AAR: Franco's Folly [Spoiler Alert] [Archive]

Herman Hum

08 Mar 05, 04:25

As the commander of Franco’s forces, I opened with a lightning strike by all available aircraft from Armilla and El Copero and managed to level the airfield without any losses. In fact, ordnance remained that was quickly re-allocated towards the artillery batteries. They, in turn, were silenced. The only remaining ground defences were 2 companies of Royal Marines and one was already badly shot up.

This looked like it was going to be a quick and easy victory for Franco. So I sent my Shooting Star recon planes in search of the enemy carrier forces. I didn’t find them but quickly stumbled onto a roving Sea Vixen Combat Air Patrol! The two aircraft beat a hasty retreat, changed their underwear, and swore never to go out again without a proper escort.

DD Lauria exploded from an undetected torpedo attack. Luckily, I had a SeaKing aloft providing AEW support. It was quickly given a vector to the vicinity of the lost ship and subsequently detected an Inbound Torpedo! While the ASWGru made turns for maximum speed, additional helos were launched to aid in the prosecution of this most hostile of contacts. The initial SeaKing localized the submarine and killed her but there were still torpedoes inbound. The fate of my escorts was left to chance.

It was nerve-wracking watching the torpedoes close the distance yet not be able to do anything except run. I used my SeaKings to maintain contact with the torpedoes as my fleeing vessels were essentially blind. The torpedoes eventually ran out of fuel less than 200 yards away from my escorts. A big sigh of relief was felt by all hands. The ASWGru re-grouped to continue their sweep. Where there was one Sugar Skunk, there were sure to be more. They were one escort fewer but much wiser altogether.

A flight of late-arriving Starfighters from San Juan decided to attack HMS Undaunted with their CBUs and napalm instead of Gibraltar. They lit her up like a Roman candle but could not sink her. In fact, her gunners were able to bring down two of her tormentors. The Spanish pilots swore that there would be a balancing of accounts in the near future as they turned away with afterburners blazing.

An escort from the Amphib group, DD Jorge Juan, ran right over an unidentified subsurface contact. She was well within the Torpedo Danger Zone so I had no choice but to engage immediately with both Hedghogs and torpedoes. Explosions were registered so I hoped that she was sunk. I also hoped that I had not accidentally sunk an American vessel or else they would be brought in to the conflict on the British side and that was one thing that I did not need!

SNS Jupiter also ran into a subsurface contact at point blank range. She, too, unleashed a volley of depth charges and Hedgehog bombs to destroy the contact.

Follow-on air strikes from El Copero dropped paratroops all over Gibraltar base but were largely ineffective. However, the bombers were more successful; sinking the entire Gibraltar squadron (HMS Undaunted, Barrosa, Brave Borderer, and Brave Swordsman) without loss.

KR Kashin was detected very close to my submarines. I did not want her to mistakenly attack my sub and thus provoke a war with the Soviet Union so I had my submarine surface to clearly identify her as a neutral vessel.

DDG Devonshire was detected by her distinct radar emissions so I had a general idea on the position of the carriers. I patiently waited until I had a maximum number of aircraft available and launched them to attack.

I managed to co-ordinate a fairly successful Time-Over-Target attack. Although there were no Combat Air Patrols present, my fighter escorts made repeated runs over the task force in order to draw AAW fire away from the strikers. This tactic worked but was very costly for the escorts.

The bombers concentrated on the Eagle and the Bulwark. Every available bomb and round of ammunition was dedicated to sinking these two massive vessels. After sustaining serious losses from the barrage of SAMs and AAA fire, both vessels were sunk. The attack cost me 15 Sabre fighters and 7 Starfighters. Shortly afterward, I was granted victory.

Thanks for sharing your scenario with the Harpoon community.

Get it here (http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon3/colonialwars/).

Herman Hum

09 Mar 05, 22:32

Talk about a rock and a hard place. My English forces were going to be operating under very restrictive Rules of Engagement. “Do Not Fire unless fired upon”. This was going to be a very tricky operation, indeed. I knew that the Spaniards had Shooting Star reconnaissance aircraft that were unarmed. This would mean that I would not be allowed to destroy them regardless if they detected my ships or not. This was a really nice touch by the designer and a really sticky wicket for me.

I decided to combine my escort, support, and amphibious groups into one task force in order to concentrate their AAW protective fire. With only 2 vessels equipped with Sea Slug SAMs, I was going to have to rely upon the old-fashioned AAA barrages. I also order the Gibraltar squadron to close upon the air base to provide additional AAA fire support.

SSN Valiant immediately detected Spanish naval vessels in her vicinity. My orders were not to initiate combat but I could not wait for the Spanish to attack my SSN first because the first attack on a submarine is often fatal. I decided to employ my fighter assets in reconnaissance duties in hopes of drawing enemy fire. Once the hostility of the ships was established, I could destroy them with my subsurface assets. This tactic worked like a charm.

