From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Thu Dec 17 17:57:01 1992 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus1) id AA06040; Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:57:01 -0800 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:57:01 -0800 Message-Id: <9212180157.AA06040@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v14 #1 (msgs 1-11) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 17 December 1992 Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Topics: (1) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (2) Amiga Harpoon jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (3) Swedish Data janm@aten.docs.uu.se (4) AX Tidbits tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (5) Ship Colors brownle@stat.appstate.edu (6) Bug Form dp@wx.gtegsc.com (7) Beginner's Questions hrz090@de0hrz1a.bitnet (8) Message Text Format norm@ctr.columbia.edu (9) Challenge Scenario dp@wx.gtegsc.com (10) No Target? lapointe@mv83a.nusc.navy.mil (11) Direct Support SSNs? scooter@emunix.emich.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: anonymous FTP for CZ and Computer Scenarios (Amiga, Mac, PC) N.A. sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon Europe ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42): harpoon Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 17 Dec 1992 16:03:50 PST From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (1) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: jimb@nynexst.com (James Burkitt) g95hc%cunyvm.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Jerry Chen) cs911314@ariel.yorku.ca (Peter R. Forth) khill@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu (Kevin Hill) tim@boxhill.com (Timothy Jones) rxreddoch@ualr.edu (Russell Reddoch) youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) Dan Post (dp@wx.gtegsc.com) has taken the bug coordinator position. Please read his message (v14 msg 6) below. I will also eventually put a copy of the bug form in the archives. There is no problem with trying to tell people how to avoid or work around bugs. But there is little chance that 360 combs every CZ article for debugging information. Instead, I suggest you send information to Dan to collate in a form that is more useful for debugging. He in turns sends them in to 360. I am off to vacation. Happy Holidays to all. I will be back online in January. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 01:38:53 EST From: jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) Subject: (2) Amiga Harpoon Message-Id: Well, when 360 called for beta-testers, I registered. I, of course, have far more access to both future hardware, debugging tools (software and hardware), and of course the OS source (since I maintain a sizable fraction of the OS). If they do decide to release 1.3 for the Amiga, I should be able to help give it better beta-testing (if I'm not swamped at work). Randell Jesup Commodore Engineering ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 18:17:00 +0100 From: janm@aten.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson) Subject: (3) Swedish Data Message-Id: In CZ v13 msg 49, dp@wx.gtegsc.com (Dan Post) writes: >1. All of the Swedish airfields to not have radar! Sweden has a dispersed basing system with many small, primitive road bases. It's quite natural that not all of them have radar. On the other hand there should be plenty of radars without airfields. >2. The fighter variant of the Viggen does not have an AIR to AIR load. It should have 2 Skyflash and four Sidewinders. >1. Doesn't Sweden have a Antiradar missle? There is not one listed under the > GUIK database. No. >2. It is disappointing that they did not include the Swedish Draken in the > enhanced GUIK Battleset. It has been upgraded and is still operational in > Sweden. Would anyone give there ideas on a rough equivalent?. My first > guess would be the F-4, but it is faster and carries a larger bomb load. The Lightning would be an approximate equivalent. Two J35 J Draken squadrons are still operational. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 09:22:24 -0800 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (4) AX Tidbits Message-Id: In Dec 92 USNI Proceedings "Comment and Discusion" column, Cpt. J.C. Rosenberg, USN (AX Requirements Officer, Navy Staff) was commenting on a previous article about the AX. My comments are in brackets. Cpt. Rosenberg states that the Tentative Operational Requirements (TOR) written for the AX requires it to be a multi-mission aircraft, including a requirement for anti-air warfare. He goes on to say: "So, the AX will not only replace the A-6 but - together with the F/A-18 - the F-14 Tomcat as well." [Apparently, the AX will not be just an air-to-ground aircraft. It will have a substantial air-to-air role too. This is much more than the token Sidewinder capability of the A-6. Part of this is explained by a different concept of operations from the A-6.] Rosenberg goes on to explain that the Gulf War showed that stealth aircraft could operate without fighter sweeps. Due to the problems of carrying air-to-ground weapons in a stealth aircraft, the AX is not designed for large payloads and instead rely on "exceptionally effective and accurate payloads". [Here, he confirms the conventional wisdom about stealth attack aircraft. Relying on stealth may reduce the overall air-to-air requirements on the carrier air wing as escort and sweeps may not be necessary. Current ordnance is not stealthy. Thus, payloads must be internal to prevent compromise of stealth characteristics. Internal payloads are quite limited leading to a reliance on smart weapons. Congressional testimony indicates that the AX may operate in two different modes. When stealth is paramount the payload will be internally carried smart ordnance. In a later phase, when air superiority is established, external loads will also be used to increase payload.] He states that stealth aircraft need to have good, but necessarily superb performance to achieve air superiority. Traditionally, fighters have been converted into attack aircraft. With stealth planes, though, because of internal carriage and lower required performance, the evolution may be reversed. Thus, converting from the ATF is not necessarily a better path. [There is not very much experience with stealth aircraft in air combat. However, the claim is that stealth may be able to compensate somewhat for aerodynamic performance. Certainly, it will be very difficult to retrofit an internal bay for large air-to-ground weapons to a stealthy fighter design. Also, there are other problems with an ATF conversion to attack role, such as the inevitable tradeoffs in making such an aircraft carrier capable. This may explain the waning USN interest in the ATF.] ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 1992 16:02:30 -0500 (EST) From: brownle@stat.appstate.edu subject: (5) Ship Colors Message-Id: Would someone please let me know the Federal Standard colors that are used on US Navy ships? I am painting some Harpoon miniatures and some larger models and it would be my preference to paint them correctly rather than a random pick of one of the many shades of grey paint available. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 15:06:50 -0800 From: dp@wx.gtegsc.com (Dan Post) Subject: (6) Bug Form Message-Id: Comment: edited [Mod Note: Here is the bug form to document Computer Harpoon problems. Please use the form below to report bugs. That way, it's much easier for 360 to shift through the reports. Please don't flame! If you have suggestions about how to improve the form, please send mail to Dan.] HARPOON SOFTWARE PROBLEM REPORT Date Bug Found (MM/DD/YY): __________ E-Mail Contact for Further Information: __________ Phone Number for Further Information: __________ Product (Game, Scenario Editor, HDS Installer, etc.): __________ Software Version Number:_________ Type of Computer: PC____ MAC___ AMIGA___ BattleSet Used: Regular BattleSet: GUIK___ NACV___ MEDC___ IOPG___ Other(specify)___ Enhanced BattleSet: GUIK___ NACV___ MEDC___ IOPG___ Other(specify)___ Scenario Source: 360___ User Written ___ Scenario Name: __________ Switches/Game Options Used? __________ PC Questions: Operating System: MS-DOS___ Windows___ OS/2___ Other(specify)_____ Operating System Version: _____ CPU Type: 8088/86___ 80286___ 80386___ 80486___ Sound Card: Internal___ Sound Blaster___ Ad Lib___ Other(specify)___ Monitor Type: CGA___ EGA___ Tandy___ VGA___ Amount of Memory: _____MB MAC Questions: Mac OS Version: _____ TuneUp Version: ____ Mac Hardware Type: _____ Color Version of Program? YES___ NO___ Amount of Memory: _____MB AMIGA Questions: Operating System Version: _____ Amount of Memory: _____MB Synopsis (Where, What, How, etc.): Estimated Impact (Minor, Major, Can't Tell, etc.): Bug/Problem Description: Repeat By: Suggested Workaround/Solution (if any): Other Comments: ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:29:09 MEZ From: hrz090%de0hrz1a.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Dr. Martin Erdelen) Subject: (7) Beginner's Questions Message-Id: Greetings, Thanks to splendid support by 360 (and the unflinching patience of Tim Jacobs) I have managed to upgrade from Harpoon 1.16 (yes, the one where you put flintstone axes against mammoth tooth clubs) to version 1.31 and also FTP'd 1.32. Now I feel a bit overwhelmed by all that is available and can be done. Would all you Harpoon veterans therefore please bear with (or skip over) some very basic beginner's questions? ... 1. Has anybody ever ranked the various Battlesets and/or Scenarios from "easy" to "difficult" with respect to easiness of managing and/or easiness of winning? Are the latter two necessarily coupled? I.e., is a "simple" scenario (few units to manage, clear and simple goals, short time frame, etc.) always also easy to win? Are HDS scenarios generally tougher than standard ones? 2. Which Battleset/Scenario would you recommend for beginners (i.e. novices to Harpoon playing as well as to naval matters in general)? Is it really true that GIUK scenarios 1-4 are easy (as the docs say)? I tried GIUK/Gauntlet but (as BLUE) get a flogging all the time - due to ignorance (probably) or to Scenario difficulty? Has somebody perhaps compiled something like a "walkthrough" for one of the easier scenarios, so that a novice might get the "feel" of it all? 3. Has anyone ever compiled (and would be willing to share) a *comprehensive* list of naval/military/Harpoon abbreviations and/or technical terminology and jargon? The one in the Harpoon manual isn't complete enough for me. Specifically, the new Message Format for Orders is all very well, does indeed add to authenticity (and I even figured out that A/C means aircraft), but what, e.g., is U/W ? Underwater? Certainly not for surface ships? :-) And what is a ROE warning - "return of enemy" or just "beware of antlers"? (ahhh: Rules of Engagement ??!!) All comments, hints and advice will be welcome. Thanks in advance. Martin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 00:18:54 -0500 From: norm@ctr.columbia.edu (N. R. "Norm" Lunde) Subject: (8) Message Text Format Message-Id: As all of you HDS owners out there know, the Blue and Red orders for each scenario are written in Navy-style "Message Text Format" for added realism. It's usually straightforward to translate MTF into normal English, but I'd like to be able to write orders in MTF for my homebrew scenarios. Does anyone out there have a reference -- official or otherwise -- on MTF? Norm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 09:38:32 -0800 From: dp@wx.gtegsc.com (Dan Post) Subject: (9) Challenge Scenario Message-Id: Comment: reformatted I. Introduction Harpoon Challenge scenarios are to introduce player interaction using the Harpoon Scenario Editor. The basic method is for one player (Blue) to set up his forces and then a second player (Red) will take the Blue setup and add the Red forces. The Red force player/referee will set up the computer forces to try to beat the blue force. The plan is to use either BBS or Internet for exchanging files. For the first scenario the object is for Blue to get his carrier task force from the Eastern Med to the Straits of Gibraltar home port. The starting forces are as follows: II. Force Size Blue side (player) | Red side (computer) - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 ships/subs and 100 planes/helos | The Red forces will be based on or | the playing skill of the player. 9 ships/subs and 110 planes/helos | or | Novice: 8 ships/subs and 120 planes/helos | 10 ships/subs | 125 planes/helos 2 ports (already on map) | | Intermediate: upto 1 airbase in any friendly country | 12 ships/subs (Blue force must place) | 160 planes/helos | at least 1 carrier must be chose | Advanced: | 15 ships/subs | 175 planes/helos | | upto 5 bases in any friendly | countries | | player will state in the .txt file | what skill level he wishes to | play at | Friendly Countries: | Friendly Countries: Cyprus | All Other Countries Israel | Morocco | Spain | Syria | Turkey | - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Scenario Description Estimated free memory required to run this scenario : 502K Force comparison (Example only) -------------|- Blue Side --- Red Side -| Bases -------| 3 5 | Ships -------| 8 9 | Combat | 4 7 | Lrg Combat | 4 2 | Support | 0 0 | Subs --------| 2 6 | Nuclear | 2 6 | Diesel | 0 0 | Aircraft ----| 100 175 | Combat | 80 158 | ASW | 0 0 | Support | 20 17 | ANALYZING VICTORY CONDITIONS: RED TOTAL VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 1: 1 carrier must be killed. RED TOTAL VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 2: 8 ships must be killed. RED MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 1: 1 carrier must be damaged at 55%. RED MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 2: 5 ships must be killed. BLUE TOTAL VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 1: 10 ships must be killed. BLUE TOTAL VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 2: 6 ships must be on station for 1 hrs, 0 min, 0 sec. BLUE MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 1: 4 ships must be on station for 1 hrs, 0 min, 0 sec. BLUE MINIMUM VICTORY CONDITION (AND) 2: 1 carrier must be on station for 1 hrs, 0 min, 0 sec. IV. Platform Picks: Either Red or Blue may pick any platform in the HDS3 (Enhanced MEDC) database. The Red force referee will be limited to the platforms left after the Blue player picks his platforms. V. Setup Rules. Blue Force: 1. All ships/subs must setup within 50nm's of AAp Baniyas, Syria. 