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: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP

 
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: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/13/2016 5:48:02 PM   
Yokes

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline
This is my first attempt at a Baltic Sea scenario. Talk about a knife fight in a phone booth!

This is the Warsaw Pact version. I will create a NATO version after this one is done.

I am interested in the difficulty. The Warsaw Pact are supposed to win, according to the book, but I don't want it to be too easy.

I appreciate any feedback!

Yokes

Update 1: scenario starts with AEW and jamming aircraft airborne. Trimmed some of the Soviet bombers.
Update 2: added 12 more Flankers and Fulcrums

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Yokes -- 2/21/2016 1:38:00 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/14/2016 2:16:24 PM   
Gunner98

 

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

Just starting this one up and your description is very apt. I would recommend that Soviet Jammers and AWACs be airborne at start as a pre-condition to this attack which would even out the early advantage the Aim-7's have on the older MiGs. Sort of dropping a smoke grenade in the phone booth.

(in reply to Yokes)
Post #: 2
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/14/2016 5:10:55 PM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
Well... I gave it a go but got my but handed to me the first time. I have no idea what to do with my MIG-21's and my 23's aren't good for much either...

Let give it another try ;)

W.

_____________________________

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 #: 3
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/14/2016 6:00:48 PM   
B52H

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 6/28/2015
Status: offline
I decided and to give this scenario a shot and it turned out to be a complete disaster in the first few hours. I decided to launch my A-50 AWACS and TU-16 OECM aircraft first and wait until they were on station on the East German-Polish border. During this time period, a few F-4Gs launched a strike on a radar and an SA-5 site in the DDR, knocking out the radar and destroying one of the SA-5's radars. Once the support aircraft were on station, I launched 20 aircraft (12 MIG-23, 4 MIG-21, and 4 MIG-29) to conduct an AAW surge over Denmark. A lone MPA aircraft was flying at 2,000 feet over Lolland so it was knocked out of the sky with two AA-10s from the MIG-29s. Shortly afterwards, a group of F-4E Phantoms launched their Sparrows on a group of 8 MIG-23s, but none of them were destroyed. The F-4s then fired their remaining at the MIG-21s, sending their wreckage spiraling downwards into the Baltic. The MIG-23s then fired off some of their AA-7s at the F-4Es and some Danish F-16As close behind. The F-4Es were picked off one-by-one, but the F-16s absorbed the missiles. The MIG-29s came in range of the F-16s and fired some of their Alamos, but once again the missiles failed to hit their target. The Danish F-16s were soon within range of a group of 4 MIG-23s, and picked off two with their Sidewinders before the other two aircraft fired their AA-8s, sending more aircraft down to the cold waters of the Baltic. With two remaining MIG-29s armed with only guns and AA-8s, I decided they were no longer useful and RTBed them back to East Germany along with the survivors of the group of 4 MIG-23s. I launched another group of MIG-21s from East Germany, two groups of 6 SU-24s each from Kaliningrad, and 4 MIG-31s from Kaliningrad as well. The remaining 8 MIG-23s were sent to the North to hopefully draw out some F-16s. Nearly halfway there, a SAM popped up on the MIG's radar warning receivers and a volley of eight missiles were detected. None hit their targets. Shortly afterwards, ten bogeys were detected taking off from an air base near Copenhagen. The MIG-23s were sent on full afterburner to intercept the newly arrived aircraft. When the aircraft got in missile range of each other, another SAM popped up and launched another volley of eight missiles just as the first group of F-16s fired their Sidewinders. MIG after MIG fell from the sky until all eight aircraft were destroyed.

After this, I decided enough was enough and called it quits. I'll try a second round and see if it works better, but I would like to suggest that the AWACS and jammers should be in the air when the scenario starts and that a few land-based anti-ship missiles are added to the Warsaw Pact side.

Overall, this is a very challenging scenario to play from the Warsaw Pact side as nearly all aircraft are obsolete when compared to their NATO counterparts. Can't wait to play from the NATO side!

B52H

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 4
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/14/2016 6:57:53 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Made two tries, on the 2nd run I put a Su-24 Jammer off the South tip of Sweden and a Bear Jammer East of Bornholm along with an AWACS.

Had a fairly simple setup, 3 CAPs forward with 12 MiGs at a time in the two southern (6 each of 21 & 23), 4 each of Mig 23 & 29 in the North, backed up by a CAP of 4 Su-27 & Mig 29 covering leakers along the whole area. Prosecution zones over the southern part of Denmark. This did not work too well in either try. The jammers made the skies slightly safer, in the first the death ratio was 1:25 after 15 min (rolled a 1 against an f-16), in the 2nd it was 4:19 after about the same time period. The only success was some feisty Su-22s taking out the two southern radars in each try.

In addition to the airborne jammers and AWACS I think the Soviet OOB needs a look. I don't believe that MiG-21's belong on this front in 89. I think that you may wish to consider replacing all the MiG-21's with 23's of the MLD variant. Also the older Su-17s should be replaced by MiG-27s, or at least more Su-22s. And to add spice, another Regt of Su-27's should work well.

I note in the naval deployment you have a lot of Osa's and other patrol boats in a big gaggle well to the east. It might be more accurate, and fun, to see them boil out of the Lubeck/Rostock area and tangle with some of the Danish patrol boats that were designed to counter them.

I think these changes might make the opening few minutes tolerable until numbers gain some marginal air superiority which will be needed for the Amphibs.

