The Lost Province, 2017 Updated 1.1

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The Lost Province, 2017 Updated 1.1

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 >> The Lost Province, 2017 Updated 1.1

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The Lost Province, 2017 Updated 1.1 - 3/22/2016 1:23:30 AM

Viper81

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/29/2016
Status: offline

Hello all!

I'm new to this forum, but I've been playing CMANO for about 6 months now and I've put together my first scenario which I would be honored if you would try out. It's another modern fight for Taiwan, but with an additional emphasis on the SRBM aspect I believe is missing from many similar scenarios.
I hope you enjoy, and look forward to comments, questions, or improvements you believe could be made. Thanks!

Features:
Massed air combat
Massed ballistic missile strikes
Cruise missile/A2AD weapons vs CVBG
Close-range SSM exchanges
Heavily researched OOBs

Update 1.1:
Los Angeles SSNs and PLA ASW assets removed
B-2s given stand-off loadouts
US strike missions should now engage targets of opportunity
ROC land unit groups disbanded, all now single units

******SPOILERS******

Questions I have for testers:

Do you believe force ratios match up to make a balanced scenario? The ROC/US have more aircraft, but I believe distance and ballistic missile strikes balance them out.
Are the US SSNs necessary, or are they too tough? I had trouble detecting them in testing.
Are the Anderson-based aircraft a worthy addition? They take a long time to arrive and don't have a whole lot of impact (which is somewhat realistic and a point against actual US intervention).
What do you think of the fight against the CSG? I had the most success with ALCMs soaking up SM-6s and then DF-21s punching through the SM-3s to sink most everything.
What do you think of the post-landing ground combat?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Viper81 -- 3/28/2016 12:30:43 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/22/2016 3:50:43 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

Welcome.

I will try it out soon. There are many scenarios involving with or beyond Taiwan Strait in community already, but yours might be the biggest and more dimensional than the others. I believe it can challenge my computer.

_____________________________

(in reply to Viper81)

Post #: 2

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/22/2016 5:03:09 AM

Viper81

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Welcome.

I will try it out soon. There are many scenarios involving with or beyond Taiwan Strait in community already, but yours might be the biggest and more dimensional than the others. I believe it can challenge my computer.

That was my intention. The others I have seen are missing the depth and breadth (especially ballistic missiles, which I love tossing) that would be present in "tomorrow's war". I pared it down quite a bit from the original vision, but even then it was unplayable until 1.11. Now I can hold a 5x time compression pretty well, which is normally all I want in such a busy theater.

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 3

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/22/2016 6:31:17 AM

magi

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

very interesting... gonna check it out....

(in reply to Viper81)

Post #: 4

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/22/2016 3:26:10 PM

Kitchens Sink

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline

This is awesome! My CPU fan sounds like a Chinook helicopter.

(in reply to Viper81)

Post #: 5

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/22/2016 8:24:45 PM

Viper81

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/29/2016
Status: offline

Another question I forgot: Do ballistic missiles damage runways? That was the thought behind including DF-15Cs with penetrator warheads, but I couldn't get them to cause any damage, nor could the other conventional warheads.

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)

Post #: 6

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/22/2016 9:15:58 PM

AlexGGGG

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

A problem of playing with unlimited ammo is that the opponent also has unlimited ammo. This way, targeting ammo bunkers with ballistic missiles has no effect (even when all ammo bunkers are destroyed, enemy still has unlimited ammo). On the bright side, enemy has finite SAMs and I happen to have infinite LACMs :)

(in reply to Viper81)

Post #: 7

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/22/2016 9:56:00 PM

Viper81

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexGGGG

A problem of playing with unlimited ammo is that the opponent also has unlimited ammo. This way, targeting ammo bunkers with ballistic missiles has no effect (even when all ammo bunkers are destroyed, enemy still has unlimited ammo). On the bright side, enemy has finite SAMs and I happen to have infinite LACMs :)

The scenario is only 24 hours long so at most your H-6s are getting one reload and JH-7s two, and I found targeting hangars to destroy aircraft directly to be highly effective. I did load many of the later-ready F-16s with AIM-9s only to simulate a shortage of AMRAAMs.

(in reply to AlexGGGG)

Post #: 8

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 7:54:14 AM

Jorm

Posts: 545
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Melbourne
Status: offline

really fun scenario so far,
great work

(in reply to Viper81)

Post #: 9

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 11:55:55 AM

AlexGGGG

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

Sub EMCON (for Providence) should be set to radars OFF. It actually went up and started emitting.

