See upcoming releases.

Remember watching the fight or chase scenes from SKYFALL or the film version of THE HOBBIT? They were frenetic, loud, and packed with incredible feats of derring-do. They were exciting. Really exciting.

Now imagine being a thriller writer working today. You don’t have a multi-million dollar budget to insert precisely shot and digitally enhanced images of battles, explosions, and car crashes into your book. You’ve got words. Just words.

So, how do you capture some of that sheer intensity and split-second immediacy that most of your readers – who live in this same world of special-effects film-making – expect and enjoy?

You need to focus tightly, zooming in only on a few of the things your point-of-view character sees, says, hears, smells, feels, and, most importantly, does. Sentences compress. Secondary clauses vanish. There’s little room for extended interior monologues, elegant dialogue, and thorough, lovingly detailed description. If you want to capture the reader, to bring him fully into that short, sharp, and deadly moment, you can’t drag things out.

The good news is that your readers have watched those same movie and television action scenes themselves. And those images stay with them. So you don’t have to describe every piece of a sword fight, a gun battle, or a hand-to-hand struggle. Their imaginations work for you.

Here’s an example from  THE TRIBUNE , part of a scene where Valens is jumped by two assassins in an alley in Antioch:

“There were two men close behind me—one much taller and broader-shouldered than the other.  Both wore tattered, sand-colored robes.  Loose hoods concealed most of their faces.  Both carried long knives.

Stunned, I stepped back just as the big man lunged at me.  I threw my left arm up in a desperate bid to knock the dagger away.  The blade tore a line of fire across my forearm and then skidded off the bone.

Panting, I fell back.  I needed time.  Time to get my sword out.  Time to defend myself.

The big man flicked my blood from his knife, grinned nastily at me, and waved his comrade forward.

I spun round and pulled the stack of cages over, spilling birds and broken wicker across the alley.  The frightened doves whirled up in a cloud of beating wings.

Caught off-guard, the smaller man backed off with his hands shielding his face, swearing loudly.

In Latin.

I yanked my sword out of its scabbard and thrust it into his stomach in the same smooth motion.  I could feel it bite deep.  He screamed and folded over the blade.  I tore the sword loose as he went down.

Before I could bring my blade back into position, the big man attacked again.  He leaped straight over the body of his dying comrade and threw himself into me.

I slammed into the stone wall at my back, gasping as the impact knocked the air out of my lungs.  My sword spun away.  His dagger grated along my ribs, ripping more flesh and muscle.”

And here’s another example, this one from VORTEX , the second military thriller Larry Bond and I wrote together:

“O’Connell scrambled to his feet already running. Rifle in hand, he moved north, angling away from the heavy machine-gun fire now pouring out of the South African-held bunker. Four Rangers hurtled up and out of the trench after him.

All five men sprinted forward, dispersing on the move—spreading out in the hope that a single enemy burst wouldn’t hit them all. This gauntlet could only be run alone.

Burning buildings and vehicles added an eerie orange glow to the black night sky and sent strange shadows wavering ahead of them across the corpse-strewn, half-lit ground. O’Connell kept going, speeding past crumpled bodies, scattered gear, and torn, bullet-riddled parachutes. In an odd way, he felt almost superhuman, with every sense and every nerve ending magnified and set afire. He squinted through sweat toward the smoke-shrouded enemy bunker. Two hundred meters to go.

Movement flickered at the edge of his vision, far off to the right. Sergeant Johnson and his five Rangers were there, making their own headlong dash for the bunker. He lengthened his own stride.

One hundred and fifty meters. One hundred. O’Connell felt his pulse accelerating, racing in time with his pounding feet. My God, he thought exultantly, we might really pull this crazy stunt off after all!

Suddenly, the ground seemed to explode out from under him. Dirt sprayed high in the air as a machine-gun burst hammered the area. One slug moving at supersonic speeds tore the M16 right out of his hands and sent it whirling away into the darkness. Another bullet ripped through a fold of cloth over his right shoulder, leaving behind a raw, bleeding line of torn skin.

O’Connell threw himself prone, scarcely able to believe that he’d escaped without more serious injury.

Agonized screams rising above the crashing, crackling sounds of gunfire and grenade explosions told him that the rest of his men weren’t so lucky. He swiveled to look to the rear.

The four Rangers who’d been following him had vanished—cloaked behind a curtain of smoke and dust. As it settled, another burst of South African machine-gun fire stitched across the open ground—sweeping back and forth across the bodies of men who’d already been hit several times. No one moved or cried out in pain.

He was alone.

O’Connell clenched his teeth and tried to bury himself in the earth as more rounds whipcracked low overhead. Pebbles, sand, and torn bits of grass pattered off his helmet and neck.”

So, how should you write an action scene for a modern audience? Keep it short. Keep it tight. And keep it fast.

See upcoming releases.

See upcoming releases.

See upcoming releases.

Persian Incursion. Clash of Arms Games, 2010. Designers: Larry Bond, Chris Carlson, Jeff Dougherty. $71.50.

* * *

This is among the games that has been sitting on my shelf for far, far too long, awaiting the opportunity for a proper playtest. I finally got around to it last month—and, as you’ll see in the review below, I found it both to be problematic as a game but insightful as a military simulation.

A Sample Game: OPERATION “LDBICATCSPFAB”

Frustrated by the apparent ineffectiveness of sanctions and viewing Iran’s nuclear program as a growing threat, Prime Minister Netanyahu gave the order: Israel would attack. Operation “Lovingly Detailed but Incredibly Complex and Time-Consuming Strike Planning for a Boardgame” would seek to inflict heavy damage on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and thereby convince the Islamic Republic that there was little point in continuing its nuclear programme into the future.

Not knowing how much time the international community would permit them to complete the task, the Israeli leadership emphasized to IDF planners that first strike needed to be as decisive as possible. Additional tankers were procured to assure that more than 120 Israeli aircraft—F-15s and F-16s, Shavit ELINT platforms, and Eitan drones—would be committed to a long-distance mission via Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. Some aircraft would be allocated to suppressing the air defences that the IAF would encounter en route, and still others to escorting the strike packages. Most, however, were heavily laden with bombs intended  for three major targets: the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, the heavy water plant and reactor at Arak, and the deeply-buried uranium enrichment facility near Qom. Improved EGBU-28C “bunker-buster” bombs were obtained to facilitate penetration of the underground centrifuge halls at Natanz and Qom. Insufficient aircraft were available to target the uranium conversion facility, zirconium production, and fuel manufacturing plant at Isfahan on this first strike, which would have to await a return visit.

Initially all went well, with an electronic/cyber attack partially disabling Iran’s air defence network. The SEAD missions were partly successful, but one lucky S-200(SA-5) battery escaped damage, and then was even luckier still when it managed—against all odds—to successfully engage an IAF F-15, shooting it down.

For the most part the obsolete Iranian air force could offer little substantial resistance. However, two patrolling Iranian F-14 pilots detected the strike mission headed for Natanz and managed to shoot down one Israeli F-16 with a long-range AIM-54 Phoenix missile before they were destroyed. No sooner had they done so than a flight of four Mig-29s took advantage of the distraction to close the range, downing a second F-16 before also being destroyed by the Israeli escorts. One IAF pilot survived and was captured by Iranian troops, providing Tehran with a minor public relations coup that it would later exploit. IAF planners had considered the option of allocating more aircraft to escort and fighter-suppression missions, but had opted to maximize the ordnance that could be delivered on target.

The damage from the Israeli attack at Natanz: heavily damaged, but not quite destroyed.

The air defences at the target sites proved less of a hindrance. While the GPS jammers that Iran had installed at its sensitive sites confused some of the Israeli bombs, most found their marks. The facilities at Qom and Arak were completely destroyed, while Natanz was heavily damaged.

As the Israeli aircraft left Iranian air space, they were once more intercepted, this time by small numbers of F-5Es and F-7M fighters. These were quickly and easily downed long before they had closed to within range of their own much inferior air-to-air missiles.

Although Iranian air defences had been lucky, the bombing was largely successful.

