Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985

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 >> Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/2/2018 11:49:46 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

UPDATE: Version 1.3: Updated the NATO scenario to avoid Soviet MPA aircraft transiting the Finnmark Area of Norway prior to hostilities and updated the Soviet Scenario to have the airborne operation automatically handled by the computer as suggested. I playtested each twice and would have tried some more but just been alerted for Hurricane Operations. If anyone has any other suggestions I likely won't be able to do anything for a week or two so have patience.

Initial Stages of a Soviet Bolt out of the Blue Attack on NATO in Norway. Allows time to reconfigure the loadouts and set mission prior to hostilities breaking out. The NATO scenario is a challenge to slow down the Soviet steamroller, while the Soviet scenario goal is to break out into the Norwegian Sea. Note the NATO position is desperate and the Fog of War means messages may come in behind the action. You should feel somewhat hopeless during the scenario...

Thanks and I hope you enjoy them...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/7/2018 11:23:02 PM >

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

Post #: 1

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/3/2018 10:48:27 AM

Ancalagon451

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline

OK, just started here and I'm a little confused since I have FOUR Be-12 ASW planes blatantly violating my airspace and since there're no bombers I'm not sure what to do with them. Must I take the first shot, or are there Luae'd to RBT if I put a fighter near them?

EDIT: I let them do their thing unmolested to see what happens and they went to check the maritime traffic so it seems like either the waypoints for their mission are improperly setted or there need to be a soviet no-fly zone over Norway.
Also I lost them when they where 50nm from the coast due to lack of radar coverage beyond that line. Is that intended?

Ancalagon

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Ancalagon451 -- 10/3/2018 11:02:24 AM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 2

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/3/2018 9:20:47 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

First, thanks for your help!!!!

OK so on this, yes I also saw this in my playtesting and tried to figure a way around this that would allow the ASW and Maritime patrol missions prior to the war but keep the aircraft out of Norway, and I couldn't find it. The problem is, unless I am mistaken, there is no way to remove a No Navigation Zone during the scenario (without LUA anyway). So the only way to stop it was to keep the aircraft grounded until the conflict starts which didn't seem to be good either as that is a key part of the escalation. So I just let them cross Norway. If someone has a better solution I'll try it.

As to the radars and coverage I used the radar coverage I was able to find from open source documents. So to the best of my knowledge that is what was there in 1985.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/3/2018 9:21:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Ancalagon451)

Post #: 3

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/4/2018 1:01:06 AM

ryszardsh

Posts: 93
Joined: 1/4/2007
Status: offline

So create a 3rd side, call it Soviet provocateur. Assign the MPA only, create the no fly zone for that side only and make Soviet side aware of their discoveries? If more MPA are needed for the main Soviet side give them delay t/o prep times etc.

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 4

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/4/2018 10:44:07 AM

Ancalagon451

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline

quote:

The problem is, unless I am mistaken, there is no way to remove a No Navigation Zone during the scenario (without LUA anyway)

I know that it can be done since I've seen it done in "You Brexit You fix it" with a NATO no nav zone over Kaliningrad. Don't know if it can be done without Lua.

OK with the radar coverage, once I put a CAP in the air it's not difficult to keep them in check.

Also I have continued playing until break of hostilities and found nothing particularly noteworthy other that I'm a very bad CMANO player (but that is WAD for myself so no problem here

).

Paratroppers where dropped near Banak and proceeded to shell it for a while and then dissapear. I've tried searching them with the ASW helos flying nap-of-the-earth but without success (perhaps you could add some ground recon assets here).

MPAs of both sides sunk their shadowed subs in the first minute of battle (a soviet victor and one of my viking subs) just before being slaughtered like cattle (the surviving ones are patrolling at more than 100nms from the coast, well beyond fighter range). The La Salle easily torpedoed the Echo she'd been shadowing, and then procceded to royally ****ing up the shot again the November that followed due to sensor uncertainty, and then the second one, and then the third and after that a soviet May finally arrived and sunk her.

Floggers and Foxhounds crushed my Vipers under the weight of numbers and long range missiles, respectively. Badgers bombed radars in the coast and I totally forgot just how much Styx missiles outrange Penguins and all my missile boats where blasted into oblivion (utterly unforgivable after the number of plays I'd had at "The fast and the furious" in the Northern Inferno Campaign).

So in general SNAFU but doesn't seem to be anything broken with the scenario itself.

Been playing seven hours only (less than three of active combat) but I'm fairly depleted right now so unless there is some future event you want for me to test I'm gonna restart it; too many **** ups on my part (have I mentioned already how bad a CMANO player I am?).

Also a little strategy cuestion: The Bodo based (and perhaps also the Evene based) Vipers are meant to be rebased nearer the front? Because in their current positions are near useless due to lack of range.

Thanks for your hard work.

