View Full Version : Why do you like naval warfare?
Being as this site is primarily focused on land warfare, I think it would be interesting to hear from those of you that are passionate about Harpoon (or naval warfare in general) explain why you're so into naval warfare.
I'm a land warfare guy, that also plays some Harpoon. Naval warfare seems a bit different to me with more of a focus on technology where I always feel that people are the focus of ground combat. I think a lot of this comes from the books I've read and movies I've seen that really focus on the human drama of ground combat (Black Hawk Down, Band of Brothers, etc.).
Anyway, I thought some of the land warfare guys might be interested in understanding why some folks are so passionate about naval warfare...and the Harpoon community is nothing if not passionate. :)
Take care,
Brian
The Doctor
14 Mar 05, 09:20
Although I am not a Harpoon player, I am passionate about Naval Warfare - WWII Pacific in particular. Ever since I was in about 4th grade, when I read a book on Midway, I've been addicted to the Pacific Naval and Amphibious operations. Part of it is a family connection to the Navy and Marine Corps - one of my Dad's brothers was a Marine wounded on Iwo and one of his cousins was a gunnery officer (he later rose to the rank of R. Adm.) on USS Washington when she sank IJN Kirishima off Guadalcanal. My older brother and a cousin were Marines in Vietnam in 1967.
As a child I was fascinated with anything I could read about the USN and USMC.
I used to play an old PC game called Carriers at War and an even older Avalon Hill Midway game. I have several board games - AH's Victory in tha Pacific, Yaquinto's CV and an SPI game about Naval Ops in the early 1980s.
Secret Agent
14 Mar 05, 09:21
It's the old "Army vs. Navy" thing. (Go Army! :devil: ) I am also a 'land warfare' guy, but, alas, I do realize the importance of the Navy.
If the Cold War had turned Hot, it would have been up to the US Navy to ensure that reinforcements got to the men on the ground in NATO. I think it would have been about 2 Armored Divisions, 2 Mech Inf Divisions, 1 Mech Inf Brigade, Aviation Brigade, and an Armored Cavalry Regiment. That's a lot of firepower! So, we want the sealanes clear.
Also, everyone knows that when there's a crisis, the President asks, "Where are the carriers?" The carriers can can bring firepower to bear quite rapidly, and, as in the case of China vs. Taiwan, for example, they might be the sole combatants representing the US.
So, that is why I am interested in Harpoon.
I enjoying modeling warfare in general. It doesn't really matter whether its air, naval or ground. Its probably the scale of the warfare that attracted me to Harpoon, being able to control a large number of units over a huge expanse of territory, and on a greater scale than say, the individual soldier and his rifle. (Though, I have to admit, I like that too, aka Operation Flashpoint). The great thing about Harpoon Classic Gold these days is that we can mix up all three: air, naval, and ground. :D
The Doctor
14 Mar 05, 09:37
I enjoying modeling warfare in general. It doesn't really matter whether its air, naval or ground. Its probably the scale of the warfare that attracted me to Harpoon, being able to control a large number of units over a huge expanse of territory, and on a greater scale than say, the individual soldier and his rifle. (Though, I have to admit, I like that too, aka Operation Flashpoint). The great thing about Harpoon Classic Gold these days is that we can mix up all three: air, naval, and ground. :D
Is the CV32 nickname a reference to USS Leyte?