In the court of international opinion, however, the Israeli did less well. Perhaps it was Israel’s refusal to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or open its nuclear facilities to international inspection; perhaps it was the impressive skills of Iranian diplomats; or perhaps it was astute card-play and some very good dice rolls, but within a matter of hours and days it was clear that there was little support for a continuation of military operations. Jordan emphasized that it would not allow its airspace to be used again for an attack, and the northern route (through Turkey) and the southern route (through Saudi Arabia) were equally unavailable. Even the United States seemed unhappy at Netanyahu’s unilateral move.

While domestic support for the government remains (top track), high, the international community is less approving (middle tracks). However, the attack and subsequent Israeli sabotage activities are slowly undermining Iranian resolve (bottom track)

Iranian retaliation was swift but largely ineffectual. Salvos of Shehab-3 missiles were fired at Israel, although only a handful made it past Israel’s Arrow-2 and Patriot PAC-3 ballistic missile defences, and these did little real damage. Twice Iran partially and briefly closed the Straits of Hormuz to signal its displeasure, but these actions only antagonized the international community and were quickly abandoned. Hizbullah and the northern border with Lebanon remained eerily quiet.

For its part Israel—unable to launch another airstrike because of the negative attitude of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States—instead launched a serious of night-time special forces raids against key Iranian economic infrastructure. These had considerable effect over time, aggravating the domestic economic and political problems of a beleaguered Islamic republic already under severe pressure from international sanctions.

In the end, however, it wasn’t enough. The regime remained in power, undeterred, and committed to rebuilding its  damaged nuclear infrastructure . Israel’s gambit had failed to win more than a brief respite from the perceived Iranian threat, and at the cost of greater international isolation.

Game Review

And thus unfolded our playtest game, which was played using a slightly tweaked version of the “real world” scenario in the game. It was unusual in that Israel able to launch only a single attack (most games involve several), largely due to some very lucky Iranian diplomatic dice. The Iranians were lucky too in managing to shoot down any IAF aircraft, let alone three. The overall outcome was actually quite realistic, both in terms of the damage inflicted to Iranian nuclear facilities and the diplomatic challenges to Israel of sustaining an extended unilateral military campaign.

Persian Incursion comprises one 17×22″ map, 280 cardboard counters, two decks of cards, data cards for all major aircraft cards, game rules, a target folders (including satellite photographs of each major site), and a background briefing package, and dice. It really consists of two interlinked games, one modelling an Israeli airstrike, and the other representing the broader diplomatic-political context within which military action occurs.

As suggested in the account above, the airstrike part of the game is extremely detailed, with the Israeli player having to quite literally decide on the precise loadout and target of every single aircraft in every single strike, escort, or SEAD package. Since many buildings are individually profiled, some sites include more than thirty different aim-points. The range and probability to hit of every type of air-to-air missile, surface-to-air missile, anti-radiation missile, and guided bomb used by the combatants is rated, as is the effectiveness of each aircraft type. Planning a single attack can take the Israeli player up to an hour—during which time the Iranian player has little do besides practice his rhetorical condemnations of Zionist aggression. Once an Israeli strike arrives on target, the effects must be determined by rolling dice for every single bomb. Since this could conceivable involve a few hundred rolls, it provides another extended period when the Iranian player watches while uttering angry Farsi threats of revenge.

Conversely, the political-diplomatic component of Persian Incursion is a highly abstracted. The changing political position of the various international actors determines how many political, military, and intelligence points a player collects at the start of each turn. These in turn are expended to conduct military operations or to attempt to influence domestic opinion of key regional and international states. Attempts at political influence are carried out through the play of cards, each of which has general labels like “collateral damage,” “spin control, ” or “careful planning,” and each of which affects different target countries to different degrees. Unlike airstrikes, the card play runs proceeds at a rapid pace.

Our play test game was quite exciting in the end, with Israeli special forces raids bring the Iranians perilously close to the point of political defeat before the game ended. However, the ponderously slow airstrike process is problematic from a game design point of view since it exclusively engages only the Israeli player most of the time. Some of this detail is unnecessary too: I’m not convinced there is a real need to have separate aim points for every single building (although it does highlight the need for some targeting redundancy in real-life strike planning with pre-programmed GPS-guided weapons), while the rules of anti-aircraft guns are entirely superfluous given that the IAF almost invariably drops its guided bombs well outside the AAA engagement envelope. Indeed, had our game included the usual several Israeli airstrikes instead of just one, I have a sneaking hunch my opponent would have called it a day before the game ever finished. In an attempt to speed both strike planning and adjudication, the game designers have released several rules modifications that simplify targeting and allow for faster resolution of bombing effects. In similar fashion I also put together my own revised set of target sheets targets that I will likely use in future games, and there are some useful player-made spreadsheets and record sheets available at BoardGameGeek.

The other military options available to players—Iranian ballistic missiles, Israeli special forces operations, terrorist attacks, closing the Straits of Hormuz—are much less complex. The game does not, however, include any option for Iran’s close Lebanese ally Hizbullah to launch major attacks against Israel in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Iran. Indeed, Hizbullah is only briefly mentioned in the  background briefing package, where it is peculiarly placed in the section on the Palestinians. While I don’t believe Hizbullah would necessarily become involved in the fighting after a single Israeli strike, the chances of it doing so would increase if Israel were to launch a sustained campaign. From a game perspective, it certainly would be more interesting for the Iranian player if there were some sort of substantial Hizbullah option that forces Israel to divert its air assets to hunting Hizbullah rocket launchers, but risks a weakening Hizbullah’s military and political status in Lebanon.

Persian Incursion as a Serious Game

How useful might this game be in educational or other “serious game” settings? It certainly has considerable potential, but only if used in certain ways.

This is not a game that can be easily played by students. It is far too long and complicated for neophytes. The asymmetry in role demands and the long delays while Israel plans strikes also would render it highly unsuitable.

On the other hand, the core airstrike game “engine” is excellent, covering everything from the effectiveness of various weapons platforms and ordnance to electronic counter measures, aircraft readiness rates and maintenance, ground control interception, Iranian air defence zones, decoys, and the hardening of targets. The game engine is easily tweaked too, in most cases by simply changing certain ratings or percentages. Playing through a strike or a full game offers considerable insight into the complexities of mission planning, as well as the capabilities and limits of the two militaries. One could even use it to model a potential future “Syrian” route to Iran, predicated on the declining effectiveness of Syrian air defences as the civil war there intensifies.

Given this, the best way of using Persian Incursion in a serious game setting would be with multiple players and an assigned division of labour, some focused on the political side of the conflict and others wholly devoted to military staff planning. One wouldn’t need to use the diplomatic-political subgame that the designers have developed—a standard negotiations role-play or seminar crisis game format could do equally well, or even better if the major international community actors were included too (although this could conceivably also be handled by the game controllers/white cell). The Israeli military staff planners would need to keep detailed tasking orders ready to go for when their political leadership required it, updating this as developments and resources changed. This would also generate some interesting internal dynamics between the political/diplomatic and military components of the Israeli (and Iranian) teams, especially when the politicians wanted more than the military could deliver, or when military hubris might cause it to over-promise mission results, leaving diplomats to make the best of a bad situation. Throughout, only the game controller would really need to know all of the rules, using these to adjudicate the effects of each strike.

An implementation of the game something like this (but exclusively weighted towards the military element) was undertaken by the folks at the “War College” at the 2011 Origins Game Fair—you can see a sample of this in the videos above and below.

Overall Assessment

If you are a serious gamer interested in this era and issue, Persian Incursion is certainly worth buying, but probably best played with the quick strike rules unless the Iranian player has enormous patience and/or something else to busy themselves with while the Israeli plots plots targets, strike packages, and weapons loads. If you’re an inexperienced wargamer, this is not the best game for you. If you are an instructor thinking of using it in the classroom to examine the challenges of airstrikes and preemption and have enough gaming experience to handle its complexity, the game could be very useful—provided you are willing to put in quite a bit of effort in to modify it for your particular needs, and provided you do so in a way that keeps much of the complexity “under the (adjudication) hood” and away from the participants.

