Matrix to release combined ANW/HCE pack

As announced yesterday at the Matrix forums by Erik Rutins:

Harpoon: Ultimate Edition and Our Philosophy

There has been a great deal of discussion, debate and argument over the past, present and future path of the Harpoon simulations on the computer. Here at AGSI and Matrix, we’ve listened to what has been said. Thought long and hard about the issues raised, and made some decisions regarding Harpoon’s future that will hopefully make all fans of the series happy, both those who have played it in the past and those who still play it. We hope that explaining the philosophy behind our decisions will help clear the air and remove some of the confusion and misinformation that has been part of the complex history of these games. The new "Harpoon: Ultimate Edition" which is due to be released this summer will be the realization of these decisions and this philosophy and we hope that it will serve the existing community well, and continue to attract new naval warfare fans to Harpoon.
We will be releasing a great deal more information on Harpoon: Ultimate Edition over the next month, but here are the highlights. Harpoon: Ultimate Edition will include both a new version of Harpoon 3 Advanced Naval Warfare and a new version of Harpoon: Commander’s Edition. These will be together in one package at a price below the current combined price of both games. In addition, to celebrate the 20th Anniversary of Harpoon and to give fans who still enjoy playing the older versions a great archival edition, we will be including every previous version of Harpoon that we have access to in this package. That means over 20 classic versions of Harpoon, including Harpoon 3 (v3.6.3) and many previous versions of Harpoon Commander’s Edition / Harpoon Classic. This will allow players who have databases or scenarios tied to these older versions to continue to enjoy them for years to come, and it will also allow new players who purchase the Ultimate Edition access to this rich older content. We believe this comprehensive bundle, unlike any that has previously been released for Harpoon on the computer, represents a digital history and "Collector’s Edition" of Harpoon that every Harpoon gamer will want to have on their shelf for years to come.

As far as our philosophy, AGSI’s and Matrix’s position on the Harpoon simulations is simple. They are computer implementations of the Bond/Carlson Harpoon system models (aka the Admiralty Trilogy models). Bond and Carlson also have tabletop miniatures implementations of their models. When Harpoon was first coded in 1987-1989 AGSI tried to follow the 3rd Edition of those rules as faithfully as 8088 CPU’s and 640k of RAM would allow. Many of the missing pieces have been added over the twenty years since then and the Harpoon Commander’s Edition actually includes elements of the 4th edition models.

Harpoon 3 was born of Harpoon II written in 1994-1995 by a previous team of very skilled programmers. However, they didn’t have a lot of former Naval Officers on their team and they didn’t ask Bond or Carlson a whole lot of questions. Since regaining control of the property in 2000, AGSI has been steadily correcting course and bringing the Harpoon 3 product closer and closer to the 4th and now 5th edition of models. We believe that we are uniquely positioned among all naval simulations in this regard by having official access to the Bond/Carlson modeling concepts and experience, which means that we are able to bring you the state of the art in naval warfare simulations at the unclassified level.

There are some people in the Harpoon community who don’t like change; they are content with what they have and they want to hold onto their contributions. That’s their privilege and in fact by releasing the Ultimate Edition, we are making it easier than ever to play the version of Harpoon that you prefer. But, we want to make it clear that we aren’t going to sit still when the state of the art is advancing. Harpoon 3’s primacy is in the modeling and that is only true because it is the Bond/Carlson models. This is why military professionals around the world have used the product for training, education and analysis.

We believe that continuing to improve the fidelity of the simulation and continuing to advance the state of the art for computer Harpoon is the best way to serve our customers. Harpoon on the computer should always look forward and continue to improve along with the latest improvements and updates from the system models, rather than look back. We give credit to Harpoon’s past on the computer, but its future is not in backwards compatibility, but rather in continuing to improve along with the authoritative state of the art models from Bond and Carlson that are simply not available anywhere else.

Given this philosophy, we will still place a high value on feedback, and we always appreciate valid defect reports (aka bugs). However, because of Harpoon’s complex history there are many issues that are specific to older databases or scenarios not of AGSI’s or Matrix’s making that haven’t kept up with the modeling changes. We are responsible for the official databases and scenarios, and for informing the public regarding what changes each update entails. Third party designers are responsible for their own scenarios in this regard. If we have to choose between improving the simulation or maintaining backwards compatibility with third party data and scenarios, we will choose the former. We realize some fans of Harpoon may prefer to stay with older versions for whatever personal reasons, which is part of why we decided with the Ultimate Edition to include as many of the older Harpoon versions as we could fit into a single release. This allows us to meet the needs of both parts of the community – those that want the simulation to advance and those that want compatibility with older databases and scenarios.

It’s also worth noting that in the past, we have heard a great deal from people who have never been to sea, who have never been trained as naval (or air) professionals, have never programmed or created a full database, with strongly worded opinions on how our simulation is supposed to behave. While constructive feedback from our customers is always welcome, we believe that the work by Bond and Carlson should be our guide in terms of how the simulation should work. As many Harpoon fans are aware, this community has seen some very unfortunate events in its history that have given rise to online flame wars, personal attacks and questions of intellectual property; both between community members and in terms of some copyrighted materials. We hope to see the end of this with the steps we are taking for the Ultimate Edition release and for the future of Harpoon. We want to make it clear that we will not accept non-constructive feedback on our official forums in the future. However well intended or misguided, this has caused harm to the game and the community and we will not allow that to continue.

