New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury

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 >> New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/23/2018 3:58:39 AM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

I would welcome any comments or criticism. This is my first scenario so I welcome any advice.
been meaning to try my hand for a few years now.

This scenario will require the Chains of War add on as it has Amphibious operations using the cargo functions.

Thanks,
Dave

(Scenario posted to the "Ready scenarios posts")

< Message edited by daveoreno -- 11/6/2018 9:28:41 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/23/2018 5:25:03 AM

Whicker

Posts: 664
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline

ok, that looks really good.
Very nice description/briefing.

I poked around a bit but didn't play, but it looks very well done. If this is your first I would say right off the bat I will start you at an A+.

I find it is always best to have a little help on the intel with some spy work. That bit of lua is interesting, haven't seen that before.

minor edits to the briefing:
- 3rd paragraph or so 2nd sentence: "NSWC assets have have also confirmed" extra 'have'
- necessary is spelled wrong in a couple places

(in reply to daveoreno)

Post #: 2

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/23/2018 9:58:56 AM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

Thanks for taking a look.

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 3

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 12:49:25 AM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

Just to excite a little interest I wanted to mention that this 28 hour long fast paced scenario involves...

-Realistic OOBs
-Realistic dynamic weather
-Multiple scripted events
-Player Special Action choices
-Space based reconnaissance
-Stealth on Stealth BVR fighter battles
and
-Opposed amphibious operations

(in reply to daveoreno)

Post #: 4

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 2:00:59 AM

Whicker

Posts: 664
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline

I try to abide by the scenario brief as best I can, regarding:
"You are to avoid open conflict with Chinese surface forces unless they attempt to hinder this operation"

how should I view subs? If I find a sub I would like to sink it, are they considered surface forces? some of the language is fairly specific as to not just bombing anything that moves. I would prefer more specific rules of engagement, especially for subs, but also AC and ships. Something like anything within x miles of either the carrier or amphib groups should be sunk/shot down (in the absence of other outright hostilities), otherwise just keep an eye on it?

(in reply to daveoreno)

Post #: 5

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 4:30:43 AM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

daveoreno.....
im giving this a play just turned the clock on.... one thing i notice is the sh-60b seahawk... have all been converted or replaced with the mh-60r romeo series a few years ago... they have greater capabilities... sensors and data-link.....
im going to change all of them out... and possibly the sonobouys... ill see...

this looks like its going to be fun.....

(in reply to daveoreno)

Post #: 6

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 5:43:07 AM

Whicker

Posts: 664
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline

finished with 7 hours left with a total disaster of -3610 so apparently I broke the lowest score possible lol.

Scoring seemed a little harsh. Lost 500 points right off the bat cause I took a patrol boat out and it hit a mine pretty quick. They were there (PBs not mines) so I though I should use it for something but not sure what that would have been. You can do the scoring via one lua event and it is easier to control what type of unit gets what score, so it would be easier to count the PB as a lower score than the CGs and what not, also cleans up your events/triggers/actions quite a bit.

I didn't do any of the special actions, had plenty of cruise missiles and while I was running out of fighters I was still ok. Lost the Princeton I think.

I thought I actually did ok (not triumph but ok), so I was a little surprised at the score. I did lose 4 f35s and 7 f18s and about a dozen choppers (and the Princeton)... and a P8. But I took out 3 subs, 30 fighters (17 J31s) and half dozen or so badgers, and accomplished the mission with plenty of time to spare. I did not attack any of their ships, just did what the mission said to do, didn't want to attack the carrier but I suppose I could have.

I thought the badger attack needed some air cover, they were sitting ducks, lucky they didn't all die.

As far as I could tell there were no problem, no lua errors or anything.
I didn't like the limited loadout for the cobras, seems unlikely they wouldn't have anything besides rockets. And the first thing I did was detach the sub from the carrier group - doesn't seem like you would want it on station like that.

In looking at the scoring it looks like you are doing one score for loosing an AC and another score if it is an F35 - so it is doing both on any f35 lost, not sure that is intentional or not, they are expensive so maybe it is intended. I do tend to loose them for some reason.