If time allows, I plan to give the game a try with students (and possibly a Middle East intelligence analyst or two) in the coming months. If so, I’ll report the results here at PAXsims.

• Want to know more about Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Time? Tor and Rock Soup Productions have put together a series of videos with Brandon Sanderson, Harriet McDougal, Tom Doherty, Jason Denzel, and more. You can see the first two on Tor.com now!.)

• John Scalzi returns to the Old Man’s War universe on January 15th, with the debut of The Human Division!

• Jim C. Hines, the fantasy author famous for striking a pose, has decided to do it again – this time for charity. And he’s challenged John Scalzi to a pose-off!

• There are some truly beautiful images in Tor.com’s Picturing the Hobbit.

• This week was Hobbit Week on The Colbert Report. Did you watch?

• Tor.com is collecting some of their favorite stories from the year, and the ebook is now available for pre-order.

• io9 has a new glimpse behind the scenes of Season 3 of Game of Thrones!

• Last but not least, here’s the first look at Harrison Ford as Colonel Graff, yelling at Ender and his fellow launchies. We can’t wait for this movie to come out.
   
  And, just to make Friday that much sweeter, here’s a list of sweepstakes and sales we have going on!
  • Goodreads Giveaway: The Eye of the World by Robert Jordan (Ends 12/14)
  • Newsletter Sweepstakes: Big Fat Books for the Holidays (Ends 12/16)
  • Goodreads First Reads: Impulse by Steven Gould (Ends 12/18)
  • Goodreads First Reads: The Sixth Station by Linda Stasi (Ends 12/19)
  • eBook Sale: People of the Earth by Kathleen O’Neal Gear and W. Michael Gear is on sale for $2.99 (Ends 1/2)
  • eBook Sale: Count to a Trillion by John C. Wright is on sale for $2.99 (Ends 1/2)
  • eBook Sale: Larry Bond’s Red Dragon Rising: Edge of War by Larry Bond and Jim DeFelice is on sale for $2.99 (Ends 1/2)
  • eBook Sale: Imager by L.E. Modesitt, Jr. is on sale for $2.99 (Ends 1/2)
  • Goodreads First Reads: Homeland by Cory Doctorow (Ends 1/9)
  • Goodreads First Reads: Kalimpura by Jay Lake (Ends 1/9)
  • Goodreads First Reads: A Natural History of Dragons by Marie Brennan (Ends 1/9)

Persian Incursion. Clash of Arms Games, 2010. Designers: Larry Bond, Chris Carlson, Jeff Dougherty. $71.50.

* * *

This is among the games that has been sitting on my shelf for far, far too long, awaiting the opportunity for a proper playtest. I finally got around to it last month—and, as you’ll see in the review below, I found it both to be problematic as a game but insightful as a military simulation.

A Sample Game: OPERATION “LDBICATCSPFAB”

Frustrated by the apparent ineffectiveness of sanctions and viewing Iran’s nuclear program as a growing threat, Prime Minister Netanyahu gave the order: Israel would attack. Operation “Lovingly Detailed but Incredibly Complex and Time-Consuming Strike Planning for a Boardgame” would seek to inflict heavy damage on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and thereby convince the Islamic Republic that there was little point in continuing its nuclear programme into the future.

Not knowing how much time the international community would permit them to complete the task, the Israeli leadership emphasized to IDF planners that first strike needed to be as decisive as possible. Additional tankers were procured to assure that more than 120 Israeli aircraft—F-15s and F-16s, Shavit ELINT platforms, and Eitan drones—would be committed to a long-distance mission via Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. Some aircraft would be allocated to suppressing the air defences that the IAF would encounter en route, and still others to escorting the strike packages. Most, however, were heavily laden with bombs intended  for three major targets: the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, the heavy water plant and reactor at Arak, and the deeply-buried uranium enrichment facility near Qom. Improved EGBU-28C “bunker-buster” bombs were obtained to facilitate penetration of the underground centrifuge halls at Natanz and Qom. Insufficient aircraft were available to target the uranium conversion facility, zirconium production, and fuel manufacturing plant at Isfahan on this first strike, which would have to await a return visit.

Initially all went well, with an electronic/cyber attack partially disabling Iran’s air defence network. The SEAD missions were partly successful, but one lucky S-200(SA-5) battery escaped damage, and then was even luckier still when it managed—against all odds—to successfully engage an IAF F-15, shooting it down.

For the most part the obsolete Iranian air force could offer little substantial resistance. However, two patrolling Iranian F-14 pilots detected the strike mission headed for Natanz and managed to shoot down one Israeli F-16 with a long-range AIM-54 Phoenix missile before they were destroyed. No sooner had they done so than a flight of four Mig-29s took advantage of the distraction to close the range, downing a second F-16 before also being destroyed by the Israeli escorts. One IAF pilot survived and was captured by Iranian troops, providing Tehran with a minor public relations coup that it would later exploit. IAF planners had considered the option of allocating more aircraft to escort and fighter-suppression missions, but had opted to maximize the ordnance that could be delivered on target.

The damage from the Israeli attack at Natanz: heavily damaged, but not quite destroyed.

The air defences at the target sites proved less of a hindrance. While the GPS jammers that Iran had installed at its sensitive sites confused some of the Israeli bombs, most found their marks. The facilities at Qom and Arak were completely destroyed, while Natanz was heavily damaged.

As the Israeli aircraft left Iranian air space, they were once more intercepted, this time by small numbers of F-5Es and F-7M fighters. These were quickly and easily downed long before they had closed to within range of their own much inferior air-to-air missiles.

Although Iranian air defences had been lucky, the bombing was largely successful.

In the court of international opinion, however, the Israeli did less well. Perhaps it was Israel’s refusal to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or open its nuclear facilities to international inspection; perhaps it was the impressive skills of Iranian diplomats; or perhaps it was astute card-play and some very good dice rolls, but within a matter of hours and days it was clear that there was little support for a continuation of military operations. Jordan emphasized that it would not allow its airspace to be used again for an attack, and the northern route (through Turkey) and the southern route (through Saudi Arabia) were equally unavailable. Even the United States seemed unhappy at Netanyahu’s unilateral move.

While domestic support for the government remains (top track), high, the international community is less approving (middle tracks). However, the attack and subsequent Israeli sabotage activities are slowly undermining Iranian resolve (bottom track)

Iranian retaliation was swift but largely ineffectual. Salvos of Shehab-3 missiles were fired at Israel, although only a handful made it past Israel’s Arrow-2 and Patriot PAC-3 ballistic missile defences, and these did little real damage. Twice Iran partially and briefly closed the Straits of Hormuz to signal its displeasure, but these actions only antagonized the international community and were quickly abandoned. Hizbullah and the northern border with Lebanon remained eerily quiet.

For its part Israel—unable to launch another airstrike because of the negative attitude of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States—instead launched a serious of night-time special forces raids against key Iranian economic infrastructure. These had considerable effect over time, aggravating the domestic economic and political problems of a beleaguered Islamic republic already under severe pressure from international sanctions.

In the end, however, it wasn’t enough. The regime remained in power, undeterred, and committed to rebuilding its  damaged nuclear infrastructure . Israel’s gambit had failed to win more than a brief respite from the perceived Iranian threat, and at the cost of greater international isolation.

Game Review

And thus unfolded our playtest game, which was played using a slightly tweaked version of the “real world” scenario in the game. It was unusual in that Israel able to launch only a single attack (most games involve several), largely due to some very lucky Iranian diplomatic dice. The Iranians were lucky too in managing to shoot down any IAF aircraft, let alone three. The overall outcome was actually quite realistic, both in terms of the damage inflicted to Iranian nuclear facilities and the diplomatic challenges to Israel of sustaining an extended unilateral military campaign.

Persian Incursion comprises one 17×22″ map, 280 cardboard counters, two decks of cards, data cards for all major aircraft cards, game rules, a target folders (including satellite photographs of each major site), and a background briefing package, and dice. It really consists of two interlinked games, one modelling an Israeli airstrike, and the other representing the broader diplomatic-political context within which military action occurs.