As far as the User Interface goes and overall game functionality – we really do want useful feedback and ideas. We want databases, scenarios, and artwork. Our new encryption feature will help protect an author’s investment in their database work, so that there should be no future concerns about data being stolen or "borrowed". We can also add scenario encryption if need be (ditto for original artwork).

Now as far as defects are concerned, there is a right way and a wrong way to report these. First, due to our limited resources and the seemingly endless permutations of data and game engines once third party databases and scenarios are added to the mix, we will automatically reject any claimed defects on our sites if they are not reproduced in the ANWDB or the HUD3 databases. We will take responsibility for correcting those defects that can be reproduced in one of the two aforementioned databases with the latest official release. We reserve the right to reclassify defects into bugs (something we’ll prioritize for fixing), feature requests (stuff that folks want but the game doesn’t currently have), user knowledge (i.e. user doesn’t understand how the model works) and unsupported functionality (a user who does something with the game or scenario editor that we hadn’t thought of and thus hadn’t tested).

Secondly, to report a defect, we kindly request that you use this template. If you are consistent in the quality of your reporting we will set you up with direct access to our web based bug tracker "Mantis".
1. Database name and version
2. Scenario name
3. Screen shot(s)
4. Expected behavior
5. Witnessed behavior
6. Desired behavior
7. Notes
8. Any saved games, scenario files, and logs zipped up and emailed to us can only help.

Generally speaking, the operating system or computer configuration has nothing to do with how the simulation runs, so these are not crucial details for our purposes.

Allow us to explain how this works. First, we have very limited resources due to the very small audience of bright people who really understand modern air/naval warfare and buy a Harpoon product every few years. As a consequence, our underpaid programmer(s) really don’t enjoy hunting through 15-year-old C++ code originally written by a previous development team on a death march without a clear report to guide them. They would rather be adding new features and functionality. So, the clearer the report, the easier it is to reproduce the defect, the more likely it is that it will be found and fixed. At the end of the day we only have so much time.

This also goes for our forums. As we explained above, we will no longer be accepting lists of bugs related to third party unofficial databases or scenarios. If you find an issue, please duplicate it with an official database and scenario before reporting it and please report it as noted above. Otherwise, you’ll have to seek out the owner of that third party product for assistance.

We want to provide the best possible simulation given the resource limitations. If you want to help, work with us, not against us. We have a long history of volunteers making a positive difference, politely and professionally. Our volunteers have received written credit, some swag, bragging rights, and a few even made some beer money for their efforts. We need scenario authors, database editors/authors, artists, testers and maybe some day, investors. Part of our philosophy and the policy stated above is to give credit to, and work with the members of our community who have put in their time to support Harpoon and who are willing to work with us as we continue to improve.
Thank you for reading this long post and we hope that you at least understand the basis for our decisions. And for those who agree that we are on the right track, there is still plenty of work to do. We believe the new features and content in the upcoming Harpoon: Ultimate Edition, which we will be providing much more detail on in the next few weeks, will open up new avenues in your air/naval simulation experience.

Red Pill screenshots #7 – Bits and pieces

 

The summer season is well in effect, and it’s time for some new Red Pill screenshots, showcasing different features & functionality offered by the new air/naval wargame. (Click each for full size)

We have been working lately to incorporate a higher-resolution vector layer for coastlines and borders. This should match the detailed data already offered by our raster layers and allow us significant near-coast refinement for littoral operations such as amphibious landings, mine warfare, piracy & policing operations etc. This is a side-by-side comparison of our current vector set and the proposed new one, using the Hormuz straits as reference.

  Adding units to a scenario in legacy air/nav wargames can often be a tedious process because of the time needed to find a specific unit class and the limited copy/move functionality. The “Add Unit” dialog in Red Pill offers a keyword-based filter that allows easy, fast location of the desired unit class. Copying or moving an existing unit is also a single keystroke away.

This is another huge time-saver for scenario authors. You can import and present geo-referenced images (e.g. from Google Earth as in this case) directly into the game map and use them both for unit construction and normal gameplay alike. In this case we have imported an overhead image of the Natanz nuclear complex and we are using it to construct a highly-authentic representation of the facilities in the area (notice the “Nuclear Power Station” structure already placed). The same method can be used for constructing airbases, port complexes, SAM sites – any multi-unit installation that requires high precision on the placement of its components in order to model faithfully. Once in place, any such installation can be exported to a file and re-used in any other scenario.

This is an example of installation import. Each record can include supplementary information such as creator comments or time-range of validity so that the scenario author can decide whether to use it or not. The installation components are also listed in detail.

In this case we have selected 2 airports for import. An installation creator can choose to either store one installation per record (e.g. an airbase) or alternatively include all instances of an installation type in a single record (e.g a country’s entire air-defence network). This allows great flexibility in creating, storing and sharing installations for use in scenarios.

Bushehr airbase in detail. Group-view is selected for the map display, hence the airbase objects appear “ghosted”. The unit-status window has a “Group composition” option that presents a summary of the unit types comprising the base (this is also handy for quickly checking e.g. the ship types & numbers in a CVBG or convoy).