Secret Agent
14 Mar 05, 09:40
I enjoying modeling warfare in general. It doesn't really matter whether its air, naval or ground. Its probably the scale of the warfare that attracted me to Harpoon, being able to control a large number of units over a huge expanse of territory, and on a greater scale than say, the individual soldier and his rifle. (Though, I have to admit, I like that too, aka Operation Flashpoint). The great thing about Harpoon Classic Gold these days is that we can mix up all three: air, naval, and ground. :D
Harpoon has ground forces too? *gets excited*
Yeah. We managed to create mobile land units (colloquially known as MLUs) in the code, and from there we have created mobile SAM launchers, tactical ballistic missile (TBM) launchers, tanks, APCs, truck convoys, etc. Mind you, Harpoon was never intended to model ground warfare in a significant way, so the MLUs are best employed as a means of modeling targets (or traps) for airpower. That said, Fred Galano's latest scenario, WW3, does a pretty good job of modeling the air vs armor battle in Korea. :)
Secret Agent
14 Mar 05, 09:49
Yeah. We managed to create mobile land units (colloquially known as MLUs) in the code, and from there we have created mobile SAM launchers, tactical ballistic missile (TBM) launchers, tanks, APCs, truck convoys, etc. Mind you, Harpoon was never intended to model ground warfare in a significant way, so the MLUs are best employed as a means of modeling targets (or traps) for airpower. That said, Fred Galano's latest scenario, WW3, does a pretty good job of modeling the air vs armor battle in Korea. :)
So it's air-vs-ground, not ground-vs-ground? Well, that's still cool!
Is the CV32 nickname a reference to USS Leyte?
Yes. My surname. :D
So it's air-vs-ground, not ground-vs-ground? Well, that's still cool!
Not quite. Sorry if I misled you. You can still have ground to ground battles between tanks, artillery units, etc. But its not modeled in the same way as you would see in something like TacOps.
Secret Agent
14 Mar 05, 09:56
Not quite. Sorry if I misled you. You can still have ground to ground battles between tanks, artillery units, etc. But its not modeled in the same way as you would see in something like TacOps.
Is it that scale? I have TacOps, so could I use it to model the ground combat, and then when I have a sortie, model it with Harpoon?
Taitennek
14 Mar 05, 09:58
Harpoon has ground forces too? *gets excited*
Yep, but these groundunits cannot move
Taitennek,
P.S. This of course the situation for HIII. :smoke:
Yep, but these groundunits cannot move
Taitennek
Thats true, afaik, in H3. Not the same in Harpoon Classic Gold. There, the ground units are quite capable of moving. Hence the term Mobile Land Units (MLU).
:)
Is it that scale? I have TacOps, so could I use it to model the ground combat, and then when I have a sortie, model it with Harpoon?
Yes, I think so. Some pretty large MBX/CPX wargames have been run using TacOps to model the ground combat, and Harpoon to model the air and naval combat. Like Rikki Tikki's Global Thunder. :)
Well, as the greek theater of operations is primarily air and naval oriented, it kinda felt natural that such a wargaming system would draw me in. Plus, it strikes a very nice balance between tactical and operational (even strategic at times) control, which is something often missing from wargames. The fact that you can create dazzling scenarios and super-accurate databases with it is of course a further plus.
in answer to "The Doctor", a WWII database for Harpoon3 and scenarios are currently in development.
You can get more info on the db here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/HarpoonHQWW2/
It looks very promising and is a very enjoyable alternative to today's 'stand-off' naval engagements.
Jeff
The Doctor
14 Mar 05, 11:23
in answer to "The Doctor", a WWII database for Harpoon3 and scenarios are currently in development.
You can get more info on the db here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/HarpoonHQWW2/
It looks very promising and is a very enjoyable alternative to today's 'stand-off' naval engagements.
Jeff
Cool! Thanks Jeff! I may have to become a Harpoon-er yet!
And Welcome Aboard! :toast:
I enjoying modeling warfare in general. It doesn't really matter whether its air, naval or ground. Its probably the scale of the warfare that attracted me to Harpoon, being able to control a large number of units over a huge expanse of territory, and on a greater scale than say, the individual soldier and his rifle.
Agreed.
I have a similar outlook to Brad in that I like modelling warfare as well. Although I'm less into the ground element and more into the naval ops and logistics. I once played in an MBX where I planned and executed a regiment of Tu-22Ms from Engles on a dogleg path over the middle east to drop mines at the Southern Entrance/Exit of the Suez canal. Got away clean without a scratch although one AC was lost after the divert field got nailed by TLAM.