The SSN was quickly able to destroy the CV and all of her ASW assets. The fighters protected the SSN by destroying helos as they launched. Once the ASW cover was killed, the SSN had an easy time sinking the entire ASWGru.

In the meanwhile, the fighters had pinpointed the Spanish bombardment group and the Amphib group. Their hostility was confirmed and the SSN and SS were sent to intercept.

While they were enroute, air attacks were received on Gibraltar. The additional AAW protection and the wildly successful Bloodhound SAMs brought down all of the assailants without loss to the defenders.

The submarines were able to make contact with the Amphibs and the covering force and were able to totally destroy them after using up every single torpedo available. Once this was completed, victory was awarded.

Many thanks for a second opportunity to try a fun scenario.

emsoy

06 May 05, 04:03

This scenario can only be downloaded from the HarpoonHQ, which hosts the greatest collection of quality scenarios for Harpoon 3 on the web:

http://www.harpoonhq.com/

Colonial Wars scenarios:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon3/colonialwars/

1960-1979 scenarios:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon3/scenarios_1960-79/

1980-2005++ scenarios:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon3/scenarios/

PS: Herman, although we cannot make demands as to how you should play Harpoon, we would appreciate it if you didn't cheat so much in the AARs that you write. Cheating in Harpoon is like cheating in chess. The scenarios were built with realism in mind, and cheating on this scale wastes all of the scenario designer's efforts and countless hours of testing and tuning. Doing some basic research on naval/aerial tactics and doctrine might also be a good idea for a more realistic experience. Thank you.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

Ivan Rapkinov

06 May 05, 04:45

Ragnar: it's an AAR - it doesn't matter how he does it. I very much doubt someone who plays the scn after reading this will follow Herman's tactics word for word.

emsoy

06 May 05, 04:59

I think it matters a lot. The HarpoonHQ provides the community with the most realistic scenarios with a focus on getting it right for the real naval warfare fan. It is very frustrating for our scenario designers, who have worked so hard building these scenarios, to see them get cheated to death here on this forum.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

Ivan Rapkinov

06 May 05, 05:12

Reckall

06 May 05, 05:13

I read both the AARs but I was unable to find the cheat. Where was it?

Sunburn

06 May 05, 05:15

Although there were no Combat Air Patrols present, my fighter escorts made repeated runs over the task force in order to draw AAW fire away from the strikers. This tactic worked but was very costly for the escorts.

Steel Panthers' "bait Jeep" anyone? :whist:

Ivan Rapkinov

06 May 05, 05:19

So? It might be gamey, but it's not cheating.

Reckall

06 May 05, 05:24

So? It might be gamey, but it's not cheating.

I have still to play the scenario, but wouldn't it be a legit tactic? Exp. under a dictatorship which could ask to each pilot "the supreme sacrifice needed by motherland"? (i.e. act in a manner so to draw fire away from the main attack) The escorts, in the heat of battle, couldn't really ignore enemy planes buzzing overhead.

emsoy

06 May 05, 05:38

Ragnar: I'm not going to go into what constitutes cheating or the like, we each have our own views. From my knowledge (which is admittedly limited) of Harp, Herman's not blatantly abusing any bugs or so forth. And if he is, then it's his loss.

Yes it is his loss. However by posting up the cheats in public it is also the scenario designer's loss.

Btw: if you do have a complaint that someone is cheating/frustrating your designers then PM me the offending passage and I'll edit it out.

Will do, thanks you for your support. I also have a few other concerns...

To be perfectly honest, when reading some of Herman's AARs it's hard to follow exactly what's he's doing. Herman's writing style isn't exactly micromanagement central :D

You are right. However we've commented on his large-scale cheating on countless earlier occasions. It may thus seem he cheats less, but if you actually play the scenarios you will end up asking yourself 'how the hell did he manage to do this-and-that' over and over. Almost like he plays the scen in the scenario editor with SHOW ALL turned on, alternatively having rehearsed it ten times and taking record of every move the AI makes. Anyway I must say I found the tactic of loitering escorting fighters over the enemy task group to soak up SAMs and AAA fire while the attack a/c made their pass especially amusing. My dear... hehe.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

Sunburn

06 May 05, 05:43

Somewhere, somewhen in Harpoonland.....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hypothetical Harpoon Scenario Designer: Well, that's it folks. After 10 years of designing quality Harpoon scenarios, I'm calling it quits and moving to another game or genre.

Hypothetical Harpoon Player: Why, dear H.H.S.D.? Your scens have been among the best in the community. Each one of them is painstakingly researched, designed and implemented. You have put literally months of work in each of them, to make sure they simulate real-life force balances and operational procedures & tactics. Why are you pulling out?

H.H.S.D.: As you said, I put a lot of effort into them. Because I read, discuss and know a lot about the subject, and nothing pleases me more than reading AARs of people who managed to win them using real-life tactics and procedures. That's my crowd.

