Harpoons are Too powerfull

[lloyd]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Hi,

I think harpoons are too powerful. Here's some thoughts I had on them:

1) they make fleets too vulnerable once they hit the scene. A player can
target all of his enemies capital ships with them too easily.

2) harpoons currently fly over mountains... kind of unrealistic, especially
considering that torpedoes cannot go thru land. Harpoons should have to
have a flight path that goes around a mountain / mountain range, which would
improve the tactical nature of mountain ranges and make them more valuable
as assault positions.

3) Harpoons have way too much range. At tech 160 they are range 6, at 170
they are range 9, at 180 they are range 10, at 200 they are range 11, and at
300 they are at range 13. Way too far considering that forts, BBs, and HATs
typically fire only 5-6 sectors at these tech levels.

4) I think harpoons should have their hitchance reduced relative to the
distance that they travelled to their target. Perhaps a linear 1-2% per
sector travelled decrease in hitchance, to account for anything from
inadvertant collision with a seagul, engine failure, weather, to it could
not identify the target from that far away.

5) When on interdiction mission, they go after ships that are not really a
threat. Perhaps make them go after ships that cost over $1k, or ships under
$1k that ARE are carrying one or more land unit (vs just being able to carry
a unit).

6) Maybe having them carry less shells would reduce their potency.


In summary, empire is quite a deep game. I just feel it needs some
adjustments to bring it to an optimumly balanced game. Harpoons are one
aspect I have found to be too powerfull.

Lloyd.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"LLoyd" <Lloyd.FergussenNOSPAM@aol.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I think harpoons are too powerful. Here's some thoughts I had on them:

This has been voiced before. I agree there's a problem, but crippling
harpoons is hardly a solution. Anti-ship missiles are a master
weapon; they ought to be fearsome. For my ideas, have a look at
https://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=16580&group_id=24031

> 1) they make fleets too vulnerable once they hit the scene. A player can
> target all of his enemies capital ships with them too easily.

Targeting is indeed to easy.

> 2) harpoons currently fly over mountains... kind of unrealistic, especially
> considering that torpedoes cannot go thru land. Harpoons should have to
> have a flight path that goes around a mountain / mountain range, which would
> improve the tactical nature of mountain ranges and make them more valuable
> as assault positions.

Hmm.

> 3) Harpoons have way too much range. At tech 160 they are range 6, at 170
> they are range 9, at 180 they are range 10, at 200 they are range 11, and at
> 300 they are at range 13. Way too far considering that forts, BBs, and HATs
> typically fire only 5-6 sectors at these tech levels.

Think superweapon. What's the point of a missile if it doesn't
outrange guns?

You are aware of P-700 Granit (Nato designation SS-N-19 Shipwreck)?
Range is some 300nm.

> 4) I think harpoons should have their hitchance reduced relative to the
> distance that they travelled to their target. Perhaps a linear 1-2% per
> sector travelled decrease in hitchance, to account for anything from
> inadvertant collision with a seagul, engine failure, weather, to it could
> not identify the target from that far away.

Hmm. That's usually abstracted away in Empire. Such accidents befall
ordinary planes as well in reality, but not in Empire.

> 5) When on interdiction mission, they go after ships that are not really a
> threat. Perhaps make them go after ships that cost over $1k, or ships under
> $1k that ARE are carrying one or more land unit (vs just being able to carry
> a unit).

Missile interdiction is just as broken as interdiction in general.

Players can't see what's loaded on a hostile ship, so their missiles
shouldn't either.

> 6) Maybe having them carry less shells would reduce their potency.

I doubt reducing damage is the solution. I'd rather play with hit
chance and targeting selection.

> In summary, empire is quite a deep game. I just feel it needs some
> adjustments to bring it to an optimumly balanced game. Harpoons are one
> aspect I have found to be too powerfull.