(in reply to Jorm)

Post #: 10

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 1:07:24 PM

wild_Willie2

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

Pff, tried winning this scenario three times now and although I can sink the US carrier and more or less neutralize the Taiwanese air force, Kandena stays a thorn in my side and I cant really do anything against it.

Anybody have any ideas how to handle Kandena?

_____________________________

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 AlexGGGG)

Post #: 11

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 1:41:44 PM

Kitchens Sink

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline

I was getting ready to launch about 120 ballistic missiles at Kadena. Am I wasting my time and ammo?

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 12

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 3:11:42 PM

wild_Willie2

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

lets me say this: 96 ready to fire patriot missiles....

< Message edited by wild_Willie2 -- 3/23/2016 3:16:57 PM >

_____________________________

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 Kitchens Sink)

Post #: 13

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 3:52:20 PM

wild_Willie2

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

I ran a test where I fired all 320 long range ballistic missiles at Kandena and these 320 missiles took out 30 Eagles and ten tankers. Then I took out the US CV with my DF-21's and fired my remaining short range missiles at either Hualien and Hsinchu for the folowing butchers bill:

5x E-2K Hawkeye 2000E
31x F-16A Blk 20 Falcon
4x Mirage 2000-5EI
6x P-3C Orion Update III

Now I only have the mirages and a smidgen of AMRAAM f-16 left to content with as fighters (and whichever carrier AC are airborne when the CV was sunk), the rest of the AC is more or less configured for ASuW strikes. I also have another 110 land based cruise missiles left over to target a remaining AF with.

This looks like a viable tactic to me.

W.

< Message edited by wild_Willie2 -- 3/23/2016 3:53:47 PM >

_____________________________

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 wild_Willie2)

Post #: 14

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 6:10:26 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

Seems a bit one-sided, even under the modern military mindsets of 'superior western weaponries'.

If your computer is tolerable for more realistic and chaotic mando missile massacre, I think both Taiwan (as well as US and/or Japan if involved) and China should drastically increase the missile launching units at least quadruple than the original scenario. And also, China is still have difficulty to entirely modernize all the units in 2017, so the swarming cannon-fodder (J-7, J-8, and some low tonnage gun/missile boats) tactics may still have its use.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 3/23/2016 6:12:23 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 15

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 6:50:51 PM

AlexGGGG

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

Kadena is mostly tankers. You can kill them aloft later. I did not touch Kadena at all in my first strike. However, I can't really say how it played out because I still did not finish the scenario.

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)

Post #: 16

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 6:58:20 PM

AlexGGGG

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

wild_Willie2,

Since I control the precise time when to strike, I had
1. Badgers in place, all of them,
2. jammers and AEW aircraft where I wanted them,
3. SEAD aircraft all at just the edge of the enemy airspace and with engage opportunities on, so once the firing order was given, the SEAD was more or less instant
4. Whatever aircraft carries LACM, they were also orbiting
5. and 120x GLCM in flight

and all of that I delivered simultaneously towards Taiwan, starting with ballistic missiles (which I spent all in the first strike).

I now regret not having saved that, but Taiwan lost something to the tune of 100 aircraft on the ground from that first strike.

I was thinking like attacking Kadena, but then figured out I will be limited to ballistic missiles, and Patriot has antiballistic capability, so things will be not good in terms of saturation of air defenses. So I went with worrying Taiwan instead. Against Taiwan, I can have more missile density, and also I can fire some ARM missiles while SAM radars are lit up.

< Message edited by AlexGGGG -- 3/23/2016 7:02:13 PM >

(in reply to AlexGGGG)

Post #: 17

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 7:23:21 PM

wild_Willie2

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

Yeah Alex, I was thinking the exact same thing. In this scenario, you have to strike FAST once hostilities commence and you have the right idea about it.
Once the US can deploy it's assets (about four hours post commencement of hostilities), it gets exponentially harder to invade the island with the available forces.
You thus have to surround the island wit strike aircraft, have an A50 shadow the US carrier TF, have your invasion TF an hour or two from landing and have your cruise missiles in the air before the first hits are made...

Realistic, no. Necessary, yes...