Then some lazy kiddo fires them (scens) up, uses gamey tactics or even outright cheats (e.g. opening the scenario in ScenEdit before playing, to see the enemy forces, their missions etc.) to win, then posts about it publicly. And of course suddenly everyone loses interest in playing the scenario the realistic way. Sure, the few die-hards will hang on, but Joe Admiral will use the shortcuts, beat it, and move on to something else, having learned very little (if at all) about real-life air & naval warfare in the process.

Now compare the effort it took me to build the scenario, to the effort it took this guy to effectively make it worthless. It's no good.

HHP: I guess you're right, H.H.S.D.. Damn those lazy ignorant fools who throttle our hobby & passion. They keep this up, and nobody outside the few faithfuls will reap the educational benefits of this excellent wargame. Bastards.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above dialogue is of course purely fictional.... :whist:

emsoy

06 May 05, 05:49

I have still to play the scenario, but wouldn't it be a legit tactic? Exp. under a dictatorship which could ask to each pilot "the supreme sacrifice needed by motherland"? (i.e. act in a manner so to draw fire away from the main attack) The escorts, in the heat of battle, couldn't really ignore enemy planes buzzing overhead.

Uhm.... Got a reliable source to back up that claim? I have personally never seen any records of escorting fighters being used as SAM bait...

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

JMS

06 May 05, 05:52

Somewhere, somewhen in Harpoonland.....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hypothetical Harpoon Scenario Designer: Well, that's it folks. After 10 years of designing quality Harpoon scenarios, I'm calling it quits and moving to another game or genre.

Hypothetical Harpoon Player: Why, dear H.H.S.D.? Your scens have been among the best in the community. Each one of them is painstakingly researched, designed and implemented. You have put literally months of work in each of them, to make sure they simulate real-life force balances and operational procedures & tactics. Why are you pulling out?

H.H.S.D.: As you said, I put a lot of effort into them. Because I read, discuss and know a lot about the subject, and nothing pleases me more than reading AARs of people who managed to win them using real-life tactics and procedures. That's my crowd.

Then he should avoid reading AARs altogether or take the time to think through the scenario and avoid the possibility of gamey tactics, and of course, stop whinning about how players play, because that's their problem.

Then some lazy kiddo fires them (scens) up, uses gamey tactics or even outright cheats (e.g. opening the scenario in ScenEdit before playing, to see the enemy forces, their missions etc.) to win, then posts about it publicly. And of course suddenly everyone loses interest in playing the scenario the realistic way. Sure, the few die-hards will hang on, but Joe Admiral will use the shortcuts, beat it, and move on to something else, having learned very little (if at all) about real-life air & naval warfare in the process.

Please, remind me who I should ask permission before playing Harpoon, because it must have gotten lost in the mail... What now? you decide who posts and what he posts?

The above dialogue is of course purely fictional.... :whist:

And a load of non-sense...

JMS

06 May 05, 05:53

Uhm.... Got a reliable source to back up that claim? I have personally never seen any records of escorting fighters being used as SAM bait...

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

Maybe you should check WW2 where fighters were used for Flak supression, and to, you know, draw AA fire away from the bombers...

Reckall

06 May 05, 05:54

Hmmm... everybody, when does publish something on the web, cannot control what will be done with it by third parties. Of course, one can have fun by opening the scenario editor and looking at the research done for a scenario, and at the general ideas developed for it - like reading a book about theory instead of practicing something.

But.... cheats?

First of all, an AAR writer most of the times *will* spoil the scenario - except when he gives only a general opinion, an for this reason AARs are best read *after* you played it.

Second, what constitutes "cheating" is actually a fine line here: some unconventional tactics are called "cheating" even if real life teaches that unconventional tactics are actually "brilliant moves" - when they do work.

Third, and most important, there is a strong role-playing factor in playing Harpoon - call it "house rules". You can cheat on every scenario designed for DB2000 by coordinating subs in an unrealistic way, since they are designed to be played with auto-datalink on. But you simply do not do it. So, if you judge a tactic read in an AAR "cheating" don't use it, and play role-playing your forces in what you do feel is a realistic manner.

BTW, real life is full of examples were "cheating" was actually employed on the field. Jim Dunnigan wrote a book about it, IIRC.

emsoy

06 May 05, 06:01

Maybe you should check WW2 where fighters were used for Flak supression, and to, you know, draw AA fire away from the bombers...

Those aircraft were assigned to just that, flak supression (today called SEAD/DEAD). Just like other planes were assigned to strike or fighter escort. They were not part of the fighter screen.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

emsoy

06 May 05, 06:12

Then he should avoid reading AARs altogether or take the time to think through the scenario and avoid the possibility of gamey tactics, and of course, stop whinning about how players play, because that's their problem.

Okay I can understand what you are saying but I suspect you have never created or released a Harpoon3 scenario. If you knew how much effort that is put down into every single one of the scenarios posted on the HarpoonHQ, only to have it cheated to pieces in public, I'm sure you wouldn't have made the above statement.

Cheating in chess will ruin that game! How would you feel if the games played in Chess Championships contained nothing but cheats, weird moves and yet more cheats? Would you lose interest?

