RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019

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 >> RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/16/2018 7:38:56 PM

BeirutDude

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

Whicker, thanks for the help. glad you enjoyed it! No issues with the ASW Missions defaulting to weapons free? Also, what version are you using?

_____________________________

"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!

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 31

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/16/2018 8:19:00 PM

BeirutDude

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

Whicker,

quote:

Also there was some sort of naval patrol with a DDG and a medium transport - not sure why the transport would be on a mission like that.

The Amphibs are off the islands supporting the Marines ashore. In Beirut five amphibs were on station offshore supporting the MAU (Battalion +) at the airport. The Marines on those islands would need logistical support and that's what they are there for.

quote:

Could use a pier some where to limp back to for repairs - not to rearm. Nothing would have made it there but I've noticed this before and would like to turn back ships somewhere just in case.

I thought of that but I was trying to cut down on every unit due to speed issues.

quote:

I wasn't real clear on whether I could engage anything on the mainland and if so what was off limits if anything. I tried to just control the sea and that was working until it didn't. I guess I was sort of waiting for a message to tell me I could attack the mainland. I'll reread the briefing and have another go.

Well its really your game so you could go after them any time you really want. Given the ROE from the side description (ordres) as soon as PRC missiles fly at Okinawa & Guam your weapons free on the mainland.

quote:

oh yeah - I turned radars off for the side (my side), then had to turn all the radar facilities on. I'm under the impressions radars off by default is best for ships and planes assuming you have good coverage from other land/air based radars? same for the sam stuff, I think they turn on guidance radars when needed but only need the main radar if there is nothing else? I'm a little unclear on that.

You know what I can turn the Task Group Emissions off and then let the player determine their EMCON Level them selves. I looked at it from teh POV that this operation wasn't a surprise to the PRC

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/16/2018 8:32:13 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 32

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/16/2018 8:39:56 PM

Whicker

Posts: 664
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline

I was on your most recent one - 1.3

no issues with the ASW mission on my side - it was tight.

The medium transport I am talking about was not off the island so much - I think it was on a sea control mission with the ddg which is what I thought was off about it. They were quite aways off from the island when I attacked them. There was another LPD(?) with an escort that was off the island and stayed there.

Oh yeah the other thing I think could use some fixing is on the Japanese Amhips there are a whole bunch of asw helos that launch right off the bat - seemed like a few too many to me, and then a couple hours later they are all unavailable. Could have them a little more staggered as far as ready times so they are a little more spread out. And then on the US amphib group it seemed like there were only 2 asw helos. No big deal, plenty of P3s.

Also the Japanese F15s could be set to quick turnaround. I think there were a few other things that could have started out on quick turnaround. Maybe those helos - not sure I ever checked them.

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 33

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/16/2018 9:00:31 PM

BeirutDude

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

Whicker, on that task group could you do me a favor take a look at the map zoomed in and see if that task group is close to a small island that is one of the island chain but about 60 to 90 miles east of the two main islands. Because that task group is supposed to be supporting a company that is on that small island.

_____________________________

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 34

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/16/2018 9:06:28 PM

BeirutDude

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

I�m on the phone so hard to cut and paste but I�m going to check out the rest of your suggestions tonight.

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 35

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/16/2018 9:13:26 PM

BeirutDude

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

The US Amphib. Group should only have the two ASW Helios. The Amphs normally don�t carry ASW Helios and the escorts each have one so that is good. Will spread the JMSDF ARG Helios out more. I did on Kaga but forgot to do so on the escorts. Also fast turn around for the F-15s is a good call.

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 36

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/16/2018 11:21:33 PM

BeirutDude

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

Playtest version 1.4 (Deleted PT Ver 1.5 below)

OK I think this is about finished. I addressed most of what Whicker pointed out above. The PRC LSM Amphib Group is in the right place there is just a very small Island there with about a Company ashore. I adjusted the description to cover that aspect.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/17/2018 12:52:37 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 37

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/17/2018 7:27:50 AM

Whicker

Posts: 664
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline

well that went a lot better, just short of triumph I guess, was desperately looking for something to pad my score at the end, had every p3/p8 looking for subs and found one but it wasn't enough. In gods eye mode there are 2 that are just outside where I was looking, almost got them.