< Message edited by Whicker -- 10/24/2018 5:48:28 AM >

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 7

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 11:18:43 AM

templar42

Posts: 42
Joined: 8/16/2018
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline

Hi daveoreno,

Thanks for this scenario - I'm less than 3 hours in and really enjoying it. The J-31 adds real difficulty, especially as I'm not detecting emissions from them and they appear to be on internal loadouts. Too many scenarios have OPFOR stealth fighters that aren't stealthy enough! I think I noticed that the cloud cover disappeared during the scenario, which, again, is a really welcome bit of realism not seen enough.

Just a few points that I noted down so far:

I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem realistic to have the Fleet Class USV sailing in formation as part of an ESG. The database lists it as LCS based, so why not give the player an LCS with it embarked? If you choose a relatively toothless LCS configuration (not hard!) it shouldn't affect the balance.

The Super Hornet loadouts are a little eccentric, I think. An entire squadron is equipped with MALD for example. Most players don't want to use MALD because there is a bug in Command that causes the AI not to engage decoys unless it's at Weapons Free (I recall seeing a thread about this a while back). Maybe a few aircraft might be given Maverick or HARM loadouts?

Also, given that ATFLIR is present in good numbers on the CVN, it's odd that the AIM-120 loadouts at the start don't have it. If you're making a point about its utility against the J-31 I'd understand that, but can I at least start with two aircraft ready with an AAW ATFLIR loadout?

This may be a database problem, or a mistake when you armed the ship, but LHD 1 Wasp is armed with 80 LGBs - I think the problem is that they're not in her carrier magazine, so they show up as a shipboard weapon.

USS Portland has HN-5B MANPADS teams embarked. Are these supposed to be Filipino allied units? Or should they be replaced with Stingers?

Lastly, I quite agree with very harsh penalties for F-35 losses. IRL it would be an event of considerable magnitude, so it's good that the player is incentivised to take care of them. However, it doesn't seem right that the player scores the same 50 points for killing a J-15 as he does for killing a J-31. It might not be as devastating for the Chinese to lose a J-31 as for the US to lose an F-35, but it's certainly still a much bigger blow than a semi-hopeless Flanker copy getting smoked. In the same vein, I haven't been able to kill a red force AEW aircraft yet, but I will be disappointed if I only get 50 points when I do!

On a somewhat pedantic level, I noticed there are two separate aircraft each named 'Green Knight #5', and you spelled 'Texaco' as 'Texeco' - both doubtless late night typos!

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 8

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 11:38:34 AM

AceOfSpadeszzzzzz

Posts: 53
Joined: 4/12/2016
Status: offline

I think Reagan is currently carrying VAW-125 which is equipped with E-2Ds rather than E-2Cs...?

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 9

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 12:59:39 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whicker

I try to abide by the scenario brief as best I can, regarding:
"You are to avoid open conflict with Chinese surface forces unless they attempt to hinder this operation"

how should I view subs? If I find a sub I would like to sink it, are they considered surface forces? some of the language is fairly specific as to not just bombing anything that moves. I would prefer more specific rules of engagement, especially for subs, but also AC and ships. Something like anything within x miles of either the carrier or amphib groups should be sunk/shot down (in the absence of other outright hostilities), otherwise just keep an eye on it?

Yes! I entirely agree. Basically I wanted to make it so that the player is not entirely sure how to proceed, but that once the PLAN forces have fired their first shot the player then is weapons free. I will update the ROE to make this clear.
Thanks.

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 10

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 1:02:04 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: magi

daveoreno.....
im giving this a play just turned the clock on.... one thing i notice is the sh-60b seahawk... have all been converted or replaced with the mh-60r romeo series a few years ago... they have greater capabilities... sensors and data-link.....
im going to change all of them out... and possibly the sonobouys... ill see...

this looks like its going to be fun.....

I�ll make the change to the Romeo. Thank you very much.

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 11

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 1:43:23 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whicker

finished with 7 hours left with a total disaster of -3610 so apparently I broke the lowest score possible lol.

Scoring seemed a little harsh. Lost 500 points right off the bat cause I took a patrol boat out and it hit a mine pretty quick. They were there (PBs not mines) so I though I should use it for something but not sure what that would have been. You can do the scoring via one lua event and it is easier to control what type of unit gets what score, so it would be easier to count the PB as a lower score than the CGs and what not, also cleans up your events/triggers/actions quite a bit.