The “Air Facilities” portion of the Air Ops window presents the state of air operations in the base in a facility-centric manner. We can examine in detail which aircraft is placed where and what is present status is. We see that an F-4E is using a runway access point (typically a taxiway) to proceed towards one of the runways and take off. Access points such as taxiways (and elevators in aviation ships) are by far the weakest link, and their damage/destruction is the most cost-effective way of disrupting, or even grinding to a halt, ongoing air operations. We will probably need to devote a future article exclusively to this aspect of air ops.

An Australian Adelaide-class (modernized Perry) frigate is facing off two hostile aircraft with her SM-2 missiles. The sensors window is open, displaying the frigate’s sensor status. The dotted red line is the SARH illumination for the SM-2 missiles provided by the frigate’s STIR radar. Notice that only the STIR and the SPS-49 search radar are currently active.

A frequent answer to the common question “Why is my [ship/aircraft/SAM site/etc] not shooting at [some target]?” is that all engagement/illumination channels are currently in use. In legacy air/nav games this is difficult to demonstrate and visualize. Red Pill makes this easier by clearly displaying which sensors are active and which targets are being illuminated for engagement. In this case, the only available SARH illuminator (the STIR radar) is being used to engage the first aircraft, so the second one cannot yet be engaged.

A player favorite: buddy-lasing. The AV-8B Harrier on the bottom of the map has launched two AGM-65E laser-guided Maverick missiles and sharply turned southbound to avoid the target’s terminal defences. A nearby orbiting F-117A takes up the responsibility of providing laser illumination (notice the red line) for the terminal homing phase of the missiles. This is done without any manual user intervention. Scratch one C3 bunker!

More to follow soon…

Armored Brigade – New versions out

Two new versions out this awesome tactical land combat game have been released back-to-back:

==Version 0.682==
- Unit movement is smoother. When a unit is ordered to
stop, it stops right away.
- When "Defence" in the Battle Generator is
"Dug-in+Fortified", the scenario attacker receives less
purchase points than before.
- Artillery and mortar shells are less likely to cause terrain fires
- New tree graphics (Thanks to Käki)

==Version 0.680== * Fixed: Anti-air and indirect fire muzzle flashes could not be detected * Fixed: The distance between muzzle flashes and the observer was calculated incorrectly * Fixed: Some muzzle flash graphics were missing * Fixed: The pre-game menus use now non-transparent buttons and logo, this should fix the graphics issues on some graphic cards. - The AI opponent can use mortars to fire illumination at night - Casualties have a much higher effect on the victory points. This way the battles should be less "fight till death" type, because high casualties end the battle earlier - Command delays are halved when using formations (Including for mortar fire mission, nearby HQ units reduce the mortar adjust delay as before) - Maps have small patches of water and more streams/rivers - Urban areas have less buildings, so vehicles and the AI should not get stuck that often - If the scenario defender loses an objective, and then reoccupies it, he will receive only half of the victory points from that objective, and the attacker receives the other half (The objective turns orange) - Aircraft treat all ground targets as "unknown", and thus won't always attack the most valuable detected enemy unit - If an artillery target is out of the normal TRP radius, but closer than 2x the normal radius, the delay is slightly shorter. In previous version the same effect could be achieved by setting the fire mission within a TRP radius, and then adjusting it further away from the TRP - Rescaled all MT-LB images and the PT-76 turret images. Modified the water and jungle tree graphics.

Get the new versions here.

Red Pill screenshots #6: Wild weasels and ground-pounders

Monday, February 25th 1991, over the Saudi-Iraqi border…

The conflict is gradually winding down to its conclusion, the surviving elements of Iraqi forces retreating to pre-war positions without offering any resistance to coalition ground troops.

The J-STARS patrol over the border, however, has spotted a previously undetected group of vehicles:

(The green hues are not representative of vegetation; we are using the terrain relief map layer to easily depict terrain elevation. The majority of Iraq is flat desert, hence the green shades. Note the significantly more rugged, mountainous terrain of neighboring Iran.)

Zooming in on the detected units we can see that they consist of four 4-vehicle groups (Truck sections? Tank platoons?), a five-vehicle cluster to their north and a single vehicle north of both of them:

It is decided to send a two-ship A-10A section to investigate and engage if necessary. While the Hogs are being prepared and launched, an RC-135W snooper orbiting in the region is diverted closer to the investigated area for an ELINT sweep:

The northernmost vehicle seems to be emitting with at least one Long Track radar:

(One of the recent improvements to the ESM model is the addition of “emission lists” on top of displayed contacts, which display all electronic emissions detected from each contact. Each emission fades-out as time passes from its last detection and comes up bright again as it is re-detected. Radars with high scan rates, such as radar illuminators or multi-function radars in tracking or illumination mode, refresh more frequently than search radars. Players familiar with an adversary’s electronic order of battle (EOOB) can thus very quickly evaluate the tactical situation without having to repeatedly use the detailed contact information window.)

The presence of the Long Track could potentially mean a higher threat level for the Hogs preparing to enter the unknown area: Such mobile radars are often encountered accompanying mobile SAM units. For this reason it is decided to escort the Hogs with a pair of F-4Gs equipped for defence suppression (SEAD) with HARM missiles.

