It looks like Enrique is all over this. Julian, if there are any other things you'd like to see, let us know.

3 hours ago, TonyE said:

........ My first thought on submarines is to add a couple of Los Angeles on the Blue side, each in their own group of course but in support of the CVBG then add a Kilo variant of some sort as well as bring the Victor out of the Kuznetsov group and into its own group.

Enrique probably knows a likely submarine deployment for the period.  A situation where the main stategic threat is submarines and the surface groups are for area defense and 'show' could be interesting.

There's room for two good scenario here I'm sure, a bit of updated action from classic times would be nice.

14 hours ago, rainman said:

It looks like Enrique is all over this. Julian, if there are any other things you'd like to see, let us know.

Of course Julian, at your will.

Almost finished, but travelling these days.

On 9/6/2024 at 9:17 PM, Julian said:

Greetings Harpgamers,

I am Julian Spencer-Churchill, associate prof at Concordia University (Montreal) in political science, and I have been using this scenario for my class to teach naval operations as part of my undergraduiate introduction to strategic studies class. I have always been disappointed that NATO had no submarines and the Soviet submarine threat was non-existent. I would appreciate any modifications for this scenario that modernizes it. My students have been using Harpoon for almost two decades now in the classroom.

thank-you very much, Julian

 

 

Revamped scenario available here. It's not tested, but probably fine because it's not very complicated. Of course I can modify any aspect of it at request, or about detected defects or so. Enjoy!

 

On 9/9/2024 at 2:24 AM, broncepulido said:

Revamped scenario available here. It's not tested, but probably fine because it's not very complicated. Of course I can modify any aspect of it at request, or about detected defects or so. Enjoy!

 

Hi Enrique, A great job.

So far for testing I've played thru once from Red side - all went normal, no glitches seen.

I wonder would the Blue subs be better deployed individually rather than as part of the Surface group? They were very easily detected, at many stages group ABC was detected by only sub (I'd sunk one very early) and AC.

 

I'll do a Blue side play then let you know how that went.

 

Thanks Don, I'll see the next week or so.

Blue side is playing well, very easy progress. No glitches. Glad AC haave limitless ammo for reload

Red lost the sub in the end, but it inflicted definite damage and got to fire off all torpedo.

action over at about 21 hours game time. Wondering if the required time on station is a bit long?

But a very good challenge with quite different outcomes depending on luck.

 

I fast played to game limit but no vic conditions were awarded although checking conditions in scen edit I can't see why not.

Great report Don, as usual, many thanks.

About the victory conditions I simply copy and paste the original scenario VC, only doing some very minor changes, as a little adjust to ships sunk, because I also changed a little the number of ships present, mostly to adjust to the historical Nimitz CVBG.

I don't know about this one (the original) but I do think sometimes the old vic conditions aren't as good as could be.

These ones seem a bit complicated to me, the ships on station basically just extend game play to the last 30 mins of the 2 day game limit. Other side gets vic points for the sinking of ships so no need to have a on station covering the whole map I'd think. What do you think?

I'm replaying again to try to work out why vic conditions didn't fire when I sank all blue other than a couple of sub (not seemingly in vic conditions) and had only lost a couple of ships (and subs) so I think had the number onstation - certainly the number for min conditions.

I track vic conditions in my toolbox and AIWindow, they aren't showing up the On station conditions being met I think. (You can't look at them once you get to game time limit which cought me out as I was playing at full time acceleration )

Are you still on 'holidays' I guess you won't have time to look further and do more testsing till you get home.

I'm still playing this one on and off. I find the game play quite good from either Blue or Red side. It interests me how Red rely strongly on ship board SAM while Blue rely more on aircraft,  and as such carefully playing Red lets you whittle down the Blue defenses and especially if you can get a sub into a good position you can do very well.

I still have no muck being satisfied with victory conditions which are pretty well straight from the original scenario, fair enough I guess but I have the same problem with the original.

You have to play for a very long time, even if you get good results, to get even minimum victory. To me one strong point of having minimum victory is to spur on enthusiasm, to get recognition for working well.

The Min Vic Conditions are:

RED MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 1:
   1 carrier must be killed.
RED MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 2:
   2 ships must be killed.
RED MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 3:
   1 carrier must be on station for 47 hrs, 0 min, 0 sec.

BLUE MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 1:
   1 carrier must be on station for 47 hrs, 0 min, 0 sec.

BLUE MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 2:
   1 carrier must be killed.
BLUE MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 3:
   7 ships must be killed.

game times out at 48 hrs.

After a bit of fiddling I think it will play with more reward if the carriers on station vic conditions were Total, not Minimum conditions.

I'm interested how other people feel about vic conditions and this particualr case.

 

On 9/10/2024 at 7:19 PM, donaldseadog said:

I wonder would the Blue subs be better deployed individually rather than as part of the Surface group? They were very easily detected, at many stages group ABC was detected by only sub (I'd sunk one very early) and AC.

 

Submarines have historically always been easier to detect (within the game) if they were attached to a surface group. Almost always better to place them separately.