B



< Message edited by Gunner98 -- 2/14/2016 8:00:44 PM >

(in reply to B52H)
Post #: 5
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/14/2016 8:52:38 PM   
AlexGGGG

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 9/25/2014
Status: offline
In Backfires, I would take ARM initial loadouts over ASM any day.

< Message edited by AlexGGGG -- 2/14/2016 9:53:52 PM >

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 6
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/16/2016 4:55:08 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 2318
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Well, I'm two hours into it, so time for a Sitrep.

Heavy air engagements have been raging at the eastern end of the Baltic.

I started out sending all 12 of the Mig-31s on a screaming afterburner dash down the Baltic, staying at altitude while using the AA-9s with complete range impunity, and then burnering back home again. Total flight time, 30 to 40 minutes! Quick turnaround means they'll be launching again shortly, and I'll repeat the process with the entire squadron, before standing down for a hearty lunch. Two more similar missions should happen in the afternoon, and then two more in the evening. A tiring day for the pilots, but NATO doesn't really have anything to threaten them so long as they fight from standoff, so I don't expect to lose many. So far they've managed to escape unharmed. I'm wondering about going after the NATO AWACS, which is lurking off in the distance behind an escort screen, but that would put me uncomfortably close to some SAM sites, so I may hold off on that.

My Su-27s have been doing well, and my Mig-29s have been doing okay too, although the F-4s have been threatening them since their Sparrows outrange my AA-10A. The Mig-23s haven't been having such a good day, and they've largely tried to gang up on lone aircraft which have already used their Sparrows. The Mig-21s are doing poorly, although some are making a brave effort to go after isolated enemies, but their terrible missiles are a huge handicap, with dismal accuracy, limited rear aspect seekers, and no ability to go after low altitude targets. I don't think I've hit anything with their missiles yet, but I have achieved three gun kills. The Mig-21s are nimble, and if I can get them in behind an F-4 it usually can't shake the Mig off. They've also done a useful job drawing SAM fire.

NATO seems to be flying in reasonably large units, not just in single pairs, which is making things tougher. I can't count on micromanaging a pair of my own fighters to deal with the foe a piece at a time, so I'm forced to use large formations myself. At the moment I've used almost all my late generation fighters. I've got 3 pairs of Mig-29s coming in, and a another three pairs of SU-27s coming in from the far end of the Baltic, with a half dozen left ready on the ground there. All my other 27/29/31s are flying home or re-arming, as are half my Mig-23s and a third of my Mig-21s. So if NATO makes a strike now I'll mostly be facing it with 23s and 21s, which won't go well.

Ground attack outcomes have been somewhat mixed. Fitters and Fencers have managed to clear out some of the coastal and air surveillance radars near my objective, as well as the HAWK battery defending the coastal fort. I sent the Fitters zooming over the fort at low altitude to strafe the damaged HAWK site, confident that they were all safe from the big guns, and completely forgetting that they had 40mm flack parked on the roof of the fort. Ooops... I've battered the fort a bit with Kingbolts, but so far that hasn't done much, and I think I'll have to re-arm some of the Fencers with big guided bombs to do anything to it. I also wanted to tackle the surveillance radars on the south shore past Kiel, but the barrage of HAWKs and Patriots has kept me away, and I haven't been able to localize the SAMs well enough to deal with them with long range munitions. NATO's also got a fairly big surface group sitting over near Kiel. So far it's not going anywhere, and it's well covered by those SAMs. Perhaps if I salvo in my big ASMs they will perform double duty as drones to soak up the SAMs, and I can get close enough to the SAM sites to deal with them with the Fitters and Fencers at the same time. I have a lot of SAM sites of my own, but I've kept them radar silent for the most part (along with my western surveillance radars) for fear of HARM. I've briefly turned on the SA-5 three times now, when there weren't any F-4s within 70 miles, but I haven't hit anything yet. (The game will be a moral victory if I can get one SA-5 kill!) I did manage to nail an incautious F-4 with a pair of SA-12s though, so my SAM gunners have something to comfort themselves with.

My own ships are advancing steadily down the coast, with a heavy escort of land based ASW planes and helicopters, which are being kept very busy by numerous false and biological targets. However, the Baltic is so shallow here that the enemy subs are often at periscope depth whether they want to be or not, and I've been able to spot and sink four of them so far. Unfortunately, NATO leakers have gotten out of the dogfight from time to time, and I've lost a couple of my ASW aircraft as a result. My own subs include three ancient Foxtrots with no ASW weapons at all. Unless the enemy surface group sorties they're not going to be of much use, because the sea is empty of other surface targets. My one Kilo is patrolling the straits, but I'm not optimistic that it will find anything in the rotten sonar conditions.

So there we are: air war going reasonably well because I've surged virtually every modern fighter in the space of 90 minutes, sub war going well (as far as I can tell - who knows how many of the wretched things are out there), and air-to-ground making some limited progress. Now I have to hold on until my modern fighters recycle, and hope NATO doesn't catch me while we're all on the ground.




(in reply to AlexGGGG)
Post #: 7
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/16/2016 2:50:59 PM   
Excroat3

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98


In addition to the airborne jammers and AWACS I think the Soviet OOB needs a look. I don't believe that MiG-21's belong on this front in 89. I think that you may wish to consider replacing all the MiG-21's with 23's of the MLD variant. Also the older Su-17s should be replaced by MiG-27s, or at least more Su-22s. And to add spice, another Regt of Su-27's should work well.