Agreed on the need for some balancing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <Ld70d.861$vR6.30@trnddc02>,
LLoyd <Lloyd.FergussenNOSPAM@aol.com> wrote:
>2) harpoons currently fly over mountains... kind of unrealistic, especially
>considering that torpedoes cannot go thru land. Harpoons should have to

Comparing a Harpoon missile to a torpedo is akin to comparing an F-16
to a Formula 1 car. Sure, both care about aerodynamics, but the analogies
end there.

It is not at all unrealistic that a Harpoon missile can go around
a mountain. Harpoons are capable of following terrain. Granted,
flying over a mountain would require more fuel, thus reducing range,
but it can do it.


>3) Harpoons have way too much range. At tech 160 they are range 6, at 170
>they are range 9, at 180 they are range 10, at 200 they are range 11, and at
>300 they are at range 13. Way too far considering that forts, BBs, and HATs
>typically fire only 5-6 sectors at these tech levels.

Not at all unrealistic. Missiles have out-ranged guns for quite some time.
Even ERGM doesn't have the range capability of Harpoon, much less a number
of other longer ranged systems. Harpoons have had over the horizon capability
since they were first introduced.

In real life, a Harpoon has an unclassified range of 67nm. In contrast,
the M109 A6 Paladin self propelled artillery has a range of ~16nm. Even
the M270 MLRS system has a range only slightly exceeding that of Paladin.
Even the (now cancelled) Crusader program had a nominal range of ~27nm.
Harpoon more than doubles the ranges of any of these land based artilleries.

The ranges in Empire for Harpoon seem to track well with reality.


>4) I think harpoons should have their hitchance reduced relative to the
>distance that they travelled to their target. Perhaps a linear 1-2% per
>sector travelled decrease in hitchance, to account for anything from
>inadvertant collision with a seagul, engine failure, weather, to it could
>not identify the target from that far away.

Note that modern Harpoons have re-target capability.

-Geoff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:87pt4ufr20.fsf@pond.sub.org...
> "LLoyd" <Lloyd.FergussenNOSPAM@aol.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think harpoons are too powerful. Here's some thoughts I had on them:
>
> This has been voiced before. I agree there's a problem, but crippling
> harpoons is hardly a solution. Anti-ship missiles are a master
> weapon; they ought to be fearsome. For my ideas, have a look at
> https://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=16580&group_id=24031
>

I have reviewed the comments in this thread and the post on Sourceforge. I
agree
that harpoons are a master weapon. However, keeping in mind that items in
Empire
must be modeled for playability, harpoons need to be modified. Once they
become
available, carrier groups are useless. Of course, I can strip interdicting
harpoons
with destroyers and then advance on a coast with a carrier group. However,
after the update, all of those capital ships will be sunk by harpoons.
Maybe the
simple modification of lowering hitchance based upon distance is a means to
model the reduced hitchance caused by countermeasures and their increased
effectiveness due to more alert time prior to impact. Then the anti-missile
capable
ships which appear later can then even the balance enough to make carrier
battle
groups useful at tech levels over 200. I have seen multiple games designed
for
'great sea battles' only to watch them become solely airplane and missile
games
at high tech.

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Tom Johnson wrote:

> "Markus Armbruster" <armbru@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
> news:87pt4ufr20.fsf@pond.sub.org...
>
>>"LLoyd" <Lloyd.FergussenNOSPAM@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I think harpoons are too powerful. Here's some thoughts I had on them:
>>
>>This has been voiced before. I agree there's a problem, but crippling
>>harpoons is hardly a solution. Anti-ship missiles are a master
>>weapon; they ought to be fearsome. For my ideas, have a look at
>>https://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=16580&group_id=24031
>>
>
>
> I have reviewed the comments in this thread and the post on Sourceforge. I
> agree
> that harpoons are a master weapon. However, keeping in mind that items in
> Empire
> must be modeled for playability, harpoons need to be modified. Once they
> become
> available, carrier groups are useless. Of course, I can strip interdicting
> harpoons
> with destroyers and then advance on a coast with a carrier group. However,
> after the update, all of those capital ships will be sunk by harpoons.
> Maybe the
> simple modification of lowering hitchance based upon distance is a means to
> model the reduced hitchance caused by countermeasures and their increased
> effectiveness due to more alert time prior to impact. Then the anti-missile
> capable
> ships which appear later can then even the balance enough to make carrier
> battle
> groups useful at tech levels over 200. I have seen multiple games designed
> for
> 'great sea battles' only to watch them become solely airplane and missile
> games
> at high tech.
>
> Tom
>

