[RELEASED] New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

[RELEASED] New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW)

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 >> [RELEASED] New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

[RELEASED] New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/11/2015 4:07:10 AM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

Here's the first of a couple of scenarios based on a Soviet invasion of Norway as part of WWIII. It's a beast, with over 1500 AUs. It is also complex, with land combat, paratroopers, resupply transports, mining, amphibious assault, in addition to the usual air, surface and subsurface combat.

This is the USSR-only version. I will make the US-only version once I finish my playtest of this version.

Let me know what you think.

Yokes

Update: re-balanced the forces some to make it easier for USSR. Also made the weather nice.
Update 2: more aircraft rebalance plus other modifications.
Update 3: updated with suggestions from Gunner and Triode.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 8/13/2015 8:48:41 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/11/2015 11:36:11 PM

Triode

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline

Just start scenario
Yokes if you want to use Russian/Soviet terms for group of ships then:
OKOP - group of fire suport ships (instead of Gunfire Suport Force 1)
DESO - Landing ships group (instead of Landing Force 1)

Also KPUG is 2-4 ASW ship , group with Frunze and Tbilisi is typical KUG

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 2

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/12/2015 3:13:32 AM

Gunner98

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

Liking it. Very busy at start, going to re-do as I failed to protect the miners going in, and the southern Ftr sweep burned up too much fuel - those foxhouds can't AAR

grrr

Anyway, it started with a Bang, a DDG and AOR down with 2 Shipwrecks into the CV. About 16 Norgi Falcons down to the loss of 5 Foxhounds. The ground support stuff is fun, just need to grip it a bit tighter

(in reply to Triode)

Post #: 3

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/12/2015 11:41:20 PM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

I could use some advice.

I was hoping to use SU-17 Fitters as medium-ish range strike aircraft (need a strike range of 500 NM or so), but they are too short ranged. I added tankers to the scenario, but then remembered that the Soviets were really slow to adopt mid-air refueling, and only the Flankers can use them.

So other than SU-24s, what strike aircraft should I use (in 1989)? Or should I just load up on SU-24s? How many are realistic for the theater?

Thanks!

Yokes

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 4

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/13/2015 10:38:02 AM

Gunner98

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

Yokes

This is a tough one, most Soviet AC of the 70's/80's were built for the Central European fight - short range, in and out fast, then move to a new base if needed to gain more range. A couple years ago I did some rough order of magnitude research on Soviet VVS (Frontal Aviation) and PVO (Air Defence Forces) to try and get the balance right for Northern Fury, range is a big issue (didn't keep sources unfortunately). As you indicate the best option is the Su-24 and there were ~600 of them in operation in '90, next best is the MiG-27 - with its LR load-out it can reach 560nm, and there were ~500 of them in service. Always worth using the MiG-25BM for SEAD. The next best is the MiG-29 with a 400nm range.

Realistic numbers are always a bit of a trick - it really depends on how high of a priority your story-line puts on the North Norway campaign. One of the key tenants of air-power is flexibility and as many aircraft as needed could be moved to the theatre if the priority is high enough. I believe there was a Regt (~40 AC) of Su-24 as well as one of MiG-29 as part of Naval Avn supporting the Red Banner Northern Fleet. As far as VVS, there was an Air Division (cannot recall the name, don't have my notes handy) on the Kola Peninsula, and I believe it had a Regt of Su-27's and a Regt of Su-23's (memory only could be wrong). I think it is very reasonable to have a reinforcing Regt of Su-24, Mig-29 and one of Su-27 - giving ~80 of each if needed. Remember also that the Su-24's were almost always supported by the Su-24 ELINT & Jammer variants and I would suspect that the MiG-25BM would be available.

Of note � the MiG 31�s that are in this scenario probably belong to the PVO, there were some small numbers of MiG-31�s in the VVS but I could not find any in the Kola area. I believe that as PVO resources they would focus on Continental Defence (against the very real B-52 threat) and therefore be limited in their offensive use � IE probably limited to within and perhaps slightly beyond the boarder. Very capable missile launcher but not a good dog-fighter so you may want to limit them a tad to keep casualties low. There are a couple thousand MiG-23�s available plus the Mig-29 & Su-27�s to do the air superiority fight, once again however � range is a problem.

This site (http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/regiments.htm), is helpful but a bit awkward at times.

