"Harpoon" Topic

Ok.. i've heard a lot of people talk about Harpoon over the years but was never inclined to look at it (no spaceships!), but now i feel myself being drawn to it.

First off is it any good? and is it still commercially available or will I have to get it off Ebay?

Cheers

Phil

My understanding is that it's hellaciously complicated and also quite expensive.

For something simpler and less expensive you may want to consider Shipwreck.

Bed19025: have you played it? I generally don't comment on rules unless I have played them.

As for is it any good? Depends on what you are looking for, Phil. It isn't really that complicated. Airpower and missiles rule. Detection is the name of the game. As for availability, I don't know.

Complicated or complex? Former is of the 27 phases/3 sheets of modifiers school. Latter is involved but flows quickly…if that helps any.

Gracias,

Glenn

Not too complicated, but a very steep learning curve before you get the game basics down (and I'm an ex navy officer who worked with the tech every day.) Pretty deterministic, with numbers and modifiers and percentage chances for everything, don't recall a lot of soft factors being modelled very well. Tom Clancy and the tech wonks love stuff like this.

Not bad once you got it, but too hard to teach novices quickly or throw down a quick game, so I moved on.

Modern Naval Combat is a very complex subject. Harpoon does a good job of simulating that subject. It is not for the faint of heart. In order for you to be successful at Harpoon, one needs to now how to use one's weapons systems and detection systems. I think the newest version is around $50 USD and you can get older versions on e-bay.

Mike

Phil, I've been playing Harpoon since Harpoon II back in the early 80s and the system has come a long way. The current incarnation is Harpoon IV and yes, to say that there is a lot of material would be an understatement. 95% of the work falls to the gamemaster/referee who needs to have all of the aircraft/ship/sub forms filled out and work with the hidden movement, weapons movement, etc…, so you have a burned out, shaking wreck of a gamer at the end of the scenario! The system is complex and there are a lot of rules plus data, but the system can be rewarding.

If you want to learn how a U.S. L.A. class sub can sneak in and sink several ships in a Chinese convoy, how critical it is to deploy air to surface weapons in the right sequence to achieve maximum effect in an airstrike, or why Arleigh Burke destroyers are probably the nastiest vessels afloat, this game will demonstrate that. Every possible weapon and sensor has stats(we're talking an entire book of just data!) so the game is probably the best non-computer simulation of modern naval warfare out there. As I stated before though, you need to put a lot into it.

Phil,

Harpoon is a a good game; it is detailed and does have some compleixties, but I think that is true of any game that realistically deals with air, surface, and submarine combat (I don't agree that it is hellaciously complicated, but that is just my opinion). These rules are not a 'quick-play' style of rules; so the larger the battle you are playing, the longer and more difficult it will be to play.

You can by the Harpoon 4.1 (the latest version) from Clash of Arms games. Sometimes you can find that version on ebay, but most of the time you'll find Harpoon 3, the version published by GDW on ebay for very resonable prices.

There are a lot of differences between Harpoon 4.1 and Harpoon 3 and version 3 doesn't have the most modern platforms, but it is still playable. Both version come with lots of data on ships, subs, aircraft, weapons, radars, sonar, etc.

Before you jump in and buy a copy, I would recommend thinking about who you will playing with and how you will play your games.

If you play smaller scenarios or with a lot of players where each controls a few ships, the Harpoon rules should work fine.

If you play with people that aren't very interested in naval games or modern naval stuff OR if you want to play a big game (20+ ships/subs and lots of aircraft) with only 1 or 2 players per side, you may want to look for a quick play set of rules.

I would consider the Shipwreck rules, mentioned above, as a quick-play set of rules. It is a lot easier to do big battles with fewer players. Shipwreck does not have as much data included in the basic rules, although you can find more information in the associated Yahoo group.

I hope that helps out.

Dave

My understanding is that it's hellaciously complicated and also quite expensive.