The same goes for Harpoon3.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

Sunburn

06 May 05, 06:13

Then he should avoid reading AARs altogether

Why? Well-written AARs by people who played a scenario without back-hand tricks (regardless of whether they won or lost - often the defeat-AARs are the most fun!) are a scen designer's nirvana.

or take the time to think through the scenario and avoid the possibility of gamey tactics

And pray tell, how exactly do you do that? Locking the scen file so that it cannot be opened in ScenEdit? (Not possible). Limiting the options/assets available to the player? Then realism _and_ playability go out of the window. Which defeats the whole purpose of making good scenarios in the first place.

Unless you've found a way that the guys who design scens for 10+ years now haven't come up with.

, and of course, stop whinning about how players play, because that's their problem.

It's the jerk's problem if he does it in private and tells no-one. It becomes the designer's problem the moment these tricks start being circulated by any means (forums, emails, IRC, IM etc.). At that moment, all the effort put by the designer goes down the toilet. If you don't see this then you just don't get the problem.

Please, remind me who I should ask permission before playing Harpoon, because it must have gotten lost in the mail... What now? you decide who posts and what he posts?

Missing the point _completely_.

And a load of non-sense...

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Now show me the last thing you've contributed to Harpoon. A scenario, a database, a software tool, a serious publication, an OOB collection, a collabo with a person doing anything of the above. Show me you've put real effort, sweat, time and/or money into making something for Harpoon and sharing it with the community.

In other words, show me that you know what you're talking about.

Sunburn

06 May 05, 06:25

Reckall

06 May 05, 06:31

Vince < I see your point, and you do have something there, but I think you're treading mainly on the gray area. Cases usually classified as "cheats" tend to focus on the black & white areas of straining the game rules. Tournament and MBX umpires go to great lenghts to draw a firm line between what is acceptable and what is considered cheating.

Also, on your reference on real-life military endeavors that constitute "cheating": In real combat, the commander does not have the benefit of hindsight, he cannot view the situation with ScenEdit (wouldn't that be nifty? :smoke: ) and usually he's taking an immense and uncertain gamble which, more often than not, ends badly. Thus he cannot be put on the same spot with a cheater, whose primary motive typically is a safe, easy and sure-fire "victory".

I still do not see where the "cheat" is in the offending AAR. Modern air-naval warfare is, for most, based on theory, the practical examples being quite limited. This can lead to all sort of debate and personal opinions regarding what is "realistic" and what isn't.

To use again my favourite example, just remember that in a wargame played in the '30s a player winning a battle using carriers over battleships would have blamed for using "unrealistic tactics", since, in the unproved theories of the time, it was the BB the queen of the sea, not the CV.

Having said that, what I still do not understand is: if you judge that using planes to draw away AA fire is unrealistic, just don't do it. If the scenario designer feels that it is an important point of the scenario, just write it in the orders paragraph. I *do* like to use unconventional tactics in my games, buy I also obey the instructions given by the designer. I do not wish to be branded as "a cheater" only because I thought about something unexpected: military brilliance should be about this.

BTW, speaking of WWII, I wonder how would have be judged, in a "formal" wargame, using jeeps to raise dust in the desert and simulate a fake tank attack. But in the real world it worked.]

One last think: I'm a published writer since 1987, I wrote a lot of things, attended two writing schools and spent countless months sweating blood on reviews, scripts and other writings, many of them, by talent or luck, succesful. But I still respect words of someone who reads my work and gives his opinion, even if he is a plumber and the opinion is negative. In my book "what you have done in my field?" is not excuse for refusing criticism, since each one of us judges daily things in fields outside his job and/or hobby - like the movies.

JMS

06 May 05, 06:41

Those aircraft were assigned to just that, flak supression (today called SEAD/DEAD). Just like other planes were assigned to strike or fighter escort. They were not part of the fighter screen.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

So? fighters used to strafe ground targets when no air targets were found, is that cheating? Fighters dump air to ground ordnance when opposition in the air is found, is that cheating too? What about inflatable suicide boats that drive themselves into the flank of moored destroyers? All of that's real life, that a designer cannot predict every player's behaviour is a given, if you feel it's unrealistic, you have to adapt the scenario, not blame the players.

JMS

06 May 05, 06:44

Okay I can understand what you are saying but I suspect you have never created or released a Harpoon3 scenario. If you knew how much effort that is put down into every single one of the scenarios posted on the HarpoonHQ, only to have it cheated to pieces in public, I'm sure you wouldn't have made the above statement.

Cheating in chess will ruin that game! How would you feel if the games played in Chess Championships contained nothing but cheats, weird moves and yet more cheats? Would you lose interest?

The same goes for Harpoon3.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

No, that's true, have only tried Harpoon classic and TOAW, which happens to be more complex, and while I agree that cheating does ruin the game, the use of a tactic that wasn't envisioned by the designer is not cheating. Either adapt the scenario or assume that's a fact of life that people has an imagination.