Higher tech ships - at least the bigger military ones, should be able to
shoot down incoming missiles. Modern ships are equipped with systems for
targeting and barraging incoming missiles with high rate of fire machine
guns. carriers are usually supported by a number of differnt ships to
try and protect the carrier, and all weapon systems of ships in the
flight path should have the opportunity to down the missile. It could be
a matter of changing tactics to make Harpoons less devastating....

z

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

> In real life, a Harpoon has an unclassified range of 67nm.

Sorry but what is an "nm" ?

Chtom.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Chtom <chtom@nonono.com> wrote:
>> In real life, a Harpoon has an unclassified range of 67nm.
>
> Sorry but what is an "nm" ?

For you (EU mandates SI):
0.0000000001 m equeal 1 nanometer (nm)

For the emperials it propably 1 nautic mile, which is either 6080 feet
or 1852m (interesting since 6080feet == 1853.184m)

--

Daniel Tryba

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

I think Lloyd and Tom make some good points here.

A harpoon fired from really close range should have a better chance of
hitting its target than one fired from 50+nm out. When fired from that far
away, the victim country's fleet would have time to re-group their ships,
get the anti-missile systems locked loaded and targeting, and that stray
seagul is always a possibility as well!

I don't see how a harpoon can fly over a mountain, they should have to go
around.

Perhaps a solution is in the anti-missile defences, where the anti-missile
systems' hitchance get a bonus based on how far the incoming missile
travelled to reach its target.

Bungy



"Tom Johnson" <1234tjohnsonREMOVE1234@telogy.com> wrote in message
news:ci7j9l$r7$1@home.itg.ti.com...
>
> "Markus Armbruster" <armbru@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
> news:87pt4ufr20.fsf@pond.sub.org...
> > "LLoyd" <Lloyd.FergussenNOSPAM@aol.com> writes:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think harpoons are too powerful. Here's some thoughts I had on
them:
> >
> > This has been voiced before. I agree there's a problem, but crippling
> > harpoons is hardly a solution. Anti-ship missiles are a master
> > weapon; they ought to be fearsome. For my ideas, have a look at
> >
https://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=16580&group_id=24031
> >
>
> I have reviewed the comments in this thread and the post on Sourceforge.
I
> agree
> that harpoons are a master weapon. However, keeping in mind that items in
> Empire
> must be modeled for playability, harpoons need to be modified. Once they
> become
> available, carrier groups are useless. Of course, I can strip
interdicting
> harpoons
> with destroyers and then advance on a coast with a carrier group.
However,
> after the update, all of those capital ships will be sunk by harpoons.
> Maybe the
> simple modification of lowering hitchance based upon distance is a means
to
> model the reduced hitchance caused by countermeasures and their increased
> effectiveness due to more alert time prior to impact. Then the
anti-missile
> capable
> ships which appear later can then even the balance enough to make carrier
> battle
> groups useful at tech levels over 200. I have seen multiple games
designed
> for
> 'great sea battles' only to watch them become solely airplane and missile
> games
> at high tech.
>
> Tom
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <ci7fte$2e8$1@news.tue.nl>,
Daniel Tryba <news_rec.games.empire@canopus.nl> wrote:
>Chtom <chtom@nonono.com> wrote:
>>> In real life, a Harpoon has an unclassified range of 67nm.
>>
>> Sorry but what is an "nm" ?
>
>For you (EU mandates SI):
>0.0000000001 m equeal 1 nanometer (nm)
>
>For the emperials it propably 1 nautic mile, which is either 6080 feet
>or 1852m (interesting since 6080feet == 1853.184m)
>

A nautical mile is a measurement used by most every sailor. It's not
restricted to one region of the world or another. A nautical mile is
a minute of arc along the great circle at the equator. That measurement
happens to make it very convenient for maritime charting purposes.