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 AlexGGGG)

Post #: 18

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/23/2016 8:18:41 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

You thus have to surround the island wit strike aircraft, have an A50 shadow the US carrier TF, have your invasion TF an hour or two from landing and have your cruise missiles in the air before the first hits are made...

In theory, it's viable, because PLA does spent over 20 years for researching the plan for MDSA, aka multi-directional saturation attacks. Though it's still on a paper, rather than a serious demonstration.

http://www.paper.edu.cn/journal/downCount/1006-1576(2012)11-0006-04 (PDF, English Abstract and Simplified Chinese details)

quote:

Method of Anti-Ship Missile Route Planning Under Multi-Directional Saturation Attacks

Zhang Shuyu1,Zhang Jinchun1,Li Xuemei2(1.Dept.of Basic,Naval Aeronautical & Astronautical University,Yantai 264001,China; 2.No.3 Academy of China Aerospace Science & Technology Corporation,Beijing 100074,China)

For the problem of solving global optimal solution of anti-ship missiles route planning under multi-directional saturation attacks,this paper carries out a reasonable setting of anti-ship missiles route planning under multi-directional saturation attacks.Based on the basic constraint condition of anti-ship missile route planning,establish the route planning model,which can minimum the self-control flight distance,based on this,turn the problem about anti-ship missiles route planning under multi-directional saturation attacks to the problem about solving the key waypoints of anti-ship missiles around it with plane geometry knowledge.The solving method is formulated that can ensure the routes of anti-ship missiles quickly and the simulation is made for validating it.Simulation calculation shows that the method can construct simple routes quickly for anti-ship missiles under multi-directional saturation attacks,which can be up to the requirements for multi-directional attack and beneficial to project implementation.

_____________________________

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 19

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/24/2016 10:45:03 AM

Viper81

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexGGGG

Sub EMCON (for Providence) should be set to radars OFF. It actually went up and started emitting.

You know, I noticed that during testing and meant to fix it, but I must have forgotten. Noted for update.

quote:

Kadena is mostly tankers. You can kill them aloft later. I did not touch Kadena at all in my first strike. However, I can't really say how it played out because I still did not finish the scenario

Actually, Kadena is mostly F-15s. As mentioned, the Patriot defenses are tough, but since the 1.10 change to ballistic missile targeting, it is relatively easy to overwhelm the number of ready-to-fire missiles with 50-60 of your own, especially if you coordinate with cruise missiles. The tough part is timing the strike with attacks on Taiwan to catch all enemy aircraft still on the ground.

quote:

If your computer is tolerable for more realistic and chaotic mando missile massacre, I think both Taiwan (as well as US and/or Japan if involved) and China should drastically increase the missile launching units at least quadruple than the original scenario. And also, China is still have difficulty to entirely modernize all the units in 2017, so the swarming cannon-fodder (J-7, J-8, and some low tonnage gun/missile boats) tactics may still have its use.

That is closer to the original intention, but like I said, my computer couldn't handle the current build until 1.11. Also, a RAND study estimated China has only around 250 launchers for this range of ballistic missiles; all the rest are reloads. As such, I think it's relatively comparable (if not fair to one side or the other) now. As to the swarms of low-tech fodder, I agree, but I think that would bring my computer and many others to a complete halt. As it is now, it goes against that stereotype and tries to highlight more advanced PLA weaponry.

Back to the difficulty factor, my expectation was that it would be easier to shut down runways with SRBMs, but I never saw them even damaged. Does anyone know why this is the case?

< Message edited by Viper81 -- 3/24/2016 10:52:32 AM >

(in reply to AlexGGGG)

Post #: 20

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/24/2016 1:30:33 PM

wild_Willie2

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

If you use penetrators and fire about 4-5 of them at a runway (and hit) you CAN damage one but only slowly and knocking out a runway for more than a few hours is impossible under these builds. You will also need to destroy ALL the runways and runway grade taxiways in order to knock out an airfield. This is generally not worth the costs in ordinance so it is easier to just go after the AC on the ground themselves by hitting the hangars and shelters.

During my next run, I'll just fire 50 missiles at the hangars to deplete the Patriots and then follow through with a strike against the AC shelters themselves to cause maximum damage with minimum expenditure.