Hope this helps. (BTW, got sidetracked building one of my scenarios, will get back to this one shortly)

B

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 5

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/13/2015 3:47:14 PM

Triode

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline

Primary planes in IBA (fighter-bomber aviation) in 89 is mix of Mig-27/Su-24,
as example for Kola region in 89 it would be(only "domestic" forces):
one regiment (3 sqdr) of Mig-27K
two regiments (6 sqdrn) of Su-24
+ Su-24MP and MR in Monchegorsk

of course there is more of them in reality, Gorbachev start to withdraw forces from Germany and WarPac countries, not the case in our scenario

and about quantity of fighters :
72 Guard IAP Amderma, Novaya Zemlya 31 MiG-31
174 Guard IAP Monchegorsk Murmansk 29 MiG-31,6 MiG-25
265 IAP Poduzheme, Karelia 39 Su-27
431 IAP Afrikanda, Murmansk 39 Su-27
445 IAP Savate, Arkhangelsk 41 MiG-25
470 IAP Afrikanda, Murmansk Su-27 (regiment ~ 36 planes)
518 IAP Talagi, Arkhangelsk 31 MiG-31
524 IAP Letneozersky, near Archangelsk Karelia 39 MiG-25
641 Guard IAP Rogachevo, Novaya Zemlya 32 Su-27,2 Mi-8
941 IAP Kilp-Yavr,Murmansk 38 Su-27
991 IAP Besovets Kareliya Mig-25 (regiment ~ 36 planes)

anyway this forces, theoretically , can be reinforced in case of some major operation, so placing actual numbers is up to you

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 6

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/13/2015 11:28:20 PM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

Gunner 98 and Triode,

Thank you for the great info! Command's community continues to impress...

I renamed the groups per Triode's suggestion, and I am rebalancing the aircraft a bit. I will replace many of the Fitters with MiG-27s, which should have enough range when using the long-range loadouts. I also plan on scaling back a little on the MiG-31s, but loading up on more Flankers.

I'll post the update soon.

Yokes

(in reply to Triode)

Post #: 7

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/15/2015 3:05:26 PM

Gunner98

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

Enjoying the latest release a lot. So much going on that am using a lot of missions and bouncing from area to area to check on things. Generally running quite well, some surprises that are taking me, well -- by surprise

which is screwing up my plans. Managed to get 3 missiles into the CV but she is still afloat - waiting for a flock of Bears, so that should take care of that - as far as I can make out, she is a mission kill and not launching aircraft, although I do note that Kef is active so will need to watch my flank there. Airborne Op is almost in, while keeping a lid on things there the Su-24's took one for the team, but 2 of 4 AAA sites are gone and they have stopped firing so are probably low on ammo, was buzzing them ineffectively with Flankers trying to take them out with cannon. The ground advance is going OK, some air casualties are frustrating there though. Well on my way to blinding the AI by taking out quite a few of the radars. The strike on bases is going less well, need to re-think my strategy on that I think (probably because most of the ARM carriers are out chasing radars

). Air superiority is not assured but am dominating on that front, frustratingly the MiG-25's that don't have guns or short range missiles keep closing with the Falcons to provide them with targets

. About 25 Falcons and 10 F-5s are gone to the cost of about a dozen MiG-25s and one MiG-31.

All very good fun.

Couple points:

-The Task groups (KUG & KPuG I think) have their missions reversed - all is working fine, its just the names that are messed up.
-It would be helpful to give the 4x AAA sites around Bodo, unique names to assist the player getting oriented with what is going on at start.
-It probably would be appropriate to give the Norgi's a flight of NATO AWACs to help them out. And I think they have a couple Falcons for EW work. That would complicate the Sov's job a bit - not that it isn't complicated enough already

Will get back into it later today.

B

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 8

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/15/2015 6:48:24 PM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

Gunner98,

I made a lot of small tweaks that seem to have made big impacts. Glad you are enjoying it!

Do you think the carrier is a bit too easy to kill? I was trying to make it doable, but the player really had to work for it. I think I will switch some of the CAP to intercept missions instead. Thoughts?

I have learned to hate the "rayrider" SAM the Norwegians have. Stinking things are invisible and can't be jammed.

Pretty sure you have air superiority. You can trade two of your fighters for each F-16 and still get there (at least in the North). I'd be interested to hear what your AAM-per-kill ratio is. I find it common for a single F-16 to dodge 12-15 missiles!