-Geoff
aka Mithrilien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <3338e$41475ea5$d89e2d68$9185@dcanet.allthenewsgroups.com>,
Gemini <spam@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>Higher tech ships - at least the bigger military ones, should be able to
>shoot down incoming missiles. Modern ships are equipped with systems for
>targeting and barraging incoming missiles with high rate of fire machine
>guns. carriers are usually supported by a number of differnt ships to
>try and protect the carrier, and all weapon systems of ships in the
>flight path should have the opportunity to down the missile. It could be
>a matter of changing tactics to make Harpoons less devastating....
>

A Harpoon is a devastating weapon. One such weapon can mission kill
a warship. This is why the weapon has been, with upgrades, in continuous
use for 30+ years.

Where there is a massive problem in Empire with regards to Harpoons
is two fold.

One is as suggested; the ability of ships to counteract incoming missile
fire is limited, at best. This does not track with reality and makes
surface ships very, very vulnerable to missile fire. Escort ships should
be located one or more sectors away from the carrier being defended. Any
missile over flying a sector where an escort ship is located should have
the opportunity of being attacked by the escort. This is not currently
the case. Right now, the missile gets a free ride until it gets to the
sector it's intended to strike in.

Second is the problem that harpoons are capable of being targetted at
any ship within range, so long as you know the hull number of that
ship. This is regardless of whether or not you currently have any
clue where that ship is. Worse, the missile won't launch if the
target is in range. Thus, you get a free detection of sorts by
attempting to launch at a ship you can't detect. Harpoons should
not be able to attack discrete targets if you can not currently
detect that target using whatever sensors are at your disposal.

-Geoff
aka Mithrilien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

>
> Second is the problem that harpoons are capable of being targetted at
> any ship within range, so long as you know the hull number of that
> ship. This is regardless of whether or not you currently have any
> clue where that ship is. Worse, the missile won't launch if the
> target is in range. Thus, you get a free detection of sorts by
> attempting to launch at a ship you can't detect. Harpoons should
> not be able to attack discrete targets if you can not currently
> detect that target using whatever sensors are at your disposal.
>

I agree. However, this can get complicated. Can I get the
hull number from surface or submarine sonar, coastal or
ship radar, satelite, an ally, etc. The software would have to
check all those possibilities. Therefore, this will probably not be
implemented. However, making the change in one place to
reduce hit-chance at longer ranges helps correct for that problem.

The harpoon should launch if given the command. If the
ship is out of range - it is wasted. This is another bounded
change. This is just like the bug fixed a few years back
where you could determine whether a sector was water
or a bridge/land sector by randomly firing at sectors outside
coastwatch.

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <QIO1d.7542$5t4.1495@trnddc01>,
Bungholio <empire_bungholioNOSAPM@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>I don't see how a harpoon can fly over a mountain, they should have to go
>around.
>

Why? They can readily fly over terrain in real life.

-Geoff
aka Mithrilien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Tom Johnson" <1234tjohnsonREMOVE1234@telogy.com> writes:

>>
>> Second is the problem that harpoons are capable of being targetted at
>> any ship within range, so long as you know the hull number of that
>> ship. This is regardless of whether or not you currently have any
>> clue where that ship is. Worse, the missile won't launch if the
>> target is in range. Thus, you get a free detection of sorts by
>> attempting to launch at a ship you can't detect. Harpoons should
>> not be able to attack discrete targets if you can not currently
>> detect that target using whatever sensors are at your disposal.
>>
>
> I agree. However, this can get complicated. Can I get the
> hull number from surface or submarine sonar, coastal or
> ship radar, satelite, an ally, etc. The software would have to
> check all those possibilities.

