to desk top.