_____________________________

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 Viper81)

Post #: 21

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/24/2016 7:38:16 PM

AlexGGGG

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

quote:

Actually, Kadena is mostly F-15s

Kadena may have mostly F-15s, but important part on it is tankers. F-15s on their own are not really a factor, because they never wander over Taiwan territory. With Anderson about 1300 NM away, Raptors (and maybe even heavier stuff, not sure) cannot be practically effective without tanker support. So once I ambush and kill tankers in flight (which is quite easy), US involvement becomes much more tolerable.

I suspect carrier-based F/A-18s with what was that, JASSM-ER, also do not have range to reach me without tanker support.

< Message edited by AlexGGGG -- 3/24/2016 7:45:54 PM >

(in reply to Viper81)

Post #: 22

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/24/2016 8:14:25 PM

AlexGGGG

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

I scored 1025 Triumph;the scenario is good and quite enjoyable. I finished it with 7 hours to go. However, I never get to actually killing the carrier, and my bombers will not be ready in time anyway.

SIDE: US PACOM
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
8x F/A-18F Super Hornet
8x F/A-18E Super Hornet
19x F-15C Eagle
1x DDG 81 Winston S. Churchill [Arleigh Burke Flight IIA]
2x DDG 51 Arleigh Burke [Arleigh Burke Flight I]
1x CG 59 Princeton [Ticonderoga Baseline 3, VLS]
2x B-2A Spirit Blk 30 <--- I actually shot that down
19x F/A-18D Hornet
5x F-22A Raptor <--- 2 shot down + 3 out of fuel hehe
9x KC-135R Stratotanker
2x E-3B Sentry
2x RQ-4B Global Hawk Blk 40 UAV

SIDE: PRC
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
12x Su-30MKK2 Flanker G
3x JH-7A Flounder
1x H-6G Badger [H-6M]
21x J-10B Vigorous Dragon
9x SA-20b Gargoyle [5P85SE] TEL
3x Vehicle (Cheese Board [96L6E])
8x SA-16 Gimlet [9K310 Igla-1] MANPADS
7x J-11B Flanker B [Su-27SK Copy]
1x Z-19 Black Whirlwind
1x Vehicle (Tombstone [30N6E])
2x J-20 Mighty Dragon
1x Type 052D Luyang III [173 Changsha]
4x HQ-17 TELAR
4x ZBD-08 [AT-10 Stabber] IFV
1x ZTD 05 Amphibious Tank

SIDE: ROC
===========================================================

LOSSES (grouped):
-------------------------------
aircraft
59x IDF Ching-Kuo [F-CK-1A] MLU
29x Mirage 2000-5EI
80x F-16A Blk 20 Falcon
10x P-3C Orion Update III
2x IDF Ching-Kuo [F-CK-1A] MLU
4x E-2K Hawkeye 2000E
15x AH-64E Apache [Longbow, Guardian] <--- all in air by CAP fighters

ships
2x 1801 Keelung [Kidd]
3x 1101 Cheng Kung [Perry, Kuang Hua I]
2x 1202 Kang Ding [La Fayette, Kuang Hua II]

airbase structures
29x A/C Hangar (2x Medium Aircraft)
20x A/C Hangar (2x Large Aircraft)
2x A/C Hangar (2x Very Large Aircraft)
2x A/C Hardened Aircraft Shelter (1x Large Aircraft)

various targets, mostly SAMs
1x Building (Large Government Building)
5x Vehicle (Long White 2, Hardened Casemate)
8x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-50 PAR)
8x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR)
38x M192 I-HAWK
16x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-57 HPI [TAS Camera])
10x Vehicle (CS/MPG-25 [Tien Kung 1, Mobile])
4x Vehicle (CS/MPG-25 [Tien Kung 1, Hardened])
8x Vehicle (UAR-1021 Skyguard)
9x 35mm Twin Oerlikon [UAR-1021 Skyguard FCR]
8x Sky Bow I [Tien Kung 1, Fixed VLS, 16 Cells]
12x Sky Bow II [Tien Kung 2, Fixed VLS, 16 Cells]
8x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-51 ROR)
1x 932 Chi Yang [Knox, Wu Chin III AAW]
7x Sky Bow III [Tien Kung 3, Mobile]
2x Vehicle (Long White 2, Mobile)
11x Skyguard MIM-7M Quad
2x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-53)
14x Patriot M901
6x Hsiung Feng II Quad
20x CM-11 Brave Tiger Main Battle Tank
2x Radar (AN/TPS-43F)
6x RT-2000 AMLRS
1x Radar (AN/TPS-77)
6x FACG 61 Kuang Hua VI <---- dont' know what's that, aircraft or what