I think I was almost annihilated again by the ballistic missile attack on my ships, but just as it was about to impact they turned completely around and flew into the yellow sea. I switched sides to see what happened and they lost contact a bit - so it thought they moved to the other side of the map. I see this once in a while, kind of crazy. It was like a 180 degree turn, and I just happened to see it. Not sure if I had anything that was going to shoot them down at the point, maybe. It was just before they would have been engaged.
The last 10 hours or so was just running up the score but I wouldn't make it shorter I don't think.

I still would say there are too many badgers and they need to be more concentrated and have an escort. I don't think they ever did much other than add to my score.

24,860

nice job, I enjoyed it.

quote:

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

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
72x H-6G Badger [H-6M]
23x J-10C Vigorous Dragon
20x J-20 Mighty Dragon
10x Z-9C Dauphin 2
8x Z-18FQ Super Frelon
6x Z-8J Super Frelon [Transport & Amphibious Assault]
8x HY-6D Badger [H-6DU]
1x Type 056 Jiangdao [582 Bengbu]
26x J-15 Flying Shark [Su-33 Copy]
1x Type 054A++ Jiangkai II [576 Daqing]
4x Type 052C Luyang II [170 Lanzhou]
1x Ka-28 Helix A
1x DDG 136 Hangzhou [Pr.956E Sovremenny]
4x Z-18YJ Super Frelon [Black Bat]
28x Infantry Section [7.62mm MG/Unguided Infantry Anti Tank Weapon]
36x J-11D Flanker B [Su-27SK Copy]
1x Type 073A Yunshu [941 Shengshanhao]
4x Type 726 Yuyi [LCAC]
1x Type 071 Yuzhao [998 Kunlun Shan]
3x Type 091 Han
1x Vehicle (China Type 902)
2x 35mm/90 Twin Type 90 [China Type 902 FC]
2x Type 903A Fuchi [889 Taihu]
2x Radar (China JY-27 Wide Mat)
2x Radar (China JY-11B)
25x Ammo Shelter
4x Radar (Tin Shield B [5N59S/36D6])
1x Type 001 Liaoning [16 Liaoning, Shi Lang, Ex-Varyag]
12x HY-6U Badger [H-6U]
1x Type 052D Luyang III [173 Changsha]
4x KJ-2000 Mainring [A-50]
7x A/C Hangar (2x Large Aircraft)
2x Radar (Big Bird C [64N6])
27x SA-20b Gargoyle [5P85SE] TEL
7x Vehicle (Tombstone [30N6E])
25x SA-16 Gimlet [9K310 Igla-1] MANPADS
7x A/C Hangar (2x Medium Aircraft)
1x Type 051G Luda III [165 Zhanjiang]
1x Type 053H3 Jiangwei II [564 Yichang]
8x HN-5B MANPADS
20x YJ-62 Triple
4x DF-16A [Conventional] TEL
6x Vehicle (China Type 352 Square Tie)
3x A/C Hardened Aircraft Shelter (1x Large Aircraft)
7x Vehicle (Cheese Board [96L6E])
3x Vehicle (Tombstone [30N6])
3x Vehicle (Clam Shell [5N66])
8x DF-26C [Conventional] TEL
8x DF-15C TEL [CSS-6 Mod-3]
5x DF-21D ASBM TEL [CSS-5 Mod-4]
8x SA-20a Gargoyle [5P85SE] TEL
1x Radar (Bar Lock A [P-37])
1x Type 093 Shang