2. Planes/Helos can be placed at any base or ship limited only by normal platform limitations. Helos on ships do count against the total plane limit. 3. No more than 36 aircraft of any one platform can be selected. A platform is defined by the Harpoon database. For example, a F-14D and a SuperTomcat count as separate platforms. 4. No more than 2 ships of any one platform can be selected. Platforms are defined as above. 5. No more than 12 aircraft/helos or 1 ship/sub of a type never in service either past or present. For example, the SuperTomcat is "vaporware" and only exists on the drawing board, ditto for the F-22. 6. The one optional airbase must be placed in a friendly country. 7. Any combination of platform nationalities are allowed in this scenario. 8. No variable start points are allowed for Blue. Red Force: 1. All ships/subs must be at least 200nm's distant from any Blue force ship/sub or base. 2. Planes/Helos may be placed at any red airbase or fleet. Helos on ships do count against the total plane limit. 3. Bases may be placed at any friendly country. Which means anywhere that is not friendly to Blue. 4. No more than 36 aircraft of any one platform can be selected. A platform is defined by the Harpoon database. For example, a F-14D and a SuperTomcat count as separate platforms. 5. No more than 2 ships of any one platform can be selected. Platforms are defined as above. 6. No more than 12 aircraft/helos or 1 ship/sub of a type never in service either past or present. For example, the SuperTomcat is "vaporware" and only exists on the drawing board, ditto for the F-22. 7. Any combination of platform nationalities are allowed in this scenario. VI. How to Play (finally) Phase 1: Any player who wants to play takes the challset.sc8 file and adds his entire Blue force. To help make the file easy to recognize the following file name convention is required: C1CDP1.SC8 C1XXXX - Defines the scenario (Challenge scenario number 1) This will not change until a new scenario is defined. XXCXXX - Defines that the this scenario is only partially completed and awaits a Red Force player to finish it. The choices are: C for challenge, R for Red Reply. XXXDPX- This field is for the initials of the player. XXXXX1- This field shows the revision level of the Blue Force challenge. For example, after the Blue Force wins with one force setup he may want to try another force make-up. He would then put a 2 in this field. Any notes or comments to the red opponent should go in a player.txt file. This should also be where the player requests a difficulty level. After the file is zipped upload your challenge to the Internet and wait for another player to respond. Phase 2: Any player who thinks he can make the Harpoon AI rip the Blue Force to sheds can respond to any challenge found on the Internet. After he downloads the file and uploads his scenario editor, he is free to setup his Red Force under the restrictions already mentioned. After he has finished, he can upload the file with the following file name convention: C1RDPRJ1.SC8 C1XXXXXX - Defines the scenario (Challenge scenario number 1). This will not change until a new scenario is defined. XXRXXXXX - Defines that the this scenario is now complete and awaits a Blue Force to play. (R for Red Reply) XXXDPXXX - This field is for the initials of the Blue player. XXXXXRJX - This field is for the initials of the Red player. XXXXXXX1 - This field shows the revision level of the Blue Force challenge. For example, after the blue force wins with one force setup, he may want to try another force make-up. He would then put a 2 in this field. Note that the Red response does not change this number. Put any comments and your internet address if you wish in a file called Ref.txt. Phase 3: Now its show time!. The Blue Force player downloads his modified scenario. Load it up and enjoy! Related files: Challtem.sc8 - Challenge Template for Blue Player Challblu.sc8 - Sample of Blue Setup Challgam.sc8 - Sample Game If I can help, mail me at dp@wx.gtegsc.com . Dan Post ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:53:41 EST From: lapointe@mv83a.nusc.navy.mil Subject: (10) No Target? Message-Id: While playing Harpoon V1.32 (286 version) I noticed that after I changed the planes course or speed the plane would carry out the order and then set its target to none. What gives? This is a royal pain. I am constantly telling my planes to attack some target even though they were already told to attack it. Am I forced to go back to V1.30 or V1.31? Has anyone else seen this problem? It looks like V1.32 is a step backwards. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 16:47:07 EDT From: scooter@emunix.emich.edu (Todd McDaniel) Subject: (11) Direct Support SSNs? Message-Id: In CZ v13 msg 51, tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) reports that "The USN is experimenting again with using SSNs in direct support of surface ships." Could we discuss this a little bit? Haven't there always been SSNs attached to Carrier groups? HELP! -tj [Mod Note: What I wrote was basically a quote from SITREP 13!] - ----------------------------Save the wolves--------------------------------- | _________ ___ ___ ___ |EngliNet: Todd John McDaniel | | /________/| /__/| /__/\ /__/| |InterNet: scooter@emunix.emich.edu | | |___ ___|/ | || | \\ / || | | | | || ____| || | |\\//| || | Western Civilization: | | | || /____| || | ||\/ | || | "It would be a good idea" | | |__|/ |_______|/ |__|/ |__|/ | Mohandas K. Gandhi | | | | ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest **************** From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Tue Jan 26 15:10:49 1993 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus1) id AA13196; Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:10:49 -0800 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:10:49 -0800 Message-Id: <9301262310.AA13196@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v14 #2 (msgs 12-18) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 26 January 1993 Volume: 14 Issue: 2 Topics: (12) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (13) Re: Amiga Harpoon jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (14) v1.32 Problems grahame_reynolds@dge.ceo.dg.com (15) Slippery Settings gareth.bull@cc.monash.edu.au (16) Harpoon II fontana@pv.infn.it (17) RFD: rec.games.miniature bob@werple.apana.org.au (18) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: anonymous FTP for CZ and Computer Scenarios (Amiga, Mac, PC) N.A. sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon Europe ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42): harpoon Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 26 Jan 1993 12:03:41 PST From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (12) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: jpb@nucleus.ansto.gov.au (John Bertram) alan@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Alan Boldock) bruce@lobby.ti.com (Harlan Bruce) cline@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu (Ernest Cline) johnc@gdstech.grumman.com (John Colasante) fred_decosta_at_iii-hq@relay.proteon.com (Fred DeCosta) follick@chama.eece.unm.edu (Jeremy Follick) green_ri@newprt.enet.dec.com (Richard Green) hausmann@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com (John Hausmann) larocque%fin_sys.sci.com@uunet.uu.net (Joe LaRocque) allenlee@gagme.chi.il.us (Allen Lee) st92htkj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (Joseph P. Lopez) lmah@bode.ee.ualberta.ca (Lester Stephen Mah) jmarold@slic.cts.com (Jeff Marold) mjm@cadence.com (Mike Meyer) grahame_reynolds@dge.ceo.dg.com (Grahame Reynolds) tscott@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tony Scott) helmut@apple.com (Helmut Seifert) s7041551@ucsvax.ucs.umass.edu (Lew Stead) cbtcc%cunyvm.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Chris Thompson) I must apologize for letting things go this long without an issue. It has been more than a month. The reasons include the usual excuses: vacation, real work, jury duty, lack of submissions, etc. Hopefully, thing will go smoother from now on. However, sometime down the road if I actually intend to graduate or get a job, I may need to turn things over to someone else. In the meantime, I encourage anyone to submit articles if you have the least bit of inclination to do so. Miniature players may want to look at the article by Bob Blanchett. In it, he proposes formation of a miniatures newsgroup. It's included here so you can participate in the discussion happening in the "news.groups" newsgroup (not here on CZ!). -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 22:01:56 -0500 From: jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dutka) Subject: (13) Re: Amiga Harpoon Message-Id: In CZ v14 msg 2, Randell Jesup posted: > Well, when 360 called for beta-testers, I registered. I, of course, have far > more access to both future hardware, debugging tools (software and hardware), > and of course the OS source (since I maintain a sizable fraction of the OS). > If they do decide to release 1.3 for the Amiga, I should be able to help give > it better beta-testing (if I'm not swamped at work). Same here, but replace work with Master's thesis. One problem - I called the hotline, and according to the person answering the phone, 360 had no plans for the Designer Series, Patriot, or Harpoon 2 for the Amiga, which IS unfortunate. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 14:39:54 est From: grahame_reynolds@dge.ceo.dg.com Subject: (14) v1.32 Problems Message-Id: Comment: message edited I've just started using Harpoon 1.3.2 and I'm experiencing real difficuly running the larger scenarios. I've a 4MB 16mhz 386-SX. Even though I'm running DOS 5 with DOS high, and EMM386 running taking all available expanded memory, (about 2.7mb), I'm still running out of memory and today I've been getting unrecoverable system errors from the Mem Mngr. I've no other drivers other than the mouse, (which is running in extended memory - MS Mouse /e). I'd call 360 myself but it's the holiday season over here. Could anybody out there help? Thanks in advance. Grahame Reynolds@dge.ceo.dg.com ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 1993 11:42:47 +1100 From: gareth.bull@cc.monash.edu.au Subject: (15) Slippery Settings Message-Id: I don't know if these faults are still a problem, but after a frustrating weekend I want to say something about them. Mostly I was playing modified battleset scenerios where I'd change the ships in a particular group, eg In the "Bears at Bay" scenario in the NACV, I used a Clemenceau CV instead of the Jean d'Arc CVH. I noticed several irritating bugs. 1. On several occasions when I changed the speed of a ship group from Cruise to Max, within a few minutes the game would change the speed back to cruise, without any messages or request windows being displayed. Very annoying when you're trying to outrun a torpedo. 2. Similar problems with active sonar. I would turn the sonar on and the game would turn it off, so I would turn it on again and the game would turn it off again. 3. I would set an aircraft to Loiter at High Altitude, then send it to another location. Even though the altitude was "High", the cruise speed was the speed for "Low". I would have to set the speed manually (eg, Atlantique's would cruise at 260 Kts at High altitude when they should be cruising at 350 Kts). I've also noticed that sometimes when I turn on active sonar for an entire surface group, after a few game minutes some of the ships would go back to passive, but some would stay active. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 15:40:07 +0100 (WET) From: fontana@pv.infn.it Subject: (16) Harpoon II Message-Id: Hello to everyone out there. Here we're trying to collect some info on Harpoon II: does anyone have some news, as planned release date, new features, new Battlesets and so on? Greetings from Med -Andrea Andrea Fontana - Department of Nuclear & Theoretical Physics - University of Pavia - Italy Internet: fontana@pv.infn.it Voice: +39-382-392423 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1993 12:34:04 +1100 (EST) From: bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett) Subject: (17) RFD: rec.games.miniature Message-Id: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION Create an UNMODERATED Usenet newsgroup called "rec.games.miniatures". This announcement is cross-posted to newsgroups and mailing lists whose readers may have an interest in the discussion about the new group; follow-up discussion will take place in "news.groups". Suggestions, comments or problems may also be emailed to me at bob@werple.apana.org.au. PURPOSE The newsgroup "rec.games.miniatures" would be a forum for discussing the all aspects of the hobby of tabletop miniature wargaming of all periods, from figure painting, terrain construction, historical information and army and unit composition through to rulesets, tabletop tactics, scenarios, campaigning and competitions. A "rec.games.miniatures" newsgroup would provide its readers an opportunity to discuss their experiences with other hobbyists, sharing skills, ideas, information and techniques on topics discussed. One major aim of the group is to provide a focus for hobbyists on the net to gain assistance from others in finding solutions to specific problems, e.g. locating information and sources for a topic or range of figures, rules or terrain materials or providing information on a new period a player wishes to try out. RATIONALE Much of the miniatures related discussion takes place on a number of diverse mailing lists, some of which are published in edited, digest form. As many miniatures gamers play more than one period, this requires subscription to multiple mailing lists. As lists are not widely publicised, relevant discussion can be easily missed. As list subscriptions are small compared to newsgroup readership, It is likely that many potential tabletop miniature readers may be missing out on participating in discussion as no central forum exists. As has been the case with other newsgroups, which had their basis in mailing lists, signing up formally to a list and then sending mail to publish an article takes a commitment of time. Some sites place restrictions on mailing list subscription. Because participation in a newsgroup is easy, immediate, and spontaneous, it is hoped this will encourage and facilitate a greater amount of information and skill sharing among players of tabletop miniature wargames. CONTENT This newsgroup is open to tabletop miniature wargamers of ALL periods and genres. The periods concerned are too many to enumnerate here. Q & A Sourcing of: - Figures. - Rules. - Terrain