Mgellis
Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: madavid0 I noticed that many, if not most, of the modern era scenarios being created are seal-clubbing expeditions; meaning, carrier groups with F-35, Super Hornets, Burkes, Ticos and LA-class subs, etc, against developing world hellholes whose' job it is only to spam whack-a-mole 3rd gen export jets for target practice and ancient Soviet era corvettes. Generally the only "threat" is an S-300 installation they bought from Russia or China. I agree this is a challenge for scenario design. One way I handle it is that, if it is clear the major power is going to win, then the question of victory conditions becomes "how much does it cost?" So, for example, you may get 5 points for taking out an enemy plane, but you lose 20 if one of your own gets shot down. So you can take out the objectives, but any losses keeps the scenario from being a triumph and even a few can turn a "victory" into a "disaster." Another way to manage it is to say that there is some other crisis going on and only a few units are available. So the carrier battle group gets reduced to a couple of destroyers, a submarine, and a single squadron of planes and a few tankers at a base in a friendly country 300 miles away. This sounds a lot like the "hunter-killer surface action groups" some people are talking about as part of the US Navy's future. Or maybe the U.S. is so busy they won't be sending anything and it's left to a medium-sized E.U. or U.N. task force with some Dutch, Spanish, and Greek ships and planes to take care of the issue. Suddenly, dealing with those 20 or 30 ancient MiGs isn't such a cake walk anymore. Oh, and forget the S-300 SAMs...these days what you really have to worry about is a battery of shore-based cruise missiles...cheap enough, compared to a fleet of warships, that most countries can afford a few and a nice way to punish anyone who sends their ships too close to your coastline. So, yes, I agree it is an issue, but there are ways to deal with it.
|