UPDATED to Version 2 "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for Testing

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

UPDATED to Version 2 "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for Testing

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> UPDATED to Version 2 "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for Testing

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

UPDATED to Version 2 "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019&qu... - 8/2/2017 11:29:45 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Zip file updated to Version 3 based on the further comments in the posts below, see below for Version 3 changes...

I've been working on this scenario for about a month and a half. It postulates a 2019 engagement between NATO and Russia in the Nord Kapp, Norway and Norwegian Sea area. NATO is slightly out of position with Russia having the advantage of concentration of force. It is very large and pretty complex. As it is large I have found it sometimes locks up on my laptop when saving. So if you take it on you might only want to save the game when you are ready to take a break and rely on the autosave. I have found the autosave works pretty well if I do experience a lock up.

So constructive suggestions are certainly appreciated!

Very Respectfully,
Al "Beachinnole" Sandrik

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Beachinnole -- 8/4/2017 1:47:11 PM >

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

Post #: 1

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 12:41:09 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

Beachinnole

Having had some experience with building large scenarios, a good trick to avoid the issue you describe is to pause the game (space bar), save (Alt+S), un-pause. The lockup on save usually happens when something is happening simultaneously - like an aircraft being shot down or a missile missing. Doesn't always work but helps.

This one seems right up my alley, so will give it a try.

Thanks.

B

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 2

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 2:15:38 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

I like it!

A couple of quick observations to assist with scenario size issues:

-Turn the relief layers off, a player can turn them on for specific purpose then turn them off again
-The 'No Nav Zone' around Sweden/Finland is going to be a real resource hog. It looks good and probably took you hours to build, but the game measures against each side edge of the zone for each 'Side' in the game. Not sure how often but quite a bit. Not much to do about this now but is good to keep in mind for future scenarios.
-Turn the Biologic side to 'Blind' and 'Collective responsibility' OFF
-Turn all the range circles off for the non player sides
-All bases are full up units with no single unit airfields. This presumes that all are going to be susceptible to attack or you want to keep the player guessing. If not you should as a mater of routine make them 'Single Unit Airfields' which saves a lot of game resources.

The unit count is really not that high, only about 2000 or so. I'd call that easily manageable, however it will likely climb quite a bit later.

A few quick observations (from the NATO side)

-Its probably a good idea to make many of the missions 'Scrub if human side' to allow the player to decide what to do with his resources.
-STANAVFORLANT, was disbanded in 2003, and replaced by Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG 1) which is in the Arabian gulf, and SNMG 2 in the Med. Easily feasible that SNMG 1 could move in times of tension so I would just change the name.
-The ready times for the STANAVFORLANT Helo's are quite long and there is a UH-46 with a cargo load on the ASW patrol which seems odd.

Nice briefings. A couple minor bits:
-Should be Prince of Wales in the Scenario brief
-Comd 6th Fleet is in Rota not Naples
-This is real nit-picky - the security classification wording should probably be TOP SECRECT REL NATO, having NO Foreign in there is a bit of a contradiction.

Some force structure observations - these are simply comments based on my understanding of the force deployments, play balance is up to you so disregard freely:
-48 FW at Lakenheath are full up 24 ship Sqns, I think the Panthers actually have 28 or 29 AC
-48 FW is due for an F-35 Sqn in 2020 and another in 2022, only one of the F-15 Sqns is scheduled to disband, that is a little later than your timeline but might fit with a couple of your changes
-Very likely that a 'Rapid Raptor' sqn of F-22s would have deployed somewhere into theatre given the rising tensions
-Very possible that a 'Forward Deployed' F-35 Sqn might be in theater already
-6th Fleet at Rota has 4 DDGs, a couple SSNs a Sqn of MPA http://www.c6f.navy.mil/
- Perhaps one or two of those assets in port with a delay ready time might be appropriate.
-There are usually a couple MC-130 Compass Call and U-2 in Europe, probably Mildenhall
-Unlikely that the MPA would deploy to Kef without protection, I think either 1st or 27th FS out of Langley would be the likely candidates - or the Rapid Raptors.