Materials. - Other miscellaneous equipment. Information - To help locate primary and secondary sources for army/unit/tactical or battlefield research. - For beginners and players regarding gaming the various periods on the table. - To help promote organised miniature wargaming at clubs, competitions and conventions. - "How-to.." assistance in figure painting, painting guides and terrain and building construction and game-play. - Announcements and reviews of new rulesets, figure ranges and competions as posted by the readership. - Locating players and opponents for Face-to-Face battles. - Locating playtesters and campaign participants - Posting of scenarios and campaigns. Discussion of ideas, rulesets, figures, opinions and events about or concerning miniature wargaming by miniature wargamers. NEWSGROUP CREATION The discussion period will be from 20 January 1993 to 17 February 1993. Please post all discussion in "news.groups". If a consensus is reached by the end of the discussion period, a CFV (Call for Votes) will be posted at that time. The voting period will last for 30 days. Thank you for your interest. -- Bob Blanchett 5/4 Smith Street, bob@werple.apana.org.au Richmond Victoria 3121 +61 3 428 7371 AUSTRALIA "Finish them off with Arrows" -- 300 Spartans. ------------------------------ Date: Tue 26 Jan 1993 12:03:05 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (18) Recent Naval Developments Message-Id: January USNI Proceedings (p.28) US 6th Fleet has apparently been experimenting with the "Maritime Action Group" (MAG) force package since 1991. A MAG generally contains a CG-47 Ticonderoga Aegis cruiser, a FFG-7 Perry frigate, a SSN-688 Los Angeles class submarine and a P-3C Orion. The MAG is apparently envisioned to operate against Third World threats, where a CVBG might not be available and the threat environment is of medium or low intensity. MAG operations include the possibility of close coordination with the SSN, possibly operating at periscope or communication depths. (p.110) Black Sea Fleet Petya-II FFL SKR-112 defected to the Odessa on 21 July 1992 and was comissioned into the Ukrainian Navy. Russia and Ukraine have agreed to operate the Black Sea Fleet jointly until 1995. However, negotiations on the details have apparently yet produced no meaningful progress. (p.110) There have been a number of fires on board Russian ships. Victims of serious fires have included: Minsk (Kiev CHG): now decomissioned Moskoskiy Komsolets (16th Sovremenny DDG unit): 3 October 1991, current name not known Admiral Tributs (Udaloy DDG) Admiral Zakharov (Udaloy DDG): 30 hour fire in February 1992 caused premature retirement (p.110) Iran received its first Kilo class SS. It was commissioned as the "Taregh" on 21 November 92. Varying reports place the total number of Kilos ordered by Iran at two to four. (p. 38) Apparently in response to the Kilo delivery, the USS Topeka (SSN-754) surfaced of the coast of Bahrain on 5 November 1992. This suggests the US may operate SSNs in and around the Persian Gulf now or in the future. Iraqi Incidents Sources: DoD News, Navy News, CNN, PBS Munitions removed during the border crossings by Iraqi technicians included Chinese made Silkworm antiship missiles, though without support equipment. Video related to the incident shows missiles with "HY-2(J)" stenciled on the side of them. [Mod Note: Anyone have information specifically about the J version?] Air to air engagements between Coalition and Iraqi aircraft include at least three incidents of AIM-120 AMRAAM firings. On 28 December 1992, an F-16 shot down an Iraqi plane (MiG-23?) with an AMRAAM at a range of 10nm. At this range, the missile was probably active at launch. On 17 January 1993, an F-16 shot down a MiG-29 with an AMRAAM. No engagement details known. On 18 January 1993, a F-15C fired a AMRAAM at an MiG-25 at 27 (statute?) miles and AIM-7 Sparrow at 15 miles away. The Foxbat got away. While the details of this engagement are not known, this long range AMRAAM shot probably needed to use the data-link features, which some reports claim is not currently reliable. On 13 January 1993, aircraft from CV-63 Kitty Hawk (Carrier Air Wing 15) participated in air strikes against 4 Iraqi SA-3 batteries and IADS sites. Total strike package included some 110 aircraft from USN, USAF, UK and France. Navy planes types involved included A-6E (VA-52), F/A-18 (VFA-27 and/or VFA-97), EA-6B (VAQ-134), F-14 (VF-51 and/or VF-111). Target ordnance consisted of 1000 and 2000 lb bombs, some of which were precision guided. Mixed results were obtained against the target list. USN/MSC Persian Gulf deployments in support of Operation Southern Watch on 14 January 1993 include: CV-63 Kitty Hawk (CAW 15) CG-16 Leahy CG-18 Worden CG-32 William H. Standley CG-63 Cowpens DD-966 Hewitt DD-978 Stump FFG-33 Jarrett FFG-58 Samuel B. Roberts AOE-1 Sacramento AR-8 Jason T-AO-197 Pecos AGF-3 La Salle On 17 January 1993 at 12:08 EST, 45 TLAMs were launched against nuclear component manufacturing facilities at Zaahfarinayah, about 17 miles SE of Baghdad. The missiles were fired from CG-63 Cowpens, DD-966 Hewitt, DD-978 Stump in the Persian Gulf and DD-970 Caron in the Red Sea. The Cowpens in a VLS Ticonderoga Aegis cruiser. The other ships are all Improved Spruance class. The type of target and the range from the Caron to Zaahfarinayah suggest that only TLAM-C were used. Missiles known to have not reached their targets: 1 failed to transition to cruise flight 1 shot down, struck the Al Rasheed hotel in Baghdad though warhead did not explode 3 fell short of target in nearby orchard 3 fell inside the facility perimeter but missed their targets The first missiles arrived in the target area at 13:15 EST. It is unclear which strike planning system was used and how closely timed missile arrival was at the target. The targets (seven buildings in the complex) were apparently destroyed. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)825-8524 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest **************** From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Thu Feb 11 14:33:07 1993 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus1) id AA11458; Thu, 11 Feb 93 14:33:07 -0800 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 14:33:07 -0800 Message-Id: <9302112233.AA11458@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v14 #3 (msgs 19-28) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 11 February 1993 Volume: 14 Issue: 3 Topics: (19) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (20) Kola Pen Scenarios kvj@adint.triple-i.com (21) FAQ list tscott@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (22) I/TARH Guidance youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (23) Recent Naval Develeopments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (24) Suggested Improvements bruce@lobby.ti.com (25) Convoy Speeds coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (26) HY-2 yuqian@bvc.edu (27) Electronic Data Annex ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (28) Patriot, etc. hrz090@de0hrz1a.bitnet "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: anonymous FTP for CZ and Computer Scenarios (Amiga, Mac, PC) N.A. sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon Europe ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42): harpoon Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu Feb 11 13:21:20 1993 From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (19) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: pmsc02av@umassd.edu (Paul Bienvenue) craig@aix3090b.uky.edu (J. Craig Brunson) iburrell@leland.stanford.edu (Ian Matthew Burrell) rotorhed@swamp.alt.ns.ca (Mark Chapman) r81171@cc.ee.ntu.edu.tw (Biing-Yeh Chen) damiano@cenaath.cena.dgac.fr (Herve Damiano) goldader@akasha.ifa.hawaii.edu (Jeff Goldader) hargan%umdd.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Richard Hargan) tojohnso@major.cs.mtu.edu (Johnson) jjl0514@silver.sdsmt.edu (Jeffrey Litterick) o.marce@lifac.ens-cachan.fr (Olivier Marce) philmc@rossinc.com (Phil Mcintosh) dima@geosc.psu.edu (Dima I. Shcherban) phcs!mfs@uunet.uu.net (Mike Sprague) mtie@carleton.edu (Michael N. Tie) kvj@triple-i.com (Karl von Jena) p9167595@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk (unknown) trobaugh%indymed.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (unknown) xli0spw%luccpua.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Sean Ware) cwood@jupiter.willamette.edu (Christine J. Wood) ian.yorkston@med.umich.edu (Ian Yorkston) For those interested in the possible creation of rec.games.miniatures newsgroup, the proposal is under discussion in the news.groups newsgroup until 17 February 93. I have declined to actually include the second RFD in CZ. (The first RFD was in the last CZ issue.) However, if you need a copy of the second RFD, bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett) will probably be happy to give you one. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:13:03 PST From: kvj@adint.triple-i.com (Karl vonJena) Subject: (20) Kola Pen Scenarios Message-Id: Hi, I've been playing Harpoon for a long time. I can beat the computer on just about every scenario from both sides, but I just can't seem to do well in the Kola Peninsula scenarios. When I play the NATO subs attacking the airfields or the SSBNs, I get my butt whopped. How do you survive it? thanks karl ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 5:10:05 GMT-3:30 From: tscott@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tony Scott) Subject: (21) FAQ list Message-Id: Is there someplace that I can find a Harpoon FAQ list? Has the battlebook been updated to cover the latest battleset, and is it a worthwhile purchase? Thanx! -- Tony D. Scott | "Everything you know is wrong" tscott@morgan.ucs.mun.ca | U2 Industrial Engineering | Don't Panic! Marine Institute of Nfld | HHG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Feb 93 9:18:10 CST From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca Subject: (22) I/TARH Guidance Message-Id: I will relate a problem I have had while playing Computer Harpoon v1.3. I created a scenario with a French CVN group is attacked by a Libya Kilo and 8 patrol craft. I was impressed with the game's treatment of the submarine: I seemed to have crappy fire control, as only 2 of 6 torpedoes actually hit anything. However, I was never fired at, even though a helicopter dipped his active sonar less than 1nm from me! The PT's were another question. Launching the missles was alright, with the expected number of hits, but I only lost 4 of the 8. The escorts launched about 40 Exocets, usually 4 at one target. The way the inertial guidance is modelled, most of your missles will hit the same ship. This is *very* unrealistic. Inertial guidance only works in real life because (a) you can select the missle's activation point relative to a real ship and not an arbitrary formation, (b) you can give the missle mid-course guidance changes. Since you can't do this is Harpoon, I/TARH missles are no longer effective weapons. I would prefer SM2ER SAMs, since you can at least aim them. By the way, my last 2 torpedoes hit the carrier from a range of about 7nm, I think. The game hung... Scott Young ------------------------------ Date: Fri 29 Jan 1993 17:43:29 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (23) Recent Naval Develeopments Message-Id: More Jan 1993 USNI Proceedings Items ... (p.4) A Hughes ad for AMRAAM shows a F/A-18 fully loaded with each side carrying 1 conformal (even with centerline tank), 2 on inboard pylon, 2 on outboard pylon plus a wingtip Sidewinder, for a total of 10 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinder. (p.68) The loading crane for the aft Mk41 VLS on DDG-51 is in second row of cells at edge. (p.74) The outgoing SECNAV O'Keefe states that the AX (now called A/F-X) should do more than the A-6. He believes it should be sold to the AF to be the F-111, F-15E and F-117 replacement. (p.89) An article presents a 1200 ton WIG design concept. The vehicle measures 230 x 420 ft. The vehicle is designed to be capable of operating at speeds upto 260 kts. It might be able to act in variety of roles including cargo ship with 520 ton capacity, small (12 fixed-wing or 24 helo) carrier, amphibious warfare ship, AOE, ASW (possibly carrying mini-subs to the scene) or mine warfare ship. (p.105) USMC has revised their FMF organization including the TO&E for a Marine Division and Air Wing. In the Navy's recently announced reorganization, a Marine MAJGEN is to head up the new Naval Expeditionary Force Directorate (N85). This command will be in charge training and development of amphibious, MCM and MPS ships and some Navy SPEC OPS personnel. Some believe that this to be a mistake in the name of "jointness", since the Marine general will not have commanded any of those the ships types. (p.107) In addition to air launched decoy systems, the USAF used modified BQM-74C target drones to decoy Iraqi air defense in Desert Storm. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)825-8524 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 13:11:29 -0600 From: bruce@lobby.ti.com (Harlan Bruce) Subject: (24) Suggested Improvements Message-Id: Just a few comments on Computer Harpoon improvements... - The computer opponent's attack algorithms place the opponent at unrealistic risk. Example - a sub group will collectively activate sonar if one of the group is pinged, giving away the position of all the group. Backfires commit suicide en mass when attacking in the face of heavy fighter opposition. Partial solution to this - write scenerios to give fighter cover where possible. Submarine attacks should be handled in a more sophisticated manner. A mixed group of Victors and Oscars should be able to split or alter formation to use the advantages of each to the max. Submarine stealth is a problem - the submarines will attack at speed and not take advantage of their stealth by waiting for the opponent to come to them. - For the human player - allow me to select which submarine of a group I wish my ASW groups to attack. I might want to attack all members of a submarine group at the same time or get the closer ones first. This is a real pain. The formation radius maximum should be at least 1000 miles and the number of rings be user selectable up to say 10. The number of arcs in the formation should be increased from 8 to 12. ASW search of formation sectors could be much more effective - don't drop sonobouys on highly overlapping patterns! Allow me to put course changes and ASW searches throughout the path of patrols either by dropping bouys or dipping sonar or both at regular distances. Set up automated searches over user-selected polygonal areas of the map to find my opponent. Remember, the player is the fleet commander, not the pilot. - On aircraft automatic AAW fire, don't fire all of the missile load to take out a May (he can't fire back anyway). Fire ONE missile at a time and allow it a chance to kill the target. Of course, with a opposition fighter group, survival becomes more important than conservation of weapons. Do more to prevent running out of gas and crashing - this should never happen unless I deliberately want it to as pilots rarely ever wish to commit suicide. The player should get warned more deliberately of situations such as opposition fighters approaching E-3's. After all, any human pilot would be screaming about the close approach of enemy fighters to his unarmed craft. - In short, many behaviors of the game should more closely simulate the actual roles of fleet commander (the player) and the pilots and unit commanders (handled by the game engine). It is readily apparent that the limitations of DOS prevent much of this due to extra programming required for this stuff, but there will be no reason that Harpoon II should not encorporate smarter features. I would gladly accept slowing of the game in trade for better smarts. I hope that Harpoon II will take advantage of the complete 386 instruction set and will use any available coprocessor for any floating-point work. This is not a game for 286's! - This game is terrific the way it is now, but improvements such as these would make it so much better... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 FEB 93 15:18:33 GMT From: coates@vax.lse.ac.uk Subject: (25) Convoy Speeds Message-Id: I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about the best speed for different convoys to move at, at differing submarine threat levels. The computer in all it's wisdom, seems to go for the compromise speed of "flat out" (i.e., 30+ knots), even in the most dangerous of places, where it is quite easy to torpedo a few ships if you can get a submarine in their path. The differing scenario types I had in mind were: 1. Tanker and merchant convoy across the Atlantic, although as 20 knots is a typical maximum speed for a tanker it is usually what I use. 2. Carrier convoy across the Atlantic. 3. Amphibious invasion group attempting an opposed landing. 4. Battle group trying to intercept an enemy group. My usual settings are: 1. 20 knots 2. About 15 knots 3. About 10-15 knots 4. About 10-15 knots, depending on the time the group has to make the intercept. My main reason for asking is that I was playing a scenario in HDS-GIUK where a US CVN group has to prevent a 3-pronged CIS amphibious invasion (Heart of the Matter 1, I think). The computer was moving at 33 knots all the way, my group was doing 22 knots. I managed to get a Los Angeles Class to intercept one group and sunk a Kirov and two Frigates with torpedos which virtually left his group defenceless. Then he got a submarine to sink one of my Leahy's. Result? I slowed my group down to 12 knots and later detected another submarine before it could attack. His group was then killed off by air power from Iceland, as it had very little AAW defence. Any suggestions ? ****************************** * Ian Coates * * London School of Economics * * London, UK. * ****************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1993 16:16:48 -0600 (CST) From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman) Subject: (26) HY-2 Message-Id: In CZ v14 msg 18, tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) writes: > Munitions removed during the border crossings by Iraqi technicians included > Chinese made Silkworm antiship missiles, though without support equipment. > Video related to the incident shows missiles with "HY-2(J)" stenciled on the > side of them. [Mod Note: Anyone have information specifically about the J > version?] I don't know what the J stands for, but I can give you some other information. First it is the Silkworm SSM. It is almost a direct copy of the MM-38/39. Its Chinese designation is C-801. HY-2 is a much older design. Originally a copy of the SS-N-2 Styx, HY stands for Hai Ying (Sea Eagle, not the Brit Sea Eagle). The J version looked some what smaller than the older ones on TV. C-801 can be carried under wing and inside bomb bay on a Tu-16 (Chinese copy H-6). I am thinking a load of 3 maybe possible with the Tu-16 (saw a picture with two C-801 hanging on the wings of a H-6 a while ago). SF bvc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 22:45:51 CST From: ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gene Moreau) Summary: (27) Electronic Data Annex Message-Id: Original-Subject: Electronic Version of Data Annex Well, I think the subject line almost says it all, is there an electronic version of the Data Annex? Even just a bunch of data files that contain the data would do. -- Gene Moreau | "Morning comes far to early when it's cold University of Manitoba | outside and there is a maniac on the loose" Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada | - unknown ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 14:35:51 MEZ From: hrz090%de0hrz1a.bitnet@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Dr. Martin Erdelen) Subject: (28) Patriot, etc. Message-Id: Hello Harpooneers, Would someone please let me (us) know what the current status of "Patriot" is (i.e., the terrestrial sibling of Harpoon). Is it out, still announced, de- layed? Thanks for any info. Incidentally, in CZ Digest v14 #1, msg 7, I had asked a couple of Beginner's Questions. Alas, to date I have not received a single reply (apart from a few requests to share the information I might get). Come on, all ye veterans, give us a hand... Subjects were: difficulty rating of the various scenarios; recommendations with which ones to begin; dictionary of NAVY/MIL-speak (abbreviations, jargon, etc. See v14 #1 (7) for details.) Thanks again. Martin ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest **************** From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Mon Mar 15 15:29:43 1993 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus2) id AA04601; Mon, 15 Mar 93 15:29:43 -0800 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 15:29:43 -0800 Message-Id: <9303152329.AA04601@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v14 #4 (msgs 29-37) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 15 March 1993 Volume: 14 Issue: 4 Topics: (29) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (30) Re: Kola Pen Scenarios yuqian@bvc.edu (31) Seminars neym@cc.gettysburg.edu (32) Re: Kola Pen Scenarios bsteele@ups.edu (33) Abbreviation Dictionary coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (34) Jargon - The Return coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (35) Enhanced GUIK & Bug e4kkyiu@aelmg.adelaide.edu.au (36) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (37) rec.games.miniatures CFV bob@werple.apana.org.au "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: anonymous FTP for CZ and Computer Scenarios (Amiga, Mac, PC) N.A. sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon Europe ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42): harpoon Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 15 Mar 1993 13:50:20 PST From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (29) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: al154435@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Diego A. Soto A.) baustin@bluemoon.use.com (Bill Austin) wbarr@bma.jeslacs.wimsey.bc.ca (William Barr) gnb@bby.com.au (Gregory Bond) buckmast@power.amasd.anatcp.rockwell.com (Douglas Buckmaster) ubte30e@ucl.ac.uk (Roger Burton) mr!dev2!rbuyaky@uu3.psi.com (Reid R. Buyaky) tcollins@std.mentorg.com (Truman Collins) mcrocker@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Matthew S. Crocker) mc4187@mclink.it (Emilio Desalvo) jdougan@prodigy.bc.ca (John R. Dougan) jf@sm.luth.se (Johan Forsberg) jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca (Jerry Han) hala@hpx11.aid.no (Lars M. Hansen) hendrica@gas.uug.arizona.edu (Angus G. Hendrick) ckalin@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Christopher A. Kalin) kellogg@xavier.dfrf.nasa.gov (Gary Kellogg) g2kimj@cdf.toronto.edu (Joo-Hun Kim) mlednor@tower.demon.co.uk (Mark J. Lednor) bmyers@meaddata.com (Bob Myers) jesse@masc1.rice.edu (Jesse Elliott Money) dmorris@csri.toronto.edu (Daniel Morris) jmoss@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Josh Moss) acepeda@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ing. Antero Cepeda Resendiz) dave@smartstar.com (Dave Schwartz) jeet@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jeet Sukumaran) paterno@fnalo.fnal.gov (Marc Paterno) schellen@mprgate.mpr.ca (Neil Schellenberger) dasmith@suntan.ec.usf.edu (David Smith) jon@echologic.com (Jonathan Smith) shaajdt@ucl.ac.uk (John Tovey) towel@elcsci.com (Lee Towe) hyw@philabs.philips.com (unknown) t901235@mp.cs.niu.edu (John J. Wiseman) e4kkyiu@eiffel.aelmg.adelaide.edu.au (Ken K. Yiu) Unfortunately, its been a long time between issues once again. I have the usual excuses: lack of articles and lack of time. The lack of time may not improve for a while. Thus, I am reluctantly considering turning things over to someone else. If you are interested please drop me a line at the administrative address. Be forwarned, though, I am going to demand some firm commitments from my potential successor. Those people interested understanding MILspeak jargon will be interested in the efforts of Ian Coates in the articles below. In addition, Mary Shafer (shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov) has volunteered to answer questions on military aviation jargon. Those following the rec.games.miniatures proposal will find a call for votes notice in the last article. If you plan to vote, please follow the guidelines listed very carefully. In particular, use the proper e-mail address, NOT CZ! -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 17:19:58 -0600 (CST) From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman) Subject: (30) Re: Kola Pen Scenarios Message-Id: In CZ v14 msg 20, kvj@adint.triple-i.com (Karl vonJena) writes: > I've been playing Harpoon for a long time. I can beat the computer on just > about every scenario from both sides, but I just can't seem to do well in the > Kola Peninsula scenarios. When I play the NATO subs attacking the airfields > or the SSBNs, I get my butt whopped. How do you survive it? First of all, what version of Harpoon do you play? If it's > 1.3 then refine your tactics. In 1.3, it's very hard to find those darn submarines. If it's 1.2, there are several suggestions: 1. Go slow, keep them in creeping speed. 2. Change your course if you detect anything, don't try to kill them if they are not the SSBNs. If you do, swamps of ASW aircrafts will be on your head faster then you can say S**T. 3. You can always send out a couple of old subs, like the Sturgeons to get their ASW forces worked up and sneak in when they are attacking those old ones. 4. Change your depth irregularly, be creative about your path, depth, and speed. 5. SAVE EVERYTIME YOU DODGE A TORPEDO OR SEE A TORPEDO OR DETECT ANYTHING! THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL. Good luck! SF bvc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 17:08:35 -0500 From: neym@cc.gettysburg.edu Subject: (31) Seminars Message-Id: Boy, would I love to be able to attend a seminar/summer camp on this game! (I'd even use vacation time!) Are there any "tutorial" materials that really introduce users to the basics of strategic planning? Or, are there any good books available? "How 'bout dem Cowboys?" Mike - - - - - - - - - - Michael A. Ney Neym@gettysburg.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 15:28:22 -0800 (PST) From: bsteele@ups.edu Subject: (32) Re: Kola Pen Scenarios Message-Id: Hi, The computer won't give me a minium victory condition on either the Kola Peninsula scenario (even when I destroy more than enough bases) or on the IOPG scenario "No Carrier No Problem". The Kola Peninsula is GUIK scenario raid on Kola. Brian Steel Bsteele@UPS.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 FEB 93 11:36:46 GMT From: coates@vax.lse.ac.uk Subject: (33) Abbreviation Dictionary Message-Id: There have been a few requests for a listing of all the abbreviations and jargon used in Harpoon, especially the new Orders Format. As I am also still a little confused by the abbreviations, I am willing to compile a list of the abbreviations, etc. If people want to send me a list of the ones they know, then we can put it all together and hopefully get something quite comprehensible. Mail your lists to COATES@VAX.LSE.AC.UK and I'll get on to it as soon as possible. Ian ****************************** "I was drowning my sorrows, * Ian Coates * but my sorrows, they had * London School of Economics * learnt to swim" * London, UK. * ****************************** - U2 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 MAR 93 15:05:27 GMT From: coates@vax.lse.ac.uk Subject: (34) Jargon - The Return Message-Id: In follow up to my earlier message (which should be somewhere in this issue of CZ) about compiling a list of abbreviations, I have made some headway in to it. So far I've been through all the various Harpoon Manuals and the Battlebook and started the list, so I don't need anyone to send me abbreviations that already appear in those sources. What I would appreciate is for someone to go through the new message text format orders and pick out the abbreviations and preferably supply the "translation" (or at least what they think it is). If you E-mail me first we can coordinate who does what, so that work isn't duplicated. If anyone has any particularly good source, maybe they can tell me about it, or even compile a mini list which I can incorporate. I also want some feedback as to how extensive the descriptions need to be. For instance, do people just want "DDG=Guided missile destroyer" or "DDG=Destroyer, Guided Missile. US designation for any destroyer armed with surface to air guided missiles" or something even longer with examples of classes and typical loadouts etc ??? All ideas will be considered and a consensus reached. With any luck, and enough participation through out the CZ community, I should get this finished by the end of the Easter holidays. Thanks Ian -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Ian Coates London School of Economics If there's a God in the sky looking down London, UK. What can he think of what we've done