Imagine a super coastwatch that integrates all passive sensors (useful
in its own right). Allow targeting ships by hull number only if they
are on super coastwatch. Allow attacking ships out of sensor range by
targeting a sector: missile flies there and then tries to acquire a
target.

> Therefore, this will probably not be
> implemented.

We'll see.

> However, making the change in one place to
> reduce hit-chance at longer ranges helps correct for that problem.

Band aid. Better than nothing. I still think refined rules for
target acquisition and for shooting down vampires would work better.

> The harpoon should launch if given the command. If the
> ship is out of range - it is wasted. This is another bounded
> change. This is just like the bug fixed a few years back
> where you could determine whether a sector was water
> or a bridge/land sector by randomly firing at sectors outside
> coastwatch.

Better than the current behavior, but questionable user interface.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

I guess there aren't too many mountains there in Indiana, huh?

I'd like to see a harpoon fly up a 3000' vertical rock cliff. LOL.

Bungy


"Geoff Cashman" <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ci9p2v$97d$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <QIO1d.7542$5t4.1495@trnddc01>,
> Bungholio <empire_bungholioNOSAPM@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >I don't see how a harpoon can fly over a mountain, they should have to go
> >around.
> >
>
> Why? They can readily fly over terrain in real life.
>
> -Geoff
> aka Mithrilien
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

I can't find exact stats - but the information I found suggests the
Harpoon is a "low-level" flier. Probably flying no more than 300'. It is
an anti-ship weapon by design, and as such wasn't intended for much use
over land. Empire usually has very small land masses - less than the
range of the missile, which introduces the side-effect of people firing
Harpoons over entire islands - sometimes mountainous ones. Howver,
that's real-world...the creators of the Harpoon in the Empire world know
of this situation, and designed their Harpoon to be able to traverse
mountains.....

Bungholio wrote:
> I guess there aren't too many mountains there in Indiana, huh?
>
> I'd like to see a harpoon fly up a 3000' vertical rock cliff. LOL.
>
> Bungy
>
>
> "Geoff Cashman" <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:ci9p2v$97d$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>
>>In article <QIO1d.7542$5t4.1495@trnddc01>,
>>Bungholio <empire_bungholioNOSAPM@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see how a harpoon can fly over a mountain, they should have to go
>>>around.
>>>
>>
>>Why? They can readily fly over terrain in real life.
>>
>>-Geoff
>> aka Mithrilien
>>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Meaning exact stats on Max Altitude

Gemini wrote:

> I can't find exact stats - but the information I found suggests the
> Harpoon is a "low-level" flier. Probably flying no more than 300'. It is
> an anti-ship weapon by design, and as such wasn't intended for much use
> over land. Empire usually has very small land masses - less than the
> range of the missile, which introduces the side-effect of people firing
> Harpoons over entire islands - sometimes mountainous ones. Howver,
> that's real-world...the creators of the Harpoon in the Empire world know
> of this situation, and designed their Harpoon to be able to traverse
> mountains.....
>
> Bungholio wrote:
>
>> I guess there aren't too many mountains there in Indiana, huh?
>>
>> I'd like to see a harpoon fly up a 3000' vertical rock cliff. LOL.
>>
>> Bungy
>>
>>
>> "Geoff Cashman" <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in
>> message
>> news:ci9p2v$97d$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>>
>>> In article <QIO1d.7542$5t4.1495@trnddc01>,
>>> Bungholio <empire_bungholioNOSAPM@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see how a harpoon can fly over a mountain, they should have
>>>> to go
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why? They can readily fly over terrain in real life.
>>>
>>> -Geoff
>>> aka Mithrilien
>>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <873c1j6x2j.fsf@pond.sub.org>,
Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org> wrote:
>"Tom Johnson" <1234tjohnsonREMOVE1234@telogy.com> writes:
>
>>> [Geoff Cashman wrote:}
>>> Second is the problem that harpoons are capable of being targetted at
>>> any ship within range, so long as you know the hull number of that
>>> ship. This is regardless of whether or not you currently have any
>>> clue where that ship is. Worse, the missile won't launch if the
>>> target is in range. Thus, you get a free detection of sorts by