IIRC, The 21s, 23s, and the 17s are NWSP aircraft (Polish and East German) in the book. I do agree with your other points, though this battle in the book does take place about a week after the start of the war, so there has been heavy attrition on both sides.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 8
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/16/2016 9:04:22 PM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
Ok, I just finished the scenario by having my invasion forces sunk...

The premise of this scenario is good, but the MIG-21's are basically useless in this scenario and you simply do not have enough effective fighters left in the end to counter the mass attack.
While this scenario lacks in fighters, there are way to much attack AC to use effectively for the limited amount of ground targets available on the Denmark islands (attacking the SAM's on the main land is suicide so I stopped doing that).

I would simply add more MIG-29' or SU27's to make this scenario actually winnable for the USSR side.

_____________________________

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 Excroat3)
Post #: 9
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/17/2016 3:57:15 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 2318
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
SA-5 downs F-4! Western leaders recoil in shock! NATO surrender imminent!

Summon the ambassadors: the war is over!

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 10
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/17/2016 2:58:38 PM   
Yokes

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

Ok, I just finished the scenario by having my invasion forces sunk...

The premise of this scenario is good, but the MIG-21's are basically useless in this scenario and you simply do not have enough effective fighters left in the end to counter the mass attack.
While this scenario lacks in fighters, there are way to much attack AC to use effectively for the limited amount of ground targets available on the Denmark islands (attacking the SAM's on the main land is suicide so I stopped doing that).

I would simply add more MIG-29' or SU27's to make this scenario actually winnable for the USSR side.


Wild Willie2,

Did you try reserving the MiG-21s until the mass attack? They are actually fairly useful at taking down the attack aircraft using guns.

Anyone else think it is too hard? I am open to adding more advanced fighters.

Yokes

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 11
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/17/2016 3:28:02 PM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
The main problem with the MIG-21's is that it takes them to much time to intercept the Tornado's as they can only fire at them after a very long stern chase so the tornado's can fire their ASM before being shot down.

Also the escorting fighters took out many CAP Mig-21 before they could even fire. The geography of the battlefield is such that there is only a very small window of opportunity to intercept the bombers before they can fire and the weapons loadout and performance of the MIG-21 is such that you basically need to know that the attack is coming else you will be to late to intercept it.

If I would reload a save game and have all my 21's airborne and in the right location before the final attack, I would most likely be able to intercept it but without this previous knowledge the window for interception is extremely small.

W.

_____________________________

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 Yokes)
Post #: 12
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/17/2016 5:58:23 PM   
Yokes

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline
Wild Willie2,

That's fair. I try to match the book as much as possible, but this may be one of those times where the book is not realistic.

I would still like to keep the MiG-21s because I think East Germany and Poland were stuck with them in 1989. But I can add more MiG-29s and Su-27s.

What do you suggest? How many?

Yokes


(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 13
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/17/2016 8:12:14 PM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
I think that adding an extra 12 Su-27's and MIG-29's would go a long way to remedy this problem.
I would also remove half of the 21's as they are basically useless (or put the ammo for an air to ground loadout option on their airbases so I could use them for ground attacks instead).

Also, there are way to much USSR attack planes in this scenario for the available targets. I tried taking out the SAM defenses on the mainland with the extra AC and it was a slaughter, costing me at least 4-5 AC for every SAM site. Those patriot and hawk sites are nasty...

So either put in some extra ground targets near the invasion sites or remove 2/3 of the Su-24 fleet as they are just clutter.

Hope this helps.

W.







_____________________________

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 Yokes)
Post #: 14
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/18/2016 2:52:21 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 2318
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Another chance to play, so another quick sitrep.

With most of my better fighters on the ground re-arming, the second line fighters try to fill their place, with the few remaining Mig-29s stiffening the line. The F-16s out of Vaerlose in the N are keeping quiet for the moment, but Phantoms and F-16s in the west are still active. Attempts to sortie out to meet them go poorly, so I end up falling back into my SAM belt, closer to my jammers, and letting them come to me.

The SA-2s and SA-3s are ineffective (1% hit chance against a dodging F-16), and don't shoot down anything, but they do force the enemy to maneuver, which helps my older fighters survive long enough to get into shooting positions. The Mi-23s claim some kills this way, but the Mig-21s don't manage to score, and the Mig-29s (now down to their last few AA-11s) have to do the bulk of the work.

The F-4s are flying in spread out pairs now, which suggests they're not the Wild Weasel formations that were present at the start of the scenario, so I start using the SA-5 more often. Lo and behold, the SA-5, Hero of the Soviet Union, Master Marksman Extra-Ordinaire, manages to get a total of four F-4 kills! Not only are the kills themselves valuable, but a well timed shot is often able to force the Phantom to turn away to dodge the SAM, forcing it to break lock on its dangerous long-range Sparrows. Several Soviet planes get saved this way, and the Zampolit is sending in a glowing report about the effectiveness of proper socialist zeal as applied to long range rocketry. The SA-5 only has 4 shots left now, so it will have to stand down soon. (The SA-12s are holding fire, and waiting in case they're needed later.)

Shortly after this the 6 Su-27s arrived from the east end of the Baltic, to escort a strike package of Kedge-toting Fitters against the coastal fort near Faxe. There's a sharp engagement as 6 rapid-reaction F-16s come roaring up out of Vaerlose, followed shortly by two more, but the Su-27s manage to use their range advantage to kill them before they come to grips. The Fitters come in on the deck, while the Su-27s fend off two pairs of Phantoms from the west. The first pilots have difficulty spotting the fort until very close, and some have to wave off within minimum range, but the remainder manage to put their missiles on target. Kedges have an SAP warhead which works just fine against the fort, and the big guns are put out of action. As the Fitters turn back home at wavetop level one of them radios in a report of a sub periscope spotted near the mouth of the bay, which will definitely need to be dealt with before the amphibs arrive.