Reckall

06 May 05, 06:44

So? fighters used to strafe ground targets when no air targets were found, is that cheating?.

"Don't worry about losing AA cover, their manuals say that they cannot draw away an elephant with their figh..." :)

JMS

06 May 05, 06:46

Why? Well-written AARs by people who played a scenario without back-hand tricks (regardless of whether they won or lost - often the defeat-AARs are the most fun!) are a scen designer's nirvana.

And pray tell, how exactly do you do that? Locking the scen file so that it cannot be opened in ScenEdit? (Not possible). Limiting the options/assets available to the player? Then realism _and_ playability go out of the window. Which defeats the whole purpose of making good scenarios in the first place.

Unless you've found a way that the guys who design scens for 10+ years now haven't come up with.

It's the jerk's problem if he does it in private and tells no-one. It becomes the designer's problem the moment these tricks start being circulated by any means (forums, emails, IRC, IM etc.). At that moment, all the effort put by the designer goes down the toilet. If you don't see this then you just don't get the problem.

Missing the point _completely_.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Now show me the last thing you've contributed to Harpoon. A scenario, a database, a software tool, a serious publication, an OOB collection, a collabo with a person doing anything of the above. Show me you've put real effort, sweat, time and/or money into making something for Harpoon and sharing it with the community.

In other words, show me that you know what you're talking about.

What a load of tripe! Once again, are only people who have played and designed in Harpoon for 10+ year allowed to have an opinion? guess I didn't check the licensing agreement...

emsoy

06 May 05, 06:53

All of that's real life, that a designer cannot predict every player's behaviour is a given, if you feel it's unrealistic, you have to adapt the scenario, not blame the players.

Hehe yeah you know that's the funny part. In the past we designed the scenarios for maximum realism. That was our only concern. It was generally understood within the community that one should try to use realistic tactics and not exploit weaknesses in the model. After all, we're playing to enjoy naval warfare and maybe learn a thing or two in the process.

After this Herman guy showed up we now also have to design the scenarios with the 'Cheatos' in mind, and implement all kinds of safeguards to counter the largest and most damaging cheats. Had he kept his crazy tactics and cheats to himself it wouldn't have been a problem, but when he posts in public is suddenly is. Preventing cheating doubles the scen designer's efforts really, and we can never make a scenario foolprof since this guy continously comes up with new ways to exploit the game engine...

So, yes, we adapt the scenarios allright, but the Cheatos will always win in the end.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

emsoy

06 May 05, 07:10

All of that's real life, that a designer cannot predict every player's behaviour is a given, if you feel it's unrealistic, you have to adapt the scenario, not blame the players.

I could not agree more, well said. But rehearsing a scenario to make sure you will not lose, and pulling off weird if not totally crazy moves simply because there's an opportunity to exploit a certain part of the game engine, well, that's cheating.

And lets not forget that little thing called Doctrine. You fight the way you train, right. I don't think I've ever seen fighter pilots train to be SAM bait... hehe.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

Sunburn

06 May 05, 07:18

I still do not see where the "cheat" is in the offending AAR. Modern air-naval warfare is, for most, based on theory, the practical examples being quite limited. This can lead to all sort of debate and personal opinions regarding what is "realistic" and what isn't.

To use again my favourite example, just remember that in a wargame played in the '30s a player winning a battle using carriers over battleships would have blamed for using "unrealistic tactics", since, in the unproved theories of the time, it was the BB the queen of the sea, not the CV.

Actually, both the USN and the IJN used wargames extensively in the 1930s to prepare (knowingly?) for the coming war. And both sides saw the writing on the wall. The big difference was that the US admirals refused to believe what the wargames were showing them, while the Japanese officers embraced them (it's a well-known fact that the Perl Harbor raid was refined through successive wargaming).

BTW, the very same wargaming system that predicted the success of Perl Harbor also showed that the IJN fleet had a serious probability of suffering heavy losses at Midway. The admirals refused to believe it. You know the rest.

Having said that, what I still do not understand is: if you judge that using planes to draw away AA fire is unrealistic, just don't do it.

It's a fact of human nature that, when offered a hard way and an easy way of doing something, we'll usually pick the latter. Even if the former is the right way. This is all the more true in the case of non-seasoned Harpoon players still learning the ropes and not having sufficinet experience to tell the legit real-life tactic from a shenanigan that would likely land its real-life practitioner either a court-martial or a hasty grave.

And again, the critical point is not the act of doing it on one's own. Privacy is sacrosanct. It is the act of telling everyone within earshot "Hey kids! By using this "clever" trick you can beat that tough scenario that's been giving you nightmares until now!". To use a consciously over-the-top analogy, it's the difference between using an illegal drug and trafficking it.

If the scenario designer feels that it is an important point of the scenario, just write it in the orders paragraph. I *do* like to use unconventional tactics in my games, buy I also obey the instructions given by the designer.