As suggested in the account above, the airstrike part of the game is extremely detailed, with the Israeli player having to quite literally decide on the precise loadout and target of every single aircraft in every single strike, escort, or SEAD package. Since many buildings are individually profiled, some sites include more than thirty different aim-points. The range and probability to hit of every type of air-to-air missile, surface-to-air missile, anti-radiation missile, and guided bomb used by the combatants is rated, as is the effectiveness of each aircraft type. Planning a single attack can take the Israeli player up to an hour—during which time the Iranian player has little do besides practice his rhetorical condemnations of Zionist aggression. Once an Israeli strike arrives on target, the effects must be determined by rolling dice for every single bomb. Since this could conceivable involve a few hundred rolls, it provides another extended period when the Iranian player watches while uttering angry Farsi threats of revenge.

Conversely, the political-diplomatic component of Persian Incursion is a highly abstracted. The changing political position of the various international actors determines how many political, military, and intelligence points a player collects at the start of each turn. These in turn are expended to conduct military operations or to attempt to influence domestic opinion of key regional and international states. Attempts at political influence are carried out through the play of cards, each of which has general labels like “collateral damage,” “spin control, ” or “careful planning,” and each of which affects different target countries to different degrees. Unlike airstrikes, the card play runs proceeds at a rapid pace.

Our play test game was quite exciting in the end, with Israeli special forces raids bring the Iranians perilously close to the point of political defeat before the game ended. However, the ponderously slow airstrike process is problematic from a game design point of view since it exclusively engages only the Israeli player most of the time. Some of this detail is unnecessary too: I’m not convinced there is a real need to have separate aim points for every single building (although it does highlight the need for some targeting redundancy in real-life strike planning with pre-programmed GPS-guided weapons), while the rules of anti-aircraft guns are entirely superfluous given that the IAF almost invariably drops its guided bombs well outside the AAA engagement envelope. Indeed, had our game included the usual several Israeli airstrikes instead of just one, I have a sneaking hunch my opponent would have called it a day before the game ever finished. In an attempt to speed both strike planning and adjudication, the game designers have released several rules modifications that simplify targeting and allow for faster resolution of bombing effects. In similar fashion I also put together my own revised set of target sheets that I will likely use in future games, and there are some useful player-made spreadsheets and record sheets available at BoardGameGeek.

The other military options available to players—Iranian ballistic missiles, Israeli special forces operations, terrorist attacks, closing the Straits of Hormuz—are much less complex. The game does not, however, include any option for Iran’s close Lebanese ally Hizbullah to launch major attacks against Israel in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Iran. Indeed, Hizbullah is only briefly mentioned in the  background briefing package, where it is peculiarly placed in the section on the Palestinians. While I don’t believe Hizbullah would necessarily become involved in the fighting after a single Israeli strike, the chances of it doing so would increase if Israel were to launch a sustained campaign. From a game perspective, it certainly would be more interesting for the Iranian player if there were some sort of substantial Hizbullah option that forces Israel to divert its air assets to hunting Hizbullah rocket launchers, but risks a weakening Hizbullah’s military and political status in Lebanon.

Persian Incursion as a Serious Game

How useful might this game be in educational or other “serious game” settings? It certainly has considerable potential, but only if used in certain ways.

This is not a game that can be easily played by students. It is far too long and complicated for neophytes. The asymmetry in role demands and the long delays while Israel plans strikes also would render it highly unsuitable.

On the other hand, the core airstrike game “engine” is excellent, covering everything from the effectiveness of various weapons platforms and ordnance to electronic counter measures, aircraft readiness rates and maintenance, ground control interception, Iranian air defence zones, decoys, and the hardening of targets. The game engine is easily tweaked too, in most cases by simply changing certain ratings or percentages. Playing through a strike or a full game offers considerable insight into the complexities of mission planning, as well as the capabilities and limits of the two militaries. One could even use it to model a potential future “Syrian” route to Iran, predicated on the declining effectiveness of Syrian air defences as the civil war there intensifies.

Given this, the best way of using Persian Incursion in a serious game setting would be with multiple players and an assigned division of labour, some focused on the political side of the conflict and others wholly devoted to military staff planning. One wouldn’t need to use the diplomatic-political subgame that the designers have developed—a standard negotiations role-play or seminar crisis game format could do equally well, or even better if the major international community actors were included too (although this could conceivably also be handled by the game controllers/white cell). The Israeli military staff planners would need to keep detailed tasking orders ready to go for when their political leadership required it, updating this as developments and resources changed. This would also generate some interesting internal dynamics between the political/diplomatic and military components of the Israeli (and Iranian) teams, especially when the politicians wanted more than the military could deliver, or when military hubris might cause it to over-promise mission results, leaving diplomats to make the best of a bad situation. Throughout, only the game controller would really need to know all of the rules, using these to adjudicate the effects of each strike.

An implementation of the game something like this (but exclusively weighted towards the military element) was undertaken at the “War College” at the 2011 Origins Game Fair—you can see a sample of this in the videos above and below.

Overall Assessment

If you are a serious gamer interested in this era and issue, Persian Incursion is certainly worth buying, but probably best played with the quick strike rules unless the Iranian player has enormous patience and/or something else to busy themselves with while the Israeli plots plots targets, strike packages, and weapons loads. If you’re an inexperienced wargamer, this is not the best game for you. If you are an instructor thinking of using it in the classroom to examine the challenges of airstrikes and preemption and have enough gaming experience to handle its complexity, the game could be very useful—provided you are willing to put in quite a bit of effort in to modify it for your particular needs, and provided you do so in a way that keeps much of the complexity “under the (adjudication) hood” and away from the participants.

If time allows, I plan to give the game a try with students (and possibly a Middle East intelligence analyst or two) in the coming months. If so, I’ll report the results here at PAXsims.

About Larry Bond’s Red Dragon Rising: Edge of War: CIA officer Mara Duncan is on assignment in bomb-torn Hanoi. Her task—get scientist Josh MacArthur and a seven-year-old witness to Chinese atrocities in Vietnam out of the country safely. They are pursued by a relentless Chinese monk turned commando who can call on the entire Chinese secret service in Vietnam for help. Their escape is further complicated when SEALs helping Mara, gun down Vietnamese soldiers, making them wanted by both China and Vietnam.

Meanwhile, U.S. Army Advisor Zeus Murphy is given an impossible task: Prevent the Chinese from landing on Vietnam’s coast. Heeding the President’s advice to “think outside the box,” he concocts a daring mission into the heart of the Chinese fleet in the harbor at Hainan. This operation will go down in the annals of SpecWar history as either one of the most daring triumphs of all time or one of the most foolish suicide raids ever attempted.

Or maybe both.

*sale ends January 2

This week I’m taking a look at Tom Clancy’s Magnum Opus – Red Storm Rising (Feat. Larry Bond)

Back in 1986 Tom Clancy published his Red Storm Rising book, and I must say that it had a pretty big impact on my life – it was the catalyst that spurred my now-lifelong interest in the military and warfare. The book, which for a pre-teen was a monstrous tome to tackle, was basically about World War 3 erupting between NATO and the old Warsaw Pact forces.

The book is rather notable (still is) for the accuracy of which it depicted its rather plausible scenario: Tank battles in Germany, submarine warfare in the cold Atlantic, and troop movements across the vast continent. The book had all of these different fronts going on across the pages from the perspectives of numerous characters, and I found that a ton of questions about the military started to form in my mind, and I had to turn to my father (who served in the Navy for 25 years and attained the rank of Ltd. Cmdr. He was the XO (Weapons Officer) on-board the USS Waddell and had previously served on the USS John Adams (SSBN-620, which was decommissioned in 1989 and totally scrapped – or, rather “recycled” – in 1996. This sub was part of the old Lafayette class of hulls that were totally decommissioned by 1994, and only one remains in use as a training boat) Him and his valiant (and probably sometimes bored and tired) crew, amongst other things, spent a long period of time as it performed wargames right off the coast of the USSR – during the Cold War that is, just to see how close they could sneak to the coastline before being detected!)