One byproduct of this raid is the discovery that a Fitter at wavetop level can get extremely close to a coastal HAWK without being engaged. A few of them break off to strafe the SAM site SE of Vaerlose, doing a bit of damage before running away from a Phantom patrol (and almost getting intercepted for their impertinence). I may be able to use this to take down more of the SAM sites later on.

In other news, one of my coastal Foxtrot subs (the one closest to the minesweepers) suddenly detects incoming torpedoes! The crew turns to run at flank speed, knowing they've got almost no chance to outrun anything, but fortunately the sonar conditions are so terrible in the shallow water that torps fail to lock on, and they circle uselessly while the Foxtrot flees helplessly. They can't even shoot back with their own torpedoes, which have no ASW capability. Fortunately a pair of nearby flying boats arrive shortly afterwards, and they manage to pin down the location of the enemy sub with their MAD gear, and sink it. This means 5 NATO subs have been sunk, there's at least one more in the bay I have to enter, and another pair of flying boats is trying to prosecute another possible contact that may threaten the amphibs later.

I haven't seen any NATO planes for the last little while (other than the distant AWACs and its escorts), so maybe it's time to launch a strike while they're weakened and re-arming. My Mig-31s are all ready again. Time to fly!

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 15
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/20/2016 3:17:40 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 2318
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Operations continue in the Baltic.

My submarine hunters continue to have a very busy time resolving contacts that seem to pop up everywhere. On the plus side, I am now on a first-name basis with every whale and floating packing crate in the Baltic. On the downside, the tuna-fish will never speak to me again. I've found three more actual subs so far. One was sunk in the central Baltic, and I was finally able to localize and destroy the one in the mouth of my destination bay. One more has been found in the channel leading towards the NATO flotilla, and it has managed to evade two torps so far, but it is being steadily tracked by ASW helicopters, and more are on the way. It's far from my ships so I don't anticipate any problems with it. I had one alarming moment when a sonar contact appeared at extremely close range in front of my patrol craft flotilla, well within RBU range, and I thought I was going to lose some ships. A barrage of precious ASW torpedoes (those patrol craft don't carry very many) were launched before the contact was localized enough to engage any other way, and ships started running this way and that at flank speed to close or evade. When one of the the torpedoes eventually managed to hit it turned out I was engaging tuna-fish. The words from high command were unkind... (On the plus side, these little NATO subs are fragile. One hit is enough, and I don't have to batter away at them like I would against a heavy Soviet SSN.)

NATO air power seems to be crippled. I haven't seen another plane other than the distant AWACS and friends. Mig-21s were sent on probing missions, skirting the edges of the SAM envelope, to see if they could draw a response from any interceptors, but nothing took the bait. I was even able to get around behind the northern Patriot's limited arc of fire and strafe the northern surveillance radar.

With this encouraging development I launched a major SEAD attack on the western NATO defences, combining a full regimental bomber attack on the NATO surface group (still lying at anchor near Kiel) with every available Fitter and Fencer coming in at wavetop level. (Only the ones still reloading from the strike on the coastal fort were excluded.) Meanwhile a heavy CAP (all my Mig-31s and many Su-29s and Su-27s) stood off outside SAM range, ready to respond if necessary. My goal was to clear out the coastal SAM defences so I can operate a CAP directly between NATO's western airbases and my amphibious landing zone.

All went well at first, with the incoming AS-4s drawing the SAM fire, while my planes started hitting coastal sites. The surface group (largely composed of frigates with limited air defences) was sunk, and I started making progress on the SAMs. ELINT resources had identified the general location of 2 Patriots, 3 HAWKs, and 2 surveillance radars, but as I started pressing inland 3 more HAWKs lit up to join the fun, and things started getting more difficult. Planes trying to end-run around the northern Patriot found out it wasn't pointed exactly where I thought it was, and that it still had a few missiles left for them. HAWK batteries that had stopped shooting after they were damaged proved they were just reloading, and that their camera trackers worked just fine. ARM carriers had to rise up to vulnerable altitudes to try and get clear reception of their target's radar emissions. In the end I lost 6 Fitters and 3 Fencers. I probably should have limited my attack, and not tried to go so far inland or to engage the new HAWK targets, and I would have escaped with fewer casualties. However, objectives were met: 1 Patriot, 4 HAWKs, and 2 surveillance radars were destroyed (along with the entire surface group) and one more HAWK was damaged. I can now operate over the Baltic without being targeted by SAMs.

Everyone's headed home now, screened by the fighters. NATO still has the second Patriot and an undamaged HAWK in the SW, but I think I may be able to get around in behind those (hopefully the Patriot is pointed the wrong direction) and engage the AWACs with my Mig-31s. I'd also like to knock back the SAM sites up near Vaerlose, to give myself more maneuver room there. We shall see!


(in reply to Yokes)
Post #: 16
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/25/2016 10:56:51 AM   
AlexGGGG

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 9/25/2014
Status: offline
At about 20 hours to go, I discovered that patrol boats of landing force, 4x KP 166 Pilica [Pr.918M] ran out of fuel. I worked around that, loaded the save into editor and detached them from the landing group, but you may want to look into it.

