Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5

Fonz_, two things (I want to check my triggers):

1) Did the Soviet strike mission happen against the Nimitz as you came closer to the island?
2) Did the scoring work properly with each Yankee kill (should have received 35 points per kill)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

If you look at the scenario in the editor, it's set up with all SU27's launched initially, so there will be a blood bath. Also, since you're receiving ESM from the SU's, why not designate all that have known bad guy ESM and shoot from afar versus engaging into the visual realm. Let's face it, the Tornado, while a grand aircraft, is no nimble dog fighter, unlike the Eagle. Use their BVR weapons to your advantage. Also, try modifying the launch of your Orion's until the air is cleared a bit, say about an hour after start time. The initial NATO strategy was to gain air superiority initially, then allow follow on forces to conduct supporting operations. just a thought.

Matt

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

Will see if I can give this one a run on friday

quote:

Will see if I can give this one a run on friday

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bazza042


Thanks Matt,

I didn't want to 'look at the other side' as this somewhat spoils the enjoyment.

I am not sure I fully understand your comments about 'bad guy ESM'. Surely if I set the 'Engage non-hostiles' to 'yes' does this not achieve the same thing? OK if a neutral is floating around he literally takes the bullet (or missile) but surely that means NATO will attack anything it sees. So where is the advantage, apart from saving the odd neutral, of doing one rather than the other?

I take your point about the delayed entry of the Orions. But I'm still at loss to see how I gain air superiority in the first place. If sending the whole Stornaway 'fighter force in one go doesn't hack it how is sending them piecemeal going to do it especially, as you remark, the Tornado seems somewhat of a liability in this environment.
I certainly lost a considerably higher % of Tornados than Sea Eagles

I was deliberately not trying to 'game' my way to victory but to try to achieve it by 'legitimate' means.

It appears clear from the posts in this thread that at least three people have overcome this aspect so I was seeking help.

Many thanks for your response and clarification. I'll have another go at flooding them with Sea Eagles, then with the Tornados, and then again with 're-armed' Sea Eagles. Then I'll find the pub where the Orion pilots are hiding
and put them up.

I do like the scenario and I haven't had this much enjoyment from a sim for quite a while.

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bazza042


Thanks Matt,

I didn't want to 'look at the other side' as this somewhat spoils the enjoyment.

I am not sure I fully understand your comments about 'bad guy ESM'. Surely if I set the 'Engage non-hostiles' to 'yes' does this not achieve the same thing? OK if a neutral is floating around he literally takes the bullet (or missile) but surely that means NATO will attack anything it sees. So where is the advantage, apart from saving the odd neutral, of doing one rather than the other?

I take your point about the delayed entry of the Orions. But I'm still at loss to see how I gain air superiority in the first place. If sending the whole Stornaway 'fighter force in one go doesn't hack it how is sending them piecemeal going to do it especially, as you remark, the Tornado seems somewhat of a liability in this environment.
I certainly lost a considerably higher % of Tornados than Sea Eagles

I was deliberately not trying to 'game' my way to victory but to try to achieve it by 'legitimate' means.

It appears clear from the posts in this thread that at least three people have overcome this aspect so I was seeking help.

Many thanks for your response and clarification. I'll have another go at flooding them with Sea Eagles, then with the Tornados, and then again with 're-armed' Sea Eagles. Then I'll find the pub where the Orion pilots are hiding
and put them up.

I do like the scenario and I haven't had this much enjoyment from a sim for quite a while.

Baz,

I'm glad you're enjoying the scenario as much as djoos enjoyed creating the challenge for each player. I apologize if I came across as sort of sterile in my explanation, but admittedly love tinkering with various scenarios and often edit them to have the loadouts I prefer and ready aircraft at my disposal, as well as tweaking what I can to make it either more challenging to me and/or more realistic, to me anyway.. :) What I meant by marking the unknowns as hostile is if you're already at war with country X and in theory, made Area X a no fly zone, then based on received ESM hits, can assume the receiving radars as hostile and engage before they enter into the visual realm, which seems to be the default if you do not make them hostile before hand. The AI also goes off visual confirmation, but the Soviet IR technology and optics will give them the advantage in the 90's. Also, your medium range Sparrows and Sky Flash loose their advantages in a close in fight, therefore negating the use of stand off for the incoming red horde.
Anyway, it's just how I perceive my ROE, unless stated otherwise in the scenario orders. Also, the Tornado is not a good dog fighter, compared to the Eagle, so would consider making the Tornados either reinforcements or using only their Sky Flash medium range missiles and immediately have them RTB once they are used. I'm modifying the scenario a bit with some surprises but don't want to hijack djoos excellent scenario so once I get mine tweaked and re-written a bit, I'll gladly share too.

