DW vs Harpoon 3

[kozowh]

Anyone care to do a comparative review? Which one do you prefer and why?

Thanks for any input.

[Herman]

I have and enjoy both games. Both are excellent simulations.

I have a slight preference for Harpoon since it allows me to control many more units and a greater variety of units than DW. Also, Harpoon has a DB / Platform editor so I can experiment with units not currently available from Sonalysts.

I like DW for the extended detail, too. IMO, fewer things are abstracted in DW since it focuses on fewer units. You can't go wrong with either of these fine games. :up:

[Molon Labe]

Harpoon and DW aren't the same type of game. Why bother to compare them? Obviously, people more into RTS will prefer Harpoon and people more into tactical sims will prefer DW...

[Sea Demon]

Two different types of games. No comparison necessary. But still, I would rather play DW on any given day.

[kozowh]

Two different types of games. No comparison necessary. But still, I would rather play DW on any given day.
Maybe a decade or more ago, I played Harpoon "1" and a few months ago I tried DW. Maybe my memory has failed (a distinct possibility) but I found them both to be strategic/tactical relying on sensors and the differences in weapons' capability and, therefore, somewhat similar.

Sea Demon and Molon Labe--I'd very much appreciate it if you could highlight several of the most important differences. I thought DW was an RTS and Harpoon also tactical. Color me confused or maybe just ignorant.

Thanks. -Bullet.

[Sonarman]

It would be interesting to merge DW and Harpoon i.e have a Harpoon like CIC environment wrapped inside an Aegis cruiser 3d sim. Played at the bigger picture strategic commander level rather then at the micromanagement level of sonar etc.

Rather like the old USS Ticonderoga game but with real world 3d graphics instead of the weird Myst-like stillshot environments used in that game. One nice thing that game had that I don't think l've seen in any other naval sim was the role playing element where you had conversations with your exec about the next action etc.

[Molon Labe]

Technically, Harpoon is Operational/Tactical. The game nevertheless falls within the RTS genre because it is played from the point of view of the commander of all the forces in theatre. (there is actually very little strategy involved in most RTS games; this is because most people don't know the difference between strategy, operations, and tactics. We're stuck with the term.)

DW is played from the point of view of the crew of a single vessel or aircraft.

[kozowh]

Molon Labe--

Thanks for the clarification. I guess you could call DW a first person shooter, then.

-Bullet

[Molon Labe]

From two stations in particular, maybe!

[SeaQueen]

Anyone care to do a comparative review? Which one do you prefer and why?

Thanks for any input.

I don't really prefer one over the other. In fact, sometimes I will create a scenario in both DW and Harpoon and play it from two different perspectives.

Dangerous waters is a tactical simulation in the sense that have a small number of platforms (usually just one or two) and they fight a series of engagements in a single battle.

Harpoon is a step up into the operational level. So you might fight a series of battles to accomplish a broader goal than is typical in DW. Harpoon also does the tactical level quite well, but compared to DW, things are a little bit abstracted. In Harpoon, you don't fiddle with active sonar modes, or look out the bridge wing with a pair of binoculars. All of that is assumed to be handled by your little people.

I think both of their sensor models are pretty sophisticated. Harpoon has a much better weather model. Harpoon's radar model is better than DWs. That's important for surface warfare especially. Harpoon is also better if you want to do anything involving aircraft carriers. I don't like how DW handles them.

Harpoon's database of ships, aircraft and land platforms is HUGE and there's no distinction between a "playable" platfom and an AI. All platforms are potentially playable.

DW is fun for different reasons, though. In Harpoon target motion analysis is abstracted. Areas of uncertainty and what not are calculated automatically, and you don't need to worry about doing things like following bearing rates or other important factors in TMA. In DW, though, you have to concern yourself with these kinds of details. You really have to get into the details of it in DW to be excellent. In Harpoon, the most it's really useful to think about is things like whether you're on a lead or a lag LOS.

Harpoon games tend to emphasize cruise missiles and aircraft. Dangerous waters games tend of emphasize ASW. I think that's often the fault of scenario designers, though, and the fact that Harpoon's radar model is a little more sophisticated.

Dangerous waters really does a good job of capturing the feel of being on a ship. I remember when I got back from a short cruise aboard an FFG and marveling at how well they'd captured the way a ship moves underneath one.

All in all, I use Harpoon when I want to experiment with a whole fleet, performing complex operations with multiple platforms. I use DW when I want to experiment with actions by single ships or small groups in detail.

[kozowh]

SeaQueen--

Thank you for your detailed and very informative discussion of H3 and DW.

-Bullet

[SeaQueen]

I guess you could call DW a first person shooter, then.