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 17
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/25/2016 6:10:14 PM   
AlexGGGG

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 9/25/2014
Status: offline
At 14 hours 14 minutes to go, I won. Score 9 Major Victory.
Following is the account of units wasted:

SIDE: Warsaw Pact
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
28x MiG-23ML Flogger G
2x Radar (Bar Lock A [P-37])
9x MiG-29 Fulcrum A
4x Su-27P Flanker B
7x MiG-29 Fulcrum A
24x Su-17M-3 Fitter H
13x Su-24M Fencer D
11x Su-22M-4K Fitter K
3x MiG-31 Foxhound
1x Be-12PL Mail
3x Mi-14PL Haze A
2x Vehicle (Grill Pan [9S32-1])
2x SA-12a Gladiator [9A83] TELAR
2x SA-12a Gladiator [9A84] LLV
1x Su-27S Flanker B
2x Vehicle (Flat Face B [P-19])
3x SA-3b Goa Quad Rail
1x Vehicle (Low Blow [SNR-125])
3x SA-7a Grail [9K32 Strela-2] MANPADS
24x MiG-21MF Fishbed J
9x MiG-21M Fishbed J
4x 630 Goplo [Pr.207D/P/M, NATO Notec]
3x KP 166 Pilica [Pr.918M]
2x Project 133.1 Parchim
1x Project 1241 Tarantul I [Pr.1241.1T]

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

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
12x F-4G Phantom II [Wild Weasel V]
60x F-16A Falcon
9x S 192 U 13 [Type 206A]
36x F-4E Phantom II
1x Radar (MPDR-30 TMLD)
38x M192 I-HAWK
7x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-51 ROR)
2x 150mm/55 SK C/28 Coastal Gun [Twin Turret]
7x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR)
4x 40mm/56 Mk1 Twin Bofors
4x Radar (Coastal)
6x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-50 PAR)
8x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-57 HPI [TAS Camera])
4x D 181A Hamburg [Type Z101A]
1x D 185 Lütjens [Charles F. Adams, Type Z103B]
2x Lynx Mk88
4x F 207 Bremen [Type F122]
1x Building (Generic Coastal Surveilance Radar)
2x Radar (THD-1955 MPR)
4x Radar (AN/FPS-6A HF)
1x S 320 Narhvalen [Modified Type 205]
3x BR.1150 Atlantic 1
4x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-57 HPI [HEOS Camera])
24x Tornado IDS
24x F-35XD Draken
12x F-15C Eagle
12x F-16A Falcon
1x TR-1A Dragon Lady

(in reply to AlexGGGG)
Post #: 18
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/25/2016 10:57:10 PM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 2318
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Is anyone else having difficulties getting their minesweepers to actually sweep the mines?

(in reply to AlexGGGG)
Post #: 19
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/26/2016 2:16:02 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 2318
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Operations are now complete.

Long range Mig-31s, in conjunction with jammer aircraft, skirted around NATO defences to engage and destroy the AWACs and its escorts. (It's amazing how well bringing the entire squadron works.) In the same area some late arriving Fencers with ARMs did some minor damage to another HAWK battery in the area (finding another one in the process), but were largely rebuffed.

After that a general pause in air operations gave me the free time to appreciate what a bad situation I'd put my minelayers in, by hurrying them forward unsupported, when torpedoes started rushing through the water towards them. Once again the only thing that saved me was the fact that the torps mostly didn't lock on, and circled harmlessly. One that did lock on managed to miss. The loss of a bunch of minelayers could have been extremely bad for the mission - escorts mandatory! ASW aircraft converged, and the sub was soon dealt with.

A few more F-4s made another sortie, and the SA-5 had a shot at them before realizing they were coming straight towards it. The missile missed, and the SA-5 shut down its radar while the planes were still 80 nm out. My watching AEW plane saw the F-4s turn aside immediately after that, strongly suggesting they were Weasels, and had been making an attack run. Since the F-4s had no AEW radar support of their own, some of my Mig-23s were safely vectored in behind them, and that was that.

The next step, in the early evening, was another heavy SEAD raid on the 3 HAWKs up around Vaerlose. Fitters and Fencers dealt with them, with a few losses, and continued onwards to destroy all the remaining air surveillance radars, to complete the blinding of the NATO air defences. A desultory attempt was also made to bomb Vaerlose, but the oncoming dark made it ineffective.

At that point a lone airborne surface-search radar contact of a very unique nature was picked up coming in from far to the north. Fortunately, my high altitude Mig-31s flying CAP were there to deal with it before it got close enough to see my ships, and I thought that I might escape notice from NATO throughout the night. Not so! Shortly thereafter masses of aircraft started launching and heading in from all the NATO airfields, many of them hugging the waves, and those that didn't bother flying low turned out to be Eagles. I had some decent CAP on station, but not as much as I would have liked (and they had to split N and W) so the scramble order went out to all airfields, as I tried to stem the flow of attackers with Mig-21s and Mig-23s until the bulk of the better fighters could arrive. The Eagles made a mess of a number of them, but in doing so they had to spend missiles on low value targets, and Mig-31s burnering in from the far end of the Baltic, along with Su-27s from closer at hand, were able to eventually shoot them down, while other planes closed in to deal with the Tornadoes, F-16s, and, to my delight, Drakens.

Drakens! I hadn't expected to see those. Bravely skimming the wavetops, pressing on into the gathering gloom with their loadouts of iron bombs and cannon, the determined Draken pilots actually got closer to my ships than anyone else. It didn't help them in the end (I suppose the CAP parked directly on top of Vaerlose was a handicap), and it was a shame to shoot down such beautiful aircraft.