Ancalagon

(in reply to ryszardsh)

Post #: 5

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/4/2018 12:58:17 PM

Gunner98

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

Yes you can remove a No Nav Zone but it needs to be with Lua. Brexit gives an example and I think I've used it a couple other times. Not difficult, but I don't have the game available right now to copy the script.

I took a look at the scenario the other night and it looks good. You've managed to keep it at a manageable number of units which I failed to do in NF#1. One thought was that there are too many Norgi Sea Kings and P-3s up there, I think they kept them spread out along the coast so a couple of each would be the norm in this area - I think, and its not a biggie.

Another thought was for the Soviets, you give specific direction to the player about the para-drop mission, that's fine, but you could put the whole thing on a non-player side. The player would have to protect the transports which I think is your key intent, but it removes the player as a variable in the execution. Haven't played through so don't know what else you have in store though.

For Ancalagon451 - I think your going to need to use radar shadow for both your Falcons and missile boats

On a level playing field the Ruskies have you cold!

I won't have a chance to play this for several weeks but it looks good.

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to Ancalagon451)

Post #: 6

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/4/2018 2:30:32 PM

stilesw

Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline

Ancalagon451,

I've done this a couple of times using Lua. First you need to identify the correct No Navigation zone for the side, in this example the side is "Coalition". To determine the ID of the zone you can use this code in the Lua console:

local a = VP_GetSide({Side ='Coalition'})
local z = a.nonavzones
print(z)

Result:

{ [1] = { description = 'No-Fly Iraq', guid = '1a4b27c0-8046-47aa-874c-061272b8a6d2' }, [2] = { description = 'No-Fly Lebanon', guid = '6b169452-f024-4b4e-8c42-88e945db6d4e' }, [3] = { description = 'No-Fly Syria', guid = '36adbdc7-47ee-467f-961d-0b695f707a4a' }, [4] = { description = 'No-Fly Egypt', guid = 'f6dc7a7b-21b7-448e-bb74-80fe4b536c7d' }, [5] = { description = 'Bunker Zone', guid = '9619cdea-3078-479a-bbe5-b5ea81565b63' } }

Say you are interested in the "Bunker Zone" which is [5] for this scenario.

This action Lua code will turn the zone on or off.

local a = VP_GetSide({Side ='Coalition'})
local z = a.nonavzones
local n5 = a : getnonavzone(z[5].guid)
n5.isactive = true

So, to change the zone status:
1. Create an action (as above).
2. Create a trigger of some sort
3. Create an event that fires when the trigger is met.

Hope this helps,

-Wayne Stiles

(in reply to Ancalagon451)

Post #: 7

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/6/2018 9:19:46 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Nice solution! If I can't figure out another I will do it.

_____________________________

(in reply to ryszardsh)

Post #: 8

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/6/2018 9:21:05 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

THANKS! Stilesw

I'll try the code, and see if I can get it to work, but honestly I'm not a LAU guy!

_____________________________

(in reply to stilesw)

Post #: 9

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/6/2018 9:24:35 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Gunner, thanks for the advice! I did think about making a Red Army Side for the Para units, just was beginning to become complicated.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 10

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/7/2018 5:49:07 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

So ryszardsh's solution was the easiest and most straight forward for this particular scenario but admittedly I need to learn more LUA code! so the NATO scenario has been cleaned up so the MPA aircraft won't transit Scandinavia until the war starts.

_____________________________

(in reply to ryszardsh)

Post #: 11

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/7/2018 5:55:11 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Also a little strategy cuestion: The Bodo based (and perhaps also the Evene based) Vipers are meant to be rebased nearer the front? Because in their current positions are near useless due to lack of range.

Yes, as NATO was caught flat footed I wanted to give the NATO player as realistic of a basing situation aas possible. So yes you would want to reinforce Tromso.

quote:

Thanks for your hard work.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Ancalagon451)

Post #: 12

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/7/2018 5:56:37 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

I'm going to try to use this for future scenarios. Thanks.

_____________________________

(in reply to stilesw)

Post #: 13

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/7/2018 10:43:08 PM

Ancalagon451

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline

quote:

Yes, as NATO was caught flat footed I wanted to give the NATO player as realistic of a basing situation aas possible. So yes you would want to reinforce Tromso.

OK, will give it another try when you put up the next version for download.

Ancalagon

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 14

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/7/2018 11:21:21 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Version 1.3: (Linked here) Updated the NATO scenario to avoid Soviet MPA aircraft transiting the Finnmark Area of Norway prior to hostilities and updated the Soviet Scenario to have the airborne operation automatically handled by the computer as suggested. I playtested each twice and would have tried some more but just been alerted for Hurricane Operations.

If anyone has any other suggestions I likely won't be able to do anything for a week or two so have patience.

Thanks for your help!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/7/2018 11:49:47 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 15

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/10/2018 11:38:28 AM

Ancalagon451

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline

OK, gave it another try with V13, ruskies kicked my ass again; just not as hard as the first time.

