Talk:Harpoon (series)
VCDH
[edit]I'm adding slowly to this guys whenever I get the time. Sorry if it sounds like an advert. I'll reword it when I get the chance
Gameplay
[edit]This article really needs to discuss more about the gameplay. Is the game played in real-time or is it turn-based? Do you only control one ship or do you control multiple vessels? Does it simulate military strategy or tactics? How abstracted is the combat? SharkD 03:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- The game is real time with time compression capability in case the action slows down. The player can control single or multiple platforms (up to the hundreds if he/she has the computing power available). While some of the more acrane aspect of naval warfare are not modeled, most are. Examples of things not modeled is Radar Ducting, sonar bottom and surface bounce, and COMINT/SIGINT. I could have stated that we are looking to install those in the next version (3.8.1) but we haven't hammered down a decision yet, nor is it guaranteed that AGSI clients will want something else.VCDH 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It really needs more about the gameplay, ideally with screenshots. I briefly played the game several years ago, and I remember what it was like (there are some shots here, for example), but a casual reader would be baffled. For example, when you control a submarine, can you look through the periscope? Do you move the boat around with the mouse and WASD? If you are in charge of an aircraft carrier, can you fly the planes? The answers are no, no, and no - everything is shown on a top-down line-drawing map, and you play a "guiding spirit" - but the article does not make this clear. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Harpoon.jpg
[edit]
Image:Harpoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
#c-BetacommandBot-2008-02-13T23:34:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Harpoon.jpg){kind=link}
Why No Mention of the Paper And Dice Sim?
[edit]Why is there no article on the paper and dice sim, published by GDW?! ~Will~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.246.66 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Paper rules
[edit]Will, I added reference to the paper version of Harpoon and linked it to Clash of Arms.
Kip —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip Allen (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- According to BoardGameGeek, which is usually considered authoritative when it comes to board games, Harpoon was published in 1981 (but won the 1980 HG Wells best miniatures award)[1] by Adventure Games, which also published Harpoon II. GDW (at least) continued the board games after that. The series includes quite a lot of content, Clash of Arms not appearing until Harpoon 4, I think.[2] Laguna CA (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Harpoon". BoardGameGeek. Retrieved 8 April 2023.
- ^ "Harpoon series". BoardGameGeek. BoardGameGeek.
Harpoon 4
[edit]I noticed there seems to be nothing about Harpoon 4. I am not very familiar with the series so I do not know if this was folded in to the game being published now. Regardless I think it deserves some mention in relation to its development and to the series. Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Author's bias?
[edit]For some reason, the phrase "despite the overwhelming numerical and graphical superiority of first-person shooter and real-time strategy games" really bothers me. Is this statement criticizing the game's graphics? Its gameplay? Is there a source for the statement? I had the game back when 360 was still around, never mastered it, but it definitely wasn't a first person shooter. It wasn't exactly real time strategy either, but it was a strategy game with a continuous clock. The quoted statement sounds like a Quake/WOW fanboy wrote it who's never heard of the game and only knows about what's been around the last ten years. 184.98.123.96 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This statement does NOT criticize the Harpoon game's graphics, it points out that the graphics are at a simple level compared to other games - in particular those games that are first-person shooter games or real-time strategy games. Harpoon is not at the user's experience level a turn based game, nor is it real time strategy. It is a possibility that the game is at the coding (programming) level a turn based game, but that is not obvious to the user/player. - The statement still applies at the most recently released version. Wfoj3 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have changed "overwhelming numerical and graphical superiority" to "overwhelming graphical details" (see above). The numerical side, aside from polygon math for graphics handled by "graphical", is questionable since Harpoon is more simulation than game; Harpoon worries about accurate missile, radar, sonar (etc.) performance instead of just presenting a game that is easily understood. An unresolvable, because Harpoon approaches classified data and is regularly updated, is whether Harpoon is superior in technical information and numeric processing to other platforms; with no citation proving the point either way, I feel silence on the point is the best path.
- Harpoon uses simple NATO-standard symbology (I think), which provides superior readability; other games use high-poly photo-realistic (at least attempted photo-realistic) graphics for graphics more attractive to those not accustomed to NATO symbology or those wanting the unrealistic version of a first person, on deck view of the battle. Yet, Harpoon is attempting to present a commander's eye view of a battle space, a view that (in the West, at least) would be given in NATO symbology for the commander buried in a Combat Information Center (CIC), so neither can be called "superior" to the other. The polygons are objectively more detailed (more polys), but that's all.
- I realize I'm addressing a very old concern, but accuracy. Laguna CA (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Civilian / Military customers?
[edit]The article states that there is a version of Harpoon provided exclusively to military customers. The military of which nation(s)? Are/were they involved in some way in the game's development? How is/was the game used in the military? How does "Harpoon 3 Pro" differ (if it does at all) from "Harpoon 3 Professional" or "H3 Milsim" mentioned elsewhere in the article and presumably available to civilians? Is there a source that could provide answers to those questions? Chuntuk (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- From memory, Australia for one. The military version has a more intricate damage model, instead of a pool of hit points. It's tough to find anything because of the Harpoon missile and the ubiquity of games, but Forbes had an article, not specifically mentioning countries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/08/02/harpoon-v-new-version-of-famous-wargame-used-by-navies/ Laguna CA (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)