A serious designer has enough in his hands already, refining the scenario to real-life conditions. Charging him with the additional responsibility of imagining every little trick the player _may_ come up with and writing it on a "For God's sake DON'T DO THIS, in a real war that will likely get you dead or court-martialled!!!" list is a bit much, IMHO. It may be the proverbial last straw as far as his energy is concerend. He has to trust that the player has done his homework on the subject and is not going to screw around with the scenario flow (and if he does, at least he won't brag about it in public).

I do not wish to be branded as "a cheater" only because I thought about something unexpected: military brilliance should be about this.

Unexpected? Sure, go ahead. Do a multi-axis attack where common sense calls for a single direction. Load Su-27s with iron bombs in lieu of AAMs and use them to strengthen the attack of a Su-24 regiment instead of A2A-screening it. Penetrate a strong ASW screen with a submarine instead of thinning out the ASW escorts with ASMs first. Use Backfires and Blackjacks as distant feints (NOT AAM-bait!!!) to draw away NORAD F-15s while sub-launched SS-N-21s deliver the real blow. All these (and more) are examples of legit experimentation.

But using ScenEdit before playing the scen, to peek at dispositions and strategy? Using unlimited air ordinance when the designer _explicitly_ states that Air Logistics should be enabled? Knowingly doing things that would earn you a firing squad in real life? (e.g. sending pilots to certain doom in a sitaution other than "grave-danger-to-motherland-we-all-sacrifice-ourselves"). Sorry, but I cannot put this in the same category.

BTW, speaking of WWII, I wonder how would have be judged, in a "formal" wargame, using jeeps to raise dust in the desert and simulate a fake tank attack. But in the real world it worked.]

IIRC you can do something like that in POA-2. And HC has several decoy units, complete with fake EM emissions (Kusnetsov & Kirov IIRC, and some others). Nothing wrong with this.

One last think: I'm a published writer since 1987, I wrote a lot of things, attended two writing schools and spent countless months sweating blood on reviews, scripts and other writings, many of them, by talent or luck, succesful. But I still respect words of someone who reads my work and gives his opinion, even if he is a plumber and the opinion is negative. In my book "what you have done in my field?" is not excuse for refusing criticism, since each one of us judges daily things in fields outside his job and/or hobby - like the movies.

Guilty as charged. This is a gun I don't pull unless my BS-o-meter crosses a certain threshold. Notice the difference in tone between your objection and JMS's. Also notice the difference in tone in my response to you and him. Each of us reaps what he sows :devil:

Ivan Rapkinov

06 May 05, 07:23

Okay Boys and girls,

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AND TAKE IT IN.

We need to end this "discussion" on the root of the problem, whether or not Herman cheated.

Firstly I would like to thank everyone for their opinion, and say I respect everyones notes on this subject. However, I believe we have exhausted it and can put it to bed.

Herman, what Ragnar is saying is "he feels that for the benefit of playing the game it would help if you did your AAR'S in a way that allows people to gain from it. In specific, so the designers dont feel their work has been wasted". I believe you can sympathise with this.

Ragnar,You have presented your case well, although Herman from my view has not cheated. Nor has his actions warranted your response by posting this on every thread. He can play the game how he likes and write the report how he likes. He clearly states "Spoiler" in the thread title. I believe this to be his position on this matter.

Please understand that I sympathise with both your view points, but this type of activity is not what this forum is about. you are entitled to your view and in no way am I discounting that, and please dont hesitate to post in the future, although limit yourself to saying it once. I understand you are all passionate about this, but lets get on with it!

if this line of posting continues then I will lock the thread.

Jim.

Sunburn

06 May 05, 07:30

Fair enough, James. Request respected.

emsoy

06 May 05, 07:35

Yes fair enough James.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

Reckall

06 May 05, 07:43

Actually, both the USN and the IJN used wargames extensively in the 1930s to prepare (knowingly?) for the coming war. And both sides saw the writing on the wall. The big difference was that the US admirals refused to believe what the wargames were showing them, while the Japanese officers embraced them (it's a well-known fact that the Perl Harbor raid was refined through successive wargaming).

BTW, the very same wargaming system that predicted the success of Perl Harbor also showed that the IJN fleet had a serious probability of suffering heavy losses at Midway. The admirals refused to believe it. You know the rest.

Which, for this discussion sake, could be translated with "that you could use fighters in an unconventional way was predicted, but someone refused to believe it; we know the rest."

It's a fact of human nature that, when offered a hard way and an easy way of doing something, we'll usually pick the latter. Even if the former is the right way. This is all the more true in the case of non-seasoned Harpoon players still learning the ropes and not having sufficinet experience to tell the legit real-life tactic from a shenanigan that would likely land its real-life practitioner either a court-martial or a hasty grave.

But, again, what in the largely unproved field of modern naval theory can be considered "legit"? We are not talking about exploiting a simplification of the game engine, here, but about using assets given to you within the laws of the physical world. Countless books have been written about theory, doctrine et all, often confuting and disproving each other. If there is one thing that a simulation like Harpoon should allow, it is experimentation in a largely debatable field.