The MPA only no-fly zone works well. I had to manually mark them as hostile once hostilities broke, becase they didn't have any sub located to shoot at and their side remained unfriendly; but that's hardly an issue.

The rest of the scenario seemed to work well until the 4:00 of the second day when I throwed the towel due to severe viper losses and total destruction of submarines and missile boats.

I'm still unable to locate paratroopers in the ground, seriously, a little of ground recon would be much appreciated.

The only weird thing I found was when I was looking "under the hood" with the editor. The soviets have a truckload of Flagon interceptors with no mission assigned, plus a Kola-centered CAP mission without planes assigned. Perhaps oversight, perhaps a leftover of a previous build, since their absence in the airspace was a total non-issue. I never even considered any type of counterstrike over Kola and if I did the soviet IADS it's more than enought to show me the error of my ways.

So, other than the Flagons issue (supposed it is one), this one seems ready to go. It's very hard (at least to me) so perhaps up a notch the difficulty bar in the description.

Later I'll post in the War Room asking for tips about dealing with Foxhounds with first-gen Vipers (who was the genius who decided arm then with Sidewinders only?). I tried to follow Gunner's tip but I wasn't able to make it work; lets see if I can get a more detalied (dummy-proof) explanation over there.

Thanks again for your work.

Ancalagon

EDIT: I realized just now that I don't know If the MPAs side turned hostile along with the Soviet Union at the start of hostilities or they only did so because I started shooting at them. You should check that one just to be sure.

< Message edited by Ancalagon451 -- 10/10/2018 1:40:21 PM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 16

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/13/2018 11:33:16 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

The MPA only no-fly zone works well. I had to manually mark them as hostile once hostilities broke, becase they didn't have any sub located to shoot at and their side remained unfriendly; but that's hardly an issue.

I should be able to fix that pretty easily

quote:

The only weird thing I found was when I was looking "under the hood" with the editor. The soviets have a truckload of Flagon interceptors with no mission assigned, plus a Kola-centered CAP mission without planes assigned. Perhaps oversight, perhaps a leftover of a previous build, since their absence in the airspace was a total non-issue. I never even considered any type of counterstrike over Kola and if I did the soviet IADS it's more than enought to show me the error of my ways.

Yeah the KOLA CAP was from an original version were on scenario was going to go both ways, but then I realized I had to have seperate Soviet and NATO scoring because it was sooooooo skewed. Will look at the Flagon's.

quote:

I'm still unable to locate paratroopers in the ground, seriously, a little of ground recon would be much appreciated.

They are really there for color and VPs to be honest. I assume (for follow on scenarios?) that they can take Banak pretty easily, Especially with the Soviet arctic Mech Infantry Division crossing the border as they would have in the real thing.

quote:

It's very hard (at least to me) so perhaps up a notch the difficulty bar in the description.

Might just, I always find that to be hard to judge and a matter of taste...

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/13/2018 11:36:08 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Ancalagon451)

Post #: 17

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/14/2018 8:06:22 PM

templar42

Posts: 42
Joined: 8/16/2018
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline

I notice a lot of scenarios feature MIG-31 aircraft conducting fighter sweeps, or being forward-deployed to newly captured airbases, so this isn't intended as a criticism of just this scenario. The impression I had was that the MiG-31 was never intended to conduct such missions and would have been reserved during World War 3 for bomber and cruise missile defence. I also suspect that the abstraction Command depends on makes the MiG-31 / AA-9 combination much more potent against manoevering fighters in the simulation than it would have been in real life. Are there any sources that discuss the offensive employment of the Foxhound in the 1980s timeframe? If not, I'd be tempted to suggest that they shouldn't be conducting sweeps over Norway against F-16s. I accept that this goes against the decisions of other scenario designers.

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 18

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/14/2018 8:30:14 PM

Gunner98

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

Templar42

I think in general terms you're on target with the employment of the Mig-31. They were employed in the PVO or Air Defence forces vice the VVS or general Air Force. However, I believe that the thinking behind their employment was changing in the late '80s - I don't have a reference for that though. From a game perspective the Mig-31 AA-9 combo is a perfect match for NATO enablers - AWACS, Tankers, Elint etc, and there is nothing else to fill the role until late model Su-27/30 with some of the advanced AA-10 and AA-12.

As for an abstraction in CMANO, the MiG-31/AA-9 is not much different than the F-14/Aim-54 combo which I believe is also a little too effective against maneuvering targets. But who's to say.

One thing is for certain - the Mig-31 is not a dog-fighter, so it behoves the player (or designer) to keep its doctrine as: Shotgun: All BVR and disengage immediately.

I think Mig-31s in Norway is reasonable, I've put them in Iceland. As long as there is a purpose, and that should be to hunt enablers and not fighters.

I'm certain that many will disagree but those are my thoughts.

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to templar42)

Post #: 19

RE: Scenarios for playtest Nordkapp 1985 - 10/16/2018 11:30:24 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Ooooops, I'm old and forgot that from 32 years ago, my bad!