I also echo your frustrations with the MiG-25s. Their IR missiles are rear-aspect only, which would be (sorta) fine, except they have some crazy-large minimum firing distance. They end up merging with their target, maneuver for a rear-shot, but they end up too close to shoot and never back off.

Whatever. They're just missile fodder anyways...

quote:

-The Task groups (KUG & KPuG I think) have their missions reversed - all is working fine, its just the names that are messed up.

Hmm... I tried naming them according to Triode's post about Russian naming conventions. Hopefully he will chime in.

quote:

-It would be helpful to give the 4x AAA sites around Bodo, unique names to assist the player getting oriented with what is going on at start.

I'm not sure I follow. Should I state something in the briefing about the strikes already set up?

quote:

-It probably would be appropriate to give the Norgi's a flight of NATO AWACs to help them out. And I think they have a couple Falcons for EW work. That would complicate the Sov's job a bit - not that it isn't complicated enough already

This is day one, and the goal is for the balance of forces to be heavily in the Soviet's favor. There will be follow-on scenarios where the balance swings back into NATO's favor. The cavalry is on the way!

The Norwegians do have a couple of Falcon jammers hanging out down south. I didn't want them to stray too far since they are too valuable to risk on day one. They will be a bit more prominent in the next scenario.

Thanks for the feedback!

Yokes

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 9

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/15/2015 8:22:36 PM

Coiler12

Posts: 1203
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yokes

I also echo your frustrations with the MiG-25s. Their IR missiles are rear-aspect only, which would be (sorta) fine, except they have some crazy-large minimum firing distance.

Haven't really tried this scenario yet, but I've found the IR-Acrids to work well in They Came From the Museum (of course, in this case it's four-on-two ganging up on novice-proficiency opponents in a limited war rather than fighting a total one against F-16s).

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 10

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/15/2015 9:51:19 PM

Triode

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline

Naming of task group correct and their mission correct, but naming of their missions is little misleading,
as example KPUG 1 have mission "KUG 1 ASW Patrol", ok maybe this KPUG just support KUG 1
but KUG 1 have mission "KPUG 1 patrol zone" wich can be considered as misleading name
mission by themselves are right, but their name can be considered as misleading

about early decapitation strike against Forrestal ,
yes as I see this is very easy, I suggest to move Krasnodar 150-200 miles to North this will give SAM systems of CTF 70.1 more time of reaction,
from this distance Krasnodar will be valuable asset in case of united attack with bombers, but cant solo kill enemy carrier and win the game single handedly

(in reply to Coiler12)

Post #: 11

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/15/2015 10:11:13 PM

Gunner98

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

As Triode mentions, everything about the TGs and the missions looks good - only the mission names are a bit screwy.

Regarding the AAA sites. I think all that is needed is to change the names of the 4 sites to be unique. Could be as simple as AAA1...4 to match the mission names. Would just help the player a bit. Currently there are 4 missions all targeting an identical unit with an identical name, so it's difficult to see which mission is for which target. Not a biggie.

I think the CV is a bit too easy to hit, you could do one or more of the following:

-As Triode mentions, move the SSGN further away;
-Change up the USS California for another Tyco;
-Change the positioning within the TG, having the Vincennes closer to the CV to shield her better;
-Have some CAP already in the air at scenario start.
-Have the CV's Hawkeye up and radiating
-Have the CV's Prowlers up and Jamming

Wouldn't go overboard on it, ran it through twice, first time got 2 missiles in and the next time got 3 in but the AOR survived, both times the DDG got smoked but that's about it. The briefing does say to coord with the Long Range Aviation but I got trigger happy because a Bear strike is at least 2-3 hours into the game at earliest (moving them well north to avoid the fur-ball in North Norway). The AGI only lasts minutes and getting a good fix on a CV is always a big problem so I fired when I could.

B

< Message edited by Gunner98 -- 7/15/2015 11:11:21 PM >

(in reply to Triode)

Post #: 12

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/16/2015 12:50:00 AM

Gunner98

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

Played on for a bit - and in addition to the CV going down due to original damage, I've got Ftrs in the air essentially waiting smack the Norgies as they take off. Early on I recall one F-16 single handily taking down 4 of mine before it ate a missile.