I didn't do any of the special actions, had plenty of cruise missiles and while I was running out of fighters I was still ok. Lost the Princeton I think.

I thought I actually did ok (not triumph but ok), so I was a little surprised at the score. I did lose 4 f35s and 7 f18s and about a dozen choppers (and the Princeton)... and a P8. But I took out 3 subs, 30 fighters (17 J31s) and half dozen or so badgers, and accomplished the mission with plenty of time to spare. I did not attack any of their ships, just did what the mission said to do, didn't want to attack the carrier but I suppose I could have.

I thought the badger attack needed some air cover, they were sitting ducks, lucky they didn't all die.

As far as I could tell there were no problem, no lua errors or anything.
I didn't like the limited loadout for the cobras, seems unlikely they wouldn't have anything besides rockets. And the first thing I did was detach the sub from the carrier group - doesn't seem like you would want it on station like that.

In looking at the scoring it looks like you are doing one score for loosing an AC and another score if it is an F35 - so it is doing both on any f35 lost, not sure that is intentional or not, they are expensive so maybe it is intended. I do tend to loose them for some reason.

First of all...�Wow� thank you my friend! I really appreciate the deep dive. I�ll bet you can believe it�s is my first scenario now!
Secondly I think the scoring is pretty messed up all right. From what you told me of your experience, I think you should of had an �average� for completing the mission but getting dinged for losing the Tico class and the F-35s..

I could not figure out how to do the scoring other then the canned events, so for example the score goes through the ship hoop and then through the class hoop. All my scripts are adjusted versions from other scenarios. Could you possibly provide me a sample of some lua code that could assign points more effectively and efficiently? Or perhaps if you could steer me towards an existing scenario that does this so I could look at the code?

I could add fighter cover for the badgers, but I think they are striking from beyond the range of the land bases. This is just a desperation move by the PLAN similar to the Cold War suicide attacks that the soviet naval bombers were prepared for.

I will look at the cobra load outs.

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 12

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 1:49:42 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AceOfSpadeszzzzzz

I think Reagan is currently carrying VAW-125 which is equipped with E-2Ds rather than E-2Cs...?

Ahh yes but there is a plan to switch to the E-2C�s starting next March! Ha Ha just kidding.... I�ll make the change.
Thank you.

< Message edited by daveoreno -- 10/24/2018 3:49:32 PM >

(in reply to AceOfSpadeszzzzzz)

Post #: 13

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 3:10:21 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: templar42

Hi daveoreno,

Thanks for this scenario - I'm less than 3 hours in and really enjoying it. The J-31 adds real difficulty, especially as I'm not detecting emissions from them and they appear to be on internal loadouts. Too many scenarios have OPFOR stealth fighters that aren't stealthy enough! I think I noticed that the cloud cover disappeared during the scenario, which, again, is a really welcome bit of realism not seen enough.

Just a few points that I noted down so far:

I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem realistic to have the Fleet Class USV sailing in formation as part of an ESG. The database lists it as LCS based, so why not give the player an LCS with it embarked? If you choose a relatively toothless LCS configuration (not hard!) it shouldn't affect the balance.

The Super Hornet loadouts are a little eccentric, I think. An entire squadron is equipped with MALD for example. Most players don't want to use MALD because there is a bug in Command that causes the AI not to engage decoys unless it's at Weapons Free (I recall seeing a thread about this a while back). Maybe a few aircraft might be given Maverick or HARM loadouts?

Also, given that ATFLIR is present in good numbers on the CVN, it's odd that the AIM-120 loadouts at the start don't have it. If you're making a point about its utility against the J-31 I'd understand that, but can I at least start with two aircraft ready with an AAW ATFLIR loadout?

This may be a database problem, or a mistake when you armed the ship, but LHD 1 Wasp is armed with 80 LGBs - I think the problem is that they're not in her carrier magazine, so they show up as a shipboard weapon.

USS Portland has HN-5B MANPADS teams embarked. Are these supposed to be Filipino allied units? Or should they be replaced with Stingers?