SIDE: PLAAF Drones
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
32x J-6A Farmer [MiG-19P Copy]

< Message edited by AlexGGGG -- 3/24/2016 8:17:23 PM >

(in reply to AlexGGGG)

Post #: 23

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/24/2016 10:04:32 PM

wild_Willie2

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

Cudos

_____________________________

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 AlexGGGG)

Post #: 24

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/24/2016 10:44:15 PM

AlexGGGG

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

On the question of subs by the way.... either Chinese torpedoes are crappy, or don't really know what else, but I damaged both subs to the point they stopped moving, but never sunk them; having spent like at least 10 torpedoes on one, and maybe 6+ on the other. Subs are a handful though; in contested air with minimal ASW assets, losing even one ASW helo is a concern. So I had to wait till I have SEAD done (so no SAMs) and some semblance of air superiority before starting ASW sweeps.

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 25

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/25/2016 10:12:48 AM

AlexGGGG

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

quote:

Do you believe force ratios match up to make a balanced scenario? The ROC/US have more aircraft, but I believe distance and ballistic missile strikes balance them out.

Not sure how it matches real life, but nicely balanced to play - always keeps me looking at aircraft ready times.

quote:

Are the US SSNs necessary, or are they too tough? I had trouble detecting them in testing.

You should probably remove them. The scenario is fun enough already, having to manage one more set of events with one more dimension and one more range scale looks like pushing it too far, at least for my comfort.

quote:

Are the Anderson-based aircraft a worthy addition? They take a long time to arrive and don't have a whole lot of impact (which is somewhat realistic and a point against actual US intervention).

B2s are not stealth enough and have no standoff. In air as it is, they are just sitting ducks.
B-1Bs with standoff JASSM-ERs are nice, and do not seem to depend on Kadena's tankers.
I would swap 2x B2s for 2x B-1Bs and have a strike mission with 6x B-1Bs. That would be 144x JASSM-ER evenly spread against SAM installations; this will at least force player to expend SAMs and probably/likely, with 144 missiles in salvo, should kind of worry S-300s. As it is now, Anderson heavies are arriving piecemeal; I would have sent a whole pack and fired from max standoff range.

quote:

What do you think of the fight against the CSG? I had the most success with ALCMs soaking up SM-6s and then DF-21s punching through the SM-3s to sink most everything.

I decided I don't care about it. I had some leftover ASMs in bombers once I finished cleaning up ships in the strait, so I sent bombers towards US CVBG from... North-West-West, just hugging the exclusion zone, and that went unchallenged. Once ASMs were in flight, I timed ASBMs to arrive simultaneously, and fired all of them; that failed to sink the carrier, but turned out the effect of carrier-based aircraft is not that significant.

quote:

What do you think of the post-landing ground combat?

No anomaly.

Also I did not quite like the way enemy contacts are grouped, especially SAM and SSM missile groups and radar groups on Taiwan. I would like to see where enemy units are at all times, even if my side displays groups. With the arrangement of enemy SAMs in groups, I have found the targeting cumbersome, because if I want to figure which ones are closer and which ones are far, I have to switch back and forth between unit and group view.

Having said all that, I really liked the scenario. Thank you for the fun.

(in reply to AlexGGGG)

Post #: 26

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/25/2016 11:24:25 AM

wild_Willie2

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

Have to agree with Alex, the grouping on Taiwan is very annoying as you have to switch between group and single view to see and target individual installations.

But overal a VERY nice scenario to play, good job.

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 AlexGGGG)

Post #: 27

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/25/2016 8:42:57 PM

Viper81

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/29/2016
Status: offline

Thanks all. I like your suggestions, and I'll see about implementing some/all of them in an updated scenario.

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 28

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/27/2016 1:56:25 PM

wild_Willie2

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

Another issue: Your drones fly at an altitude below that of the minimum deployment altitude of their bombs, they thus never use them. Also, delete the subs. I just had my entire TF sunk without even detecting them.

< Message edited by wild_Willie2 -- 3/27/2016 2:12:16 PM >

_____________________________

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 Viper81)

Post #: 29

RE: New Scenario: The Lost Province, 2017 - 3/28/2016 5:28:43 AM

magi

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

i want to play this from the other side.....

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 30