Thanks for your feedback on my limited explanation and djoos, thanks for making what I've always considered as the pinnacle of making or breaking the NATO alliance in any foreseen conflict, as Iceland is key to success of who controls the Atlantic and reinforcing of Europe.

quote:

Baz,

I'm glad you're enjoying the scenario as much as djoos enjoyed creating the challenge for each player. I apologize if I came across as sort of sterile in my explanation, but admittedly love tinkering with various scenarios and often edit them to have the loadouts I prefer and ready aircraft at my disposal, as well as tweaking what I can to make it either more challenging to me and/or more realistic, to me anyway.. :) What I meant by marking the unknowns as hostile is if you're already at war with country X and in theory, made Area X a no fly zone, then based on received ESM hits, can assume the receiving radars as hostile and engage before they enter into the visual realm, which seems to be the default if you do not make them hostile before hand. The AI also goes off visual confirmation, but the Soviet IR technology and optics will give them the advantage in the 90's. Also, your medium range Sparrows and Sky Flash loose their advantages in a close in fight, therefore negating the use of stand off for the incoming red horde.
Anyway, it's just how I perceive my ROE, unless stated otherwise in the scenario orders. Also, the Tornado is not a good dog fighter, compared to the Eagle, so would consider making the Tornados either reinforcements or using only their Sky Flash medium range missiles and immediately have them RTB once they are used. I'm modifying the scenario a bit with some surprises but don't want to hijack djoos excellent scenario so once I get mine tweaked and re-written a bit, I'll gladly share too.

Thanks for your feedback on my limited explanation and djoos, thanks for making what I've always considered as the pinnacle of making or breaking the NATO alliance in any foreseen conflict, as Iceland is key to success of who controls the Atlantic and reinforcing of Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bazza042

djoos5,

Many thanks for your comments and, indeed, for the scenario.

Please understand that I was not criticizing the scenario, more highlighting my own incompetence in dealing with the situation.

As I mentioned I don't like going 'behind the scenes' to see what the other guy has: it just spoils it for me. I am playing for enjoyment rather
to manufacture a 'win' based on detailed pre-knowledge of what the enemy has in store. I prefer the fog of war even if, as in this case, I get
roughed up somewhat.

I think my only comment/suggestion might be that some of the 'missions', such as the Orions, might be set to 'inactive' at the start of the scenario.

I very much appreciate the missions being pre-established but a number of scenario makers, in a similar situation, have made subsequent missions inactive
so it doesn't all kick off at the start of the scenario. I have a tendency, and it may be a purely personal one, to follow what I assume to be the scenario
makers train of thought so, in this case, I assumed - in the absence of any pre-knowledge - that the Orions need to be up there right from the start.

Hence anyone playing this scenario for the first time is probably going to get his Orions wiped out at the outset, before he learns and then probably restarts
the scenario. This means that your first (unpleasant!) surprise is lost. If the Orion missions, for example, were inactive at the start of the scenario
this gives a pretty clear 'steer' that its probably not a good idea to get them in the air immediately.

Just a thought....

I would echo strykerpsg's comments about the scenario. It is a real pleasure to see a 'realistic' situation being set up in the GIUK gap during the Cold War period.
Harpoon had quite a few, they are less common here.

Thanks again for the work you have done on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bazza042

It looks as though our interests (and probably ages!) are pretty similar although where you got the time from to create this excellent scenario I really don't know but more power to you! Looking forward to the others in due course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5

Okay, my list of changes are:

1) change the airbases to multiple-unit
2) change trigger for Iceland strike on carrier task force
3) change P3's radar state
4) reduce the number of Orion's in the air at the onset
5) reduce the distance for the Yankees to travel for scoring
6) edit briefing to give the player a better understanding of objectives and potential threats

If anyone else had a suggested change, please post it here.

Thanks!

quote:

Okay, my list of changes are:

1) change the airbases to multiple-unit
2) change trigger for Iceland strike on carrier task force
3) change P3's radar state
4) reduce the number of Orion's in the air at the onset
5) reduce the distance for the Yankees to travel for scoring
6) edit briefing to give the player a better understanding of objectives and potential threats

If anyone else had a suggested change, please post it here.

Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5

Okay, my list of changes are:

1) change the airbases to multiple-unit
2) change trigger for Iceland strike on carrier task force
3) change P3's radar state
4) reduce the number of Orion's in the air at the onset
5) reduce the distance for the Yankees to travel for scoring
6) edit briefing to give the player a better understanding of objectives and potential threats

If anyone else had a suggested change, please post it here.

Thanks!