Lastly, I quite agree with very harsh penalties for F-35 losses. IRL it would be an event of considerable magnitude, so it's good that the player is incentivised to take care of them. However, it doesn't seem right that the player scores the same 50 points for killing a J-15 as he does for killing a J-31. It might not be as devastating for the Chinese to lose a J-31 as for the US to lose an F-35, but it's certainly still a much bigger blow than a semi-hopeless Flanker copy getting smoked. In the same vein, I haven't been able to kill a red force AEW aircraft yet, but I will be disappointed if I only get 50 points when I do!

On a somewhat pedantic level, I noticed there are two separate aircraft each named 'Green Knight #5', and you spelled 'Texaco' as 'Texeco' - both doubtless late night typos!

I'm really glad your enjoying it so far. I don't really remember playing a good stealth on stealth scenario that had too much challenge. I really doubt the Chinese will be able to place this many J-31 (or any for that matter) on one of their carriers but it does add some spice to the mix!

Your right about the USV sailing with the fleet! I'll change that. If you sail where your supposed to the player won't need them anyway.
I was not aware of the AI behavior towards MALD-J's all I know is that that I use them all the time in any mission that I can because they always worked so well. Maybe I'll just limit the number of them.

I'll look into making the ATFLIR AIM-120 loadout change. (hope that won't tip the balance too much)

I'll switch to the stingers, (I think I missed them in the cargo load list. Its hard to search in this list as its not like the DB viewer).

Regarding the points...definitely need a little fine tuning. I'll make sure that you get more points for a PLAN AEW or a a J-31. I need to figure out how to do this without a million different events. I will get my scoring cleaned up a bit. Its on my list!

I'll fix the typos.

Thank you so much templar42, It means a lot to me that you and the others on this forum are helping me so much. I would really like this to be a first class scenario.
Dave

(in reply to templar42)

Post #: 14

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 5:02:46 PM

Whicker

Posts: 664
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline

I kinda like the MALDs, used them on the sams fairly effectively. I would have thought the bug was that they just fly in circles at a certain point.

For lua scoring I wrote about it here:
https://commandops.github.io/posts/lua-scoring-example/

and I used it in my Red Vs Blue Battle for Hispaniola scen that is in here somewhere - month or two ago. I think it works really well and allows you to do more clean scoring in an easier way.

(in reply to daveoreno)

Post #: 15

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 5:30:41 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whicker

I kinda like the MALDs, used them on the sams fairly effectively. I would have thought the bug was that they just fly in circles at a certain point.

For lua scoring I wrote about it here:
https://commandops.github.io/posts/lua-scoring-example/

and I used it in my Red Vs Blue Battle for Hispaniola scen that is in here somewhere - month or two ago. I think it works really well and allows you to do more clean scoring in an easier way.

Thanks

I think I can do this...

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 16

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 5:39:06 PM

Whicker

Posts: 664
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline

I should probably add that I came up with that myself (lua scoring), haven't seen anyone else do something like it... but it seems to work really well. It has not been validated by anyone else.

I'd recommend trying the sample scen I posted in this thread to see it in action (lua scoring) - just a bunch of units in a fight so you can see the scoring happen without waiting for a real scen to do something.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4527370

< Message edited by Whicker -- 10/24/2018 5:43:52 PM >

(in reply to daveoreno)

Post #: 17

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 8:12:36 PM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

templar.... the reason there are no IRST loadouts.. is he is using f/a-18e 2016 models and you would have to have 2018 f/a-18e for that sensor...
i agree with you about the LCS... this is a perfect mission to have one and the arg is some what under escorted... i added one to my play...
i agree that the loadouts are very un-ideal.... and i changed them in editor... to start with loadouts that make everybody happy in a scenario is really hard... although if you think mission and doctrine you can get perty close....

whicker.... you make me laugh.... i really like that...

daveoreno.....
i really like what you are doing here.... i believe great scenarios.. like fine art has many nuances and layers of events... even if minimalist...
all your details... the platforms... commercial vessals.. biologic's...changing weather.. the embedded recon unit etc etc... very nice indeed..

