After a long absence, I’ve finally come back to Harpoon.
Like many wargamers, I never really left it behind completely. The system has always been sitting there in the background—part reference work, part memory, part unfinished business. For a long time it stayed on the shelf, overshadowed by other games and, frankly, the time commitment it demands when played properly.
Lately, though, something has shifted. I’ve been looking for a deeper, more deliberate style of play—something less about quick resolution and more about decision-making under uncertainty. That’s exactly where Harpoon excels. It doesn’t just model combat. It models the problem of not knowing—where the enemy is, what they intend, and how quickly things can unravel once contact is made.
So I’ve decided to come back to it, but with a different approach.
Why Solo Play?
In the past, the biggest barrier was always finding opponents willing to invest the time and energy. Harpoon is not a casual game. It demands attention, patience, and a willingness to track a lot of moving parts. Coordinating that with another player can be difficult.
Solo play solves that problem—but introduces a new one: how do you preserve uncertainty and tension when you are playing both sides?
That question is what this blog will largely be about.
I’m not interested in playing both sides optimally. That turns Harpoon into a spreadsheet exercise, and a very boring one at that. Instead, I want to explore ways to recreate the fog of war:
- strict information discipline
- contact-driven decision-making
- doctrine-based behavior
- and, importantly, a willingness to make imperfect decisions
Recently, I’ve started developing a dice-driven AI system to manage opposing forces. It’s not meant to be clever—it’s meant to be consistent with doctrine while still unpredictable. Early results are promising, and I’ll be sharing and refining those ideas here.
Starting Simple
To ease back into the system, I’m beginning with small, focused scenarios. The first one is an air-to-air engagement over the North Sea: a Soviet strike package escorted by MiG-23s facing RAF Phantoms. It’s deliberately limited in scope, but it highlights several core tensions:
- escort versus strike priorities
- beyond-visual-range engagement decisions
- timing and disruption
- fuel and commitment
Even in this relatively small setup, you immediately see what makes Harpoon unique. The key question isn’t “Can I win the fight?”—it’s “Can I achieve the mission before the situation collapses?”
What This Blog Will Cover
This blog will serve as a personal record and a working notebook. Expect a mix of:
- Scenario reports (successes and failures alike)
- Notes on rules and interpretations
- Development of solo play methods and AI systems
- Reflections on tactics and command decisions
I’ll try to keep things grounded in actual play rather than theory. Harpoon only really comes alive when you run it and see how the pieces interact over time.
Final Thoughts
Coming back to Harpoon after a long break is a bit like returning to a complex instrument. You remember just enough to get started, but the real depth only comes back with practice.
That’s the journey I’m starting again now—this time with fewer illusions about playing perfectly, and more focus on playing authentically.
If nothing else, I expect a lot of lessons learned the hard way and that, in Harpoon, usually means things are going right.