The attackers arrived in two heavy waves and a third lighter wave, but I had enough on station by that point that I could overwhelm the attackers despite the dangerous Eagles, and from that point onwards it was a matter of escorting my ships to their destination.


Assorted observations:

It's possible for a very low-flying attack plane to get right up to NATO's coastal SAM sites without being engaged. You could then cannon-fire them into oblivion, if desired, which seems a bit of a cheap kill. Maybe a little bit of light AAA would be realistic to accompany these particular installations? Just enough to keep us honest!

The NATO SAMs seem to be all set to fire at maximum range, which means that when they engage fighters the fighters can often just turn aside and fly out of range before the SAM can get there. This is particularly true of the long-range Patriots with their longer flight time. I'd recommend using their WRA to turn down the engagement range against fighters, so the SAM engagements happen within the no-escape zone. This sacrifices some range, but also means that shots will always have a chance to hit, instead of being easily outrun.

The Pilica sub hunters (as mentioned in an earlier post) have an extremely small amount of fuel in the database, and will run out in just over half a day or so. Some other unit would be needed to provide escort.

I'd suggest the high-altitude visitor be set to have active emissions only on station. I have to admit I didn't even notice the Rygge airbase, but the moment that airplane took off with its radar turned on my ESM assets picked it up and I had plenty of warning to deal with it. I might not have noticed it until much too late if it had remained silent until it arrived on station.

I don't know if you'd want to consider making Vaerlose a multi-unit airbase? It's the closest airbase to the objective, and the most likely to be attacked by the player. I was actually in a position to make a useful attack on it a few times, and multi-unit airfields are more realistic in those circumstances. I think an attack would be less likely on the other fields (although I was over them too).

I think a close defence reserve, possibly in Eggebec or perhaps Lec, could be very useful for the NATO forces. When I had knocked down most of the fighters and went in to attack the SAM sites there my ground attack aircraft were able to safely approach under the radar unopposed, while my fighters hung back out of SAM range. A mere handful of aircraft popping up on a short-range interception mission could have lead a merry massacre on my attackers, or forced me to bring the fighters into SAM range to defend them. The same might also be true up in Vaerlose.

I liked the AWACS patrolling with a strong escort and jammer, safely behind the heavy SAM belt. Very realistic, and a real all-seeing pain in the posterior, until I could devote enough resources to defeat the Baltic CAP, make a hole in the SAMs, and send an entire squadron to deal with the escorts. Once that was done, however, the next two flew to their doom. Is there any way to prevent the next ones launching while there are enemy fighters in the area?

I think I see how I escaped the torps. The sub fires, and then speeds up, reducing its sonar effectiveness and making the uncertainty area grow greatly, instead of staying small. The torps go to the uncertainty zone centroid, and then start hunting, but the centroid is now too far from the surface ship target, and no lock-ons happen. I don't know if there's anything that can be tweaked about that.


Thanks again for another great scenario!






< Message edited by AndrewJ -- 2/26/2016 2:28:45 AM >

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 20
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/26/2016 7:45:08 PM   
Yokes

 

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

Thank you for such great write-ups! I really appreciate that you explain your thinking behind your actions. It helps me program the AI behavior when I know how people approach a situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewJ

Assorted observations:

The NATO SAMs seem to be all set to fire at maximum range, which means that when they engage fighters the fighters can often just turn aside and fly out of range before the SAM can get there. This is particularly true of the long-range Patriots with their longer flight time. I'd recommend using their WRA to turn down the engagement range against fighters, so the SAM engagements happen within the no-escape zone. This sacrifices some range, but also means that shots will always have a chance to hit, instead of being easily outrun.



This is good advice, and something I should be doing with all my scenarios...

quote:



The Pilica sub hunters (as mentioned in an earlier post) have an extremely small amount of fuel in the database, and will run out in just over half a day or so. Some other unit would be needed to provide escort.



Yes, I should do that. <Laziness levels rising...>

quote:



I'd suggest the high-altitude visitor be set to have active emissions only on station. I have to admit I didn't even notice the Rygge airbase, but the moment that airplane took off with its radar turned on my ESM assets picked it up and I had plenty of warning to deal with it. I might not have noticed it until much too late if it had remained silent until it arrived on station.



This is a good idea.

quote:



I don't know if you'd want to consider making Vaerlose a multi-unit airbase? It's the closest airbase to the objective, and the most likely to be attacked by the player. I was actually in a position to make a useful attack on it a few times, and multi-unit airfields are more realistic in those circumstances. I think an attack would be less likely on the other fields (although I was over them too).



After my own playthrough I thought the same thing. However, I found that by the time I was ready to attack it all the fighters there were dead. So it does give the player something to do, but it doesn't really impact the outcome. Then I started thinking about deleting the existing base, importing the multi-unit base, adding the aircraft, adding the munitions to the various weapon shelters... <WARNING! Laziness levels have exceeded safe limits!>

quote:



I liked the AWACS patrolling with a strong escort and jammer, safely behind the heavy SAM belt. Very realistic, and a real all-seeing pain in the posterior, until I could devote enough resources to defeat the Baltic CAP, make a hole in the SAMs, and send an entire squadron to deal with the escorts. Once that was done, however, the next two flew to their doom. Is there any way to prevent the next ones launching while there are enemy fighters in the area?



I'm glad you liked it, because I almost didn't add it...

I was sorta hoping that people would see the line of SAMs and fighters and just think "not worth it". I'm glad someone tried going after them and being successful. There is probably a really complicated way of keeping the AWACS and jammers from launching, but it would be really difficult to program, and it would likely be really "fragile" and quick to fail to work properly.

quote:



Thanks again for another great scenario!