I eventually got my much-treasured first edition hardback book signed by Mr. Clancy himself, got to tour actual submarines (thanks to my father and also locally preserved vessels), visit the deck of an aircraft carrier, and actually sail onboard the USS Waddell for a week as it did what was called a Tiger Cruise from Hawaii to San Diego.

Yeah, this book had a major impact on my life.

But not just the book: The subsequent computer game by gaming geniuses Microprose probably had an equal, if not bigger, impact as well. There was also a small-scale paper wargame published by TSR in 1989 that I completely played solo (I never was able to find a willing opponent for these types of games) in which I moved my NATO forces across the map and waged war with.

The naval battles of the original novel were realistically played-out by Tom Clancy, Larry Bond, and a group of friends, using the hyper-realistic miniatures wargaming rule set called Harpoon (also a game I’ll talk about on this site later). Larry Bond helped co-author the book, and Clancy wanted to make sure that the naval fights depicted in the book were authentic. They used the wargame to ensure that accuracy.

Harpoon is a seriously hardcore wargame that requires a minimum of 3 people just to play it, and that third person is just the referee for the game. He tells the other two players whether or not they see each other on their radars and sonars, and ensures realistic play. It is not an easy game to pick up and play, and it is even harder to find actual opponents in real life to sit down and play.

When then-fledgling game designer Sid Meier took-up the reigns of creating the computer game for the Commodore 64 platform, he consulted with Larry Bond on creating realistic algorithms to program into the simulation for realistic ASW (anti-sub warfare) and SW (submarine warfare) operations.

Red Storm Rising, on the computer, is a game of Cold War era submarine operations, and it hits that perfect sweet spot between realism and accessibility that only Microprose seemed able to pull-off in such brilliant ways.

This game is a virtual masterpiece for what it does. Not the most hardcore of sub sims (for that go onto Steam and purchase Dangerous Waters) but a simulation that will have you coming back again … and again … and again.

It has, literally, been on my hard drives since its initial release in 1988. We’re talking nearly 25 years of enjoyment from this game!

The back of my Commodore 64 box is scanned-in and displayed above.

MODERN SUBS vs. WWII ERA

One of the more compelling aspects of this sim, for me at least originally, was that all I had knowledge of before playing it was WWII submarines. In fact, most everyday people when they think of submarines picture mostly WWII-era tactics and operations. For those of you who are like this, know this about this sim: This is a whole different ballgame.

WWII subs were diesel powered surface boats (in fact, that is what the German UBoats stood for in name: Underwater boats), and those engines required liquid fuel and oxygen and exhaust in order to operate. When under the water these WWII subs could either run on batteries, for a while, or raise a snorkeling tube in order to “breathe”. Modern US subs are nuclear powered at all times, which means there is zero reason to surface the boat.

In fact, in RSR (Red Storm Rising) it won’t even allow you to surface: About 55 feet shallow depth is the min you can be. Any shallower and the main sail of the sub would be exposed, and that’s either a sign that you surrender or you want to be easily slammed with every missile in the area!

WWII era subs could maybe go down a couple hundred feet, and that was with the sub creaking and groaning under the water pressure – a terrifying experience that stressed the crew out to no end! Those old creaky subs could also barely manage 3-5 knots while underwater, any more speed would just generate a lot of noise and let the enemy know where you are at. Modern subs can plunge down to 8 or 900 feet easily, and with all that extra water pressure masking their noise can also slip-along at an amazing 20 knots or more!

Also, as you can tell by the photograph of a Los Angeles class sub (Thanks to the USNI for the photo), these modern-day subs are literally huge enough to walk around on and stretch your legs! WWII era subs were cramped to say the least!

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DOS VERSION AND THE AMIGA

This overview of the game is based on the DOS version. The original was on the Commodore 64 platform, and was also ported to the Amiga system. Now, I’ll admit that the Amiga has what many have said are better graphics (actually, they are just different graphics, not so much better – see the inserted screenshot for an example), but the DOS version – when emulated via DOSBox – has a number of superior points that makes the Amiga version not so hot: The DOSBox version runs FAST and smooth, whereas the Amiga version uses a complex emulator with higher system requirements, and since the game must be spooled off of the floppy disk images that means wait times between loads of several seconds. It’s just not worth the hassle for what may, or may not be, better graphics on an 25 year old game.

And the gameplay is exactly the same on all platforms, and that’s all that matters when it comes to this website.

HOW “MODERN” IS THIS SIM?

After the Cold War ended the need for subs based around a nuclear mission was drastically slashed. US subs were built to counter the threat of Soviet subs that carried enough nuclear armament to decimate dozens upon dozens of cities around the world (a single sub!). In the final round of this arms race the US created the ultimate hunter-killer sub: The Seawolf. A submarine that, in Cold War terms, is the pinnacle of ASW warfare.

The Cold War ended just as the mighty Seawolf set sail, meaning that the proposed full fleet of 29 ships was cut to THREE – the mission that the Seawolf was designed for no longer existed! Soviet Naval ships literally are moored in their harbors, rusting away, unable to set out into the ocean.

Those three Seawolf subs are still on active duty, and there is only one other sub design in the world that eclipses its design: The Virginia class.

The Virginia class sub was first commissioned in 2004 (construction started in 2000), and it is a literal piece of art in the field of submarines. Powered by a S9G nuclear reactor, it can move at the amazing speed of 25 knots (or faster!), which is equivalent to 29mph. This is like riding open-throttle on a Harley. It can go greater than 800 feet below, has a range limited only by human constraints (food, etc.) and can carry a crew of 135 sailors. Its armament is 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from vertical tubes, and has 4 traditional tubes for its load of 38 other torpedoes and missiles. Compared to the Cold War era subs it is actually smaller in size.

The control room is cutting-edge, crammed with more computers, full-color displays, and laptop computers than you can imagine. Instead of traditional control systems, whereas the navigator sets depth and banking via separate hydraulics systems, a fly-by-wire system – like you’d get in an F-16 jet! – allows the operator to control the sub with ultra-easy precision and smoothness.

But the mission of the Virginia class is VERY different from all other submarines: Its mission is based on delivering its payload inland, as opposed to out in the open ocean. Instead of a flood room that allows 2 SEALS to exit the sub at a time, it can exit 9. Instead of the main mission of anti-submarine warfare, its main mission is more of positioning itself so that it can help other assets further on the ground (via Tomahawk cruise missiles and such).

Out of the proposed 30 subs in this class 9 have been built so far – and no civilian-class simulator for this sub exists so the Seawolf is as far as you can get in a simulation (Even Dangerous Waters, the most accurate submarine sim available on the market today doesn’t have this class of sub in it.)

I wouldn’t be surprised to see fans of Dangerous Waters produce a mod that adds this sub to the game though. =)

For a really cool inside look at the Virginia class sub, check out the 4-part series on Netflix called Submarine: Hidden Hunter.

OUR COMPARISON SIMULATION: DANGEROUS WATERS

I’m going to walk you through how real life subs operate, and then how this translates into the simulation itself. I did this back on Kennedy Approach and most readers really liked how I did that (they said it deepened their appreciation of the game, and that’s – again – what this website is all about). It will also help you understand just what is going on in the sim, because many things in RSR are simplified. A good example of this would be a question such as: Why is it, in this game, the first sign I get of a helicopter seeking me is an active sonar ping and a torpedo headed straight for me? Why don’t I get any warning of such a thing?

I’ll explain why.

It’ll also help you understand why the old movie-style sonar that constantly makings pinging sounds as the sub sails along is very incorrect – and dangerous!

The objective of modern-era submarines is to silently patrol specific areas for the purposes of stealth attacks, invisible defenses of task forces (such as a carrier group or a sea lane), off-shore launch of missiles, anti-submarine warfare, and even Black Ops (Such as going to shallow depth and letting a SEAL team exit the sub).