So the Wild Weasels take off, form up and head to the same area, slightly ahead of the Hogs thanks to their greater cruise speed. Not long afterwards the suspicions borne by the Long Track detection are confirmed: the vehicle group sandwiched between the multiple vehicle cluster and the single vehicle is detected to be using a Straight Flush radar: Almost certainly a SA-6 battery.

The SA-6 is dangerous despite its age, so a preemptive strike with the Weasels’ HARM missiles is quickly agreed upon. The HARM can be launched in 3 modes:

1) Short-range “snapshot” direct attack – e.g. the parent aircraft detects a pop-up mobile SAM at close range, the ARM seeker locks on the emission pre-launch and the weapon is fired directly on that target.

2) Long-range targeted attack, ie. you fire the ARM in bearing-only launch (BOL) mode but specify the emission you want it to lock to. It will home only on this specific emission and nothing else. (Note though that if another SAM unit with the same emission, or even a decoy emitter, is nearby, the ARM may lock on that instead.)

3) Long-range “freehunt” attack, ie. you BOL-fire the ARM without specifying an emission to sniff for, it will simply home on any emission it detects. This is useful for preemptively saturating a suspected high-threat area (conceptually similar to plastering with artillery a hilltop that may or may not host enemy troops).

In this occasion the F-4Gs are well out of range for a “snapshot” attack (and all the happier for it – if you are close enough to lock the HARM pre-launch, you are almost certainly in the heart of the enemy SAM’s envelope). On the other hand a freehunt launch is undesirable because of the proximity of other forces in the area and the possible presence of other emitters. So a long-range targeted launch is preffered.

Both Wild Weasels tune their HARMs to the Straight Flush radar and cut loose:

(Note that the anti-radar missiles display the emitter to which they have been tuned. This provides an immediate display of what is targeted where, which can be useful in massed attacks – particularly in freehunt launches.)

The HARMs quickly cover the distance and begin impacting on the SA-6 battery. The first pair arrives simultaneously and completely annihilates the vehicle group – unfortunately for them, the battery elements happened to be concentrated more tightly than their norm, so a couple of fragmentation explosions in their midst was all it took.

With the SAM threat neutralized, the road is open for the Hog section. The A-10s close within visual detection distance and identify their targets: They are indeed multiple T-72 platoons, perhaps carefully kept out of action as a last-attempt force. The Hogs divide up the targets among them and begin ripple-firing their Maverick missiles.

(We previously mentioned aimpoints and their use in Red Pill and this is another example of them in action: Each T-72 platoon is a single ground mobile unit that contains four unique aimpoints (the tanks), each of them with its own weapons, sensors etc. Each successful Maverick hit is likely to destroy a single tank while leaving the rest of its platoon intact. A more powerful weapon of course may produce multiple kills in one go.)

It’s all over quickly; the Hogs have exhausted their Maverick loadouts and are being recalled before they have a chance to empty their 30mm magazines. In less than a minute they fired 12 Mavericks and several 30mm bursts, destroying 11 tanks in their process. The surviving tanks and the lone Long Track radar will have to wait for the second interdiction wave.

Aimpoints in Red Pill

One of the posters at the Red Pill forum had a question related to the modeling of discrete vehicles/aimpoints. I considered it useful to have the response repeated here since it is an important new feature for Red Pill and a sore spot of the air/nav wargaming community for years now.

Q: Are Land Units simulated down to single vehicles and posts? Is a SAM battalion or Tank platoon just a single large target that can be zapped with a single weapon as long as its deals enough damage or are its parts actually modeled, both for damage calculation and positioning on the map?

A: Yes, mobile formations (and selected facilities) are modeled as containers of discrete vehicles or aimpoints, and each of them needs to be independently destroyed. No more wiping out a tank platoon with a single LGB.
Each of the vehicles/aimpoints is also evaluated separately for blast resistance on proximity explosions. So for example if you drop a bomb on that tank platoon it may impact close enough to one or two of them to damage or destroy them, but most of the others are likely to be far enough that they’ll shrug it off (typical vehicle/aimpoint dispersion distance depends on the nature of the unit/facility). This of course varies with target type & hardness; drop that same bomb on a truck section and you may well get multiple kills.
Vehicle/troop/aimpoint dispersion in Red Pill really makes cluster warheads meaningful again (aside from the nice visual effect). You can drop a very powerful unitary HE warhead on a vehicle group and get disappointingly few kills (particularly if they are armored); drop an equivalent amount of cluster munitions on it and maybe you will wipe it out altogether.
The same holds true for other area-effect warhead types such as FAE or incendiary. (And of course nukes).

Red Pill screenshots #5: Kola nuclear strike!

The undisputed master of epic WW3 scenarios, Ragnar Emsoy is at it again. As part of his beta-testing of Red Pill, he has been porting over some of his classic H3 creations and running them on the new air/naval wargame. Following is his photo-AAR of one such scenario, featuring a nuclear strike on the Kola Peninsula. Editor’s comments in Italic!