OK enough nit picking, I'm going in.

B

-6th Flt in Rota

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 3

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 12:24:39 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Thanks Gunner. I really appreciate the help. I learn a game by designing scenarios and your help is appreciated! A lot of good suggestion and I will answer some when on a computer and not a phone! :-). About 80-90% Of the suggestions I will tweak. Some of the things I did. Is because I am an old fart and that's the way it was 30 years ago!!!!!

< Message edited by Beachinnole -- 8/3/2017 12:31:55 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 4

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 1:36:23 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

No problem, I do the same.

I am noticing that you could be using Events and missions to more advantage.

When I have a chance I'll PM you with some thoughts.

B

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 5

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 2:40:36 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Thanks for your help! Some thoughts based on your comments...

quote:

Turn the relief layers off, a player can turn them on for specific purpose then turn them off again

Will do!

quote:

The 'No Nav Zone' around Sweden/Finland is going to be a real resource hog. It looks good and probably took you hours to build, but the game measures against each side edge of the zone for each 'Side' in the game. Not sure how often but quite a bit. Not much to do about this now but is good to keep in mind for future scenarios.

Well this is a Beta Test for the scenario Don't see why I couldn't change it. I wondered in the "BREXIT" Live scenario why the Kaliningrad exclusion area was so blocky. If it is a resource hog I can change. Yes was a lot of work!

quote:

Turn the Biologic side to 'Blind' and 'Collective responsibility' OFF

Will do!

quote:

Turn all the range circles off for the non player sides

Will do!

quote:

All bases are full up units with no single unit airfields. This presumes that all are going to be susceptible to attack or you want to keep the player guessing. If not you should as a mater of routine make them 'Single Unit Airfields' which saves a lot of game resources.

I had more airbases in and removed them to avoid using up resources. Even single unit airfields were deleted. The ones in Russia will never be hit so can't see re-adding them. I tried a TLAM attack on one last night and the S-400 system wiped the attack out.

quote:

Its probably a good idea to make many of the missions 'Scrub if human side' to allow the player to decide what to do with his resources.

Set to play both sides as computer or human or I would.

quote:

STANAVFORLANT, was disbanded in 2003, and replaced by Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG 1) which is in the Arabian gulf, and SNMG 2 in the Med. Easily feasible that SNMG 1 could move in times of tension so I would just change the name.

Did I say I was an old fart!

Will adjust this

Likely to SNMG 2 as is ir more likely the Med group could make it in time.

quote:

The ready times for the STANAVFORLANT Helo's are quite long and there is a UH-46 with a cargo load on the ASW patrol which seems odd.

Wanted to stretch out ready times to keep all helios from taking off at once. Event with the 1/3 they were all taking off together, I assume because of different vessels? On the 46, I got lazy! I'll create and Unrep mission for it.

quote:

Should be Prince of Wales in the Scenario brief

I will expand on the CV's status, figure the PoW is still fitting out which is why its F35 Squadron is assigned to QE.

quote:

48 FW at Lakenheath are full up 24 ship Sqns, I think the Panthers actually have 28 or 29 AC

I figure some are engaged over the Baltic.

quote:

48 FW is due for an F-35 Sqn in 2020 and another in 2022, only one of the F-15 Sqns is scheduled to disband, that is a little later than your timeline but might fit with a couple of your changes

Considered but I wanted to 2019 time frame to get the second Kirov BCGN in the mix.

quote:

Comd 6th Fleet is in Rota not Naples

Old fart excuse, I will change! Thanks and nice catch

quote:

This is real nit-picky - the security classification wording should probably be TOP SECRECT REL NATO, having NO Foreign in there is a bit of a contradiction.