In order to better illustrate how these operations are carried out I’ll be using a very hardcore ASW (Anti-submarine warfare) sim called Dangerous Waters. Dangerous Waters was designed by Sonalysts, and if you are interested in a far more realistic approach to submarine warfare I cannot recommend it any more highly – it is definitive. It has multiple friendly and not-so-friendly subs for you to both control and play against, as well as aircraft such as the P-3C Orion, and surface ships (with helos onboard to launch and assist you) such as the Oliver Hazard Perry class of US destroyers. You can purchase it on Steam for about $15 by clicking here. You can also view a trailer for the sim here as well.The multiplayer options are phenomenal because you can either operate a platform on your own, or multiple players can assist in operating a single platform (Pilot, sonar, weapons, etc.)

This group is a Naval contractor with many years of experience in the field, and has also produced other Naval simulations (none of which are casual by any means). All their sims can be bought and downloaded via the Steam service for very cheap prices.

LOCATING THE ENEMY

Once a submarine has been put to sea on a mission, it slips below the water, and does not surface again unless it absolutely must. Yeah, these big-ass subs can stay underwater for very long periods of time. The crew has access to comforts, entertainment, and the mission never ends even as the crew rotates duty shifts. Vast tanks of pressurized air, along with air recirculators, and even systems that create fresh water out of the ocean’s saltwater, all help make this underwater mission possible.

So, first big question: How does a craft which remains totally underwater (way too deep for a periscope) know what is going on around it?

Sound.

Modern-day sonar equipment is so sophisticated that it can literally track, with precision, a marine life-form (called a Biologic in Naval terms) swimming through the ocean. Unlike WWII era subs, where the sonar operator listened with a headphone set (that’s still used, but not quite in the same way) that basically connected to an underwater microphone (called a hydrophone) and then slowly rotated the microphone and tried to listen for the sounds of diesel engines running off in the distance – modern subs have all these audio cues filtered through a computer system.

The picture here, from Dangerous Waters, shows what is called the “waterfall”. This is a fairly accurate depiction of what a modern-day sonar console looks like: A computer display. The upper-left window is the main one of interest here. The “snow” that fills most of the display is the various noises that fill our oceans: Waves, gurgles, moans, etc. As the computer processes the information from the ship’s external sonar and translates it, it “flows” down the display – like a sort of waterfall. So the top of the display is sounds heard now, and the bottom is in the past. Across the top is a compass heading for all of it.

The very distinctive lines that trace downward are loud man-made noises … maybe enemy ships, maybe not – hell, maybe even a loud whale! A sailboat can produce even a faint line as it cuts across the surface. A louder ship, such as a tanker, will produce a VERY thick line.

The operator’s job can be complex. All of these sources of sound must be tracked, accurately positioned, and then determined as to what they are. The computer aids his job a lot: Sounds can be filtered through the computer’s library to narrow-down what they are.

The process goes along these steps: A sound is heard, and only a compass bearing as to the origins of the sound are known. Over time the operator will narrow down a more approximate location, as well as its speed and heading (This is determined via the above waterfall display. As the line slowly moves across the display the heading can be determined, and then a speed from that.)

And then the hardest part of all: What is it? Engine noises can certainly help, and the computer’s sound library helps even more, but only the operator can make the final decision. During one game of Dangerous Waters I had all the information plotted in, except that the ship’s library told me it could either be a US surface ship, or a Russian sub moving at a fast pace and making a lot of noise.

You can’t really fire a torpedo at such a target until you know what it is!

Over time the human element made the decision that the computer could not: There was only 1 US surface ship in the area, and I knew exactly where it was based on intel downloaded to the ship via a radio wire (subs can either go to shallow depths to raise a radio mast or they can let a radio wire drift hundreds of feet up to the surface). Since no other possibility remained I classified the track as Assumed Hostile Russian Sub, uploaded the track for the US surface ship to see and avoid, and launched a torpedo. The torpedo hit, and a “Loud explosion” was reported by the sonar operator (again, I can’t SEE it). The inset screenshot from the sim shows the assumed hit on a hostile Russian sub (the sim is only showing a sub because that is what I told it to classify the track as.)

In real life more steps you have to be taken to determine just WHAT was hit. In this simulation the aftermath report gave me an easy truth: It was an enemy submarine!

In RSR this complex process is handled automatically for you via your crew (actually, it’s handled via the nice algorithms that Larry Bond helped put into the game from his Harpoon sim). During gameplay you’ll see contacts appear on the map as low down on the spectrum as just a mere dot, with a bearing. As more accuracy is obtained by the crew you’ll see it flagged as either a Ship or a Sub, and then eventually the assumed class of vessel. In the screenshot to the right you can see the US Seawolf sub in the same area as several other contacts, some of them more precisely understood than others.

One of the limitations of the RSR sim is that all contacts that you encounter are always hostile Russian ones. There will never be a neutral tanker from another country, or another allied US sub in the area. In this way the sim falls into the “You versus the world” type of gameplay that some people are keen to criticize. Personally this type of gameplay has never bothered me, and it is not uncommon for subs to be on patrols all on their own during this era.

NOW THAT CONTACTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED…

This sim doesn’t beat around the bush: Once you’ve got contacts it’s time to get into a position whereas you can accurately fire upon them and sink them!

In the upper left portion of the main screen of RSR is your boat’s status, and it really doesn’t take the manual to explain what the details are all about (except for the bottom one). You’ve got your sub’s standard heading, its speed in knots, the depth in feet, what the current position of the rudder is, and what the position of the dive planes are (these are equivalent to an elevator on an airplane, and causes the sub to pitch up or down, sinking or rising in the water appropriately).

The first thing you need to keep clear is that your enemies are doing exactly what you are doing: Listening for sounds. The simplest way to put things is this: Energy produced is energy detectable. If you are churning your boat’s propellers as fast as they can, you are producing a lot of energy, and you are VERY easily detectable.

Submarines CREEP during most combat conditions.In fact, on the quick reference card for the game there is a key for Silent Running, and you should smack that as soon as contacts are detected. It instantly puts your propellers and engines (called screws) down to just a few knots (around 5), levels and centers the planes and rudder, and gets the crew and ship ready for business.

In the lower right corner of the above screenshot there is the number 56 displayed. This is what is called the Acoustic Transmission Index (ATI). Basically it is a numerical factor of how noisy you are. You want to keep this number as low as possible – the lower the better. If it starts turning yellow or red, then you are merely making the enemy’s job that much easier.

A number of variables affect the ATI: The type of sub – some are just flat-out noisier than others; the ability of the local water to muffle or more easily transmit noise; damage to the ship; hold warm or cold the water is; and your current depth.

AVOIDING CAVITATION

Shallow water has very little actual water pressure compared to, say, 800 feet below. If you put your boat into its highest power output and start spinning your screws at 30 knots a thing called Cavitation starts to occur, and Cavitation is LOUD. What happens is that bubbles form on the surface of the propeller (due to a complex process that is best explained in further details by reading about Cavitation over on Wikipedia). The thing to remember about Cavitation is this: Don’t do it. Those millions of bubbles forming and then popping off your screws is just flat-out loud. If a red letter C appears next to your indicated speed, then you are Cavitating – SLOW DOWN.

The inset screenshot from Dangerous Waters shows my boat Cavitating. Think of it as a very large amount of Alka Seltzer frothing behind you and just imagine how loud it is.

As you go deeper down into the ocean, especially at depths below 800 feet, the immense water pressure on the boat and screws makes Cavitation harder to occur, until you can literally zip along at 30 knots without it occurring (the energetic motion of the sub through the water still produces noise on its own, but again is muffled by the sheer depths).

Best to just keep an eye on your Acoustic Index and keep it low.

GET ME OUT OF THIS SUB SO I CAN BETTER LISTEN!

With all this attempt to not make any noise, to better listen, and to try and figure out what the enemy is doing (as well as what the enemy IS) it would actually make things easier to just get away from your own ship’s noise to hear it all better. Heck, just the sound of water moving across your own sonar slightly masks things.