For something simpler and less expensive you may want to consider Shipwreck.

Okay, that's hilarious.
Sort of like saying, "if you don't want something as complicated as World in Flames, try checkers".

-Kle.

I think Harpoon can be considered a pretty darn good simulation but a somewhat taxing game whereas Shipwreck is a fairly good game in the quick and dirty category that sacrifices a fair amount of detail in the name of playability. It is all in what you want.

For me, modern naval is one of those eras where computers are simply a vastly better medium for playing the game and something like computer Harpoon (III or IV, I forget) is, for me, the most enjoyable way to game.

I agree with McKinstry.

For a small ship to ship, air to ship (or vice versa), or sub vs. anything game, the system works fine.

If you want to run a battlegroup against another large force, you will either need to be extremely well versed in the rules, and tactics of the game (the rules should really help with that, since you can see how the weapons and systems platforms compare to one another well), you need a lot of time, or you need to play the game on the computer.

I suggest the latter, since keeping track of so much data on a minute by minute, or less basis will quickly become overwhelming.

You just can't please some people. Call a complex ga$me complicated and people bite your haed off. Suggest an alternative and that gets slagged off. And no, I haven't played Harpoon 4, but I've read earlier incarnations and that was enough to tell me that they were quite complicated.

I used to play Harpoon III. Had a large fleet of US and Russian. I was always the GM. I had a good time with it. It was fairly intricate. I won't say complex. It gave a, what I thought, very good simulation of what might actually happen. I enjoyed it immensly, however I had a large game group. Usually I averaged 15 people at every game session. They all thought it was too complex. They played if I insisted but they never really wanted too. I sold it all off after awhile.

I have a buddy who has Shipwreck. I played it once and thought it was too simple.

Maybe it was just me. To each his own.

Hmmm thanks for the replys folks… i guess i'll buy both rulesets… and take it from there!

There is a boxed version called "The Capitan's Edition" which is much much simpler.

The problem I found with Harpoon was if you had a mixed battlegroup, meaning several different ship types, you could have say half a dozen different radar suites, each with a different horizon and different detection ability. Then you could have half a dozen different missile systems, each with a different range, speed and different shoot-down capability. All of this combined to make tracking an incoming missile like peeling back the layers of an onion where each layer is a chart-check and a die roll.

I just meant that Harpoon & Shipwreck are near the opposite ends of the complexity spectrum. Surely there's something in between?

-Kle.

The search for the Holy Grail continues…whoever finds it please tell the rest of us.

Gracias,

Glenn

I have and have played Harpoon – but I think Shipwreck does just as good a job. All the quantifications in Harpoon are guesswork anyway – and Shipwreck has some very novel rules mechanisms.

But check out CiC by Mal Wright – a free modern variant of General Quarters at the NavWarGames group.

link

However, all these games are stuck in the Cold War. You'll need to modify them to fight near-future scenarios. For littoral combat, you'll want to check out Bulldogs Away.

link

I find the current version to complicated. I have played all of the versions and prefer the previous version. Currently every thing is micro managed. As a player I want to command the ship, not engineering, weapons and eletronics, all at the same time.

My only problem is the older versions are hard to find and there really isn't anything else out there that is all that good at the interaction of ships, submarines and aircraft.

Jon

I don't find Harpoon any more complicated than many other naval wargames.
Engineering? Select course and speed.
Weapons? You certainly need to understand the capabilities and limiations of your weapons. Admittedly this is not a simple offensive vs defensive strength combat model.
Electronics? Again, understanding your systems is important. That and discipline when conducting turn actions (i.e. resolve all air, then surface, the sub-surface detections). There are rules for simplifying these procedures out there, at a very low cost in "realism."

I think the comment by jony663 was to imply that, once again, Gamers – as opposed to Players – want to completely micro-manage every detail. Very unrealistic based on my 7 years in the military. ROE and SOP (along with skill of crew) would determine those choices and results from them. Ship commanders should not be determining many choices/factors the most detailed rules allow.