Picking nits is a good thing. Old fart excuse (we had "No Foreign" in our classification status in the 80s) and another good catch, will change.

quote:

Very likely that a 'Rapid Raptor' sqn of F-22s would have deployed somewhere into theatre given the rising tensions
-Very possible that a 'Forward Deployed' F-35 Sqn might be in theater already

I assumed all F35 & F22 reinforcements would be deployed to Poland and the "Central Front."

quote:

6th Fleet at Rota has 4 DDGs, a couple SSNs a Sqn of MPA http://www.c6f.navy.mil/

I would assume they will have some issues to address in the Med (Syria/eastern Med might be the next scenario in this line).

quote:

Perhaps one or two of those assets in port with a delay ready time might be appropriate.

Considered, part of my learning curve. The Norwegian NAval based is stocked to resupply the Storm MTBs and SS's should they survive that long (they haven't so far).

quote:

There are usually a couple MC-130 Compass Call and U-2 in Europe, probably Mildenhall

Hmmm The heavy Satellite coverage is daunting. With NATO hard pressed in the Baltics and near Poland wonder where those resources would be used?

quote:

Unlikely that the MPA would deploy to Kef without protection, I think either 1st or 27th FS out of Langley would be the likely candidates - or the Rapid Raptors.

Not sure I agree with that as in this scenario's assumptions, we are just in negotiations to reactivate that base and no stores for the top cover are available on base. The assumption is we received permission to reactivate as an MPA base and stores for that are already on hand and the Squadron is hastily/early deployed.

I'm a bit worried about making NATO all powerful because once the Russian SAG and CVBG break out into the southern portion of the Norwegian Sea they will have their hands full with the QE group and Tornado's. Maybe even the P-3C Harpoons (which is a reason they are there for their Harpoon capability).

quote:

I am noticing that you could be using Events and missions to more advantage.

Thanks, yeah I was keeping them simple as I learn!

Today the Events, tomorrow LUA!

< Message edited by Beachinnole -- 8/3/2017 4:27:56 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 6

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 2:50:41 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

Fare enough on all points.

Being a Cdn with 38 years of service I'll keep my opinion on US security classifications to myself

quote:

Set to play both sides as human or I would.

The feature to scrub a mission if human is specifically for this purpose.

If the Human is playing NATO, the NATO missions marked this way will be scrubbed but the Russian ones will remain. And the reverse is true. So your AI programing remains for the side that is AI but does not clutter up the player side.

B

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 7

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 3:49:06 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Actually as I work on the changes for version 2.0 I think I will leave that exclusion zone stand!

I have most of the changes made from your suggestions per my reply above, I have edited the original post and add the modifications.

Al

< Message edited by Beachinnole -- 8/3/2017 3:59:45 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 8

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 4:06:56 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

The feature to scrub a mission if human is specifically for this purpose.

If the Human is playing NATO, the NATO missions marked this way will be scrubbed but the Russian ones will remain. And the reverse is true. So your AI programing remains for the side that is AI but does not clutter up the player side.

Understood on the Security clearances!

I just found the above and will likely do this for some of them. Question though I have found many scenarios where things are set up already WRT missions. Do most prefer to scrub them on taking over and set up their own? Or do they prefer to modify preexisting when they take over?

Al

< Message edited by Beachinnole -- 8/3/2017 4:25:29 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 9

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 4:20:12 PM

lamboman43

Posts: 96
Joined: 4/15/2016
Status: offline

PERSONALLY, I prefer to have the missions already set up and then modify them my self. Having them already set up gives me an idea about what the operation requires and still allows me to make changes as I see fit. I may have 1500 hours in CMANO, but I still like some help. Like I said, though, that is just my opinion.

< Message edited by lamboman43 -- 8/3/2017 4:21:34 PM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 10

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 4:24:42 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

PERSONALLY, I prefer to have the missions already set up and then modify them my self. Having them already set up gives me an idea about what the operation requires and still allows me to make changes as I see fit. I may have 1500 hours in CMANO, but I still like some help. Like I said, though, that is just my opinion.

That is somewhat my thought as well, and they are a lot of work to set up. I also think it makes a difference into how much thought the designer has put into them. I find some of the scenarios I play I leave them alone or tweak and others I've wiped them out and changed wholesale. I think this is a preference thing.

