Begins and ends with online play. the scenarios in HCE are interesting, but the bottom line is the AI should never beat you,and the AI should definitley NEVER beat you the second time through a scenario. As a result, the game has a finite amount of playability. Like many other games, one will gain experience, "beat" the game, and then lose interest. Online play changes all that (just ask the folks running the Call of Duty franchise). It seems ironic to me that ancient AOL could host HC in 1991 and 1992, but we cant this going in 2010??

What would it take to make this happen??

Not to take anything away from your wish, because I am certainly in favour of a multiplayer version of HCE, but I have to wonder how many folks would really play.

 

MP is available for ANW but it is my understanding is that only a handful of folks play.

 

Harpoon Online was apparently considerably more popular, but I have to wonder if that ship has sailed.

 

Maybe I am just feeling pessimistic today.

For me Harpoon not it is about playability, is about simulation.

You can simulate every historical platform, every scenario situation, and hypotetical situations.

For me is more a research instrument than a game, for playing I can like more other things, as Heros of Might and Magic IV

And about playing Harpoon, for me is more about simulate historical situations, playing several times the same scenario and obtain some outputs of the outcome and demise of the play.

Multiplayer game don't add more at my interest in Harpoon.

Also, speaking only about playability, with almost infinite pausible scenarios and multiple historical platforms, and with the initial aleatorial placement in the map and the aleatorial presence of units or not presence of the same in the scenarios (adjustable in percentage), for me the pure playability is also near infinite.

It seems ironic to me that ancient AOL could host HC in 1991 and 1992, but we cant this going in 2010??

What would it take to make this happen??

 

In the early 90s HC sold quite a lot of copies so there was financial incentive to create HOL. Free HOL during testing was great but as I'm sure you saw, the limited user-base once it became fee-based didn't support the cost of maintaining the game and reducing the bevvy of crashes.

 

It isn't germaine to the discussion but we've not been able to turn up the code to the HOL client let alone the server mechanism (the server mechanism {UNIX} would have been almost impossible to revive today and the rights probably wouldn't be obtainable anyway).

 

What would it take to make it happen? This is a community supported and maintained product so making forward progress requires a lot of free time from the community. I think you got my general view on how that goes by the post at Matrix and your wishlist here is a good easy start. Participation participation, participation. That means learning the game, supporting your fellow users, writing documentation, any number of tasks can use huge amounts of labor. Now if you want to take the quick approach and fund the development that'd be fantastic but so far nobody has wanted to throw money away like that .

You should try the Breakout scenario and then come back with the second time around thing. Multiplayer would be good, but I don't think within this niche market is going to have huge following.

I must say I've never found anything wrong with playing with myself, so to speak. Harpoon has a very large number of scenarios and they're always increasing. It would take a very long time to play every one twice, and then you can get your favourites and redo them for added difficulty (though I wouldn't try redoing any of the 'breakouts' for added difficulty )

Personally I wouldn't bother with online gaming, you never know the opposition might be less challenge than the AI and you have to organise yourself to fit in with the other player (I assume).

It seems to me there are lots of on line games, it's only reasonable that some games don't go down that road but concentrate on other aspects.

As has been said, if some one wanted to through in the necessary money/ time to make it happen (without degrading other aspects of the game) great!

Don, a contented harpoon player.

Like Don, I consider myself a fairly 'contented' Harpoon player.

 

(You'd have to be if you're still playing the same game/sim (in one version or another) for the better part of 20 years!)

 

I'd certainly play a MP version of HCE, don't get me wrong, but I have a feeling the group of hard core players would be quite small.

Like Don, I consider myself a fairly 'contented' Harpoon player.

 

(You'd have to be if you're still playing the same game/sim (in one version or another) for the better part of 20 years!)

 

I'd certainly play a MP version of HCE, don't get me wrong, but I have a feeling the group of hard core players would be quite small.

 

Yeah, MP Harpoon really doesn't fire me up. I have games I can play MP in. Harpoon is my single-player escape. You just never know how it's going to end when you start a scenario.

 

Last night, I ended up killing off five merchies with those twin 130mm mounts on a Sovremenny to get my victory, after using the sunburns on the AAW escorts. and losing a Udaloy to the opfor's last 4 exocets, after that Udaloy had killed I don't know how many piecemeal harpoons shot at me.

 

Not how I expected to win, but, 18 of their ships in exchange for 2 of mine and 1 heavily damaged frigate was pretty good, I thought. I would have lost only one ship, but I forgot that the type 22/3 carries a (114mm?) gun, and he plinked a missile boat (bait!) in the front of my formation before the Sovremenny got in range. And, only 5 of those 18 ships were sunk by air, 1 with torpedoes, and 3 by Sunburn. The rest were gun kills.

 

That's the beauty of Harpoon. You can end a scenario like that, but you can also command multi-carrier battle groups and land bases full of bombers, too, and you just never know what's going to hit you.

I'd certainly play a MP version of HCE, don't get me wrong, but I have a feeling the group of hard core players would be quite small.

And why is it small?

 

From my point of view, the following happen:

With the step from H1 to HII: A lot of im provements were done. Unfortunately, HII was buggy.

With the step from HII to H3 and ANW more and more the game fun went in the background and the simulation went in the front. This means, ANW is an excelent simulation, while it is a game fun killer. Instead the gamer select what shall be automatised and what manually controlled by the gamer; the game define what is how automatised and what is controlled manually. This leads by some player to the step backward to HC.

The target group of MP by HC is different then by ANW.

 

I'm open for facts which shows that this is wrong.

And why is it small?

 

I believe an active HCE multiplayer group would be small because:

 

1. Naval warfare simulations appeal to only a small portion of the gaming world

2. The lack of bells, whistles and eye candy further shrink the size of the above group

3. Real life commitments of time and energy make it difficult for a small group to find suitably convenient times to play.

And why is it small?

 

2. The lack of bells, whistles and eye candy further shrink the size of the above group

 

I prefer that the "bells, whistles, and eye candy" be left out, or at least able to be turned off. What I have always liked about Harpoon is that the main graphic is fairly close to the the NTDS type display. But then consider my background as an automation engineeer. One of the things I work on is operator screens. Typically a graphical depiction of a refinery or a chemical plant, presenting the operator with the information needed, but also careful about the "clutter factor".

Yes, I was referring to what tends to attract the majority of 'gamers' in these day and age, not us old timers who are happy enough with little stylized icons.

One of the things I've always liked about HC is the lack of graphical 'flash'. IMO there is very little of that nature that could be usefully added to a game like this.

One of the things I've always liked about HC is the lack of graphical 'flash'. IMO there is very little of that nature that could be usefully added to a game like this.

 

Am I the only one who dreams of plotting his TLAM courses in 3D thru canyons and such? Sheesh

Am I the only one who dreams of plotting his TLAM courses in 3D thru canyons and such? Sheesh

 

I wouldn't consider that 'too flashy'.