I'll keep creating them if you keep writing these AARs!

Yokes

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 21
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/26/2016 9:08:35 PM   
AlexGGGG

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 9/25/2014
Status: offline
I have problems with minesweepers reaching the target area, as in only one got through enemy ASMs. Once it was on station, I did not have much problem with it sweeping the area except for minesweepers are only good for maybe ten mines max. Then, the damage of mines blowing up gets to them eventually. Since I did most sweep with helos (which I kept on the ground until I got air superiority), the lackluster life-endurance of minesweeper ships was not a problem.

(in reply to Yokes)
Post #: 22
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/26/2016 9:14:08 PM   
AlexGGGG

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 9/25/2014
Status: offline
Yokes,

As far as delaying AEW launch, if you just have a trigger to disable the mission once fighter aircraft are in certain area (somewhere past SAM barrier, so they are actually a threat), then put AEW/JAM mission on "inactive" status temporarily. I believe this will have the effect of aircraft currently in the air just staying where they are (which is OK) and new aircraft will be duly readied but not launched. Then, once enemy fighters are not in the area, turn back the mission (to active). The side effect is escort will also be disabled and just loiter there lazily and no replacements launched, but if you have a separate missions for backyard CAP/escort that would not be a problem.

I did not have the specific problem of AEW launching replacements into my field of fire, but NATO version has similar problem of launching minesweeper helicopters when my fighters are about just overhead.

< Message edited by AlexGGGG -- 2/26/2016 9:15:23 PM >

(in reply to AlexGGGG)
Post #: 23
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/27/2016 4:34:59 PM   
Yokes

 

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

I thought about that, but I am concerned that a single fighter going in and out of the zone will cause the mission to be enabled/disabled a bunch of times in a short period of time. I am not sure how the game would handle that. Have you tried this?

Yokes

(in reply to AlexGGGG)
Post #: 24
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 2/27/2016 8:12:48 PM   
AlexGGGG

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 9/25/2014
Status: offline
I never tried this on script, but in manual application this is not a problem. Even if the mission will jiggle on/off, the outside behavior will be fairly smooth.

When the mission is inactive,

1. new courses are not plotted (aircraft goes to its last plotted waypoint and orbits there because there is no further order),
2. new aircraft is not launched.
3. bingo fuel aircraft is returned to their assigned base as usual.
4. firing orders are not issued, for, say AAW patrol (and SARH missiles inflight are aborted)

when the mission goes active
1. the courses are plotted from whatever current positions are, to random points inside the now-current patrol zone (in cause patrol zone is defined by movable refpoints and moved while the mission was inactive)
2. new aircraft are launched if not enough aircraft are on station and there is something ready to launch
3. if there is enemy in a range of fire and RoE is satisfied, firing orders are issued and firing commences straight away

In case of AAW or whatever other mission requiring SARH, there is a problem - each time ON/OFF loop is triggered, all SARH missiles in flight are discarded, and new ones are launched, expending missiles faster than optimal. However, in your case it is AEW, and it's only mission is to loiter around. Which it will happily do, I just tested by jiggling it manually.


(in reply to Yokes)
Post #: 25
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 3/1/2016 3:44:59 PM   
Yokes

 

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

I was thinking about implementing the enable/disable based upon nearby fighters, and I ran into something that I think is a problem, but I wanted to get your (or anyone else's) opinion.

I was planning on implementing a "unit enters area" trigger to disable the mission and a "unit enters area" with the "not" setting checked for the enable trigger. However, the enable trigger event would be firing continuously during the vast majority (or all of) the scenario. This bothers me, since I usually play with the events displayed (for troubleshooting).

Do other folks play with the events displayed?

Yokes

(in reply to AlexGGGG)
Post #: 26
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 3/1/2016 5:59:24 PM   
AlexGGGG

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 9/25/2014
Status: offline
Oh. Yes, I do play with events displayed. Shame on me, but the last time I tried to disable it, I was not able to find how :)

(in reply to Yokes)
Post #: 27
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 3/1/2016 9:47:30 PM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 2318
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
I usually do have them on for troubleshooting also.

(in reply to AlexGGGG)
Post #: 28
RE: New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP - 3/15/2016 11:13:33 AM   
Jake9

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 3/15/2016
Status: offline
Greetings all!

Recent convert to C-MANO, I thought I should add my experiences regarding this mission;
I should state beforehand that I enjoy the challenge of managing WP forces where no mistakes are allowed due to technological inferiority in general.
In true Communist language there we go:


From: The Defence Commissar
To: Members of Politbureau
Urgent

Comrades,
Over the last 2 years, the imperialists are applying a strategy of soft blockade to our Baltic forces.
As a result, exporting the benefits of socialism to Latin America and Africa has been limited.
Despite our peaceful requests, they keep imposing tighter measures. Only recently, we were denied access to our peaceful Northern Pole exploring WP force on unsubstantiated grounds.

Comrade General Secretary has given the following orders:

Within 48 hours, a full brigade of WP peacekeeping forces should be based in Koge to guarantee safe passage of our forces in the future.