_____________________________

(in reply to lamboman43)

Post #: 11

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 4:39:24 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

My experience is that the routine missions - such as ASW & AEW patrols are good to leave. But the offensive missions like ASuW patrols and Strike missions tend to get in the players way.

You will often hear a cry on the Forum 'Hay why did XXX happen' and it is often that a designer created offensive mission kicks in, and the player either doesn't realize it or hasn't done a double check on the Doctrine settings.

So on larger scenarios I will set up ASW, AEW, AAW missions with a few AC each (not all available - 4 for AAW will allow 2 up on ptl. 2 for AEW etc), so that your giving the player a hand. But I leave the rest to him/her

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 12

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 4:57:44 PM

Schr75

Posts: 803
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I�m with Gunner98 on this one.

In the complex scenarios it�s nice that the "standard" ASW, AEW and perhaps CAP missions are already set up, but the strike missions and more complex scenario specific missions should be left to the player.
Both to prevent the forum posts Gunner98 mentioned and not to give too much away to the player at game start.

To me a lot of the fun is in coming up with a plan and setting the missions up. This way I also only have one person to blame if the whole plan falls apart

In smaller scenarios I set up all missions my self, but I�m also a compulsive micro manager so perhaps I�m not the most typical of players

Just my two cents, and I will definitely give this scen a try as soon as I have the time.

S�ren

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 13

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 5:02:03 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

My experience is that the routine missions - such as ASW & AEW patrols are good to leave. But the offensive missions like ASuW patrols and Strike missions tend to get in the players way.

Actually great minds think alike, because when I said I may do this for some above those were my thoughts. In fact play the Russians I just wiped out teh missions I created and reallocated my SEAD missions.

quote:

You will often hear a cry on the Forum 'Hay why did XXX happen' and it is often that a designer created offensive mission kicks in, and the player either doesn't realize it or hasn't done a double check on the Doctrine settings.

Understood and I have seen it.

quote:

So on larger scenarios I will set up ASW, AEW, AAW missions with a few AC each (not all available - 4 for AAW will allow 2 up on ptl. 2 for AEW etc), so that your giving the player a hand. But I leave the rest to him/her

Good advice!

_____________________________

(in reply to Schr75)

Post #: 14

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 5:06:14 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

To me a lot of the fun is in coming up with a plan and setting the missions up. This way I also only have one person to blame if the whole plan falls apart

I agree, actually its why I enjoy designing scenarios more than plying them, to put my own spin on things.

quote:

In smaller scenarios I set up all missions my self, but I�m also a compulsive micro manager so perhaps I�m not the most typical of players

I think most of us are micro-managers in the game or we wouldn't play it. Seems to me the generalist gravitate more to the Beer and Pretzel's games. I'm in trouble now

quote:

I will definitely give this scen a try as soon as I have the time.

Thanks, hope you enjoy it and I'm going to make that change for the ASuW missions but that will be in version 3.0.

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 15

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 5:52:46 PM

Excroat3

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

My thoughts as I'm setting up missions and changing loadouts:

You have a lot of aircraft (at least on NATO's side) that are set as reserve (without a loadout) but still are assigned to their respective missions. I'm not sure if you meant to make these guys unavailable because of matinee or give them a loadout, but I gave them a loadout. Also, planes set to Maintenance (unavailable) are assigned to missions. I'm not sure if that causes problems later on, but I unassigned them just in case.

You also have A2G units (the tornadoes) assigned to the Lossiemouth AAW mission

For your question about the 1/3rd rule, even if all the different helicopters were assigned to the same mission, the 1/3rd rule only applies to units of the same type. So a Lynx and NH-90 will take off at the same time because they are not the same type of helicopter, while 2 Merlins will adhere to the 1/3rd rule because they are the same.