————————————————————————————–

23th October 1985:
The war has not gone well for the Soviets. After five weeks of fighting, a stalemate had ensued on the Central Front. The tables were turning and NATO was able to launch its first major counteroffensive. Although facing stiff opposition, once the offensive gathered momentum, NATO troops advanced up to 20 kilometers per day in some areas. The Soviets, with the near collapse of their military logistical effort and with their frontline ammo stocks running low, had no choice but to give ground and fall back.

There has been a considerable amount of war termination negotiations in the last few days. But a settlement to the war seems virtually impossible to attain. It is unthinkable for the Soviets to give up what they have fought so hard for, and they insist on a cease-fire that recognizes their territorial gains. NATO, on the other hand, is unwilling to  recognize any Soviet gains and calls for a return to status quo ante bellum.

The Soviets are strongly seeking a decisive military and political result before the industrial might of the West can be mobilized. However, having failed to destroy NATO in a short war, the Soviets are unlikely to regain a conventional military advantage. Facing total defeat in the Central European theater, the Soviets would eventually be forced to choose between surrender and escalation. To retrieve the losing situation, a decision was made to launch a limited nuclear and chemical attack on NATO front-line units. 44 missile-delivered 5-20kT nuclear warheads and a dozen persistent chemical agent warheads were employed against NATO troops in the most hard-pressed areas.

The NATO response was swift. 49 nuclear warheads were detonated over Soviet frontline units, four army garrisons, five air bases and two rail yards. NATO announced this as a one-time strike in retaliation for the Soviet attack. The Soviets struck back with a volley of theater ballistic missiles targeting eight NATO air bases, three ports of disembarkation in the Netherlands and France, as well as key command, control and communication facilities (C3) and several storages for nuclear weapons. NATO responded by employing nuclear warheads against another ten Soviet air bases in Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia, four major naval bases in East Germany and around Kaliningrad, several nuclear weapon storage sites, C3 nodes, and logistical centers.

The situation was now fast spiraling out of control, and the war was rapidly escalating towards a strategic-scale exchange. The Soviets issued a warning via the hotline that they would not tolerate further American nuclear aggression on the Central Front, and launched no less than six single-warhead SLBMs at the naval facilities at Norfolk.

NATO had a difficult time settling on an appropriate target for retaliation due to the risk of causing a dramatic escalation. But in order to shock the Soviets into realizing the seriousness of NATO’s resolve, it was decided to launch a limited nuclear attack on the Kola Peninsula, the Soviet Union’s most concentrated naval base complex. It is hoped this operation, combined with a threat of general SIOP release, can force the Soviets to return to the negotiating table with a different attitude.

The Soviet Union during the last thirty years has transformed the Kola Peninsula into the world’s most complex and concentrated naval base. The majority of the Soviet SSBNs are based here, and the Red Banner Northern Fleet is the Soviet Union’s most formidable fleet. In addition the Kola Peninsula has sixteen major military airfields. Most of them are not used daily but were rapidly made operational in the days leading up to war. It is estimated the Soviets currently have about 350 aircraft of all categories (including multiple regiments of Badger & Backfire bombers) based on the peninsula. The air defense forces consist of MiG-23, MiG-31 and Su-15 interceptors supported by ground-based radars and AWACS aircraft. The air defense ground element is made up of about fifty fixed SAM sites and numerous mobile batteries.

The Red Pill guys are known for their thorough research, and the SAM sites in this scenario are placed at their real-life 1985 locations. This includes the six SA-10a Grumble battalions (S-300PT-1 with improved 5V55KD missiles), the first of which went on combat duty in September 1985.

All major installations have been implemented on a discrete per-component basis, i.e. all hardened shelters, revetments, tarmacs, ammo bunkers, fuel bunkers, piers, major buildings etc., have true-to-life coordinates.

(Ed: This was in fact quite simple to achieve. As previously mentioned, Red Pill’s scenario editor has tools designed specifically to make it easy to construct highly detailed installations with pinpoint accuracy of facilities and then re-use them on different scenarios.)

In addition to the bases, the Kola Peninsula hosts a massive Hen House radar for detecting ballistic missiles. It is protected by a triangle of paired SA-2 and SA-3 sites plus a dedicated SA-5 site with three launcher battalions.

The NATO strike is made up of eight B-1B bombers carrying 48 nuclear warheads. Six of the bombers are armed with four B83 megaton-class nuclear bombs each, while another two will be armed with eight SRAM missiles in addition to their four B83 bombs. The SRAMs will be employed against the Murmansk SA-5 site, suspected SA-10 sites and the Kilpyavr PVO interceptor base.

(Ed note: Notice the “Doctrine & ROE” option, a new feature that enables automatically fine-tuning a unit’s behavior depending on its side, mission or group membership. This makes it *a lot* easier to customize the AI’s combat behavior.)

Soviet MiG-31s from Monchegorsk and MiG-23s from Kilpyavr are rushing to intercept the B-1Bs. The bombers’ ALQ-161 defensive suites are working overtime to jam the incoming AA-9 missiles.

 

A B-1B eats an AA-9 just as the first SRAM salvo strikes home. Note the shock waves from the nuclear explosions.

(Ed note: Initially we considered making the blast circles soild white, to match the “WarGames” look. But it was correctly pointed out that this may make it difficult to view & pick out units inside the blast circle, so we opted to represent them as an expanding wave instead.)