The Navy kinda realized this as well, and so a nifty device called a Towed Array was developed.

Basically a cable (of a few miles in length!) is let-out from the rear of the sub (or surface ship) and towed behind the sub. You must keep moving while it is out there, at least a few knots, otherwise it sinks and is useless.

With this great distance away from all extraneous noises the sonar operators can discern sounds and details about contacts that they would otherwise miss. And, also of great importance, is that a TA (Towed Array) can let you know what is behind you (in your baffles), which is a major blind spot on all ships and subs!

The device is complex, and has a few quirks though. First, as you can imagine, you’ll hear your own sub as a contact via it during sharp turns; it must be kept afloat via constant forward motion (which means that just floating dead in the water is out); turning puts kinks in the cable that take a bit to become undone; and since it is an omnidirectional set of hydrophones it not only takes as long as regular sonar to figure contacts out, but a sub must make periodic turns so as to clarify certain oddities that are only part of the TA’s operation.

(In reality, and in Dangerous Waters, when a new contact is detected, it appears on BOTH sides of the TA because the omnidirectional nature of the array makes it impossible to determine whether the contact is to the right or left. In order to eliminate the false contact the sub must change direction, which will make the false contact move in a way that eliminates it from the equation. In RSR this is all automatically done for you by the crew when you turn – but keep it in mind.)

GETTING READY TO LAUNCH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY

The inset screenshot shows the Contacts information panel that is updated on the lower left of the screen in RSR. In this particular instance I’ve figured out that it is a Victor 1 type Soviet sub, bearing 86 degrees from me (which means that he is off to my right), he’s headed on 270 degrees at 8 knots, and he’s about 5 kiloyards from me (8 kyds is about 8,000 yards, etc.).

The other bits of information are very important as well. The SIG/SNSR portion of the display (incorrectly shown in the manual as just the word SENSOR) shows what sensors have best detected the opposing sub, as well as the strength of the signal being used. In this case I’ve detected him via Passive sonar (The predominate method, the others being A for Active Sonar, T for Towed Array, and R for Radar). It takes a signal strength of 8 points to detect the enemy, and the stronger the signal the better. You can also lose a track if it drops below 8 because your crew is zeroed-in on that particular area of the ocean and is able to still track, but just barely.).

The other bit is just as important: His signal strength. Has the enemy detected you? If you’ve figured out what kind of vessel it is, and the exact class, you have databases that you will use (automatically) that let you know the most likely means the enemy will use to detect you (In this case the P means Passive Sonar). He’s currently, based on the noise we are emitting, and a bunch of other factors, operating at about -29 signal strength on us – which means he has zero clue we are lurking nearby! It’ll take at least a signal strength of 8, just like us, for him to detect us.

And, finally, the Solution is at 51%. What this means is that if we were to launch a torpedo at the enemy, right now, it has a 51% chance of finding the sub and hitting it.

That’s if we don’t help the torpedo at all. Modern-day torpedoes have a wire that streams out of the back, connected to the ship’s systems, that allows you to sent course corrections directly to the torpedo. If left on its own the torp will get to a certain point in the water and start a search pattern all on its own (either a circular pattern that keeps the torp within the same general area or a zig-zag one that lets it search side-to-side as it goes further out).

You also need to realize this: Torpedoes are LOUD. At about 30 or so knots they really can’t be quiet. When you see the message “Transient detected at bearing XXX” that means the enemy has launched a torpedo at you, and that’s the bearing he is at. Same with you. It lets everybody know where to locate you.

The inset photograph shows a Mark 50 torpedo being dropped into the water from a surface ship.

So, you want that Solution to be as high as can be – around 75% or more under most circumstances, before blowing the lid open on your tubes and letting the shit hit the fan.

In RSR, when you launch a weapon, such as a torpedo, an Activation reticule appears on the action screen. When the weapon is launched it is unarmed, and it will head straight for the Activation point that you specify, where it will then turn on its own onboard sensors and start to look for a target.

In this ongoing example I launched the weapon way to early, and it missed the sub by a wide margin. I activated the torpedo and used the wire guidance to circle it back around, but not before the enemy launch a weapon of its own at me. It could easily turn into a case of us both blowing each other up at this point if I hadn’t launched a countermeasure.

Countermeasures are launched in order to fool torpedoes into missing. They go behind the sub and make a lot of noise for a brief period of time. In the inset shot you can see that my sub, the Seawolf, has a countermeasure behind it (the asterisk-like symbol), but the able Russian sub commander has spun the torp right back around on me!

If another countermeasure has not been loaded and readied again I’m either going to get smacked by the torp, or perhaps I can do what is called a Knuckle to try and confuse the weapon. A Knuckle is when full right or left rudder is quickly applied and a brief burst of engine speed is applied to create a spinning vortex of noisy water.

In any case I need to either get behind the enemy sub, where he is blind, and shoot him from behind, or dive deep and go fast to get out of the seeking torpedo!

WE’RE HIT!

In this example I was hit. In real life subs are very heavily compartmentalized so that flooding in one particular section can be quickly sealed-off and prevent the total loss of the boat. Dangerous Waters has detailed damage modelling as well.

In RSR you can only obtain five types of damage, and they can all be called-up onto the lower left panel via the appropriate key. The Passive Sonar can be damaged, which means that quietly listening for your enemy becomes quite a bit more difficult. Your Towed Array can be damaged, which again can make things harder. If both the Passive Sonar and the TA are damaged, then you have no choice but to turn on Active Sonar (which is the noise-making sonar that most people are familiar with) and loudly announce your position to everybody who is listening (of course you can also see them…). If you lose Active Sonar during a Training engagement in the sim you are dead in the water – you’re blind as a bat! During a campaign game you need to get your ass back to port for repairs ASAP.

You can also get damage done to your torpedo tubes, which will knock half your tubes out of action. The final category is Prop Linkage damage, which means damage to your propellers and a loss of about half your speed – it’ll take twice as much engine output to attain proper speeds.

Any more damage beyond these five categories and you’ll just sink.

In reality some repairs can be made at sea – to a certain extent. Fixing the TA, for example, assumes that it hasn’t been completely severed from the sub itself! In RSR no damage can be repaired because it is always assumed to be catastrophic. You must return to port to get repairs – or try and stick it out with a damaged system, your call.

MOPPING UP

After I sank the Victor 1 sub, and had my Passive Sonar damaged, the only remaining target that I started detecting – via the Towed Array – was a Kiev surface ship.

Since my Passive Sonar is damaged, and only my TA is working, the location of the ship bounced around on the map a bit – the crew is unable to get an exact fix.

You can engage surface ships via two methods: A torpedo or another means like a Harpoon. Harpoons are launched out of pre-loaded tubes on the sub, and you must be at 250 feet or less to launch them. The tube opens up, the weapon is shot to the surface where it then skims close to the water until it gets close to a pop-up point that you specify – after which it turns on an active homing radar and seeks the first target it finds.

The enemy ship can usually launch a anti-air missile to try and shoot down the Harpoon as well, which means the less time between the bob-up, lock-on, and impact of the Harpoon the better.

In this instance I went to a shallow 55 feet, raised the periscope, got an exact distance and bearing, and then fired the Harpoon far more precisely than my damaged sonar could. The inset screenshot shows the Harpoon bobbing-up mere seconds before impacting the ship.

THE CAMPAIGN (WWIII) SYSTEM

Besides just single encounters in the game, like the one above, the big main feature is when WWIII breaks-out between the Allies and the Soviet Union (as in the book). The campaign is basically a linked series of randomly-generated single encounters, unified by a large map of the entire theater of operation. You see satellites and aircraft whizzing rapidly over the map (due to the accelerated rate of time) as you are given a set of orders and then traverse the ocean in search of your target. You must hold-off the Soviet forces long enough to achieve a victory. Damage and weapons can only be fixed and reloaded back at the port in Scotland, and failing the mission )or losing the ship) just gives the Soviet’s more ground. You can literally see the map either filling-in with red color, or losing red color, in real time.