Should read: "target is NOT in range"

>>> attempting to launch at a ship you can't detect. Harpoons should
>>> not be able to attack discrete targets if you can not currently
>>> detect that target using whatever sensors are at your disposal.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. However, this can get complicated. Can I get the
>> hull number from surface or submarine sonar, coastal or
>> ship radar, satelite, an ally, etc. The software would have to
>> check all those possibilities.
>
>Imagine a super coastwatch that integrates all passive sensors (useful
>in its own right). Allow targeting ships by hull number only if they
>are on super coastwatch. Allow attacking ships out of sensor range by
>targeting a sector: missile flies there and then tries to acquire a
>target.

This is a realistic capability. AGM-84 Harpoon is a fire and forget
weapon. It can be launched on a bearing only strike package, or
sent to specifically find targets around given coordinates.

More info on the real-life Harpoon:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm

Basically, you don't want one of these things mad at you
The Iranian Navy found this out the hard way.

-Geoff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <cC42d.18137$%O5.1825@trnddc07>,
Bungholio <empire_bungholioNOSAPM@verizon.net> wrote:
>I guess there aren't too many mountains there in Indiana, huh?

We do feature the "Hilly Hundred" bike tour...a mile of vertical
over 100 miles. Fun bike ride. But mountains? No.


>I'd like to see a harpoon fly up a 3000' vertical rock cliff. LOL.

And how many places in the littoral regions of the world feature 3000'
vertical rock faces? Reality is, a Harpoon *can* follow terrain.
It's ability to forecast when it needs to rise, how rapidly it can
rise, and how well it can maintain its flight profile while doing
so is most likely classified. I would rather not find out the hard
way that a Harpoon can indeed climb the cliffs of Dover.

-Geoff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <8a888$4149adfc$d89e2d68$21228@dcanet.allthenewsgroups.com>,
Gemini <spam@nospam.org> wrote:
>I can't find exact stats - but the information I found suggests the
>Harpoon is a "low-level" flier. Probably flying no more than 300'. It is
>an anti-ship weapon by design, and as such wasn't intended for much use
>over land. Empire usually has very small land masses - less than the
>range of the missile, which introduces the side-effect of people firing
>Harpoons over entire islands - sometimes mountainous ones. Howver,
>that's real-world...the creators of the Harpoon in the Empire world know
>of this situation, and designed their Harpoon to be able to traverse
>mountains.....

AGM-84E Harpoon/SLAM (Standoff Land Attack Missile) is designed to attack
land targets. It's a variant of the Harpoon, but it can be used to attack
ships as well.

The Harpoon missile is *designed* to be a surface hugger. This reduces
the anti-missile threat profile the missile has to contend with in order
to achieve its target. Simply because it wants to hug the surface doesn't
mean it's not capable of going uphill. It's quite capable of flying at far
higher altitudes, as it can be launched from a large number of planes, sans
booster.