I don't think that really gives DW as much credit as it deserves. DW is definitely a simulator. Although some people play it like a first person shooter. The focus is just different. A DW game would put you in charge of a single SSN and the game's goal might be, "photograph the beach at XX-XX N, YY-YY E in order to provide intelligence for anticipated amphibious operations." A Harpoon game might put you in charge of something like a whole expeditionary strike group (ESG), consisting of an LHD, an LPD, an LSD, two DDGs, a CG, a MAGTF-ACE, a couple MH-60Rs, a couple MH-60Ses, a UAV or two, and an SSN. The game's goal might be, "execute a non-combattant evacuation operation (NEO) in order to evacuate US and third country nationals located at the US embassy in Sandville, and the US consulate in Fishytown." In order to do that, you might have your SSN go ahead and check the beach for shore-based antiship cruise missiles.

It doesn't really make DW any less of a simulation because you might play the game from the perspective of just the SSN in the ESG. It just means the scope of things is different. The Harpoon simulation simulates what it'd be like to be the SSN's captain's boss. You say, "go check out that beach." In DW you go check out the beach. In Harpoon you frequently actually are concerned with many of the same things, but the controls are abstracted.

[kozowh]

SeaQueen--

Thanks yet again for taking the time to explain more of the differences between DW and H3 and providing some examples most likely based on your personal military knowledge. To oversimply, DW seems more tactical and H3 more strategic and it's not an easy decision to know which might appeal to one more.

-Bullet

[SeaQueen]

To oversimply, DW seems more tactical and H3 more strategic and it's not an easy decision to know which might appeal to one more.


I think if you're interested in naval warfare, they'll both appeal to you.

[Dr.Sid]

I did't play Harpoon. So it is something like Fleet command, right ?

[SeaQueen]

I did't play Harpoon. So it is something like Fleet command, right ?

Fleet command for minimalists. It has no 3D graphics. The best way to describe the interface is like Microprose's Red Storm Rising but with the Motif Windows Manager.

The databases are probably the most extensive of any wargame, and the guys who maintain it are really good about responding to suggestions. For example, I didn't like that they didn't include aircraft stores on the LPD-17. Since a MAGTF's Aviation Combat Element is mission tailored, it should be able to carry AH-1s, UH-1s, CH-53s, or MH-60S, without having to redeploy them to an LHD to get them resupplied. They fixed that problem very promptly.

They basically devote all the effort into improving the content of the sim instead of the fancy graphics. The result is a simulation where you really have the opportunity to think about an awful lot of stuff that a real commander of a small fleet would have to think about.

[Dr.Sid]

Well .. theoretically there is nothing impossible on making sim with both graphics and database, especially if it is mod-friendly.

[SeaQueen]

Well .. theoretically there is nothing impossible on making sim with both graphics and database, especially if it is mod-friendly.

The thing is, in reality, game developers can only spend so much time building 3D models, and if every platform in the game has to have a 3D model for it, then the extent of the database is limited by the number of 3D models. I honestly think the drive for graphics sometimes really limits what's possible in gaming. Naval simulations are a particularly striking example of that. Go on the web and try to find nice shape files for ships. They're hard to come by and typically quite expensive. It takes a lot of effort to make really nice 3D graphics.

In truth, naval sims don't need a lot of 3d graphics. Most of the warfare is conducted over the horizon. This isn't to say that there isn't room for UAVs, electro optics, infrared sensors, synthetic aperture radars and even mark 1 mod 0 eyeballs, but I don't think one loses a lot by not having amazing graphics in the case of naval sims. In a submarine I spend a small fraction of my time looking through the periscope. In the FFG, I mostly look at the radar and ESM screens. It's nice to have, but it's sort of a fancy extra. Let's face it, naval warfare is an awful lot of sailing around looking at nothing. Graphics in a naval sim, to me, are something I can take or leave.

If the naval sim DOES have 3D graphics in it, they better be really great. If they're really great, then they add a lot to the feel of the sim (it's nice to be able to look out of the bridge wing or watch a torpedo hit a target), but only if the content is there. If the content isn't there, then the feel will be wrong no matter what the graphics are like. If the choice has to be made, I'd rather them concentrate on making a terrific sensor and weapons models or making the AI behave smartly over graphics, and if they do feel like they've done everything possible to make the AI, radar, and sonar as great as they can possibly be THEN they should worry about graphics and then they better be ABSOLUTELY AMAZING.

I guess that's what makes naval sims kind of hard to make...

[SaxMan]

I have to jump in here and say that I wholeheartedly agree with SeaQueen's statements - graphics are nice to have, but it's all about the database and engine (AI, etc).
And of course I have to add my plug about having more driveables/flyables/operables in the sim. I can't play any game without wondering what it's like to operate the enemy sub/ship/airplane/tank/whatever. If anyone remembers Janes Fighter's Anthology, it was easily extensible in this manner. By certain manipulation of the save files and other methods I don't offhand remember, you could fly or drive practically anything in the sim - all the planes and most of the ground vehicles. Now it was lower fidelity than what we have here in DW but still kinda cool in a way :rock: Playing a SAM (especially with a modified database) was the ultimate, given sufficiently crowded skies (easily done with the mission editor).