Another two B-1Bs are downed by volleys of AA-9s, AA-6s and AA-7s. The remaining five B-1Bs press on at max speed!

The B-1B to the west lays down B83s across three submarine bases and an airbase while a second B-1B closes on Polyarny and Severemorsk with a pair of MiG-31 in fast pursuit. All eight nuclear bombs detonate successfully, destroying no fewer than six naval bases and two air bases. Note the detonation delay for the parachute-retarded B83s.

(Ed note: New feature here as well – anti-surface weapons in general and nukes in particular can be set to detonate after a short delay in order to allow the unit that dropped them to clear the blast zone.)

Meanwhile, to the east, the second of the two B-1Bs headed for the Gremikha submarine is intercepted and killed by a pair of MiG-31s.

A pair of B-1Bs are closing on the Olenegorsk bomber base, the Hen House BMEWR, Monchegorsk PVO interceptor base, and five other airfields in central Kola. The southernmost B-1B is seconds from being hit by no fewer than six SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5s. A total of five out of eight B-1Bs have been lost thus far.

The Hen House radar dies. The Olenegorsk base, home of a regiment for Tu-16 naval bombers, will take a B83 next (note the CEP calculations!), followed by Monchegorsk and Afrikanda.

Overall and despite the heavy bomber losses, the strike was highly successful: 70% of the strategic bases on Kola were laid to waste. Sixteen SRAMs and fifteen B83s were successfully employed at the cost of 5 B-1B bombers.

OT: About “Bar Stool Economics”

Here’s a popular chain mail that’s been making the rounds for about a decade now. If you recognize it, jump ahead for the real good stuff.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

First off, a quick lookup at Snopes reveals that the article attribution is false.

Second, I am suspicious in general of simplistic internet memes and this one in particular seemed to be quite loaded with its agenda. Not being an economist, I browsed around for reasonable criticism. And found this gem:

Gosh oh gee. How do I debate such a straight forward and simple explanation of our tax system?

Let me try.

A “real” economist would have two problems with this “example”:

1. It uses luxury as its model. A simple understanding of game theory shows that at the end of the story, if the 10th man decides not to buy, then he has no leverage. No one “needs” beer. Our government doesn’t apportion luxuries.

2. There is no baseline. The assumption is that if you can’t afford it, don’t drink. When in reality, what most of us are doing is working to pay for food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare. THAT is the baseline. Anything made above the price of these necessities could be subject to the “beer” argument, but the result would end up with pretty much everyone paying as shown.

So it’s ridiculous to use beer as the example. Why not use 60″ plasma TVs or diamonds? None of these represent the economic situation that most of us find ourselves in. Since the example uses a luxury (beer) as its foundation, let’s rewrite the story using a necessity: Oxygen.

HERE IS THE UPDATE TO THE STORY

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for oxygen and the bill for all ten comes to $100.  It would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men breathe each day and seem quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the richest man throws them a curve.

“I’m tired of paying the most when you all use the same amount of oxygen. I’m not going to pay for you to get oxygen anymore. Go buy your own air.”

the 1st and 2nd men (poorest) can’t afford oxygen and die within minutes.

The 3rd poor man gets his wages reduced by his boss (the seventh man who needs to pay more now) and can no longer afford oxygen either.  He dies within days.

The 4th poor man, pays for oxygen and continues to breathe. How?  He loves his wife and kids and so to continue to allow them to breathe, he was driven to steal the rich man’s car to pay for oxygen for his family. Crime increases, not because men want “beer” and bling, but because they will do anything to provide for their families. He gets caught and sent to prison where he earns no money. His disabled wife and small children all die now that they have no provider of oxygen.

The 5th & 6th men make their living selling products (like food) and services to the first 4 men. Having more than half of their customers die, they can no longer afford to stay in business. They both close shop and die within weeks.

The 7th & 8th men own or work for companies that sell products and services to the 9th & 10th man. Unfortunately, the workers they rely on to plant and harvest the crops, manufacture goods, and deliver the services have all died. Within months, the 7th and 8th men die.

The 9th man has enough money to buy oxygen for a year. Unfortunately, the guy that refills oxygen bottles was man number 1. The guy that maintains the regulators and oxygen safety equipment was man number 2.  The owner of the trucking company that delivers the oxygen was man number 7.  Man number 9 dies in 4 months when the supply of safe, available oxygen disappears.

Now we come to good, ol’ man number 10. The guy that wants to stop paying because he is blind to the value others bring to him and his lifestyle.

Man number 10 has stocked away 5 years worth of oxygen. He’ll survive…at least for awhile. As long as he can build his own roads, make his own electricity, maintain his own equipment, grow his own food, provide his own healthcare, clean his own air & water, and protect himself from fire, flood, hurricane, and the occasional attack from anyone else who might have survived and wants to take HIS oxygen.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system would work if we let the short-sighted run our economy.  The people who pay the highest taxes need to understand that they truly get the most benefit when the people who supply, buy, and work for them can afford the necessities of life.

Bitch too much, attack the middle class and poor for not paying enough, and they just may stop producing, showing up, or DIE.