And again, the critical point is not the act of doing it on one's own. Privacy is sacrosanct. It is the act of telling everyone within earshot "Hey kids! By using this "clever" trick you can beat that tough scenario that's been giving you nightmares until now!". To use a consciously over-the-top analogy, it's the difference between using an illegal drug and trafficking it.

Again, it is not the condemnation of “cheating” that we are debating, but the definition of what is defined “cheating” within the context of H3. And, sorry, but having different opinions about doctrine is very different than exploiting weaknesses in the game system – or we would have an AI perfectly programmed to follow one chosen doctrine playing the game for us.

A serious designer has enough in his hands already, refining the scenario to real-life conditions.

Real-life conditions, I might add, that for the vast majority of the scenarios written for H3 are actually imagined, interpreted and/or and defined by the designer, since only a few of them recreate real-life episodes which can allow a reality check with what actually happened. In the “reality” of “Red Storm Rising”, for example, the Russians mauled a Carrier Task Force by doing something out of the blue, and “not in the books”, and I think that Larry Bond (who co-authored the book) thought about it as a neat trick.

Charging him with the additional responsibility of imagining every little trick the player _may_ come up with and writing it on a "For God's sake DON'T DO THIS, in a real war that will likely get you dead or court-martialled!!!"

Again, there is a grey area in the definition of “little trick”, since one could define the very same action as a “brilliant idea”. And history is full of people who lose because the other side did something truly unexpected.

But using ScenEdit before playing the scen, to peek at dispositions and strategy? Using unlimited air ordinance when the designer _explicitly_ states that Air Logistics should be enabled? Knowingly doing things that would earn you a firing squad in real life? (e.g. sending pilots to certain doom in a sitaution other than "grave-danger-to-motherland-we-all-sacrifice-ourselves"). Sorry, but I cannot put this in the same category.

But it is not what is being discussed here. What we are discussing is if using unconventional tactics can be associated with “cheating”, and about who is the final judge regarding what can be defined “unrealistic” in a mostly theoretical field.

BTW, should Spain win the scenario, the political victory would be enormous, and the dead pilots would receive posthumous medals and commendations for their “heroic and decisive sacrifice”, IMHO :)

emsoy

06 May 05, 07:48

BTW, should Spain win the scenario, the political victory would be enormous, and the dead pilots would receive posthumous medals and commendations for their “heroic and decisive sacrifice”, IMHO :)

Okay..... maybe that is what the history books would have said.

But what they didn't say was that the commanding officer (you) was taken away and shot for his incompetence?

Within that context, is it still a valid tactic?

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

Reckall

06 May 05, 07:50

Okay..... maybe that is what the history books would have said.

But the commanding officer (you) would have been taken away and shot for your incompetence?

For *winning* a decisive military (and political) battle against England??? O____o

emsoy

06 May 05, 07:56

For *winning* a decisive military (and political) battle against England??? O____o

Man...

:nuts: :nuts: :nuts: :dead:

I'm outa here.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

Ivan Rapkinov

06 May 05, 08:05

War is War.
Its not nice and no one will ever say in combat face to face with the enemy "no, no, your turn, you shoot first, i'll wait".
You use what ever means you have at your disposal to minimise losses and cause maximum damage in line with your goal. Unconventional tactics in the past have created war heroes that we now fete. I am no expert but tactics are indifferent, it's alright to say "cheat" when you are on the losing end.

Jim's Fiancee

Sunburn

06 May 05, 08:11

Let's see......on one hand, I'm extremely tempted to respond to that......

...but on the other hand, I stated that I'll respect James' call for giving it up.

Ah, choices, choices :cheeky:

Secret Agent

06 May 05, 08:13

That's OK. People respect those who keep their word. :)

Just a comment...if an AAR was done in a slightly different manner than intended (e.g. settings were changed), maybe the author could put AAR: NAME (Modified) or something, and everyone would be happy. Personally, I like experimenting with the "what ifs," especially if it is a "fair fight" (i.e. I don't have more firepower than the enemy :devil: ).

CV32

06 May 05, 08:28

Man... :nuts: :nuts: :nuts: :dead:
I'm outa here.

There's not much that needs to be said in response to that. The content of this thread speaks for itself.

As a longtime Harpooner, I don't see any "cheating" here. Its really a poor word to be used in the context of a single-player naval warfare simulation. Everybody plays the game differently. If someone exploits a deficiency in the model in order to win a scenario, they "cheat" only themselves. But if they use a non-textbook or unexpected tactic, or engage in asymmetric warfare, for example, is that "cheating" ? I really don't think so, and its just silly to try and dictate their manner of gameplay.

As a fairly prolific Harpoon scenario writer, I likewise don't see any insult to the author if a player tries something new that I didn't anticipate when I wrote the scenario. Everybody designs scenarios and writes AAR's differently. I cannot honestly expect each player to play my scenario exactly the same way, or stay explicitly within the strict confines that I have set up. Instead, I look forward to the AAR he will hopefully write, so that I can see where and how he viewed the scenario differently than I did. And, hopefully, everybody enjoys the experience.