however.. i believe you should update the assets and munitions to current types... the munitions is easy... i swapped out the sh-60 for mh-60r's... and going to change the f/a-18 for 2018 variants that are irst able....
adding an lcs would be cool.. but is your call....
the fligft I burke while able to service seahawks would probably not embark with one as they do not have facilitates for them... it is good that you are using a sm-3 bdm version...

the thing that bothers me the most is.... we would never fight this way.... being so close to the objective.. without having done some recon/irst before we got here....
if at start you had a mq-4 and a p8 based from clark doing recon missions.. it would be more plausable....
or increase the time line... start the groups a few hundred more nm's away.. and they can do their recon/isrt on the ingress to mission area...

here is my wish list.... up dated platforms... and lcs... some mq-4's.. p8's and a couple few tankers at clark afb.... some mine sweeper helicopters on the portland or the wasp would be right... the portland has no embarked aircraft.. i put a kiyhawk on it...
i think clark should have enough f16's or something for a cap.... because they look like a target...
and i think it would be really cool if you had a red strike on clark even if it is unsuccessful... because it would be a surprise and add another event to the game....

i hope i am not seeming over assertive here.. because i am really pleased with what you are doing here....

best of luck.... magi

< Message edited by magi -- 10/24/2018 8:18:47 PM >

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 18

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 11:16:19 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: magi

i hope i am not seeming over assertive here.. because i am really pleased with what you are doing here....

best of luck.... magi

Are you kidding..? This stuff is golden. I'm going to work boys!
Dave

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 19

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/24/2018 11:18:06 PM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: daveoreno

quote:

ORIGINAL: magi

i hope i am not seeming over assertive here.. because i am really pleased with what you are doing here....

best of luck.... magi

Are you kidding..? This stuff is golden. I'm going to work boys!
Dave

Whata Guy........ I�m playing now... thank you very much......

(in reply to daveoreno)

Post #: 20

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/25/2018 2:24:44 AM

AceOfSpadeszzzzzz

Posts: 53
Joined: 4/12/2016
Status: offline

One more thing I would like to mention is that H-6G with YJ-100/YJ-12 might be more suitable for this scenario rather than H-6D.
Really pleased with your work, Good Scenario!

BTW if you are adding 2018 F/A-18s to this please also change the AGM-84G in RR's magazine to 84N since they don't carry 84G anymore

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 21

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/25/2018 2:37:38 AM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

this is real fun..... but darn this island is very well defended... i need more strikers/fighters.... i put a dozen f16s at clark for a cap.. and ambiance... but shoot now i think i might add some strike eagles...
i lost two aircraft probing... then gettion into a fight i didnt want... when an unseen j31 went foxtrot on me.... loosing 750 points for loosing two aircraft seems really severe.....

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 22

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/25/2018 12:55:34 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: magi

this is real fun..... but darn this island is very well defended... i need more strikers/fighters.... i put a dozen f16s at clark for a cap.. and ambiance... but shoot now i think i might add some strike eagles...
i lost two aircraft probing... then gettion into a fight i didnt want... when an unseen j31 went foxtrot on me.... loosing 750 points for loosing two aircraft seems really severe.....

Yes it does seem harsh, but if these were stealth aircraft perhaps the cost should be steep. Also keep in mind (slight PARTIAL SPOILER) there are thousands of points awarded for certain targets and overall mission goals. You also have over a hundred Tomahawk MMT�s in your CVN SAG that are easilly capable of taking out the PLAN carrier and all ships in the group (as long as you have the correct targeting...E-3 ? Satellites?)

Anyway I will work on the scoring again over the weekend.

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 23

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/25/2018 1:02:41 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AceOfSpadeszzzzzz

One more thing I would like to mention is that H-6G with YJ-100/YJ-12 might be more suitable for this scenario rather than H-6D.
Really pleased with your work, Good Scenario!
BTW if you are adding 2018 F/A-18s to this please also change the AGM-84G in RR's magazine to 84N since they don't carry 84G anymore

Thank you for the praise! I will take a look at those H-6G�s you mentioned. What I really was looking for was something with a supersonic payload. But then again perhaps things are hard enough for the US.