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
137x Generic Active Directional Sonobuoy
208x PL-15
418x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
10x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
4x YJ-83K [C-802AK]
16x 1700 liter Drop Tank
192x HQ-9A
97x PL-12
48x HQ-9B
64x HQ-16A [SA-17 Semi-Copy]
6x PL-8C [Python 3]
136x HQ-10 [FL-3000N]
39x 100mm/55 H/PJ-87 HECVT
46x 30mm China H/PJ-12 [Type 730, 240 rnds]
36x 30mm China H/PJ-14 [Type 1130, 500 rnds]
94x Generic Chaff Rocket
5x 130mm China H/PJ-38 HE
1x 30mm China H/PJ-17 [20 rnds]
28x Generic Flare Rocket [Single Spectral]
24x YJ-100 [CJ-10A Mod] ASCM
41x 37mm/63 Twin Burst [20 rnds]
2x YJ-12
2x AK-630M 30mm/65 Gatling Burst [400 rnds]
13x Generic Acoustic Decoy
12x DF-16A [Conventional]
12x DF-15C [Penetrator, CSS-6 Mod-3]
24x DF-16B [Submunitions]
12x DF-16A RV [Conventional]
24x DF-16B RV [Submunitions]
12x DF-15C RV [Penetrator, CSS-6 Mod-3]
24x DF-21D [ASBM, Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-4]
22x DF-21D RV [ASBM, CSS-5 Mod-4]
6x AS-17 Krypton C [Kh-31P, ARM]
4x YJ-82 [YJ-802Q]
3x PL-10
64x SA-20a Gargoyle [48N6E]
102x SA-20b Gargoyle [48N6E2]
12x YJ-62
12x DF-26C [Conventional]
12x DF-26C RV [Conventional]
1x SA-16 Gimlet [9M313]

SIDE: Japan-US
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
3x F-15DJ Eagle J-MSIP
3x F-35B Lightning II
1x EA-18G Growler
6x F-15C Eagle
5x RQ-4B Global Hawk Blk 40 UAV
2x P-8A Poseidon [LSRS]
5x P-3C Orion Update III
1x F-35A Lightning II
1x SH-60K Seahawk
1x DD 115 Akizuki
2x F-16CM Blk 52 Falcon
2x E-8C Joint STARS

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
729x J/HQS-33B DICASS [AN/SSQ-62]
109x AN/SSQ-62E DICASS
110x AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR
695x J/HQS-12 DIFAR
371x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
19x MIM-104E Patriot PAC-2 GEM+
2x MIM-104F Patriot PAC-3 MSE
17x AAM-4B Kai [Type 99]
1x MIM-104C Patriot PAC-2
13x AIM-9X Sidewinder
1x AAM-5 [Type 04]
57x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
3x 600 USG Drop Tank
2x 723 USG CFT
3x AN/ALE-70 FOTD
166x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
120x ADM-160B MALD [Active RF]
89x AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM P3I.3
72x AGM-88E AARGM
76x AGM-88C HARM
26x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
144x AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA
72x AGM-84D Harpoon IC
56x HYDRA 70mm Rocket
10x AGM-65G Maverick IR
4x Mk46 NEARTIP Mod 5
20x RIM-161E SM-3 NTW Blk IIA
20x RIM-161B SM-3 NTW Blk IA
75x THAAD C-2
16x MIM-104F Patriot PAC-3 ERINT
72x AN/SSQ-77B VLAD
1x 127mm/62 HE-CVT [HiFrag]
14x Mk182 SRBOC Chaff [Seduction]
2x 20mm/100 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 1B Burst [300 rnds]
2x AN/ALE-50 [RT-1646/ALE]
2x 20mm/85 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 1 Burst [300 rnds]
1x 76mm/62 Compact HE Burst [4 rnds]
96x AGM-158B JASSM-ER
11x GBU-12D/B Paveway II LGB [Mk82]
2x 30mm GAU-8A/B Burst [195 rnds]
112x RGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
184x AGM-158A JASSM [Penetrator]
20x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
20x 127mm/54 HE-CVT [HiFrag]
29x GBU-39/B SDB
3x Mk50 Barracuda Mod 0 ALWT

< Message edited by Whicker -- 10/17/2018 7:29:11 AM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 38

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/17/2018 11:51:19 AM

BeirutDude

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

So two things come to mind...

1. A few Badgers on a maritime patrol mission before hostilities
2. The balance on a Naval ASuW Mission after but with aggressive settings (not aggressive now because of the pre-war phase).
3. Add a few VPs for Chinese mainland facilities (currently 0 VPs for them).

I think those changes and she's done...