To the world that he created ? COATES@LSE.AC.UK - Queen 1986 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 10:42:05 GMT+9:00 From: e4kkyiu@aelmg.adelaide.edu.au (K.K. Yiu) Subject: (35) Enhanced GUIK & Bug Message-Id: Howdy. I saw a post by Dan Post regarding something he calls the "Enhanced GUIK" Battleset. What is this? I bought Harpoon 1.3.1 and received the GUIK battleset, but this seems sadly dated when compared to the Indian Ocean set. (No F-14D, no AMRAAMs etc. - I'd expect NATO and the US Atlantic Fleet to have access to these first). Is this set available by FTP (from the Harpoon site maybe?) or is it a bought set? [Mod Note: the Harpoon Designer's Series BattleSet Enhancer (HDS) product produces new "enhanced" BattleSets with different scenarios based on the BattleSets you already possess.] HARPOON SOFTWARE PROBLEM REPORT Date Bug Found (MM/DD/YY): Feb 93 E-Mail Contact for Further Information: e4kkyiu@eiffel.aelmg.adelaide.edu.au Product (Game, Scenario Editor, HDS Installer, etc.): Game Software Version Number:1.3.2 Type of Computer: PC BattleSet Used: Regular BattleSet: GUIK_X_ NACV_X_ MEDC_X_ IOPG_X_ Other(specify)___ Scenario Source: 360_X_ User Written ___ Scenario Name: ALL Switches/Game Options Used? NONE PC Questions: Operating System: MS-DOS: YES Windows___ OS/2___ Other(specify)_____ Operating System Version: 5.0 CPU Type: 8088/86___ 80286___ 80386___ 80486_X_ Sound Card: Internal_X_ Sound Blaster___ Ad Lib___ Other(specify)___ Monitor Type: CGA___ EGA___ Tandy___ VGA_X_ Amount of Memory: 8 MB Synopsis (Where, What, How, etc.): When you exit the game, there is ALWAYS a Null pointer assignment error. Problems with pointers happen with other times as well. In the Indian Ocean Battleset, when you do a Display of some of the helicopters, (NAV Lynx I think) the screen fills with garbage and the game crashes. Happens with both Senario editor and Game. Estimated Impact (Minor, Major, Can't Tell, etc.): Minor ------------------------------ Date: Tue 2 Mar 1993 22:00:32 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (36) Recent Naval Developments Message-Id: Item from DOD News 11 March 1993: The Department of the Navy will commission the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Montpelier (SSN 765) at 10:00 a.m. Saturday, March 13, 1993, at Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. ... Montpelier is the fifty-second Los Angeles class nuclear-powered submarine delivered to the Navy. Sixty-two are authorized to be built. In addition, Montpelier is one of an improved version of the Los Angeles class ... Items from February 1993 USNI Proceedings: (pp. 103-104) Rear Admiral A.A. Pauk lists the following Russian Fleet Order of Battle in the special July 1992 issue of the Russian General Staff publication "Military Thought". SSB(N) 56 SS(G)N 89 SS(G) 77 "Blue Water" Combatants 72 Other Surface Combatants 411 Small Combatants 310 Auxiliaries 950 Aircraft 1580 Helicopters 556 Scrapping plans include 173 surface combatants, 85 "boats" and 136 submarines. Plans for much more scrapping are apparently coming. Admiral Chernavin stated in 1991 that no SSBNs were under construction. Given scrapping plans and treaty commitments, its possible the SSB(N) force could be cut in half by the year 2000. Further clarification of Yeltsin's statement about stopping submarine construction, indicates that he was only referring to Far East building. Presumably, this means the Komsomol'sk and Petrovka shipyards. Submarines constructed at Komsomol'sk are completed at Petrovka. The yards are one (but not the only) source of Akula and Kilo production. Rumors persist about major items being for sale, including ships from these classes: Ivan Rogov LPD, Slava CG, Tango and Kilo SS, Krivak FF, Grisha FFL. Aircraft rumors include: MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35, Yak-38, Yak-141 and Tu-22M3 (version of the Backfire). Systems include: AK-230 and AK-630. (p.110) The Dutch submarine Walrus was commissioned on 25 March 1992 after an exceptionally long 12 year construction period. The submarine suffered a serious fire during 1986. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3680A Boelter Hall Phone: (213)825-8524 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 1993 00:04:44 +1000 (EST) From: bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett) Subject: (37) rec.games.miniatures CFV Message-Id: Comment: reformatted, vote ACK removed CALL FOR VOTES for the creation of a new newsgroup REC.GAMES.MINIATURES This is a Call for Votes (CFV) for the creation of Rec.Games.Miniatures, a new unmoderated newsgroup. Voting Deadline is 28th March, 1993. Contents. 1. Voting Instructions 2. Mail Problems 3. Call for Vote (CFV) procedure from "How to create a new usenet newsgroup" 4. Precis of Group Proposal 5. Thanks to M.I.T. for providing a vote site. 1. Voting Instructions: In order to vote for or against this newsgroup, you must send a MAIL message to the address: mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu Posted votes will not be counted. Votes mailed to the poster of this message will not be counted. Your mail should contain one of the following three lines, in the BODY of the mail message: vote rec.games.miniatures yes vote rec.games.miniatures no vote rec.games.miniatures abstain The first two lines register a vote either for or against the creation of the newsgroup. The third line cancels any previous vote for or against the creation of the newsgroup. Multiple voting messages from the same person must be sent from the same address. If multiple votes are received from the same person, the last vote received is the only one counted. The subject line of your mail will be ignored. You should receive a response to your vote, acknowledging its receipt, within two days. 2. Mail problems. If you do not receive a response to your vote or if you have some other problem with voting, you can get help by sending mail to postmaster@pit-manager.mit.edu. If your site does not understand that address, you might try: mail-server%pit-manager.mit.edu@athena.mit.edu mit-athena!pit-manager.mit.edu!mail-server uunet!pit-manager.mit.edu!mail-server If none of these addresses works, talk to someone at your site who can help you address the mail properly. 3. Call for vote procedure The Vote 1) AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new group is really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, and it has been determined whether the group will be moderated and if so who will moderate it, a call for votes may be posted to news.announce.newgroups and any other groups or mailing lists that the original request for discussion might have been posted to. There should be minimal delay between the end of the discussion period and the issuing of a call for votes. The call for votes should include clear instructions for how to cast a vote. It must be as clearly explained and as easy to do to cast a vote for creation as against it, and vice versa. It is explicitly permitted to set up two separate addresses to mail yes and no votes to provided that they are on the same machine, to set up an address different than that the article was posted from to mail votes to, or to just accept replies to the call for votes article, as long as it is clearly and explicitly stated in the call for votes article how to cast a vote. If two addresses are used for a vote, the reply address must process and accept both yes and no votes OR reject them both. 2) The voting period should last for at least 21 days and no more than 31 days, no matter what the preliminary results of the vote are. The exact date that the voting period will end should be stated in the call for votes. Only votes that arrive on the vote-taker's machine prior to this date will be counted. 3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the vote, provided that they contain similar clear, unbiased instructions for casting a vote as the original, and provided that it is really a repeat of the call for votes on the SAME proposal (see #5 below). Partial vote results should NOT be included; only a statement of the specific new group proposal, that a vote is in progress on it, and how to cast a vote. It is permitted to post a "mass acknowledgement" in which all the names of those from whom votes have been received are posted, as long as no indication is made of which way anybody voted until the voting period is officially over. 4) ONLY votes MAILED to the vote-taker will count. Votes posted to the net for any reason (including inability to get mail to the vote-taker) and proxy votes (such as having a mailing list maintainer claim a vote for each member of the list) will not be counted. 5) Votes may not be transferred to other, similar proposals. A vote shall count only for the EXACT proposal that it is a response to. In particular, a vote for or against a newsgroup under one name shall NOT be counted as a vote for or against a newsgroup with a different name or charter, a different moderated/unmoderated status or (if moderated) a different moderator or set of moderators. 6) Votes MUST be explicit; they should be of the form "I vote for the group foo.bar as proposed" or "I vote against the group foo.bar as proposed". The wording doesn't have to be exact, it just needs to be unambiguous. In particular, statements of the form "I would vote for this group if..." should be considered comments only and not counted as votes. 7) A vote should be run only for a single group proposal. Attempts to create multiple groups should be handled by running multiple parallel votes rather than one vote to create all of the groups. The Result 1) At the completion of the voting period, the vote taker must post the vote tally and the E-mail addresses and (if available) names of the voters received to news.announce.newgroups and any other groups or mailing lists to which the original call for votes was posted. The tally should include a statement of which way each voter voted so that the results can be verified. 2) AFTER the vote result is posted, there will be a 5 day waiting period, beginning when the voting results actually appear in news.announce.newgroups, during which the net will have a chance to correct any errors in the voter list or the voting procedure. 3) AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections that might invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create votes are received than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the total number of valid votes received are in favor of creation, a newgroup control message may be sent out. If the 100 vote margin or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should not be created. 4) The newgroup message will be sent by the news.announce.newgroups moderator at the end of the waiting period of a successful vote. If the new group is moderated, the vote-taker should send a message during the waiting period to Gene Spafford and David C. Lawrence with both the moderator's contact address and the group's submission address. 5) A proposal which has failed under point (3) above should not again be brought up for discussion until at least six months have passed from the close of the vote. This limitation does not apply to proposals which never went to vote. 4. Precis of group proposal. PURPOSE The newsgroup "rec.games.miniatures" would be a forum for discussing the all aspects of the hobby of tabletop miniature wargaming of all periods, from figure painting, terrain construction, historical information and army and unit composition through to rulesets, tabletop tactics, scenarios, campaigning and competitions. A "rec.games.miniatures" newsgroup would provide its readers an opportunity to discuss their experiences with other hobbyists, sharing skills, ideas, information and techniques on topics discussed. One major aim of the group is to provide a focus for hobbyists on the net to gain assistance from others in finding solutions to specific problems, e.g. locating information and sources for a topic or range of figures, rules or terrain materials or providing information on a new period a player wishes to try out. CONTENT This newsgroup is open to tabletop miniature wargamers of ALL periods and genres. The periods concerned are too many to enumnerate here. Q & A Sourcing of - Figures. - Rules. - Terrain Materials. - Other miscellaneous equipment. Information - To help locate primary and secondary sources for army/unit/tactical or battlefield research. - For beginners and players regarding gaming the various periods on the table. - To help promote organised miniature wargaming at clubs, competitions and conventions. - "How-to.." assistance in figure painting, painting guides and terrain and building construction and game-play. - Announcements and reviews of new rulesets, figure ranges and competions as posted by the readership. - Locating players and opponents for Face-to-Face battles. - Locating playtesters and campaign participants - Posting of scenarios and campaigns. Discussion of ideas, rulesets, figures, opinions and events about or concerning miniature wargaming by miniature wargamers. 5. Thanks to M.I.T. for providing a vote site. My thanks go to Jonothan Kamens for providing a vote site for this proposal. -Bob Blanchett The hardware resources for vote collection are being provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The vote-collection software is being provided by Jonathan Kamens . Neither MIT nor Jonathan Kamens has anything to do with the newsgroup proposal; they're just collecting the votes as a neutral third party. ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest **************** From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Fri Apr 2 14:46:28 1993 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus2) id AA03442; Fri, 2 Apr 93 14:46:28 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Apr 93 14:46:28 -0800 Message-Id: <9304022246.AA03442@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v14 #5 (msgs 38-46) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 2 April 1993 Volume: 14 Issue: 5 Topics: (38) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (39) Surface ASW Formations ajohnson@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (40) Reverting to 1.2 youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (41) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (42) Paper Harpoon youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (43) HDS II coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (44) USNI BattleSet sburge@iris.dri.du.edu (45) Runway Sizes ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (46) Navy News Service yuqian@bvc.