Information overload?

[MarkShot]

One problem I have with playing H3 is that each scenario is full of new vessels, aircraft, arms, and sensors whose capabilities are totally unknown to me. I find trying to start up with each scenario to be an exercise in overload. Is there a good way to approach scenarios and quickly understand the key strengths and weaknesses of the systems involved? Thanks.

[Herman Hum]

Is there a good way to approach scenarios and quickly understand the key strengths and weaknesses of the systems involved?

I don't know if there are ways of learning a new unit's capabilities quickly. Even after playing the game for years, I still get confused when I play scenarios built for other databases.

For example, one database assigns different altitudes for weapons release i.e. rockets fire at XXX metres, cluster bombs at XXX metres, laser-guided bombs at XXX metres... and there is no way for the player to know what these altitudes are unless he looks with the database editor or does a lot of trial and error. (I did the trial and error method ) We've tried to change this with the PlayersDB by having it explicitly written in, but not all capabilities can be covered.

Another example is the frequency of sonar. There is no way you can find out if the sonar on your vessel is Low / Medium / High Freq without using the database editor to find out. Each of these sonar frequencies performs differently in different conditions.

I think that for the most part, you just have to play the game more to get familiar with the various systems. Only experience can tell you if a Perry frigate is more effective in shallow or deep water conditions.

One thing that might help is for you to activate the various range circles on the Map Preferences (AAW ring, ASuW ring, Sonar,...). This can give you a quick feel of the maximum range for many of your individual weapons and systems. It isn't perfect, but it is probably better than nothing.

[MarkShot]

Ah, someone should write a ultility to generate a spreadsheet from a DB.

This is one reason why I am playing SC at the moment. It is just so much easier to get handle on the platforms in the game and what I need to worry about.

[Herman Hum]

What specific capabilities are you looking for? Some folks have been pretty creative in printing up the various tables within a database. If you specify what you are looking for, someone might be able to print out something that will help you.

What do you want to show with your spreadsheet?

[MarkShot]

Just basics like:

- who has missiles
- who has longer range sensors
- who has longer reach missiles

Basic stuff that would suggest a potential strategy based on capabilities versus of your units versus the enemy's. The amount of weapons in this game is so diverse that it reminds of the Combat Mission series.

[Herman Hum]

I get the impression that you would like to see in your orders a complete listing of what you have versus what the enemy has from the very start of the game so that you can match up your strengths against his weaknesses. Is this correct?

If so, that is mostly a choice of the scenario designer over how much information he wants to reveal in his Intelligence briefings / Orders to the player. Some might do just that and include a complete Order of Battle for both sides. I don't think many designers do it that way. IMO, one of the biggest parts of the game is to find out what the other side has. Once you know what they have, it is not so hard to devise strategy in hopes of victory.

For things like who has missiles and the range of those missiles, the database function should be able to provide that basic data to the player with relative ease once you get an idea of what the other side has.

The sensor information is a lot more complicated as many factors go into detection. For example, the size of the target plays a major factor. A radar might have a range of 100nm vs. Very Large aircraft targets (B-52), but that same radar might only detect VSmall targets (like F-117) at 5nm. Since all aircraft cross-sections will fall somewhere in between the two extremes, what should be reported? I don't know if it is even possible to make up a spreadsheet to cover all possible circumstances.

I think that the best thing for you is to learn how to use MicroSoft Access and then you can look into any database you desire. This way, you can check out all the power output numbers for Radar, the Radar Cross Sections for weapons and aircraft, etc. It isn't as difficult as one might imagine. You simply import any database into the database editor and you can then browse to your heart's content. You won't need to know what every number stands for, but you can see how / which flags are activated for the various sensors / weapons.

[Cruddy]

It also depends on which database you are using.

You can use the ingame DB editor, also called DBedit, to have a look. That will let you find all the inconsistencies and quirks with a database.

You don't need to have MS Access (I don't).


Alternatively, use the Scenario Editor to set up systems to test them. That is slower but more fun.

[Sunburn]

That's why the DB & encyclopedia site was created, here:
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/

[MarkShot]

Thanks Herman and Dimitris, for your assistance.

For the moment, I have been filling in the bigger hole in my conceptual framework - high level strategy.

I just finished reading Fleet Tactics and Littoral Combat by Capt Hughes (USN Retired).

A most illuminating book for someone such as myself who understands air warfare and ground warfare. (I heard SeaQueen, professional naval analyst, mention this book somewhere.)

Furthermore, I most say this was my first exposure to operational analysis of combat. Meaning attempts to construct mathematical models of combat behavior such they can: (1) Serve as predictors of battle outcomes. (2) Guide planners and military staff to more effective tactics.

Now, when you think about it, all the high-level strategy games we play like Harpoon3, attempt to do just that (digital formulations of combat resolution). The question is do these games capture: (1) the spirit of the particular form of combat and (2) the actual core mechanics of combat? I recently took a look at CAW/CCAW over at Matrix in light of the book to see how well if faired and its correspondence was fairly limited. However, I suspect that Harpoon probably comes closer to effectively modeling "pulse" warfare which predominates currently.

[Herman Hum]

Now, when you think about it, all the high-level strategy games we play like Harpoon3, attempt to do just that (digital formulations of combat resolution). The question is do these games capture: (1) the spirit of the particular form of combat and (2) the actual core mechanics of combat? I recently took a look at CAW/CCAW over at Matrix in light of the book to see how well if faired and its correspondence was fairly limited. However, I suspect that Harpoon probably comes closer to effectively modeling "pulse" warfare which predominates currently.

I believe that the "spirit" is captured quite well. Sure, there are a few things that are a bit unrealistic or taken for granted like instantaneous response to orders, perfect command and control (except for auto-defense), etc, but, all-in-all, Harpoon does reflect "pulse" warfare very accurately.

As to the "core mechanics", I think that much is simulated in an abstract sense. It's a game, after all, and I don't think that many game players want the complexity of managing a tracking table for every platform under their command. (Those who desire that level of complexity can satisfy themselves with Dangerous Waters.) So, the computer handles many of the IFF/Classification/TMA calculations. It's a pretty good abstraction. The player concentrates on manoeuvring his units, while his "tracking team" develops the firing solutions.