Gracias,

Glenn

Number6 – "All the quantifications in Harpoon are guesswork anyway". I would like to hear more about why you think this, because of all the systems mentioned here this is the one system where I know there is some mathematical rigor backing it up. If you're saying there isn't much imperical (war damage) data backing it up then I guess that criticism would apply to all. But I will tell you they (Clash of Arms) does back check their data whenever there are published results of sink-ex evolutions or actual combat i.e. INS Hanit damaged in the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

All Over the Skye – Which military are (were) you in? Harpoon does ask you to function at a couple different levels simultaneously, which I guess is everyone's main objection. You have to be the TAO (Tactical Action Officer) with intimate understanding of how your weapons and sensors function and you have to be a ship captain or Task Force commander with intimate understanding of how to employ your force to its best effect. I guess you could distill those qualities down to a "skill of the crew" modifier if you wanted to. But if ROE and SOP were really as deterministic as you think then we wouldn't need actual people who dedicate their lives learning how to fight a ship at sea. I mean really, if it all came down to ROE and SOP we would all be talking about whether it was better to have the Blue or the Red case in a game of Battleship. And that observation is based on my 17 years in the Navy.

As far as which game system is better? I'm a harpoon fan (for those of you who couldn't tell from the previous two paragraphs). But I'm not rabid to the point of exclusivity. The other games are all good games but I feel that Harpoon comes closer to a simulation which is what I want, fully recognizing that many others don't want that level of detail/complexity/complication (insert your adjective here).

[Disclaimer: Tone does not translate well in a chat room. I am not trying to start a flame war. I am passionate about DISCUSSION of different points of view not about the point of view itself. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the free expression of it. I simply want to understand the reasons behind other's opinions as they may better inform my own. If you feel I have offended anyone with the above arguements please reread my response with this disclaimer in mind. If on second read through you still take offense talk to me offline and we'll work through the details of location, choice of weapon and who will act as seconds]

Paul

No sweat. Maybe it's different for the Navy (well, it would have to be, wouldn't it?) from Army or Airforce in ways I don't understand.

No argument of the man in the loop issue. I happen to agree totally with the importance of the person even in this day of BVR missiles. Maybe more so because it is BVR for so many weapons. In the ground pounder small unit situation it appears to be entirely the men/women who are the determinate. Ditto aircraft crews. Never served on a ship.

Raised in Navy-Marine (paternal and maternal Uncles USMC) family (Dad was exception – 1 enlistment USCG and out) I came away with the idea that modern naval conflict was a summation of individual choices/decisions operating, under comamnd decisions, synergistically to achieve the desired outcome – i.e., bad guy go boom! Commander decides to lauch a strike/attack and the "team" [appropriate subcommanders and their people] plans it, gets his approval, then executes it. Task Force comamnders determine level of effort not who flys what plane with what weapon kind of thing.

It's not the level of knowledge that bothers me as the level of control/micro-managing in some games. FWIW, the older versions of Harpoon are a favorite computer game (as opposed to table game) of mine. I am more a fan of the traditional miniature non-computer gaming in general though because the computer can actually reduce one's social interactions (cursing the computer is not an interaction.)

FWIW, I was 7 years, 3 months, 12 days in USAF (left as an E-6 for my last year plus) followed (after a gap of several years) by 3 years as an E-5 in the US Army Reserve (a category 15 (out of 15 levels of priorities) unit, shudder, (I even had to borrow someone's collar rank tabs for a promotion of a young private because we did not have a set on hand and no funds to buy one.) Tried the ROTC thing but the powers wanted my first priority to be ROTC and I chose education as my primary effort so we agree to "part" (I went from 90 Romeo (ROTC Cadet) to 76 Yankee (Supply Sgt. – and acting armorer) status.