Hostilities started 2 hours earlier and major highlights are the following:

South Sector:
Groups of MIG-21s (6 instead of 4) are patrolling the airports and SAM sites.
Most of the SAM sites have been set on passive mode forcing the NATO F-4G to get closer to our S300 and fall prey of our MIG29¡¦s &MIG27¡¦s that are patrolling closely to our coastal radars.
A flight of courageous MIG27 pilots attempted to bypass and sneak on the back of the NATO forces from the most Southern route. Unfortunately 5/6 where shot down from a HAWK SAM site.
The Sixth though, achieved to bypass and came up front an EC-130 which was jamming the entire sector. The heroic pilot, true to his socialist training, sacrificed himself and managed to shoot it down before being shot down from an unknown salvo of missiles. He did manage to acknowledge the presence of a nearby AWACS. His family will be awarded a state pension and a double meat provision for a month.

Middle Sector:
Numerous groups of F-16 and F-4¡¦s tried to get to our shores but they fell victims of our MIG29¡¦s patrolling the area and the SU-27¡¦s that arrived on time. The combination of their exceptional radar and massive load of state of the art AA-10¡¦s proved to be far superior and capable of sending them burning down in the sea.
Northern Sector
Despite their numerous launches from their northern airbase , and thanks to the apparelled heroism of our SU-22¡¦s pilots, the fort and Hawk battery have practically ceased to operate properly. A follow up flight is on its way to finish them off while helicopters with towed arrays are on their way to clean up the area from mines.
Unfortunately, during the early stages of the operation, a lone F-16 managed to sneak from the North practically replicating what our MIG-27 did in the South. A Tu-16 and 5 helicopters fell victims of his missiles and guns before a group of SU-27¡¦s coming from motherland launched a salvo of 6 missiles and terminated his activities.
Meantime, we have established a patrol area where everything that is below the sea surface and makes a wave or noise is to be attacked first and be questioned later. 2 NATO submarines are lying already on the seabed and additionally the proletariats that live by the sea will get to enjoy loads of freshly torpedoed tuna ļ
Next steps are to establish a permanent CAP in the North, defend our Southern sector and deal with the NATO fleet.
While a number of Generals believes that the involvement of Danish forces and minor US forces (F-4s) is a sign of NATO weakness and that they will not push back, our intelligence services estimate that we are yet to see the full reaction of German, British and American forces.
Flights of Mig31¡¦s have been assigned sectors and groups of Mig29¡¦s are on standby to replace or supplement the 21¡¦s &27¡¦s
Notes:
I am moving everything that fires missiles from the far eastern end assigning them bases nearest the front. What I lose in loadouts, I can earn in multiple and quicker exits.
Anything older than MIG29 is flying in groups of 6
I am not experienced in submarine warfare and given the tight time limits, I am ordering attacks to anything that is spotted in the sea.
Will try and equip a flight of Mig21 with rockets and try to attack the radar station in the West. Need first though to clean-up the Northern sector and all my EW capable planes are there.
Just spotted a Patriot battery !! It keeps getting better and better!

P.S.
Definitely this one goes in my top3 scenarios list. Many thanks for your hard work. Much appreciated

Current EXPENDITURES :
SIDE: Warsaw Pact

===========================================================




LOSSES:

-------------------------------

5x Be-12PL Mail

10x MiG-23ML Flogger G

2x MiG-29 Fulcrum A

1x Su-17M-3 Fitter H

4x Su-22M-4K Fitter K

1x Su-27P Flanker B

1x Su-27S Flanker B

1x Tu-16P Badger L







EXPENDITURES:

------------------

2x 23mm Gsh-6-23 [50 rnds]

32x 30mm NR-30 x 2 Burst [20 rnds]

78x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH]

44x AA-10 Alamo B [R-27T, MR IR]

46x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27RE, LR SARH]

15x AA-11 Archer [R-73]

46x AA-7 Apex C [R-24R, SARH]

10x AA-8 Aphid [R-60TM]

31x AA-9 Amos [R-33, SARH]

9x APR-2 Orlan-M

5x AS-12 Kegler [Kh-25MP, ARM]

6x AS-14 Kedge [Kh-29T]

4x AT-1M [NATO E45-75A]

23x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]

2x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]

10x Generic Flare Salvo [2x Cartridges, Single Spectral]

5x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Single Spectral]

8x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]

3x RGB-NM-1 [Passive Omni]

10x SA-12a Gladiator [9M83]

10x SA-2f Guideline Mod 1 [S-75M2 Volkhov, 5YA23 / V-759]

7x SA-5c Gammon [5V28M5]










SIDE: NATO

===========================================================




LOSSES:

-------------------------------

3x BR.1150 Atlantic 1

39x F-16A Falcon

3x F-4E Phantom II

12x F-4G Phantom II [Wild Weasel V]

3x M192 I-HAWK

2x Radar (AN/FPS-6A HF)

3x Radar (Coastal)

1x Radar (THD-1955 MPR)

3x S 192 U 13 [Type 206A]







EXPENDITURES:

------------------

6x 20mm/85 M61A1 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]

2x AGM-88A HARM

74x AIM-7F Sparrow III

38x AIM-9L Sidewinder

2x Generic Acoustic Decoy

127x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]

53x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Single Spectral]

14x MIM-104A Patriot

52x MIM-23C I-HAWK










SIDE: NATO AEW

===========================================================




LOSSES:

-------------------------------

1x EC-130H Compass Call







EXPENDITURES:

------------------

4x AIM-7M Sparrow III










SIDE: WP Marines

===========================================================




LOSSES:

-------------------------------







EXPENDITURES:

------------------










SIDE: Neutrals

===========================================================




LOSSES:

-------------------------------

4x Biologic Tuna Fishes

2x False Contact (Small)

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> New scenario: Battle of Kodel Channel (TWTNW) WP 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

1.625