Thanks for your help everyone!!!!!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 39

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/17/2018 12:56:27 PM

BeirutDude

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

Playtest Version 1.5 deleted (see 1.6 below)

Addressed issued above and added biologics.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/18/2018 10:33:23 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 40

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/18/2018 2:29:57 AM

magi

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

have to tell you ... i really like this a lot..... i was playing version 1.4.... i editor mode... will load 1.5 now...

there some comments i would like to make..... i detached the missile batteries from the air facilities because the were weird and not nicely positioned....
i would not worry about to many units... as there are all ready over 2000 at the start perty much...this is just not a scenario for under able computers... there is plenty of smaller scenarios out.... and this wouldn't be right small.....

i turned off encom active in doctrine... and just made facilities active to start.... it was hassle everything going off when launched.... i like to be selective with active encom...

i believe the american ARG is very under escorted.... i do not believe it would be sent in a high threat environment without some serious shooters with a better ballance aaw and and some abm's... the flightI burks load outs are more strike oriented... and while they can support asw operations.. they usually dont embark with them as they do not have facilities... more asw assets they could be had by swapping with flightII's.... and mh-60r's could operate from the LHD... including an LCS could be kind of cool as i believe there is one often in the area.. and would be a useful asw asset....

in your scenario there are a few weeks leading up to the point of possible hostilities... so the usa/japan do have time to make some planes...
one thing that could be cool and very plausible... is to have some japanese/usa sub mission operating in the chinese zone from the start.... and that would also help with the ssk's... because thats what they do.. and it takes them forever them get in to a fight.... they are really just an ambush predator... and if they get discovered... like oh well... the shooting war starts....

do we even have that many p8's...? you gave us a bunch of them... it looks like you put them there for strikers... there could be more japanese strike aircraft.....

the ohio ssgn... would never go into a hi threat area... it would stand off and stay unknown.. a ghost...

all japanese subs have newer versions....

i think the usa/japanese should be veteran.... they are in experience superior to the chinese...

i play in editor mode... so not having some basic loadouts and other stuff is an easy fix... i also put some tankers on okinawa....

well i think i will start your latest version..... what you have done is very cool and i thank you for it.....

< Message edited by magi -- 10/18/2018 3:15:12 AM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 41

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/18/2018 3:54:54 AM

Whicker

Posts: 664
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline

quote:

the ohio ssgn... would never go into a hi threat area... it would stand off and stay unknown.. a ghost...

I kept it out of the area as well, kind of figured that it didn't belong anywhere near the hostile zone, but the load of cruise missiles came in handy, that was cool.
I also noticed that the subs all had pretty intricate headings setup, I would delete them - maybe have it going in one direction a bit, but no need to have anything much there (same for the ships, let the player decide IMHO). I put the two ARGs together more or less as the one had more SAMs. When the designer puts such intricate paths for a unit I can't tell if I am supposed to keep on those paths or not.

By the way, how do you deal with the ballistic attack on the ships? was I supposed to destroy the launch pads before that point? limit the number of thaads launched prior to that? pretty sure I was gonna get clobbered before they turned back and went in the wrong direction.

quote:

what you have done is very cool and i thank you for it

Ditto.

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 42

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/18/2018 12:21:04 PM

BeirutDude

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

quote:

have to tell you ... i really like this a lot..... i was playing version 1.4.... i editor mode... will load 1.5 now...

Glad you are enjoying it. Everyone's input has made it much better!

there some comments i would like to make.....

quote:

i detached the missile batteries from the air facilities because the were weird and not nicely positioned...

.

So this is one were a designer can't win as people are divided on their likes. Even grouped the missiles were a commanding presence on the island making the airbases hard to find. As to positioning, I tried to give orientations that cover the threat axis's and near the bases. Again, I think this might be more preference.

i would not worry about to many units... as there are all ready over 2000 at the start perty much...this is just not a scenario for under able computers... there is plenty of smaller scenarios out.... and

quote:

this wouldn't be right small

.....

Agreed. The way I'm designing now is modular. I start with the main conflict area and then slowly add units and bases as they become necessary to tell the story of the conflict. That was why I left the Home Islands bases out.

quote:

i turned off encom active in doctrine... and just made facilities active to start.... it was hassle everything going off when launched.... i like to be selective with active encom...