(in reply to AceOfSpadeszzzzzz)

Post #: 24

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/27/2018 6:28:48 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

I have uploaded a new file in the original post with many of the requested changes.
Some of the changes to the new upload are:

Revised scoring using Whickers great scoring script.
Appropriate points are now awarded for AEW aircraft etc. The points awarded are based on a balance between the importance of the unit in this particular scenario, the actual value of the unit in real world dollars, and trying to make the scenario play balanced.

-SH-60B�s have been switch with MH Romeo models.
-More load outs have been provided to the Cobra gunships.
-The USV sailing with the fleet is now snug in his berth in an added freedom class LCS.
-Some of the MALD load outs have been swapped with Maverick and HARM.
-Some F-18 have now been given ATFLIR load outs.
-E-2C�s on the Reagan have been swapped with the E-2D�s.
-80 LGBs listed as weapons on the wasp fixed.
-LPD cargo MANPADS changed to Stingers.
-Badger H-6D changed to H-6Gs and given supersonic ASM�s (Still no air-cover for play balance)
-various typo�s.
-Clark Airbase has been given some F-16�s from 80th Fighter Group and some P-8s. (you still need to bring the rest from Guam.
-A little surprise for the boys at Clark added.
-a few more Tomahawk MMT�s added for play balance.
-A specific ROE section added to the briefing.

Playing through this myself I definitely think it is easier if you choose the F-22 Raptor special action, as the F-22�s can clean out the island SAMS with SDBs.

Thanks again to the many suggestions and help with this. Its the help of this Command community that makes this simulation so great.

Dave

(in reply to daveoreno)

Post #: 25

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/28/2018 2:04:43 PM

Gunner98

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

daveoreno

Looks like a very nice scenario. Just opened it up and can offer a couple very nitpicky points before I dive in. All provided in the spirit of helpfulness and not critiques:

Briefing: Very nice, complete and well crafted. A couple points:
-The Reagan is CVN 76 (not 56, typo I believe)
-The note regarding the F-22s etc is in there twice
-'...clear that these warning have not...' warning should be plural
-'...unidentified contacts or contacts not believed...' the first contact should be singular

Naming:
-some ships have the pennant number some do not
-the three PC 1 class could be named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone-class_patrol_ship to do this in a port you need to right click on the unit name
-this website is useful for determining which ships would be forward deployed with the Reagan https://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/Pages/PacificTheaterShips.aspx

Air group: the Reagan's air group can be found here: http://www.gonavy.jp/CVW-NF6f.html
-this link will help with the naming, and there is an F-18E sqn missing (12 each) - which is fine but a note in the brief to identify why may be helpful
-the HSC sqn with MH-60S (8 a/c) is also missing and they would be ideal for this type of mission set
-the HSM sqn with MH-60R (11 a/c) Sqn will have about 5-6 on the CV and the rest spread around the escort
-I find this wiki very useful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_air_wing#Current_Carrier_Air_Wing
-determining the air wing on the Amphibs is a bit of a trick sometimes and you can really play around with them, but I often start with news releases: https://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lhd1/Pages/default.aspx

Ok enough nitpicking, I'll jump in and give it a play now.

Thanks for building this.

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to daveoreno)

Post #: 26

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/28/2018 3:04:30 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

Thanks Gunner!

All changes (except the Helos ) made and uploaded.

hope you enjoy!

Dave

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 27

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/28/2018 3:15:33 PM

Gunner98

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

Someone is sniping at my innocent F-35s! Who would do such a thing!

Interesting problem

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to daveoreno)

Post #: 28

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/28/2018 6:18:27 PM

Primarchx

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

I don't understand why the Super Hornets would have a Standard CAP loadout in this circumstance. The Reagan's not cruising in the Gulf of Mexico, they're about to attack a Chinese position in a dangerous A2AD area.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 29

RE: New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury - 10/28/2018 7:47:36 PM

daveoreno

Posts: 64
Joined: 8/27/2016
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

My thinking here was that standard CAP load would provide the option of extra range if necessary. I'll change AA load outs if you think it's unrealistic.
Dave

< Message edited by daveoreno -- 10/28/2018 7:50:14 PM >

(in reply to Primarchx)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> New scenario for testing Operation Sapphire Fury

Page: [1] 2 next > >>