-Geoff
aka Mithrilien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Geoff Cashman wrote:
> In article <8a888$4149adfc$d89e2d68$21228@dcanet.allthenewsgroups.com>,
> Gemini <spam@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>>I can't find exact stats - but the information I found suggests the
>>Harpoon is a "low-level" flier. Probably flying no more than 300'. It is
>>an anti-ship weapon by design, and as such wasn't intended for much use
>>over land. Empire usually has very small land masses - less than the
>>range of the missile, which introduces the side-effect of people firing
>>Harpoons over entire islands - sometimes mountainous ones. Howver,
>>that's real-world...the creators of the Harpoon in the Empire world know
>>of this situation, and designed their Harpoon to be able to traverse
>>mountains.....
>
>
> AGM-84E Harpoon/SLAM (Standoff Land Attack Missile) is designed to attack
> land targets. It's a variant of the Harpoon, but it can be used to attack
> ships as well.
>
> The Harpoon missile is *designed* to be a surface hugger. This reduces
> the anti-missile threat profile the missile has to contend with in order
> to achieve its target. Simply because it wants to hug the surface doesn't
> mean it's not capable of going uphill. It's quite capable of flying at far
> higher altitudes, as it can be launched from a large number of planes, sans
> booster.
>
> -Geoff
> aka Mithrilien

I understand that. I did read those features re: Harpoon variants;
however, being launched from aircraft at alititude isn't the same as
maintaining altitude, or climbing to altitude. Yes it can rise and fall
with terrain elevations - but climbing a mountain is a whole other
issue. Since I don't know the specifics, I'm not trying to say you're
wrong or anything, only that there is merit to questioning harpoons and
mountains.

Personally, I belive what really applies here is: Empire isn't The Real
World, and as such, is subject to variations to the game component's
real-world counterparts. Which means we can have Harpoons that fly over
mountains. Why? Because thats the way their creator made them in the game.

Scott aka Gemini

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Geoff Cashman <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote:
>>>> In real life, a Harpoon has an unclassified range of 67nm.
>>>
>>> Sorry but what is an "nm" ?
>>
>>For you (EU mandates SI):
>>0.0000000001 m equeal 1 nanometer (nm)
>>
>>For the emperials it propably 1 nautic mile, which is either 6080 feet
>>or 1852m (interesting since 6080feet == 1853.184m)
>>
>
> A nautical mile is a measurement used by most every sailor. It's not
> restricted to one region of the world or another.

You are offcourse correct that a nautical mile is the same everywhere,
but the real question was what an nm is

In the EU there is only one answer: nanometer. Even het UK had to
convert.

--

Daniel Tryba

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <cimp1h$2q1$2@news.tue.nl>,
Daniel Tryba <news_rec.games.empire@canopus.nl> wrote:
>
>You are offcourse correct that a nautical mile is the same everywhere,
>but the real question was what an nm is
>
>In the EU there is only one answer: nanometer.

So there are no mariners in the EU?

-Geoff
aka Mithrilien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Geoff Cashman <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote:

> Second is the problem that harpoons are capable of being targetted at
> any ship within range, so long as you know the hull number of that
> ship. This is regardless of whether or not you currently have any
> clue where that ship is. Worse, the missile won't launch if the
> target is in range. Thus, you get a free detection of sorts by
> attempting to launch at a ship you can't detect. Harpoons should
> not be able to attack discrete targets if you can not currently
> detect that target using whatever sensors are at your disposal.

This is not a harpoon only problem. This is a general problem.
You should NOT be able to fort-fire on a ship which you do not
see on coastwatch, because you do not know where to direct the
gun!

> -Geoff
> aka Mithrilien


--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: romm@empire.tau.ac.il http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il/
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)51-34-18-34 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Geoff Cashman <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote:
> In article <cimp1h$2q1$2@news.tue.nl>,
> Daniel Tryba <news_rec.games.empire@canopus.nl> wrote:
> >
> >You are offcourse correct that a nautical mile is the same everywhere,
> >but the real question was what an nm is
> >
> >In the EU there is only one answer: nanometer.

> So there are no mariners in the EU?

Only the grand ones.

> -Geoff
> aka Mithrilien


--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: romm@empire.tau.ac.il http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il/
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)51-34-18-34 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Geoff Cashman <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote:
> >In the EU there is only one answer: nanometer.

> So there are no mariners in the EU?

We didn't like our mariners being limited by lightspeed at 161290 nm/sec
(58 cm/hour)...

Zlo