Herman is perhaps the most prolific writer of After Action Reports (AARs) that the Harpoon community has ever seen. I know for a fact that many scenario writers (being one of them) are grateful for it. He should be encouraged, not denigrated, or dictated to. I enjoy his AARs, and I'm confident the overwhelming majority of Harpooners and non-Harpooners alike feel the same way. :cool:

VCDH

06 May 05, 09:24

As another long term member, I have been watching this thread with intrest.

But not that much intrest. However I feel compelled to post about this. Before I start I want to make it clear that I'm speaking for myself and NOT for the HHQ or AGSI.

The trick to writing good AARs is to portray the action during the scenario without giving anything away. To this affect Herman has done a good job in this. I'm not going to comment on the quality of the writing because I'm no better. And I'm not an English Prof ;)

As for the 'cheating' issue. Vince and Dimitris are both correct after a fashion IMHO. This isn't a FPS like Counter-Strike where cheating is easily detected and dealt with accordingly. Cheating is a rather broad issue that I don't think really applies here because of the type of game and style of playing. If Herman went into the scenario editor before he played this scenario to find out how he could defeat the game then yes it's cheating. At the same time, there are difficulty levels that some players might consider cheating because of the amount of information that it gives the player. However, it would be wrong to expect all players to begin at the expert level. This is perhaps (???) what JMS is refering too when he posts about being told how to play.

As for myself, I will play a scenario in SP and if I have questions about the scenario (as I usually do) then I will dive into the scenario editor to answer my question. Most often the question I have is a variant of "WTF did he come from?". Some people may consider this cheating. Others won't.

So it truly is a gray area.

I think it should be up to the scenario author to determine if player actions in a scenario constitute cheating.

As for the comments about tactics, it is trivial nitpicking. The fact that someone plays Harpoon doesn't mean that they have Vego's 'Soviet Naval Tactics' or Hughes 'Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat' next to them ready for instant reference. I have Fleet Tactics but I rarely refer to it and never use it when playing because each situtation is different. There will never be a game that is a text book battle, and this especially applies to a computer game like Harpoon3 which may or may not reflect real life in an accurate manner. Textbooks, like regulations, are there for the guidance of the individual commander and should not be strictly adhered to because no regulation will fully cover all situtations.

Finally, Jim's fiancee is correct in that it's war. And that there is only one rule in war. Win. It doesn't matter how you win as long as you do so. As far as I am concerned, as long as that victory doesn't involve making ships disappear using the delete command or some other form of digital modification then it's legal.....for single player.

Of course when MP comes out (we have one bug to address and then we're going Open Beta BTW), this issue is going to have to be addressed. Espically regarding exploits in the various scenarios and DBs.

What a load of tripe! Once again, are only people who have played and designed in Harpoon for 10+ year allowed to have an opinion? guess I didn't check the licensing agreement...

Ok that is simply not true. We entertain all kinds of people on our forum (I am refering to the HHQ forums, but I'm sure Jim will agree with me regarding this forum as well). If people do not wish to post for whatever reason then we can't force them to do so.

Just like the game.... :cheeky:

Of course we can't help them if they choose not to post either. The most stupid question is the one that is never asked.

Later
Dale Hillier
<speaking for himself in this case>

JMS

06 May 05, 09:33

BTW, where are this guys in the scenario?:

HU-16B

For an scenario that claims such levels of precission I find a bit odd that the only dedicated MP aircraft are missing. :(

JMS

06 May 05, 09:40

As another long term member, I have been watching this thread with intrest.

As for the 'cheating' issue. Vince and Dimitris are both correct after a fashion IMHO. This isn't a FPS like Counter-Strike where cheating is easily detected and dealt with accordingly. Cheating is a rather broad issue that I don't think really applies here because of the type of game and style of playing. If Herman went into the scenario editor before he played this scenario to find out how he could defeat the game then yes it's cheating. At the same time, there are difficulty levels that some players might consider cheating because of the amount of information that it gives the player. However, it would be wrong to expect all players to begin at the expert level. This is perhaps (???) what JMS is refering too when he posts about being told how to play.

One does not need to be an experienced player, much less in Harpoon as common sense usually suffices. And of course much is learned from defeats, if a player wants to look under the hood is up to him. A designer will need to look under the hood of other designers to learn, and I agree that looking under the hood takes away some of the fun from the game, because then you know what to expect, but then, Harpoon has enough variability to make things hard.

Ok that is simply not true. We entertain all kinds of people on our forum (I am refering to the HHQ forums, but I'm sure Jim will agree with me regarding this forum as well). If people do not wish to post for whatever reason then we can't force them to do so.

An undisputable point, but Dimitris seems to have missed it with his attempts to muzzle anyone that has not 10+ years of Harpoon experience.