As for missile to hit ration here are the relevant stats:

Sovs: 54 for 209 A2A and 64 SAM so 5/1 but that has improved markedly lately(The Surface Gp was doing some of the killing when the Falcons were chasing the Miners back north): It was probably close to double that in the first 1/2 hour or so

Norgies: 35 for 50 A2A and 23 Hawk so 2/1 - impressive

SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------

38x F-16A Falcon
16x F-5A Freedom Fighter

EXPENDITURES:
------------------

50x AIM-9L Sidewinder
23x MIM-23C I-HAWK

SIDE: USSR
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
9x MiG-25PD Foxbat E
4x MiG-27M Flogger J
4x MiG-31 Foxhound
7x Su-24M Fencer D
3x Su-25 Frogfoot A
1x Su-27P Flanker B
3x Su-33 Flanker D
4x Tu-16K-26PM Badger G Mod

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
48x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH]
27x AA-10 Alamo B [R-27T, MR IR]
27x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27RE, LR SARH]
20x AA-10 Alamo D [R-27TE, LR IR]
6x AA-11 Archer [R-73]
44x AA-6 Acrid C [R-40RD, SARH]
16x AA-6 Acrid D [R-40TD, IR]
3x AA-8 Aphid [R-60TM]
18x AA-9 Amos [R-33, SARH]
62x SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM]

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 13

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/16/2015 6:11:06 AM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

Hi Yokes, I just had a go at this scenario for the first time and its pretty easy (I killed 90% of the enemy AF and fleet within the first four hours). In the first minutes the US CV was severely damaged by Shipwrecks and later finished of by two long range wake-homing torpedo's. Two CV escorts where also sunk by LR wake-homers and the remaining two escorts by LR bombers with SSM's a few hours later (I lost one sub to the escorts when I closed in). After finding the second US TF an hour later, I also sank it with Shipwrecks, but this time launched from my surface fleet. The air war in the North was easily won by my MIG-31 and SU-27's at standoff range (although I learned that everything besides the SU-27 dies when you let the F-16's get to close). Although the Miners are a nice idea, they are sitting ducks and won't survive this setup. I suggest you delay them for an hour or two to make them survivable. Another lesson I learned: don't dogfight with MIG-25 and 31's because they will get shot down in droves. I was again unable to destroy any runway, although using the correct anti runway weapons. I just decided to take out the ammo bunkers instead, at least these don't shrug of all damage. Sending the MIG-21's to the west is a nice idea, but against any decent opposition they die like flies.

Overall a good and very varied scenario (although it's to easy, almost like a tutorial) and next time I won't loose as many MIG-25 and 31's as I now know how to use them.

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
13x MiG-21bis Fishbed L
8x MiG-25PD Foxbat E
1x MiG-27M Flogger J
18x MiG-31 Foxhound
1x Su-17M-4 Fitter K
3x Su-24M Fencer D
5x Su-25 Frogfoot A
8x Su-27P Flanker B
6x Tu-16K-26PM Badger G Mod

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
48x F-16A Falcon
11x F-16C Blk 32 Falcon
36x F-5A Freedom Fighter
2x Falcon 20C-ECM
7x Phantom II FGR.2
2x RF-5A Freedom Fighter
2x Tornado F.3

< Message edited by wild_Willie2 -- 7/16/2015 7:12:07 AM >

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 14

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/16/2015 10:39:40 AM

Gunner98

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

About 1.5 hours in:
-The Norwegian fleet just popped up in the Fjord and ate a bunch of missiles before they got underway.
-Airborne operation is complete and MiG-21's are on the way.
-Bardufoss is closed, runway is damaged by ~25%, only two access points left and both are heavily damaged, all the HAZ are damaged or gone - there could be AC left there in the underground parking but they aren't getting off the ground.
-Tromso and Andoya have damaged runways and nothing has taken off from there for a while - will do a re-strike but I think they are either closed or depleted of AC
-Evenes is still operating and pumping out a couple of F-5 targets every few min - There's a flight of Su-33's waiting for them soon to be replaced by some Su-27s
-The mining worked but 4 of six were killed on the way out. The only way to get them in is to escort them with Su-33's from the CV and that means launching immediately at scenario start. Wild-Willie's comment is a good one, a delay would make this mission more tenable.
-The CV sank due to damage, the DDG evaporated on the first hit. My SSN took damage going in and sank from its wounds later. LR aviation snoopers and jammers are heading south with 2 Regts of bombers following them to pick of the rest
-Have not found STANAVFORLANT yet and Orland is still pumping out some trouble
-Amphibs still moving south

Generally fairly easy, although it looked a lot worse at the start. Understand that this is the first surprise scenario and is going to be one sided. In order to stiffen it up but keep it one-sided - would recommend:
-Delay the Miners as Wild Willie has suggested
-put a few of the Norwegian ships out to sea at the start, some others coming in from the south, the pop up targets in the fjord was too easy
-already mentioned options for the CV
-Limit the MiG-25 & MiG-31's and replace with MiG-23ML & MLD, probably replace the MiG-21s with the same - gives less stand-off and more dog-fighting

Still enjoying this one. Will play through mostly because I want to get the Bear strike in and work the Amphibs in. By now however, its a walkover victory.

