AndrewJ
Posts: 2318
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
|
This is a very interesting scenario, requiring stealth and self-control (ahem) to achieve mission objectives. My usual overt ‘I can take you in the air’ methods don’t pay off here. If you’re sneaky you can get in. The real trick is getting out again. If you don’t engage immediately with the F-18s then you can probably get the C-130s out intact, but then you run the risk of losing your troops in the drop zones to enemy ground forces. How long can you afford to wait? Again, this is a really good scenario for forcing the player to evaluate the situation and make the proper decisions to ensure success.
The Carriers
I think the biggest issue at the moment is the pair of carrier groups. They’re very close to the enemy coast, but very weakly defended, with only four Sparrow-armed planes on CAP missions, despite known enemy fighters with longer-ranged weapons in the area. The way the missions are configured on the WP and NATO sides means there will soon be fighting near the carriers, and those defences are insufficient.
The Vinson’s CAP will try and engage the Su-24 ELINT planes immediately after they launch, chasing them across Iceland, which in turn prompts a response from defenders in the Kef/Ryk area that gets them shot down in short order. Once the Russians are airborne they easily spot the support aircraft in the carrier group (E-2s, EA-6s, etc.), which they will engage successfully. Similarly, the Russian aircraft on the other side of Iceland (particularly the Mig-31) will spot the Eisenhower’s carrier aircraft and move to engage, without any effective response from the carrier forces. If the scenario is started and the AIs are allowed to do their thing you will routinely lose multiple Hawkeyes, which seems unrealistic given the fighter strength which the carriers should be able to use to prevent this.
Later on, when the Russian’s launch their big intercept mission, the Vinson carrier group just sits there and offers no additional support, despite the very lucrative target (the swarm of enemy fighters they have to fight tomorrow anyway) which is only minutes away. In my case a good part of that fighter surge came south towards the carrier while they were chasing the C-130s, but the numerous ready fighters which could have intercepted the enemy remained unavailable. Tanker support, responsive movement and activation of the EA-6 jammers, and similar support functions are not available either.
I’d suggest putting the carrier groups on the player side, but keeping all the aircraft which are set aside for tomorrow’s operations on an allied side, just like they are now. The player would have control of support assets (tanker, jammer, ASW, AEW) and some fighters (perhaps 6-8 F-14s) that are set aside for CAP duty. The player could use special actions to obtain additional fighters (more F-14s with Phoenix, F-18s with AMRAAM) at a points cost, just like you have done with the strike aircraft. (A very nice mechanism, incidentally. Assets available, but at the cost of disrupting your future operations. It feels like a realistic constraint.) This way the player can have the carrier groups and their aircraft respond sensibly to the enemy actions, while preventing unintentional engagements.
If you would prefer the carrier groups to remain on the AI side, then I’d suggest some adjustments to the missions. Support aircraft patrols (Hawkeye, EA-6, etc.) would be moved further out to sea, and positioned so the carrier group is between them and the airbases. Carrier group SAMs would be changed to Weapons Free, to allow them to immediately engage enemy aircraft attempting to reach the support aircraft. More aircraft would be assigned to CAP missions (minimum 6), and CAP mission zones and permissions would be adjusted to keep them defensively near the carrier, instead of allowing them to go hunting over Iceland. Turning off investigating outside patrol area would be helpful, for instance. (Adjusting the Russian CAP to keep them out of the carrier group might also be desirable from the Russian perspective – would they really want to intrude on a carrier group with all its defences?)
Assorted Items
Carrier aircraft will try and refuel from the distant tankers off towards Greenland, and they can get pulled well out of position, or into dangerous locations. Forbidding them to refuel would probably keep them closer to the carriers they are meant to defend.
Ship-based SAMs and the CAP could benefit from being on Weapons Free, since there’s no possibility of civilian aircraft coming out to interfere with the carriers.
The Eisenhower doesn’t have any AIM-7Ms in its magazines to re-arm its CAP.
Both the NATO and WP sides in this scenario have auto-evade turned off. I’m not sure if this was intentional. I think this has actually made the Russian fighters more dangerous in this situation (usually I can count on the AI to flinch first in a SARH duel). However, it also means that other aircraft (allied support units, WP elint missions, etc.) make no effort to elude missiles, and WP aircraft still won’t dodge even when they’re not illuminating, when it would be to their advantage to do so.
One RP in the Vinson CAP prosecution zone is not set as relative.
The description for the F/A-18 w Mk 82 special action says ‘CLONE’ at the start.
Perhaps have the EA-6 jammers active?
Had you wanted the ASuW Strike mission to still be set up? It’s set for pre-planned targets only, but the list is empty, so it won’t launch. (Left over from a different scenario, I guess?)
< Message edited by AndrewJ -- 8/16/2017 9:52:20 PM >
|
Printable Version
New Scenario for Testing NF 11.2 Swift, Silent and Deadly - 
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