As for moving ground units in H3, I've been informed that actually getting them to move isn't really that big of an issue. However, actually getting them to move dynamically to take into account terrain, nav zones, and the like is a much tougher prospect.
I don't think we'll be seeing that anytime soon. We are busy with the upcoming release of 3.7.
Later
D
Dale Hillier
AGSI RD&T
Harpoint Admin
http://www3.nf.sympatico.ca/daleh/avatars/vcdh.jpg
I agree that the scale and scalability of Harpoon are a huge draw for me. I actually picked up the Harpoon paper rules and this has really opened my eyes to what is involved in naval warfare.
If I could get back to my talk show host mode :) ...I have a couple of other questions along this line.
1. What do you find to be the biggest differences between land and naval warfare? Two things come to mind for me -- first, technology seems to be much more important in naval warfare. Second, the ability to recover from a devastating naval attack is much lower. By this I mean that I can usually find a way to hold off the bad guys after making a huge mistake in land warfare, while if I make a big mistake in a naval battle, it is basically the end of story. I mean, once you lose the carrier, there's not much else you can do. Of course, I know little about naval warfare, so maybe someone can point out where I'm wrong.
2. There's a lot of discussion about Rumsfeld's transformation initiative (or whatever you call it). This has started a debate in the Army about the role of technology vs. the role of humans in warfare. Many are saying that the Army is too focused on developing the new technology and not focused enough on providing the best training, personnel system, and basic equipment to the soldiers. I don't hear much about this debate among the Navy and was curious as to how the transformation debate affects the Navy and naval warfare?
Well, there's a couple of my post lunch ramblings. I'm sure I'll be back with more later. :)
Take care,
Brian
Yes, I think so. Some pretty large MBX/CPX wargames have been run using TacOps to model the ground combat, and Harpoon to model the air and naval combat. Like Rikki Tikki's Global Thunder. :)
I'm currently in the midst of one of these MBX's, with Brad as a teammate, and I have to say it's been a great experience. And we've just finished turn 1. :)
Fortunately, I'm only in charge of intel, so I won't be getting the troops killed due to my poor decisions. The troops are in much more able hands than mine. :D
I think there is a pretty extensive AAR of the Global Thunder MBX somewhere on the internet if you want to learn more about it.
Take care,
Brian
Secret Agent
14 Mar 05, 14:55
I don't hear much about this debate among the Navy and was curious as to how the transformation debate affects the Navy and naval warfare?
Maybe since the Navy doesn't have many big projects coming up; sure, there's the JSF, but nothing the scale of FCS (that I know of.... :hmmm: ). Anyway, it seems that for now, the Navy will be used to cart around the Marines, and provide support for the Army. (:D)
Secret Agent
14 Mar 05, 14:58
I'm currently in the midst of one of these MBX's, with Brad as a teammate, and I have to say it's been a great experience. And we've just finished turn 1. :)
Fortunately, I'm only in charge of intel, so I won't be getting the troops killed due to my poor decisions. The troops are in much more able hands than mine. :D
I think there is a pretty extensive AAR of the Global Thunder MBX somewhere on the internet if you want to learn more about it.
Take care,
Brian
Yes, it is on the TacOps site, IIRC. I didn't know that there are more MBXs happening. That's great, though. Unfortunatly, I don't have the time to participate in one now, but, come Fall, I might be able to squeeze in some time....maybe we could work it in with the "strategic game" (see thread in OT section).
OK, enough rambling. :) Good to see everyone here talking about something other than the database. :thumup:
John Osborne
14 Mar 05, 15:27
I'm currently in the midst of one of these MBX's, with Brad as a teammate, and I have to say it's been a great experience. And we've just finished turn 1. :)
Fortunately, I'm only in charge of intel, so I won't be getting the troops killed due to my poor decisions. The troops are in much more able hands than mine. :D
I think there is a pretty extensive AAR of the Global Thunder MBX somewhere on the internet if you want to learn more about it.