I suspect the crew of a naval ship (wink, we called them "targets" in the Air Force) functions like most other teams (just more people/parts to interact then a crew of Pilot/RIO or even 10+ in a larger aircraft.) Each segment of the team has certain decisions to make in relation to the situation, ROE and SOPs. Going outside the box might be the correct answer but one should expect to be able to defend thier action if they do so. Shooting down airliners requires explanations of why/how it happened. It might be a valid decision given the information one had (not expressing an opinion on past incidents) but one better have a strong reason why it happened…and how to correct it.

As Task Force Commander why should I be changing the loadouts of the strike planes in the Libyan scenarios in Harpoon immediately (first thing I do) when that should be the job of the individuals responsible for that function under my command? Answer, because the loadouts are set up for one situation (suppressing radar, knocking out bases, sinking ships, defeating aerial threats at the same time with dispersal of effort) but I find more success in game results by dealing with aerial threats before surface threats in the scenario. Playing with the loadouts in the scenario with the deployment of aircraft defaulted I quickly run out of aerial shooters, start losing peripheral ships and aerial ASW assets in alarming numbers, and have strike aircraft sitting idle due to lack of escorts to knock back Libyan interceptors (A6 versus any MiG is not an optimal match up.) It's a game sometimes and a simualtion sometimes.

If this level of control is one or two levels below task force commander then it is/may be appropriate IMO (YMMV) but the lower it goes down the micro-managing chain the less I perceive as 'simulation of command decisions' and more of 'Munchkinism.'

Looking at Mal Wright's CiC supplement to GQ 1&2 (which may be too generic/simple for many) currently but my goal in more a game set-up, played and broken down in 4 hours then a (non-computerised computer level simualtion.) I have enough trouble getting people into aerial and naval games as it is. Complexity comes after you hook them.

Currently working in the Intelligence community I think number6 has a point. Unclassified sources frequently have to reverse engineer their numbers from what is reported in open source. Not that they may be incorrect as much as incomplete. Seems some a pretty good (maybe too good) job in that respect. But not always. And I am not willing to discuss this beyond that statement. {Draws line in sand that he vows not to cross.} Sorry, professional behavior limits my input in this factor.

Can we agree that Harpoon is more "realistic" a simulation then Shipwreck in the details (gets into COW principle aka as top down design versus bottom up {aka rifle counting} issues) but requires time/play mechanics elements that many a war game oriented player may not find palatable or worth the effort to achieve a similar result to what Shipwreck (which I have not played) does in a shorter time?

My carpal tunnel is complaining so I am going to stop now for a while. And, yes, I am willing to recieve your feedback and look forward to hearing your comments.

And, again, no offense taken. Fire Away, Navy! <grin>

Gracias,

Glenn

Uh, that last bit was a generic comment and not aimed at any one poster to the thread (such as RockyMountainNavy.)

Glenn,

I agree with much of what you've said particularly in the area of new players and complexity. Nothing turns off a gamer more quickly than being flooded by stats and numbers that make little or no sense on the first or even fifth read through. That's part of the art of refereeing, if that luxury is available, break it down into manageable chunks.

I also agree that a TF commander wouldn't ordinarily be changing aircraft loadouts or personnel assignments on a strike but I promise you that every CAG (Carrier Airwing Commander – used to be Commander Air Group) who receives a strike brief from one of his squadron skippers or designated Airwing Strike Leads looks at the loadout and flight crew with a critical eye, and changes are sometimes made. After all if the target is important enough the TF Commander will be personally briefed by CAG or the Strike Lead and will have to answer the 'Whys?' In real life there are things that a TF Commander might be aware of that the strike planners don't know; logistics issues, intelligence or whatever which might cause him/her to change the plan at the last minute so to speak. Its never simply a push button affair and its rarely all transparent to all involved.