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu Archives: anonymous FTP for CZ and Computer Scenarios (Amiga, Mac, PC) N.A. sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon Europe ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42): harpoon Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 2 Apr 1993 14:06:30 PST From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (38) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: tpbolles@dg10svarmd.er.usgs.gov (Thomas P. Bolles) bdecker@melpar.esys.com (Brian Decker) randyf@u.washington.edu (Randy Fabro) eric@puccini.crl.umn.edu (Eric C. Eckwall) hobart@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (Mike Hobart) 71644.1044@compuserve.com (Warren Kruger) johnl@n3dmc.svr.md.us (John A. Limpert) dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) mreader@evans.den.mmc.com (Michael J. Reader) ppesci@italy.sun.com (Paolo Pesci) mills@nmc1.nmclites.edu (unknown) I must have scared everyone off, since no one seems to be the least bit interested in taking over CZ from this rusty old moderator. From time to time, people have suggested that CZ become a USENET newsgroup. This might be the way to go, if no one really wants to step in. If anyone has an opinion, please tell me at the administrative address, especially if you are up to sheparding the newsgroup proposal through the USENET approval process. I have received some messages on the Patriot computer game. Unfortunately, they don't fit into the CZ charter, so they won't be published here. Other respondents should e-mail directly to those who submitted the original queries. The unofficial results indicate rec.games.miniatures newsgroup proposal passed. Presumably, it will appear at your local USENET server shortly. Those puzzled by MILspeak jargon can get some help from Mark Chapman, who pilots H3 helicopters from destroyers in the Canadian Navy. Mark can be reached through e-mail at rotorhed@swamp.alt.ns.ca or m.chapman11@geis.com. A systematic effort to compile a full list of Harpoon military jargon is headed by Ian Coates. Those interested in helping out, should see his article below (msg 43). -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 15:58:44 CST From: ajohnson@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au Subject: (39) Surface ASW Formations Message-Id: Has anyone out there a concrete plan for protecting say a CVBG or large SAG from submarine attack ? (i.e., one in which lots of ASW helicopters and maybe some aircraft are available.) I tend to set the outer limit of the formation at ~50 miles and have a ring of ASW helicopters, and maybe some aircraft at that distance, and leave a small force of helicopters and aircraft as a rapid response force against submarine contacts. This seems to work okay in most scenarios (so long as you have a lot of helicopters). It has the down side that when you close with an enemy surface group it shoots your helicopters down before you get everything to within Harpoon range. Any better suggestions? Andrew ajohnson@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 13:24:57 CST From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) Subject: (40) Reverting to 1.2 Message-Id: I have been playing PC V1.3 for a while, and I have considered going back to version 1.2. The "smarter" aircraft don't actually attack anything unless you micro-manage them, and the I/TARH missles have become totally useless. There are enough good things (bearing-only launches, better sonar modelling, Canadian units in the Battlesets!) to keep me playing, but the problems are enough to be distracting. Is there an upgrade available? BTW, I didn't send in my original warrantee card when I bought the game, so is it still possible to register my copy? Scott Young youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue 23 Mar 1993 13:52:56 PST From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (41) Recent Naval Developments Message-Id: >From Navy News Service article NNS217: On 20 March 1993 12:46 AM (EST), the USS Grayling (SSN 646, Sturgeon class) accidently collided with a Russian Navy submarine. The incident occured in international waters in the Barents Sea about 105 nm north of the Murman coastal region of the Kola Peninsula. On the same topic, in the March 1993 USNI Proceedings, Russian Navy RADM V.I. Aleksin states (p. 56) that "during the last 25 years (1968-1992) collisions between Russian and U.S. submerged submarines have occured almost every year, including 9 incidents that happened in Russian Navy training ranges near Russian shores." Apparently, the LA - Sierra collision of last year was not as rare as first thought. Other items from March 1993 USNI Proceedings: USN sources quoted in "Shallow Water Diesels: A New Priority" (p.128) believe that most Third World diesel submarine operators do not have the training or classification abilities to make completely submerged approach attacks. Between snorkeling and periscope looks, much of the acoustic advantages of diesels is negated. Some effort is apparently being expended to improve mast detection abilities of the APS-137 ISAR on the P-3. Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar technology is also being actively pursued. Details have emerged (p. 132) about a Russian blue-green ASW laser radar sensor carried by the Bear F Mod 4. The "Amethyst" system requires the Bear to fly a tighly constrained path at 100 meters at a speed of 200 knots. On each pass, a path of roughly 100 yards is covered to a depth of about 100 feet. The system interface is fairly primitive with only raw video target correlation. The system is apparently deployed and may be meant for shallow water situations where MAD is unreliable due to ferrous mineral deposits. US mine detection laser radar systems are in late development, while US ASW laser radar system are at this point only scheduled to be demonstrated in FY94. There is also a review of the state of world navies (p.94) in the March issue. Some interesting items include: Fragments from the Sea Sparrows fired by the USS Saratoga on the Turkish destroyer Muavenet (ex-USS Gwin, DD-772) apparently penetrated the ship's bottom! This is from hits which apparently were high up near the bridge. VL Sea Sparrow was test fired from the Mk41 VLS using Mk22 canisters. FMC advertisments show four Sea Sparrows per Mk41 cell. The test photo does not show any booster, thus the Sea Sparrow shown was not taking advantage of the full Mk41 cell depth. India is attempting to develop nuclear submarine propulsion. Brazil may also be attempting to do the same. Iran took delivery of Su-24 Fencers in 1992. Japan has plans now to construct 8 (rather than 4) Kongo class Aegis DDGs. An LPH is in the proposed budget. On the other hand, some items were cut from the budget and large recruiting shortfalls remain. Taiwan is apparently in the market for 6-10 submarines and several frigates. Upto a dozen locally constructed OPVs are planed too. Thailand has ordered a helicopter carrier from the Spanish company Bazan. It is apparently a smaller version of the Spanish Principe de Asturias design. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)825-8524 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 13:30:58 CST From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) Subject: (42) Paper Harpoon Message-Id: Is anyone interested in a PBM game of Harpoon? I have a bunch of scenarios together, and would like to try a PBM game. It seems the perfect medium for a game of refereed Harpoon. The only disadvantage would be the time delay between turns, does anyone know how long it takes for e-mail to get through? I may also try a game of PBM with some local players on our network, which should cut down on the time interval. Does anyone have any Public Domain tools for a Harpoon Referee? I'm writing a program to calculate detection ranges, courses, speeds, etc., but it's slow in coming (I'm not a programmer -- it's being done in BASIC!). If I ever get it running, I will make it available to other interested parties. Scott Young youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 MAR 93 16:26:04 GMT From: coates@vax.lse.ac.uk Subject: (43) HDS II Message-Id: Saw an advertisement in a computer magazine over here (PC Format - April issue, p,46) for a company specialising in strategy games, and they were listing Harpoon Designers Series II. Gave them a call and they said it is expected to be out in about a month with a price tag of approximately #20 (20 UK pounds). Also, playing Harpoon last night threw up an interesting bug ... playing a HDS-NACV scenario with a Knox and an O.H. Perry starting in the MIDDLE of a CIS CVBG. Not good I thought, but I started firing off the missiles and guns in hope of damaging a ship or two before I was sunk. But no. I managed 80% damage from shell fire and missiles on a Kara and 6% on the CV, using up all the Harpoons and SM1's available to me before the computer even fired ONE missile in return! Then the computer only fired one salvo from one ship and, while those hits caused mortal wounds to my ships, my ships did carry on fighting for long enough to sink the Kara, cause 16% damage to the CV and shoot a few Su-27K's and helicopters down. Another first for the Harpoon AI. Even though the 360 staff is most likely devoting most of their time to Harpoon II and Partiot etc, I was wondering if they were planning to do yet another bug fix for v1.32 as there are still a couple of bugs which need ironing out - namely that the "ferry" mode for aircraft doesn't work, and planes don't return to base at the correct speed after being on patrol and thus crash about half way home (among others). If any of you are still thinking, perhaps pondering, as to whether you are in the mood to help me over the MILspeak Jargon list, then may I persuade you to do so? There are a hell of a lot of abbreviations in the HDS orders, and I'm only about 25% of the way through them. Go on, you know you want to - it's vacation time anyway ! (Red orders especially!) Ian Coates COATES@LSE.UK.AC Congrats to Cambridge for thrashing London School of Economics a very poor Oxford side. And to Jimmy London. UK. Hill for excellant football commentary. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 13:59:52 -0700 From: sburge@iris.dri.du.edu (Steve Burge) Subject: (44) USNI BattleSet Message-Id: How would one go about purchasing the USNI Battleset? Steve sburge@iris.dri.du.edu [Mod Note: 360 has previously stated that it was only available as part of the Harpoon package sold through USNI.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 93 23:01:19 CST From: ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gene Moreau) Subject: (45) Runway Sizes Message-Id: One of the problems that I have with the Scenario Editor (Mac), is that when you are selecting a base it doesn't tell you any information about that base until you have placed. Specifically, what I would like is to know the runway sizes. It is getting to be a real buggar to find a base with a VLarge runway to put the Backfires at. Is there a list of runway sizes for all of the battle sets out there or is there a way of doing it with out actually 'creating' the base? -- Gene Moreau | "Morning comes far to early when it's cold University of Manitoba | outside and there is a maniac on the loose" Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada | - unknown ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 20:55:38 -0600 (CST) From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman) Subject: (46) Navy News Service Message-Id: Comment: edited Excerpts from a recent Naval News Service letter which might be interesting. Enjoy! SF bvc ==== unknown NNS article number When USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) deployed to the Mediterranean earlier this month, the air wing was changed to include U.S. Marine Corps fixed-wing and helicopter squadrons and 585 Marines deployed as part of a Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force. NNS243. FY-94 Defense Budget Retires 29 Additional Ships WASHINGTON (NNS) -- As a result of President Clinton's FY-94 defense budget released March 27, the following U.S. Navy ships, in addition to previously planned retirements, are scheduled for decommissioning in FY-94: SHIP HOMEPORT USS Saratoga (CV 60) Mayport, FL USS Forrestal (AVT 59) Pensacola, FL USS Leahy (CG 16) San Diego, CA USS Harry E. Yarnell (CG 17) Norfolk, VA USS Worden (CG 18) Pearl Harbor, HI USS Reeves (CG 24) Pearl Harbor, HI USS Wainwright (CG 28) Charleston, SC USS Biddle (CG 34) Norfolk, VA USS Virginia (CGN 38) Norfolk, VA USS Texas (CGN 39) Bremerton, WA USS Baton Rouge (SSN 689) Norfolk, VA USS Richard B. Russell (SSN 687) Vallejo, CA USS Pegasus (PHM 1) Key West, FL USS Hercules (PHM 2) Key West, FL USS Taurus (PHM 3) Key West, FL USS Aquila (PHM 4) Key West, FL USS Aries (PHM 5) Key West, FL USS Gemini (PHM 6) Key West, FL USS Sierra (AD 18) Charleston, SC USS Yosemite (AD 19) Mayport, FL USS Hunley (AS 31) Norfolk, VA USS Joseph Hewes (FFT 1078) Ingleside, TX USS Bowen (FFT 1079) New York, NY USS McCandless (FFT 1084) Ingleside, TX USS Donald B. Beary (FFT 1085) New York, NY USS Jesse L. Brown (FFT 1089) Mobile, AL USS Ainsworth (FFT 1090) New York, NY USS Truett (FFT 1095) Ingleside, TX USS Moinester (FFT 1097) Norfolk, VA ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest **************** From root@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Thu Apr 22 14:05:59 1993 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61c+YP/3.19ficus2) id AA01984; Thu, 22 Apr 93 14:05:59 -0700 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 14:05:59 -0700 Message-Id: <9304222105.AA01984@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> From: cz@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU To: cz-dist@penzance.CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: CZ Digest v14 #6 (msgs 47-56) Errors-To: cz-request@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 22 April 1993 Volume: 14 Issue: 6 Topics: (47) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (48) Amiga Upgrades hala@aid.no (49) What's in USNI Battleset? clark@acs.bu.edu (50) Russian Pacific OB 1993 tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (51) HWBBS Ceases Operation kks2n@dayhoff.med.virginia.edu (52) v1.32 from 360? pekka.riiali@lut.fi (53) Scenario Report tcomeau@liner.stsci.edu (54) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (55) Volume 14 Index cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (56) CZ Guidelines cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@stsci.edu Administration: cz-request@stsci.edu Archives: anonymous FTP for CZ and Computer Scenarios (Amiga, Mac, PC) N.A. sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon Europe ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42): harpoon Scenario Archive Administrators Amiga: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) IBM-PC: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Mark Lam) Macintosh: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) Drop Off Site: hand@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Kolin Hand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 22 Apr 1993 11:27:34 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (47) Editorial Message-Id: New members added since last issue: jhb@world.std.com (John H. Bendel) dbostock@peg.apc.org (Darren Bostock) eid@staff.tc.umn.edu (John M. Eid) davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil (Dave Hyde) tap@ecr.mu.oz.au (Tullamore Andre Pettigrew) dean_randle@ceo.dia.govt.nz (Dean Randle) pro-freedom!kfr@clark.edu (Kurt F. Roithinger) pi92ts@pt.hk-r.se (Tommy Stendahl) ins349e@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Dean Svendsen) lteo_ss@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Leslie Teo) mthomas@gupta.com (Mark Thomas) ywang@ucs.indiana.edu (Yu-Chi Wang) Two different e-mail addresses were published for Mark Chapman's in the last issue. He requests that you only use rotorhed@swamp.alt.ns.ca as the other one has problems associated with it. This will be my last issue as moderator. As I have discussed before, I am stepping down to concentrate on my degree work. The new moderator will be Tom Comeau (tcomeau@liner.stsci.edu). Some of you may recognize Tom from the CZ articles he has posted. He's a enthusiastic Harpoon player with lots of miniatures game experience. Tom's current plans will continue CZ as a mailing list, rather than as a newsgroup or listserv. Mail should now go to: cz@stsci.edu cz-request@stsci.edu The old addresses will continue to work. The old addresses will be switched over to automatically forward to the new addresses. I want to thank you all for an enjoyable experience as CZ moderator. We should all support Tom in his new role to make CZ the best it can be. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 93 13:38:12 MET From: hala@aid.no (Lars Martin Hansen) Subject: (48) Amiga Upgrades Message-Id: I have a question a little on the side, maybe. I'm using a updated version or Harpoon 1.0 for the Amiga. What does it take to get an upgrade? Do I have to buy the game again, or do they offer upgrades from somewhere? [Mod Note: 360 has dropped Amiga development, but do they still offer support of the last released version?] Lars M. Hansen AID, Grimstad, Norway. hala@hpx11.aid.no ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 20:53:44 -0400 From: clark@acs.bu.edu (Jeff Clark) Subject: (49) What's in USNI Battleset? Message-Id: Ok, I know you can only get it through the USNI. So, what makes it so special? Does it use unique ships, or are they normal (i.e., found in one of the four battlesets we can buy) or does it have unique scenarios? Where does it take place in the world? If it's that special I might try to find a way to buy it. Jeff (clark@acs.bu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 April 93 22:29:18 -0800 From: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (50) Russian Pacific OB 1993 Message-Id: Way back in December/January, someone asked me to do a rough estimate on the current strength of the Russian Pacific Fleet for a game. This is what I came up with. Sources: Guide to Soviet Navy, 5th ed Combat Fleets, 90/91 USNI Proceedings some guesswork Kuznetsov CV - 1 (if they ever complete and deliver the Varyag) Kiev CV - 2 (Novorossiysk, Minsk: may not be operational) Kirov CG - 1 (Adm. Lazerev: ex-Frunze) Slava CG - 1 (Chernova Ukriana) Kara CG - 3 (Petropavlovsk, Tashkent, Tallinn) Kresta II CG - 3 (Marshal Voroshilov, Adm. Oktyabrskiy, Vasily Chapayev) Udaloy DDG - 4 (possibly 1 or 2 not operational) Sovremenny DDG - 5 Kashin DDG - 2 Krivak I/II FFG - 11 Krivak III FFG - 3 usual assortment of about 30 FFLs, plus other smaller craft Ivan Rogov LPD - 2 Ropucha LST - 7 Alligator LST - 5 Polnocny C - 5 plus usual assortment of smaller amphib ships and hovercraft usual assortment of auxiliaries, including Kapusta (SSV-33), Marshal Nedelin Delta III SSBN - 8 Delta I SSBN - 9 Yankee I SSBN - 5 (if not retired yet) Golf II SSB - 2 (possibly retired) Oscar II SSGN - 1 Julliet SSG - 3 (possibly retired) plus probably 15-20 other SSGNs of classes: Charlie, Echo II, Echo II mod probably 25-30 SSNs highest probability classes: Akula, Victor III, Yankee SSN other possible classes: Sierra, Alfa, Victor II, Victor I probably 25-30 SS: Kilo, Tango, Foxtrot classes usual assortment of conversion and research subs, including India and Bravo class Naval Aircraft (1988 estimate) Recon 46 (Badger, Bear) EW 30 (Badger, Bear) Bomber 96 (Backfire, Badger, Blinder) Attack 80 (Fitter, Flogger, Fencer, Frogfoot) Tanker 15 (Badger, possibly IL-78) ASW Patrol 75 (Bear F, May, Mail) Helos 155 (Helix, Hormone, Haze, plus utility types) assume mix of new and old models, basically all common types available Note that carrier based fixed wing types (Fulcrum, Flanker, Forger) may not be currently operational. Naval Infantry Brigade of approx. 4000 men plus usual assortment of Coastal Defense, Spetznaz, etc. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3680A Boelter Hall Phone: (310) 825-8524 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (310) 825-2273 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 93 07:43:18 -0400 From: kks2n@dayhoff.med.virginia.edu (Kirby K. Stiening) Subject: (51) HWBBS Ceases Operation Message-Id: It looks like JIVA (aka Rich Weyboldt) has pulled the plugged on the HWBBS. Logon gets an introductory screen explaining reasons for decision (low use, lack of support, etc.). A few files remain for download, but I think they represent just the top files that used to be available. I, for one, will miss this BBS and hope that someone else will carry on the tradition. Kirby Stiening University of Virginia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 93 10:35:51 EETDST From: pekka.riiali@lut.fi (Pekka Riiali) Subject: (52) v1.32 from 360? Message-Id: Has anyone (mainly registered HDS owners) got Harpoon v1.32 via normal mail from 360. I got mine from ftp-server, but I have got nothing directly from 360. + internet: riiali@kannel.lut.fi ++ Pekka Riiali + + irc: Beke ham: OH5LUQ ++ Laserkatu 2 D 12 + + The evil that men do lives on and on.. ++ FIN-53850 LPR FINLAND + + pgp public key available, finger riiali@kannel.lut.fi to get it + ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 11:25:18 -0400 (EDT) From: tcomeau@liner.stsci.edu (Tom Comeau @ Space Telescope Science Institute) Subject: (53) Scenario Report Message-Id: Below is a game summary from a recent scenario. I do such a summary for all the games I referee, and would be willing to post them if there is interest. tc> ==== Operation Urgent Eagle 24-Jan-1993 (Simulated 11-Jan-1993 to 24-Feb-1993) Game Summary Elements of the USS John F. Kennedy Battle Group attempted to impose a no-fly zone over Bosnia. The zone was challenged by a single helicopter operating from an unimproved airstrip south of Sarajevo, and by fixed wing (MiG-29) aircraft operated out of Serb-controlled areas of Croatia. The Serbian forces were able to destroy two F-14s and one E-2C operating near the Dalmatian coast, outside the no-fly zone, but within Bosnian territorial airspace. Additionally, two US Navy Airmen were taken prisoner by Serbian irregulars. No Serbian aircraft were downed. Decisive Victory, Serbia ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Conditions At Game Start The US force consisted of USS John F. Kennedy and embarked Air Wing, and USS Princeton, a Block II Aegis Cruiser. Kennedy Battle Group is normally seconded to NATO as a Strike Group, so she lacks the two squadrons of F/A-18s normally carried, instead carrying an extra squadron of A-6Es. [Specifically, the US team was given KENNEDY, PRINCETON, six F-14s, one A-6E configured as a tanker, and one E-2C.] The US force deployed along the Dalmatian coast, operating all but their SPY-1 radar. While not operating the SPY-1 denied detailed information about the nature of _Kennedy's_ escort, it also denied the US velocity vectors for aircraft in the area. The lack of speed and course data would seriously impair the ability of the battle group to track Serbian aircraft movements. The US was operating under rather restrictive Rules of Engagement: 1) KENNEDY Air Wing will maintain constant coverage of the no-fly zone, and identify any aircraft operating in the zone. 2) Any aircraft in the zone that is not known to KENNEDY will be challenged on International Guard Frequencies, and required to identify its origin and mission. 3) Aircraft operated by the United Nations will request permission to operate in the no-fly zone either before entry or within two minutes of launch. KENNEDY will routinely grant such permission. 4) If KENNEDY believes the identification of any aircraft to be in error or deceptive, KENNEDY Air Wing will make attempts to identify the aircraft by all available means, including visual inspection. All aircraft operated by the UN will either have current transponder codes, or will be painted white, with a large "UN" in black on both sides of the aircraft. 5) KENNEDY Air Wing will engage any aircraft not operating under UN or USN control in the no-fly zone. Note that Kennedy was required to engage non-UN aircraft in the no-fly zone, but could engage aircraft outside the no-fly zone only if they posed an immediate threat to US ships or aircraft. The ROE specifically did not require Kennedy to take any action regarding Serbian aircraft outside the zone. While in principle the entire Air Wing was available, Kennedy was required to maintain a round-the-clock CAP, which meant only six Tomcats and one E-2C were available at any time. The remainder would have to stand down for maintenance, and the crews would have to be released to rest and perform other duties. Local protection would be provided by Princeton A total of four MiGs were available to the Serbians (as opposed to six F-14s), as were two SOKA close support aircraft armed only with cannon, and one helicopter with an embarked two-man Stinger team. The Serbian Rules of Engagment, however, were very permissive: 1) You may engage any US Navy aircraft at will, or permit them to escape. 2) You may not engage UN fixed wing aircraft, but may engage UN helicopters if you wish. 3) You may use the International Guard Frequencies for any purpose, including deceptive replies to USN forces. The Serbian mission was, simply, to defy the no-fly zone, and make enforcement of the zone expensive for the US, and offensive to the world community, in hopes of forcing the US to withdraw under domestic and international pressure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Game Narrative At 0800.0, one E-2C and two F-14A+ aircraft from the Kennedy Battle Group took up positions over the Northwest quadrant of the no-fly zone. A Soviet-built Air Defense Radar had been operating for several days prior to the US arrival, but had not fired on UN aircraft operating in and out of Sarajevo. At 0805.0, two MiG-29s were launched from near Zagreb, Croatia, in Serb-controlled territory, and a Gazela helicopter began operating at low altitude near Sarajevo. While the Air Defense installation was not permitted to fire on US aircraft, it did provide information to the other Serbian forces. The Serbian force immediately took the initiative and drew the Tomcats toward the helicopter. Within five minutes the Serbian helo was challenged by US aircraft, and identified itself as a UN flight. The Tomcats then closed and identified the helo as a non-UN aircraft. While the US force did not engage the helo, it did launch two more Tomcats. The two new Tomcats were vectored toward the Serbian MiGs, which were operating well away from both Kennedy and the no-fly zone. Meanwhile the original CAP pair slowed to very low speed in order to keep contact with the helo. The helicopter immediately landed, at which point (at 0816.5) it fired one Stinger at each Tomcat. One missed, the other hit and destroyed the lead aircraft. The aircrew ejected, into the waiting arms of Serbian irregulars on the ground. After the loss of the first Tomcat, Kennedy launched two more Tomcats to relieve the (now single plane) CAP. While those aircraft were being launched and heading into the zone, the Migs made a series of low-rate turns near Split, which the Tomcats first attempted to follow, then elected to pace from well within the no-fly zone. Tomcat One (from the original CAP) was ordered to fall in behind the MiGs. After the Tomcat departed, the helo was ordered back to its base to reload on Stingers. This movement apparently escaped the notice of US forces, who seemed totally occupied with the MiGs patrolling offshore, outside the zone. At 0840.0, the UN High Commission for Refugees launched a C-130 carrying relief supplies from Dubrovnik. Because of uncertainty about the US-imposed no-fly zone, it was escorted by a British Sea King in UN colors. The US challenged the UNHCR aircraft, and got a good transponder from the C-130, and voice communication from the helo. The relief Tomcats (5 and 6) also visually ID'd the aircraft. The MiGs again resumed their patrol down the coast, outside the no-fly zone, and two more MiGs were launched from Zagreb toward the zone. At 0842.0 the Hawkeye was ordered south toward Kennedy, across the course of the MiGs. Tomcat 2 continued near, but not tracking, the MiGs. At 0846.0 the helo was again launched. At the same time the MiGs started a left turn toward the Hawkeye, which had closed to about 5 miles. The MiGs launched AA-11s, which destroyed the Hawkeye, and continued the left turn toward Tomcat 2, lighting up their SLOT BACK radars as well. The lack of SPY-1 data meant that the Kennedy-based aircraft did not realize until too late that the MiGs had again reversed course, and so the Hawkeye was caught unaware, and the Tomcat was faced with an unexpected head-on two-on-one engagement. Tomcat 2 responded by launching two AIM-54C at 0846.5, at the same time the MiGs launched one AA-10 each. Both AIM-54C missed, as did one AA-10. The other AA-10 destroyed the Tomcat. The MiGs then descended to low altitude and raced north, away from the remaining Tomcats. Kennedy responded by ordering the recovery of Tomcats 3 and 4, and pulling Tomcats 5 and 6 back over the carrier to wait for an E-2C launch. In less than an hour the Serbian forces had destroyed two F-14s and an E-2C, all irreplaceable aircraft. In addition, the Serbians hold two US airmen as POWs, and had cleared the no-fly zone of US aircraft, while operating their own helicopters inside the zone. While this situtation is surely temporary, the blow to US prestige is serious. The Serbians have asserted, at least temporarily, their dominance over Bosnia, and their willingness and ability to challenge a superpower. Their victory in this case is clearly decisive. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lessons of the Scenario The primary objective of this simulation was to determine whether a no-fly zone could reasonably be imposed over Bosnia using only the Air Wing currently embarked on USS John F. Kennedy against a moderately determined Serbian opponent. The results of this scenario suggest that there is significant risk in such an undertaking, and that additional combat power should be made available to the US commander. Also, restrictions on tactics employed by the US commander, including minimum altitudes for CAP and better protections of AEW assets may be required. Specifically: 1) AEW assets should be employed at the highest available altitudes, and should operate only in areas where ROE permit defense of the AEW platform by other assets. 2) USN assets should operate at the highest possible altitudes consistent with their mission. 3) Engagements should occur at maximum possible range. In particular, USN assets should rely on TCS for visual identification, and should not approach threats any closer than necessary to make TCS identification. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Comeau | "Democracy is a means of limiting the tcomeau@stsci.edu | egotism and waywardness of those who Sr System Manager | exercise power by replacing them with Space Telescope Science Institute | others when their pretensions become 3700 San Martin Drive | intolerable." Baltimore, MD 21218 | -- John Keegan ------------------------------ Date: Mon 12 Apr 1993 10:46:27 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (54) Recent Naval Developments Message-Id: Items from April 1993 USNI Proceedings: "No Shortage of Shortages" (pp. 119-120) by Cmdr. George Kraus, USN (Ret.) The Russian Merchant Fleet is being hit hard by economic problems and will be severely reduced in size. Some radiation leakage of the sunken Mike class Komsomolets SSN has been detected. Probably, the radiation comes from the nuclear torpedoes, rather than the propulsion. Previous negotiations to salvage the whole submarine have gotten no where due to cost. The plan to deal with the leak is apparently to either contain the leak by sealing the site or salvaging only the torpedoes. In the August 1992 Morskoy Sbornik, Maj. Gen of Aviation N.A. Rogov described the how naval aviation will be reorganized. By 1995, personnel will be scaled back by some 30% and the number of aircraft will be cut by 20%. The cuts will come mostly from attack, ASW and recon aircraft, while attempting to preserve standoff missile armed aircraft. "Navy in a Mine Field" (pp. 121-122) by Norman Polmar The recently submitted administration budget proposal includes further cuts in the US Navy. What is stated leads to the following projections on force levels by the year 2000. Nimitz (CVN-68) class 9 Enterprise (CVN-65) class 1 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class 27 Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class 30 Kidd (DDG-993) class 4 Spruance (DD-963) class 31 Seawolf/Improved LA/LA SSNs 40-50 Avenger (MCM-1) class 14 Osprey (MHC-51) class 11 Amphibious ships ~50 (includes some number of LX) There is still support for CVN-76, but conventional carrier retirement is being accelerated, eventually leading to a all-nuclear carrier force of 10. (FY94 retirements: AVT-59, CV-60) Retirement of Leahy (CG-16) and Belknap (CG-26) classes has been accelerated. (FY94 retirements: CG-16,17,18,24,28,34) Probably, all nuclear cruisers will be retired as well when they come up for refueling. (FY94 retirements: CGN-38,39) Eventually, the only cruisers will be the Ticonderoga class. At the turn of the century, most O.H. Perry (FFG-7) frigates will probably be assigned to the naval reserve, while the Knox (FF-1052) class will be stricken or transferred to foreign navies. (FY94 retirements: FFT-1078,1079, 1084,1085,1089,1090,1095,1097) The entire Pegasus (PHM-1) class is to be retired in FY94. Apparently, the entire LA (and Improved LA) SSN class will not be preserved. In FY94, the Baton Rouge (SSN-689) will be retired rather than refueled. If the Centurion is approved in 2000, the first one will probably enter the force in 2006. The Tripoli (LPH-10) will be converted to a MCM support ship, flying minesweeping helicopters. Perhaps, one more similar vessel will be converted. Nuclear ships cannot really be brought back to service after retirement because of the extensive work to defuel the reactors and dispose of radioactive components. Two SH-2 squadrons and two P-3 squadrons are being cut in FY94 with more P-3 cuts planned. A-6E retirement is being accelerated, with funds going to upgrade F-14 Tomcats to the "Bombcat" configuration. A total of 127 will be given software upgrades, bombing capabilities, FLIR and laser designators. Typical composition of the attack/fighter part of a carrier air wing is projected as follows: 1992 1993 1994 2000 2005 2015 A-6E 10 16 10 - - - AFX - - - - - 20 F-14 24 20 20 14 14 - F/A-18C/D 24 20 24 36 \ 36* - F/A-18E/F - - - - / 40 * = mix of F/A-18C/D and E/F totaling 36 -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3680A Boelter Hall Phone: (213)825-8524 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------ Date: Thu 22 Apr 1993 09:41:30 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (55) Volume 14 Index Message-Id: Volume Issue Date Messages Author - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 1 17 December 1992 (1) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (2) Amiga Harpoon jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (3) Swedish Data janm@aten.docs.uu.se (4) AX Tidbits tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (5) Ship Colors brownle@stat.appstate.edu (6) Bug Form dp@wx.gtegsc.com (7) Beginner's Questions hrz090@de0hrz1a.bitnet (8) Message Text Format norm@ctr.columbia.edu (9) Challenge Scenario dp@wx.gtegsc.com (10) No Target? lapointe@mv83a.nusc.navy.mil (11) Direct Support SSNs? scooter@emunix.emich.edu 2 26 January 1993 (12) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (13) Re: Amiga Harpoon jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (14) v1.32 Problems grahame_reynolds@dge.ceo.dg.com (15) Slippery Settings gareth.bull@cc.monash.edu.au (16) Harpoon II fontana@pv.infn.it (17) RFD: rec.games.miniature bob@werple.apana.org.au (18) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3 11 February 1993 (19) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (20) Kola Pen Scenarios kvj@adint.triple-i.com (21) FAQ list tscott@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (22) I/TARH Guidance youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (23) Recent Naval Develeopments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (24) Suggested Improvements bruce@lobby.ti.com (25) Convoy Speeds coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (26) HY-2 yuqian@bvc.edu (27) Electronic Data Annex ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (28) Patriot, etc. hrz090@de0hrz1a.bitnet 4 15 March 1993 (29) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (30) Re: Kola Pen Scenarios yuqian@bvc.edu (31) Seminars neym@cc.gettysburg.edu (32) Re: Kola Pen Scenarios bsteele@ups.edu (33) Abbreviation Dictionary coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (34) Jargon - The Return coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (35) Enhanced GUIK & Bug e4kkyiu@aelmg.adelaide.edu.au (36) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (37) rec.games.miniatures CFV bob@werple.apana.org.au 5 2 April 1993 (38) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (39) Surface ASW Formations ajohnson@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (40) Reverting to 1.2 youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (41) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (42) Paper Harpoon youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (43) HDS II coates@vax.lse.ac.uk (44) USNI BattleSet sburge@iris.dri.du.edu (45) Runway Sizes ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (46) Navy News Service yuqian@bvc.edu 6 22 April 1993 (47) Editorial cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (48) Amiga Upgrades hala@aid.no (49) What's in USNI Battleset? clark@acs.bu.edu (50) Russian Pacific OB 1993 tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (51) HWBBS Ceases Operation kks2n@dayhoff.med.virginia.edu (52) v1.32 from 360? pekka.riiali@lut.fi (53) Scenario Report tcomeau@liner.stsci.edu (54) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (55) Volume 14 Index cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (56) CZ Guidelines cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu 22 Apr 1993 11:27:32 PDT From: cz-request@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (56) CZ Guidelines Message-Id: Guidelines for The Convergence Zone Last Update: 22 April 1993 Author: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim - CZ Moderator) Welcome to The Convergence Zone! Goal ---- "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. The Harpoon products include Harpoon, Captain's Edition Harpoon, Computer Harpoon, Harpoon SITREP, and various supplements for the print and computer versions. Naval topics are discussed in so far as they are related to the game or provide useful background. The goal of CZ is interesting discussions and material and just plain fun. Signup ------ To sign up, send mail to "cz-request@stsci.edu" indicating that you wish to subscribe to CZ. Please enclose your fullname and preferred e-mail address, if these are different from the mail header information. If possible, please use an Internet e-mail address When you signup, you will be sent the article you are now reading for your information and to test the e-mail address. As long the message is not rejected within a day or so, you will be sent back issues from the current volume, unless you request otherwise in your signup message. CZ is published in digest form in RFC 1153 compatible format. Previous volumes are available from the archives (see below). The first nine volumes were published in an format that does not conform to RFC 1153. Submissions ----------- Messages for submission to the mailing list should be sent to "cz@stsci.edu". All messages are subject to possible rejection or editing by the moderator. Rejection should be pretty rare and only occurs if the subject of a message is wholly inappropriate or if the message is offensive. (Please keep flames to a minimum!) Editing should be pretty rare also. Reasons for editing include (but are not necessarily limited to) extreme length, obvious errors and really bad formatting. Any editing will be noted. Please double check your submissions for errors and try to stay within 78 characters per line. Administration -------------- Administrative requests, such as unsubscribing or address change, should be sent to "cz-request@stsci.edu". Once in a while, the moderator has to do real work, so please be patient. If several people on the same machine receive the CZ, please try to organize a local redistribution. Addresses are generally dropped from the list after two e-mail errors on consecutive issues. Archives -------- After each volume is complete, it along with an index is placed on the archive sites for access by anonymous FTP. The archive sites and the path to the Harpoon directory root is listed below. North America sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12): pub/harpoon Europe ftp.cs.vu.nl (192.31.231.42): harpoon The CZ archive is in the "cz" subdirectory under the Harpoon directory root. The CZ archive volumes are named v1.Z, v2.Z, etc and are in UNIX compress format (see below). The index files are named i1.Z, i2.Z, etc. A few other items appear under separate names. The complete list is in the file "INDEX". Please be polite and don't FTP during peak load hours during a workday. Scenarios --------- User written scenarios for Amiga, Macintosh and IBM-PC versions of the computer game are also stored on the archive site under the the Harpoon directory root in subdirectories "amiga", "mac" and "pc" respectively. Each directory contains a file called "INDEX" and one called "README". The "INDEX" file lists the contents of that directory. The "README" file describes the scenario formats, procedures for uploading, who administrates the directory, etc. The scenarios themselves are in the compressed files. If "README" and "INDEX" are sufficiently long they too will be in UNIX compress format as "README.Z" and "INDEX.Z". UNIX Compress Format -------------------- Unix compress format files (.Z extension) can be restored using the proper utility for your system. These utilities and where to get them (i.e., anonymous FTP archives) are listed below. The information was derived from the compression summary found on ftp.cso.uiuc.edu:/doc/pcnet/compression (8 Oct 92 revision) and the comp.compression newsgroup FAQ (29 Oct 92 revision). Amiga: compress ftp.cso.uiuc.edu (128.174.5.59): /amiga/fish/f0/ff051.lzh Mac: MacCompress3.2 sumex-aim.stanford.edu (36.44.0.6): /info-mac/util/maccompress-32.hqx PC: comp430d wuarchive.wustl.edu (128.252.135.4): /mirrors/msdos/compress/comp430d.zip garbo.uwasa.fi (128.214.87.1): /pc/unix/comp430d.zip PC: u16 ftp.cso.uiuc.edu (128.174.5.59): /pc/exec-pc/u16.zip UNIX: uncompress, zcat uncompress is a standard UNIX command; if unavailable, try wuarchive.wustl.edu (128.252.135.4): /packages/compression/compress-4.1.tar Disclaimer ---------- Even though CZ often discusses products of Game Designers Workshop and Three-Sixty Pacific, Inc., it is not officially connected with either. It is an entirely volunteer effort of ethusiastic naval wargamers. All services are being provided with no representations about the suitability of these services for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. Three-Sixty Pacific, Inc. (makers of the computer version of Harpoon) does not accept responsibility for any of the services or scenario files that are provided by the archives. ------------------------------ End of CZ Digest ****************