David Stuck

Student of Life and Economics

For those who were naive enough to accept the “beer” analogy, think about where YOUR money goes and what would happen to you. (hint: You aren’t the 10th man)

http://davestuck.blogspot.com/2008/10/for-over-year-now-bar-stool-economics.html

Red Pill dev interview at Real & Simulated Wars

One of the members of the Red Pill’s development team was interviewed by Julio Cabrera, author of the popular sim/strategy-related blog “Real & Simulated Wars”. It answers some of the most frequent questions asked about Red Pill and provides some new information as well.

Read the full interview here.

Red Pill screenshots #4: Cans Only – Part II

 Previously on “Cans Only – Part I”…

(Click on images for full size)

It’s a busy day for the flight deck crew of the Essex. Numerous helicopters are returning from the ASuW patrol and they must be turned around and launch again to continue their task.

 

 
Just as the JMSDF player before him, the USN commander begins to make guesses on the enemy fleet dispositions based on the early passive contacts he has from the Japanese helicopters. The Japanese commander has been more careful in spreading his patrols so there is no obvious point of origin/convergence.

 

 
The USN commander decides on a tactical gamble: The frigate Reuben James will break off from the southern task force and sprint forward to act as an AAW picket, ASuW scout and hopefully a tempting lure for the adversary to show his hand. To prevent its early identification from its full radar emissions, only a select couple of widely-used radars will be active, the rest of the sensors will be passive or switched off.

 

 
Contact! One of the US Seahawks has stumbled upon one of the two Japanese groups. They are not quite were the USN commander expected them, so he will have to adjust his plans.

The JMSDF commander is not sitting idle either. One of his helicopters has spotted one of the American groups too, probably the northernmost one judging from its location. He doesn’t know if the Essex (the primary objective asset for both sides) is in this group or not, so he cannot yet commit a decisive force to this discovery yet. He does, however, re-orient his northern group to intercept these contacts and orders additional recon sorties by the available helicopters.

The Americans don’t like being under watch, and show it: A number of SAMs greet any Japanese helicopter that wanders too close, with mixed results.

The JMSDF helicopters have taken severe losses while trying to identify the American ships, but their sacrifice has paid off. The Japanese commander has confirmed that the Essex is indeed amongst the detected ships and directs his nothern group to strike. As the southern group is too far to assist soon, this will be a solo effort. The northern group is about to coordinate an all-out SSM strike on the Essex group, with the Essex herself being the primary objective. The missiles are allocated and launched.

The US group has been monitoring the incoming Japanese ships and is in no way surprised by the attack. As soon as the incoming wave of SSMs is detected, the awesome power of Aegis kicks in: Not even a single anti-ship missile gets through! (The red lines are the terminal SARH illumination for the SM-2 missiles)

 

 
The US commander responds in kind, with a full SSM salvo of his own. The Japanese AAW is far less robust (only a single Aegis destroyer, and the ships are more dispersed). As a result, some of the missiles get through the defensive SAM fire and are intercepted by the terminal defences, decoyed/jammed or even manage to hit their targets as in this case. The destroyer Sazanami has taken serious damage (notice the damage report messages on the message log) and has to withdraw from the assault.

The opposing ships are now close enough to begin using their surplus SAMs in an antiship role. Neither side has many hits, however, and those who do hit cause little damage.

The Japanese ships have pressed on towards the Essex group despite the failure of their SSM attack and the losses suffered from the US counter-attack, hoping to get within gun range where their numerical superiority and heavy gun armament can make a difference. Now they get their chance! As most of the gun systems on both side’s ships are similar in caliber & range (mostly 76 & 127mm guns), they open fire almost simultaneously. The destroyers Shimakaze and Stethem engage in a vicious gunfight while the others ships are closing in.

(Note: The Red Pill uses an advanced CEP-based accuracy model for all anti-surface weapons – guns, bombs, missiles, rockets etc. In other similar sims, a given gun or missile has the same chance of hitting a high-speed Boghammar or a lumbering aircraft carrier – not so in RP. The CEP-based model takes into account a weapon’s nominal CEP and combines it with factors such as the shelling/bombing accuracy of the firing platform, the firing range, sea state (in the case of ship guns), target evasion etc. in order to produce an “actual CEP” value, which is then compared with the physical dimensions of the target to determine if a direct hit was made or not. If the target is a land facility or mobile unit, even near-misses mean that the weapon will impact the ground and can cause severe damage from proximity blast, fragments etc.)

The Stethem has taken a fearful pounding from Shimakaze’s guns. Although hull integrity is still in relatively good shape, many of its weapons, sensors and other subcomponents have been damaged or destroyed by the relentless shelling (primarily due to the fragmentation effects), including the powerplant. It has to withdraw towards the Essex and out of gun range in order to retain some reserve combat capability. The Shiloh has been ordered to assist and is sprinting southbound but she may well be too late.

Chokai and Shiloh (and Mustin shortly afterwards) have been drawn into Shimakaze & Stethem’s gunfight, all ships shooting like there is no tomorrow. All participants receive tremendous damage from shell fire and will have to break off or risk being left dead in the water. The USN player plots a new northwestern course for the Essex in order to have it steer clear of the engagement and hopefully sneak around the Japanese group before they have a chance to break from the gunfight to intercept her. (If the Essex reaches the Tokyo area the US side wins regardless of losses).