As certain cut scenes in the campaign are displayed a bar, with points, down at the bottom is displayed. The more blue in it, the better you are doing, and then more red in it the better the Soviets are doing.

Get the bar filled-up almost all the way with blue and the Soviets, almost every single time, will launch a desperate attempt to regain control by sending a pack of subs loaded with nuclear warheads off to launch positions. Attaining victory in the campaign game is tough, right up till the last mission.

FINAL REMARKS

I could still go on for some time talking about this awesome game, but I’ll try and wrap things up. I still haven’t talked about many other things (such as moving through quiet sections of water in order to improve your listening). The manual includes lots of additional details that you’ll need to know, such as how to use and understand temperature layers in the ocean, weapons, platforms, historical details, details of how sonar works, and more in-depth info on how to play the sim effectively.

Once nice set of options is the ability to set both the date that the sim takes place in, as well as the overall difficulty of the AI. The era basically determines what types of subs are available to both you and the Soviets – with the US forces gaining considerable ground the closer you move towards 1988 (the Seawolf is the final answer in the sim to just about everything). And the overall difficulty level determines how realistic the sim is in terms of torpedo avoidance, weapon effectiveness, and how smart your foes are. The difficulty level above Normal is actually the most realistic of the 4 levels, with the 4th being mercilessly hard at times.

Combining the two can make for some challenging situations, such as early-era US subs not having Stinger missiles onboard to shoot-down helicopters above the surface. See, a helicopter can enter into a hover and dip a sonar into the water to listen to things. It can also fly to various locations and drop Sonobouys, which are small self-contained sonar packages that transmit their information back to the helo via radio (your sub will never know they are there!). Once the helicopter has determined where you are at it will switch a few of the buoys over to Active Sonar and drop torpedoes practically right on top of you! The inset screenshot from Dangerous Waters shows a US Seahawk hovering with its dipping Sonar down into the water.

Update on June 29th, 2012:
I had experienced technical issues at the time of originally writing this article that prevented me from creating any gameplay videos. I have now uploaded four of them, so enjoy.  =)

- Click here for a brief example of the WWIII campaign game.
- Click here for a Seawolf class sub vs. two other Russian subs.
- Click here for a Seawolf sub unleashing its firepower against a surface fleet
- Click here for an example of how difficult it can be to track ultra-quiet Soviet subs

On June 12th, 2012 I uploaded this excellent game to my Downloads section, all ready in DOSBox, along with a scan of the original manual (print or read it!) and a key command listing that I created (the original game came with an overlay that rested on the keyboard, but it is incompatible with all modern keyboards). Head on over there and see if the download is still available, and enjoy! =)

TIPS:
- When the game boots it will always ask if you have a joystick, and what graphics and sound options you want. Say no to the joystick and use VGA and Adlib sound.
- READ THE MANUAL.
- During the WWIII campaign be careful when you are trying to locate your mission target on the map. You can hold down the Shift key to make your sub move quite fast, but if you encounter the enemy while doing this you’ll be dropped into combat doing 25 knots or so!
- Getting the sub to go back into port for reloads and repairs takes a little wiggling to maneuver through the craggy coastlines.

See upcoming releases.

See upcoming releases.

AND

Above His Proper Station by Lawrence Watt-Evans

The Barsoom Project by Larry Niven and Steven Barnes

The next 3 months of releases are listed here.

See what titles are releasing over the next 3 months.

Goals for April:

• Write 250 words a day. April 1-12 are excused. - No.

Goals for May

• Write 250 words a day.

This month I read only a few books. I finished reading Split, by Tara Moss, then moved onto A Man Called Blessed, by Ted Dekker and Bill Bright, and Red Phoenix by Larry Bond. I really enjoyed Bond’s novel, and I’m looking for more. I’m now reading The Atlantis Code by Charles Brokaw.

Enter for a chance to win an advance reading copy on

About Crash Dive: They are the ultimate unseen deterrent in modern warfare.  Thousands of tons of steel, missiles, torpedoes, and men, lurking silently hundreds of feet underwater, able to lie off any coastline and unleash a devastating hail of destruction with pinpoint accuracy.  They are the true masters of the oceans, bringing hostile military sea traffic to a standstill, striking swift and unseen, and slipping away in an instant, ready to do it all over again at a moment’s notice.Edited by best-selling author Larry Bond, Crash Dive collects the best non-fiction excerpts about the mighty submarines and the crews that man them.  From the tough Gato-class boats that harassed the Japanese Navy during World War II to the cat-and-mouse games played by U.S. and Soviet submarines during the Cold War, Crash Dive will take you inside the silent but deadly world of the military submarine.

Enter to win here!

(Ends March 17, 2010)

Congrats to Larry Bond!

Red Storm Rising

The novel eventually lent its name to a game development company called Red Storm Entertainment, which Clancy co-founded in 1997.

This techno-thriller is an examination of a conventional ground war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Clancy suggests that several conventional ideas about a ground conflict between modern armies are wrong. For example, he proposes that munitions expenditures would be far higher than projected; that combat helicopters like the AH-64 Apache and the Mi-24 Hind are not nearly as survivable as projected; that the mobility granted by modern armor means that the Soviet doctrine of a massed thrust achieving a breakthrough of the opposing front is ill-founded—the enemy lines can withdraw and reform rather than break; and modern air power can only dominate a battlefield in the absence of an opposing modern air force.

Clancy also incorporated the rumored F-19 stealth fighter into his plot. The existence of stealth aircraft was an open secret among aerospace watchers in the 1980s, but was highly classified at the time the novel was written. In actuality, computers of the day were not powerful enough to design the F-19′s curved surfaces, resulting instead in the simpler and more angular F-117 Nighthawk.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, although far more of a mismatch than a late-1980s NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict would have been, did provide some evidence for Clancy’s hypotheses. The U.S. Army’s Apaches proved more vulnerable to ground fire than had been predicted, and by the war’s end the majority of close air support was being delivered by the more heavily armored A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft. Fittingly, Clancy identifies the A-10 as being a key weapon in his Red Storm Rising scenario. He even has the Russian armored forces dub it the “Devil’s Cross” due to its ability to destroy many tanks before being driven off by portable SAMs, and due to the Russians’ perception of its profile, from an angle, as similar to that of the Russian Orthodox crucifix. His predictions on the high rate of munitions expenditure also appears to have been borne out—even though the initial attack on Iraq was short, it drained U.S. arsenals to an alarming extent, forcing the Pentagon to undertake a crash program to rebuild stocks of smart bombs.

Evidence for the prediction of high expenditures of munitions was already available from the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In this conflict both sides consumed munitions so rapidly that within one week of the start of combat, both the United States and the Soviet Union had to airlift munitions to their respective client states (Israel for the U.S., Egypt and Syria for the Soviet Union) to avoid a collapse of their respective armed forces.

Another point of interest is the use of America’s Iowa-class battleships, which in the novel are sent to Iceland to support the United States Marines and British Paras during their amphibious landing and air assault. The effective use of battleships in modern war was demonstrated during the 1991 Gulf War, when the Missouri and Wisconsin shelled shore-based artillery sites, antiship missile facilities, and Iraqi troop concentrations arrayed along the coasts of Iraq and Kuwait, and on Faylaka Island.

Of interesting note is the lack of mention of special operations forces during the conflict, such as US Navy SEALS and Army Rangers. The only special forces groups mentioned are the Soviet Spetsnaz, German GSG-9, Marine Force Recon and British SAS groups in the opening hours of the conflict and a limited British Royal Marine presence on Iceland several weeks after the Soviet invasion. Many strategists suggest these units would be used to disrupt various tactical and strategic aspects of the opposing side’s efforts. In the case of the novel, Special Operation teams could have been used to harass Soviet air operations in Norway, or even on the Kola Peninsula itself. Omitting these special ops groups is unusual for Clancy, whose other works often focus on the capabilities of special operations forces.

Clancy’s descriptions of NAS Keflavik, Iceland, and the surrounding area, were extremely accurate.(source)

Download the eBook Here

Congrats to Larry Bond!