< Message edited by Excroat3 -- 8/3/2017 5:56:38 PM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 16

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 7:31:26 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

For your question about the 1/3rd rule, even if all the different helicopters were assigned to the same mission, the 1/3rd rule only applies to units of the same type. So a Lynx and NH-90 will take off at the same time because they are not the same type of helicopter, while 2 Merlins will adhere to the 1/3rd rule because they are the same.

Thanks. Yeah I actually did figure that out and that was why I spaced the ASW Helio ready times to spread the missions out.

quote:

You also have A2G units (the tornadoes) assigned to the Lossiemouth AAW mission

Thanks, I'll look at that!

quote:

You have a lot of aircraft (at least on NATO's side) that are set as reserve (without a loadout) but still are assigned to their respective missions. I'm not sure if you meant to make these guys unavailable because of matinee or give them a loadout, but I gave them a loadout. Also, planes set to Maintenance (unavailable) are assigned to missions. I'm not sure if that causes problems later on, but I unassigned them just in case.

So here were my thoughts for what they are worth.

I figure the Maintenance aircraft are long term issues, not usable for the duration. Then my thoughts are the Reserve aircraft would be more short term maintenance issues and actual reserve aircraft that if assigned to the mission the A/I would use to make good initial combat losses with the proper load out. So I put them in their like that for the A/I Would the above be a mistaken assumption? Does the A/I keep them in reserve or will it assign them to the later missions with a proper load out?

< Message edited by Beachinnole -- 8/3/2017 7:32:50 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Excroat3)

Post #: 17

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 7:50:36 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

No the AI will keep them as Reserve for the duration unless you 'Lua' them differently.

Having the Maint birds assigned to a mission is also problematic as it will through the ratios out - I think, not 100% sure.

What I normally do is:
~20% on Maint - as you say long term stuff. Even in a 5 day scenario and an AC has a 2 day engine change or something - it finishes and another takes over its spot under the wrench - so it all works out.
~10-20 in reserve at a long lead time to represent those that are coming off Maint and going into the rotation. If the side is possibly going to be AI you need to add a Lua event to achieve the same thing for the AI side
~50% of remainder ready to roll in all respects
~50% of remainder not ready, most with the standard reload delay, some shorter some longer to add some scheduling issues for the player.

Your story line will affect this however and it is totally up to you how you want to tell the story. For instance in one of the NF scenarios (Decapitation I think), the 2x CVNs had been in constant operation for 3 full days so about 1/2 of the AC were in Maint or Reserve with about 8-10 hrs on the clock - just to drive the story home.

For missions keep all Maint and Reserve AC out of the count. Either the player can add them later or you Lua them in.

B

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 18

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 8:07:40 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Thanks will rework the reserve aircraft and give them a longer ready time with a load out. LUA is a bit out of my skills right now.

< Message edited by Beachinnole -- 8/3/2017 8:08:43 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 19

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 9:20:06 PM

Excroat3

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

My AAR so far:

As soon as the scenario started, I outfitted my F-15E, Tornado, and Typhoon squadrons with AAW and ASuW weapons and set them to ferry to Orland and Vaernes airbases to be closer to the action. C-5s and C-17s will follow with reloads for their munitions (I'll use the editor to do this). Meanwhile, farther north, my F-16s use the cover of the mountains to their advantage, flying low and fast to use their short ranged AIM-120Bs to take out patrolling pairs of Mig-31s, Mig-29s, and Su-33s. The Russians respond with missile attacks on my land forces, destroying a number of radars, fuel tanks, and hangars. Unluckily, I lose an F-16 parked in a hanger - my first fighter loss of the scenario. I'm sure there will be many to come.

Misc notes:
You need to uncheck the "investigate contacts outside the patrol area" for the ASW Kuznetsov mission, as I caught 2 Ka-27s trying to fly over all of Norway to prosecute a contact in the English Channel!

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 20

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 9:26:10 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

You need to uncheck the "investigate contacts outside the patrol area" for the ASW Kuznetsov mission, as I caught 2 Ka-27s trying to fly over all of Norway to prosecute a contact in the English Channel!

