Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Simple scenario, no succes (yet)

 
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 >> The War Room >> Simple scenario, no succes (yet) Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Simple scenario, no succes (yet) - 10/5/2013 2:26:49 PM   
Baskaatje

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Haarlem, Holland
Status: offline 		Anyone have good advice for me in the "Sea of Fire (Falklands 1982)" scenario?

So far, I've tried three times, all to no avail. First time round just set up a course for the target area for all three groups (Super-E's & two Skyhawk groups). The E's launched their Exocets when well within range, but both missles were first jammed and then shot out of the sky before getting even close to the RN ships. Both Skyhawk groups were easily downed with Sea Darts far out at sea.

Second round I send in the Skyhawks low over the Falklands, behind the hills and ridges and got very close to the ships, but once they got their feet wet again in the last four miles from the land to the ships, they were all shot down before getting into bombing range. The Exocets were jammed again + shot down.

The third time, I had all three groups close in on the RN ships at the same time, the Exocets coming in from the north while the Skyhawks came from south-east and south-west respectively. Although nicely timed, both the Exocets were shot down and 5 out of six Skyhawks (all with Seadarts), the last Skyhawk managed to bomb, but missed and was later also shot down by a Sea Wolf.

I don't see any viable options left to me, the RN ships are just to far from shore to surprise them by coming in from behind the hills. Any suggestions for a fourth try?
Post #: 1
RE: Simple scenario, no succes (yet) - 10/5/2013 3:20:28 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Get the skyhawks low and have them attack on different axis.

M

_____________________________


(in reply to Baskaatje)
Post #: 2
RE: Simple scenario, no succes (yet) - 11/13/2013 8:47:49 PM   
pandoraefretum

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 9/27/2013
Status: offline 		I usually get a score of 500... sometimes 1500 and I time everything to happen at once...
The Skyhawks usually miss with dumb bombs... around 80% of the time, in fact.
Keep the Etendards low, and expect their Exocets to get intercepted / shot down; best bet attack from the land so Coventry and Broadsword's radars cannot make you out against the land clutter (and work badly against multiple targets, or 2 aircraft in very close formation). These ships worked better in blue waters. Keep trying

(in reply to Baskaatje)
Post #: 3
RE: Simple scenario, no succes (yet) - 11/17/2013 9:03:08 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		Simple != Easy. In fact I would consider this one of the toughest official scenarios.

Try "Stand Up" for a simple scenario on the same theater, but much easier.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to pandoraefretum)
Post #: 4
RE: Simple scenario, no succes (yet) - 11/17/2013 4:45:27 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Get the skyhawks low and have them attack on different axis.

M

Now there's the problem right there Mike and I know its been posted before... 50 metres min alt = 165 feet, sorry that just is not low enough and Sea Wolf will eat you every time. IRL the A4's and Etendards came in much lower (which is why their bombs didn't always arm in time) - 30 feet was typical.

Now 30 feet poses problems for Sea Dart or any missile with a 10 metre range RF fuse and for Sea Wolf the reason that the Type 910 was replaced by the Type 911 was low level tracking issues.

So whilst it is correct to say go low, it is frustrating that a game constraint does not allow the player to go low enough...

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 5
RE: Simple scenario, no succes (yet) - 11/17/2013 5:42:29 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		What does it do with the latest build?

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 6
RE: Simple scenario, no succes (yet) - 11/17/2013 7:38:37 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline 		Not tried it, so will give it a go - guess you are telling me it should go lower?

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 7
RE: Simple scenario, no succes (yet) - 11/19/2013 1:02:34 PM   
Sigma8510

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 4/15/2006
Status: offline 		Played this one last night (463) and observed the lowest achievable altitude was 165ft for all aircraft.

While orbiting my Super E's about 20nm out at 165 AGL, they received a few SAM shots their way but no hits. I am not a pilot, but I would think that a 165ft orbit would be rough to maintain manually. Straight in however, my thought is that they would and should, go lower to stay below radar horizon as long as possible.

With all that said, I have had success with sinking one and damaging another pretty consistently by the coordination methods describe. Multiple axis attacks with coordinated TOT is key.


(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 8
RE: Simple scenario, no succes (yet) - 11/19/2013 4:35:06 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jbaxter1964

Played this one last night (463) and observed the lowest achievable altitude was 165ft for all aircraft.

While orbiting my Super E's about 20nm out at 165 AGL, they received a few SAM shots their way but no hits. I am not a pilot, but I would think that a 165ft orbit would be rough to maintain manually. Straight in however, my thought is that they would and should, go lower to stay below radar horizon as long as possible.

With all that said, I have had success with sinking one and damaging another pretty consistently by the coordination methods describe. Multiple axis attacks with coordinated TOT is key.



I'm no pilot either, but we used to fly 200' in peacetime and 100' in war and that was in an MPA. Seen fighters fly a lot lower. Its the height on the final attack run that is critical and you are only doing that for a minute or two from the IP. If you want to see how low you can fly, check out this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njyhTcqtmto and its not just the French AF that do this...

(in reply to Sigma8510)
Post #: 9
RE: Simple scenario, no succes (yet) - 1/1/2014 5:14:43 PM   
SnAkE_OnE

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 1/1/2014
Status: offline 		After the 1.02 patch it became easier, my tactic is to make a first radar sweep with the SuE's, then create a new mission and assign the A-4's to both RN ships, Keeping on loiter the SuE's, once the A-4's passed all the land masses of this straight route, i put them on minimum altitude and full speed. Since they're being silent it comes harder for the ships to pick'em. Then i shoot both AM-39's in almost limit range, since the Exocet is faster than skyhawks, the ships will be distracted by them. In time both attacks will come very close from each other and the skyhawks could launch the bombs at 305m safely on terminal approach.

Worked more than a few times, just lost one of them.

Best Regards

Federico

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> The War Room >> Simple scenario, no succes (yet) Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734