All of the ships that engaged in the gunfight have been forced to withdraw due to heavy damage to their weapons or powerplants. Mustin and Shiloh are supposed to screen the Essex on her northwestern course but their battle damage has made them too slow to keep up, so the USN player just charges the Essex ahead alone and hopes for the best.
Unfortunately for him, the JMSDF commander has deliberately kept an ace: the destroyer Yudachi was held back from the gunfight and now has a clear shot at intercepting the Essex. That it does, showering her with shells from her fast-firing 76mm guns.

(Here again the CEP-based anti-surface model favors the Japanese player: The Essex is much easier to hit than the US destroyers due to her sheer size, and the accurate, rapid-fire 76mm guns are having a field day.)

————

Shortly after the last screenshot was taken, one of Yudachi’s 76mm shells wrecked the Essex’s powerplant and stole any hope of her reaching Tokyo. The battle was over, with the JMSDF side winning (even though no single ship was actually sunk).

Overall impressions of the scenario and the simulation were very positive. Some previously undiscovered bugs and logic flaws were encountered during play; these were forwarded to the dev team and fixed (in two cases, before the end of the game). There was (and is) some intense debate as to whether individual captains should be given authority to use their SAMs in the anti-surface role, given that they are much less efficient in this domain and may leave the ships vulnerable to air/missile attacks afterwards. This will probably remain a hot topic for discussion.

Armored Brigade: New version available

 

A new version of this very impressive tactical land combat wargame has been released.

This is the changelog as posted by the developer:

* Fixed: The player could move units/formations while setting TRPs
* Fixed: Button fonts were using wrong color
* Fixed: Slow moving missiles could self-destruct if the target changed speed rapidly

New units (Summer/winter/desert camo included for most of the new vehicles):
- USSR: PT-76B, T-54B, T-55A, T-62, T-64B, ZSU-57-2, BMP-1, BMD-1, BMD-2, BTR-70, MT-LB, Airborne Inf Squad, AT-3c ATGM Team, Su-17, MiG-21bis, MiG-27M
- Finland: PT-76, MT-LB
- FRG: Roland SAM
- USA: F-4C Phantom II

Game mechanics:
- Muzzle flashes can be detected outside of the normal detection range of the unit. The symbol is shown within 250m radius from the firer. The spotting capability of the observer at the given moment, the Signature value of the firing weapon and time of day (darker=better) affect the final probability
- Thermal imaging systems: All undamaged vehicles, which have a weapon with Night Vision value greater than or equal to 2000m, have a 50% better spotting capability and 10% increased cost value
- Bad weather ("Visibility") reduces the Night Vision ranges
- Visibility ranges adjusted
- Weak point hits reduce the armor protection randomly between 0-80%, instead of a constant 80%
- Smoke/Dust produced by smoke generators and vehicle movement increases the obscurants value in the adjacent grid squares. This solves the issue with "holes" in the smoke, when the vehicle is moving diagonally
- Aircraft can crash to grounds objects like trees, buildings etc.
- Vehicles WITH 2-plane stabilization have a slighly reduced spotting capability when moving

Maps:
- The map generator produces more roads/villages and much larger towns
- Buildings have three different heights now: 5m (1×1 buildings), 12m (1×2 and 2×1 buildings) and 25m (2×2 buildings)

Data:
- 20-35mm ammo penetration revised. Most of the values are increased at longer ranges, including aircraft based weapons
- All aircraft mounted cannons can be used to engage other aircraft
- MANPADs have a shorter reaction time

GUI:
- Friendly infantry and gun units, which are not dug-in but located in terrain which allowes them to hide from the enemy (until the unit moves, fires or is overrun), have a yellow outline on the NATO symbol. The unit state displays usually "Hiding"
- Ground visibility is shown in the Battle Generator
- Ctrl+"S" adjusts the fast time compression between min-medium-max
- Tracer sprites use the same scale as unit sprites: if the unit scale is increased by pressing shift+"B", the tracers can be seen even if zoomed out
- Some adjustments and more colors in the AAR screen
- GUI button highlighting enabled
- Individual units do not "collide" with buildings when the player is moving them in the setup phase
- Fire mission "tubes" and "volleys" +/- buttons are less sensitive

Download the new version here.

Next Page »

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Categories

  • AAW
  • Amphibious Warfare
  • Armored Brigade
  • Armored Vehicles
  • ASuW
  • ASW
  • Blogroll
  • Bombs
  • Global Conflict Blue
  • Harpoon 1 (Classic)
  • Harpoon 2
  • Harpoon 3
  • India
  • Land Combat Simulation
  • Littoral Warfare
  • Marines
  • Missile
  • missile defense
  • Order of Battle
  • submarine
  • The Red Pill
  • UAV
  • Uncategorized

• Archives

  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • December 2008
  • July 2008
  • April 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006

• Recent Posts

  • Matrix to release combined ANW/HCE pack
  • Red Pill screenshots #7 – Bits and pieces
  • Armored Brigade – New versions out
  • Red Pill screenshots #6: Wild weasels and ground-pounders
  • Aimpoints in Red Pill

• Links

• Meta

  • Log in
  • WordPress
  • XHTML