Thanks

B

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 15

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/16/2015 3:21:42 PM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

Great feedback, all.

quote:

Naming of task group correct and their mission correct, but naming of their missions is little misleading,
as example KPUG 1 have mission "KUG 1 ASW Patrol", ok maybe this KPUG just support KUG 1
but KUG 1 have mission "KPUG 1 patrol zone" wich can be considered as misleading name
mission by themselves are right, but their name can be considered as misleading

<facepalm> I forgot to rename their missions when I renamed the groups...

quote:

yes as I see this is very easy, I suggest to move Krasnodar 150-200 miles to North this will give SAM systems of CTF 70.1 more time of reaction,
from this distance Krasnodar will be valuable asset in case of united attack with bombers, but cant solo kill enemy carrier and win the game single handedly

I like this solution. I was basing this off the book, but without airborne AEW or fighters it's just too easy for a cheap kill. That wasn't the intention. I think moving it further away is a good compromise. If they player wants to take an early shot they can, but it will be spotted in time to shoot at it. Or they can do the "right" thing and coordinate their shots with the Backfires/Badgers.

quote:

Regarding the AAA sites. I think all that is needed is to change the names of the 4 sites to be unique. Could be as simple as AAA1...4 to match the mission names. Would just help the player a bit. Currently there are 4 missions all targeting an identical unit with an identical name, so it's difficult to see which mission is for which target. Not a biggie.

OK, I see. The four AAA are uniquely named on the NATO side, but the USSR side doesn't see that. I will rename them on the USSR side.

quote:

Although the Miners are a nice idea, they are sitting ducks and won't survive this setup. I suggest you delay them for an hour or two to make them survivable.

I came to the same conclusion and delayed the mission an hour in my latest playthrough. Worked great.

quote:

Overall a good and very varied scenario (although it's to easy, almost like a tutorial) and next time I won't loose as many MIG-25 and 31's as I now know how to use them.

It is meant to be easy. The Russians are supposed to win. If you want hard, the NATO version of this same scenario will be coming soon...

quote:

-The Norwegian fleet just popped up in the Fjord and ate a bunch of missiles before they got underway.

Working per design.

In my latest run I let the computer auto-attack the fleet to see how it will play out for the NATO version. The AI smartly used its heavy ASMs to attack the frigates only and left the patrol boats alone. The patrol boats then died one by one when they found the minefield. It was strangely satisfying...

quote:

Will play through mostly because I want to get the Bear strike in and work the Amphibs in.

There may be some more surprises in store once the amphibs get in position...

Thanks again everyone for the great feedback!

Yokes

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 16

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/16/2015 6:47:43 PM

Triode

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline

Yokes,

I try scenario with Krasnodar 200 mile from CTF 70.1
carrier and NATO frigate/destroyer group alive for 3 hour then fell to combined strike from bombers and submarine

In second playthrough I also reduce numbers of Tu-22M3 and Tu-16 to 12 and 12
so after taking Bodo I send on this base my Su-27 and Mig-31 , wait for refueling and atack carrier with combined strike + fighter suport
after that with missiles from KUG 1 destroy what's left
in Norway fire missile at Norway Navy minesweepers and wait until half of Norway Navy die on mines, then finish them with Sovremennyy's "Moskit" strike
In this variant carrier and Nato naval forces alive for ~ 6-7 hours + dogfighting above Bodo and broke through carrier CAP , this more complex variant of this scenario

Generally I recommend ,if you want increase difficulty level, adjust it through quantity of Tu-22M3 and Tu-16K

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 17

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/17/2015 3:12:00 AM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

I think I have the final version now in the original post.

Thanks to everyone for the great suggestions.

Yokes

(in reply to Triode)

Post #: 18

RE: New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW) - 7/17/2015 11:42:48 PM

magi

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

your welcome.....

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 19

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> [RELEASED] New scenario: Facing The Bear (TWTNW)

Page: [1]