Thanks. I thought about the possibility of someone sending the UK squadrons north to Norway. Considering the combat on the Central Front, and possible air/nuclear attacks on the UK itself, maybe a game tactic that wouldn't fly in real life?

_____________________________

(in reply to Excroat3)

Post #: 21

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 9:38:09 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

This is out of date Cold war stuff but reinforcing Sqns to Norway is the only way it will survive. NATO and the UK in particular cannot allow the Sov's to get the north Flank or the threat of Nuclear and much more goes off the scale. On the central front you have significant buffer to hold things back - at least in Cold war days.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 22

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 10:29:34 PM

Excroat3

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

My logic was that if it was in the scenario, the player has total freedom with it. I simply wouldn't put the fighters in the game if they weren't meant to be moved around. In my head, all of the RAF bases are jammed full of F-22s, F-35s, Tornadoes and more, but the aircraft I actually "see" in game are the ones slated to reinforce Norway, rather than the Central Front.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 23

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 11:13:46 PM

Primarchx

Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

You make a point of referring to the Admiral Nakhimov as a 'he' but then wind up calling it a her.

"Prince of Whales"?

I'm looking forward to trying it.

(in reply to Excroat3)

Post #: 24

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 11:21:20 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

My logic was that if it was in the scenario, the player has total freedom with it. I simply wouldn't put the fighters in the game if they weren't meant to be moved around. In my head, all of the RAF bases are jammed full of F-22s, F-35s, Tornadoes and more, but the aircraft I actually "see" in game are the ones slated to reinforce Norway, rather than the Central Front.

You are correct. That is the thing about designing a scenario. You have a thought process on how and when the units with be used and that doesn't always correspond to the players assumptions! And that is one reason to beta test! Thanks you've given me some things to consider.

< Message edited by Beachinnole -- 8/4/2017 12:06:40 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Excroat3)

Post #: 25

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 11:23:52 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Prince of Whales

Did I actually do that! LMAO!!!!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 26

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 11:27:19 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

This is out of date Cold war stuff but reinforcing Sqns to Norway is the only way it will survive. NATO and the UK in particular cannot allow the Sov's to get the north Flank or the threat of Nuclear and much more goes off the scale. On the central front you have significant buffer to hold things back - at least in Cold war days.

I hope out of date Cold War stuff!

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 27

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/3/2017 11:35:35 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

that doesn't always correspond to the players assumptions

You are so right. I build exercises for a living now and we have two very key sayings:

1) You come up with three possible options, the training audience will find the 5th solution!
2) Simulation has to be realistic - reality doesn't

B

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 28

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/4/2017 12:05:45 AM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Hey guys keep it coming this is all good stuff! Great suggestions.

Gunner if this were Facebook I'd "Like" your last comment!!!!!

Based on feed back so far, I'm probably

1. going to loose the SSBNs and their SS/SSN escorts from the game. They atre part of the story but realistically will never be in play unless nukes are released.

2. I agree Norway would be reinforced by NATO going to keep one Tornado squadron and one F-15 Squadron for that and put load outs for them in Norwegian bases The other fighters and such in the U.K. Will be assumed to be flying CAP and removed from the scenario.

3. I think one Tornado Squadron at RAF Loussiemouth needs to come into play but late should the Russian CVBG or SAG make it to the GIUK Gap. Maybe one Typhoon Squadron late for the same reason.

4. Learn to spell!

I'm going to say this working on this scenario has really brought home just how much the Russian conventional forces have atrophied compared to NATO. That scared the C*** out of me as it just reinforces my view they will move to TAC Nukes really fast!

Al

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 29

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/4/2017 12:09:39 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

1. going to loose the SSBNs and their SS/SSN escorts from the game. They atre part of the story but realistically will never be in play unless nukes are released.

You can always put them on an allied side so that the player knows they are there but has no control - but if things get messy they will engage

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> UPDATED to Version 2 "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for Testing

Page: [1] 2 next > >>