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!

Topic to hold Miller7219's post regarding turns.

 

Also note our initial IRC discussion on the topic

Brad just gave what I consider the first good reason to keep the Intermediate turn and that is PBEM. In a PBEM situation you don't have the freedom to keep changing orders, the Intermediate turn preserves that focus on planning at least 10 minutes out. That is where Brain's further meddling comes in with the comment that a turn should be submitted with some guidance on how long the orders are good for (i.e. maybe when crossing the Atlantic if no contact is made you can go for 3 days rather than 10 minutes. I admit to finding the idea intriguing.

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?