Take care,
Brian
Hi Brian,
Turn 1 :) What turn 1 :laugh: I'm still trying to get turn 1 for BLUPAC.
As for the Global Thunder MBX go too this site www.tacopshq.com/MBX/Globalthunder/archive.html
John
1. What do you find to be the biggest differences between land and naval warfare? Two things come to mind for me -- first, technology seems to be much more important in naval warfare. Second, the ability to recover from a devastating naval attack is much lower. By this I mean that I can usually find a way to hold off the bad guys after making a huge mistake in land warfare, while if I make a big mistake in a naval battle, it is basically the end of story. I mean, once you lose the carrier, there's not much else you can do. Of course, I know little about naval warfare, so maybe someone can point out where I'm wrong.
It's not so much losing the carrier as losing the ability to strike back. As often as not he who launches first wins. And with the current lack of armor protection on naval vessels, a single hit will cause enough damage to most likely achieve a mission kill.
Sustainability is also an issue. An M-1 can fire off it's load of ammo, drive for 15 minutes to a depot and be back in action half an hour later. It's different for a ship. They have to fall back to a safe point to meet the UnRep ship, reload and then steam back. This, as often as not takes 3 days. Further, ones your into a fight, what you got on board is all you have for those 3 days.
There's also the 'fun' factor to consider. Blowing S*** up is ok but sometimes players want to deal in strategy. Slaughters are boring no matter how much we like to win. So in Harpoon there is a requirement to balance play without making it too hard. I'm still trying to learn and I've been playing for 10 years.
2. There's a lot of discussion about Rumsfeld's transformation initiative (or whatever you call it). This has started a debate in the Army about the role of technology vs. the role of humans in warfare. Many are saying that the Army is too focused on developing the new technology and not focused enough on providing the best training, personnel system, and basic equipment to the soldiers. I don't hear much about this debate among the Navy and was curious as to how the transformation debate affects the Navy and naval warfare?
I believe the same thing is happening to the Navy with the LCS. I recently wrote a scenario focusing on these ships. It readily became apparent that there was an instant need for air superority despite the presense of a carrier group. I went on the proposed 2015 CVW that was in last years Combat Fleets and it was a bloody slogging match.
What this means for the future of the LCS I have no idea. Harpoon isn't meant to Monte Carlo this by any means so it's just a matter of waiting and seeing.
Mind you that at this time Harpoon3 doesn't simulate different levels of training. Well....I suppose we could fiddle with ATA ratings but that would mean an increase in DB size which for DB2K is always well over 1 megabyte.
Later
D
Dale Hillier
AGSI RD&T
Harpoint Admin
http://www3.nf.sympatico.ca/daleh/avatars/vcdh.jpg
Hi Brian,
Turn 1 :) What turn 1 :laugh: I'm still trying to get turn 1 for BLUPAC.
John
Hey John,
LOL!! :laugh:
I guess I should've said we've submitted orders for turn 1 and are awaiting results. :) Though I think our website has been updated a bit. I have to read the emails tonight.
BTW, I don't think I ever congratulated you on the new job -- not so new job now. Congratulations. Sounds like a lot of fun.
Take care,
Brian
Battleships, specifically the US Iowa class battleships are what draw me to Naval Wargaming. Rather strange since much of my gaming time is spent with the Harpoon games. I enjoy the strategic nature of Harpoon Classic. Figuring out whether I can ferry those planes to reinforce Iceland in time... Do I want to go flank speed all the way to the GIUK gap and risk losing my whole carrier group to torpedos. Why would I be so insane as to bring my carrier group up there in the first place (hence a good imagination with echos of the needs of the troops on the ground)? I don't really care to maneuver individual aircraft. I would like to plot the general course and have the computer handle dogfighting, dropping ordnance, jettison of stores to run, etc. My thrill is planning the operations and watching them unfold from a command level.
Then there is Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic (GNBNA), there I love the maneuver of individual ships, suicidal destroyers, and such.
Sincerely,
Anthony Eischens
HC Programmer
CIC Lead Programmer
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.