You also may have inadvertently proved my other point that Naval warfare is not all about ROE or SOP. In your example you mentioned having to change the loadout of aircraft because you had a different operational mindset than the scenario designer. There is no set Doctrine (with a capital D) for Naval warfare. You chose a different path than what was set down in the scenario and have had better results. Another might use the forces as provided and have better results than if they chose your way. Some players are agressive, some passive, some systematic, some haphazard etc. The best players know when each style is appropriate and the best rules allow for all styles to be played. Harpoon certainly provides that flexibility, as I'm sure the others probably do as well.

The main problem with Harpoon then is the level of detail – the devil is always in the detail. In ground combat (not speaking from actual experience mind you) there are things to hide behind, ways to sneak around, counter your enemy through maneuver deception or whatever, you might not ever have to go kinetic. Its no different on the water. Blue water or brown water there are ways to manipulate your environment to maximize your chances and minimze your opponent's chances. Those are where the details really come through. Without the details, and you can certainly strip them out, its just a game in a sterile environment not a simulation of real world interactions. I guess its just a case of 'taking my work home with me' that I seek out a system that is more simulation than game.

Paul

Paul,

Nice balanced response.

Yes, I am more (2D with 3D representation in Air War C21) air oriented where what you have on the plane is what you use (or waste) so being forced to jettison your A-10/F-16 hi-tech blunder…sorry, wonder…weapons by some third world MiG-21 is a mission kill for the other side. While you may get the "kill" of your opponent shortly thereafter he has just succeeded in his mission of making your Air to Mud mission fail. It's not often such a foe will fly into your fire cone ahile you are fully loaded…seen it twice in games, once to my F-84 and once to an opponent's A-10.

Actually I had to take my old Harpoon Challenger Pack computer game off my computer so I could make time to paint. It's not that I dislike the game, I just think it is (and the newer versions more so reportedly) too granular for me to think about running a 6 plus player game at a local con for my club members and/or newbies in 4 hours of alloted game time.

I am more prone to a 'close enough' game then a full blown simulation. Did that in the past and just don't want it on the table anymore. YMMV and obviously does. Cool, enjoy! I guess I like the environments where you control only what you would control in real life at that level of command but in more relaxed atmosphere then I find in simulations.

Horses for courses.

Gracias,

Glenn

OH, ships still are just armed targets !

"OH, ships still are just armed targets !"

After 17yrs of flying on and off carriers I don't think I will disagree with the statement that ships are just targets – except for the ship I need to land on that is.

Cheers,
Paul

"Can we agree that Harpoon is more "realistic" a simulation then Shipwreck?"

No. In fact, I think that when there is little to no empirical data (and the technology is constantly changing), the "detail" in Harpoon is a waste of time.

I also said that all of these rules are out of date. They are aimed at Cold War engagements – not current and future ones. But Shipwreck would be the easiest to both update and to modify to try out different conceptions of weapon and defensive effectiveness.

(Also, none of these rules do much to consider training, morale, maintenance, or fog of war. That's pretty much left up to the scenario writer.)

I completely disagree with the premise that "there is little or no empirical data" and with the idea that "they are aimed at Cold War engagements – not current and future ones." Pick up a copy of the latest rules and pick up a copy of the Naval SITREP Harpoon supplements. The rules are evolving all the time.

Paul

I might point out (dangerous for a USAF guy to comment, I know) that much of the navies of the second and third world are still cold war ships/hulls. The leading edge of naval units (like aerial units) often price themselves out (or act as a core with lesser ships in support) of the nations most likely to engage in naval actions today.

Yes the smaller nations are upgrading/replacing those units but I think they will still be using many "Cold War" ships as the Flagship element of their Squadrons (is that the current term?) while buying new FACs with modern SSMs (eggshells armed with hammers,) conventional Submarines, OPVs, and Frigates as less expensive additions to expand the power projection, in Littoral waters especially. I don't expect Malaysia to fight the USN or the RN – Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, or Brunei maybe.

My dos centavos. YMMV.

Gracias,

Glenn