I think you'll like 1.5 better on that score.

quote:

i believe the american ARG is very under escorted.... i do not believe it would be sent in a high threat environment without some serious shooters with a better ballance aaw and and some abm's... the flightI burks load outs are more strike oriented... and while they can support asw operations.. they usually dont embark with them as they do not have facilities... more asw assets they could be had by swapping with flightII's.... and mh-60r's could operate from the LHD... including an LCS could be kind of cool as i believe there is one often in the area.. and would be a useful asw asset....

So unless the USN has changed over the past 30 years

On the way to Beirut, positioned for combat our ARG (USS Iwo Juma LPH2) was escorted by a Krivak II and a Sam Kotlin class Soviet Destroyer. I didn't see an American surface combatant until we made it to Lebanon. Just saying, but let me think about this some. BTW I like to have people solve problems in scenarios and I've solved it by lying behind Okinawa and using the island's THAAD battery for cover.

in your scenario there are a few weeks leading up to the point of possible hostilities... so the usa/japan do have time to make some planes...

quote:

one thing that could be cool and very plausible... is to have some japanese/usa sub mission operating in the chinese zone from the start.... and that would also help with the ssk's... because thats what they do.. and it takes them forever them get in to a fight.... they are really just an ambush predator... and if they get discovered... like oh well... the shooting war starts....

Great minds think alike. Last night as I was playtesting again I said the same thing to myself and was frustrated getting them through the Island Arc last few times. I think I'm going to Teleport them so each scenario has some randomness. Now to keep things random I would have to set up a Sea Control Mission inside the Teleport area so they would actually move after teleporting and not toward a predicable location (which they would if I just gave them a waypoint to track to). The player could just give them the orders they want and delete the mission after the start of the game.

quote:

do we even have that many p8's...? you gave us a bunch of them... it looks like you put them there for strikers... there could be more japanese strike aircraft.....

Yes we do, they are right out of a 2018 OOB for USN Squadrons. As to more Japanese aircraft Naha AB has limited spots for basing. Also, the PRC could have a LOT MORE AIRCRAFT. You have to stop somewhere and think the 5th generation aircraft are more fun and would be the main players. I already find the J-10/11s and F-15s to be AAM/SAM fodder!!!!

quote:

the ohio ssgn... would never go into a hi threat area... it would stand off and stay unknown.. a ghost...

Agree and disagree. Think outside the box, if you wanted to limit SAM response time to a Tomahawk mission in a low ASw environment you'd want to get in close and let loose with as many as possible to limit reaction time.

quote:

all japanese subs have newer versions....

They may have to stay this way. to change them now. Oy Vey!!!!!!

quote:

i think the usa/japanese should be veteran.... they are in experience superior to the chinese...

That's an easy change. Sure. Not sure the PLAN is that bad though...

i play in editor mode... so not having some basic loadouts and other stuff is an easy fix...

quote:

i also put some tankers on okinawa....

I will move the KC-135 Squadron to Kadina from Anderson and leave the KC-10s at Anderson. I have been rebasing them with their missions. Again I like to have some problems for players to solve and rebasing is one of them. Not sure the Theater Commander would want all of those aircraft in one basket at Kadina! That is why the AWACS are split as well. That said, I was playing with this same idea last night and it is easy to do.

well i think i will start your latest version.....

quote:

what you have done is very cool and i thank you for it.....

Thank you for your input and time to playtest!!!!!!!!!

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/18/2018 12:35:31 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 43

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/18/2018 12:28:50 PM

BeirutDude

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

quote:

I kept it out of the area as well, kind of figured that it didn't belong anywhere near the hostile zone, but the load of cruise missiles came in handy, that was cool.
I also noticed that the subs all had pretty intricate headings setup, I would delete them - maybe have it going in one direction a bit, but no need to have anything much there (same for the ships, let the player decide IMHO). I put the two ARGs together more or less as the one had more SAMs. When the designer puts such intricate paths for a unit I can't tell if I am supposed to keep on those paths or not.

So my reply above addresses the SSKs and SSNs as to the Ohio, well where she goes and how she is used is up to the player! You can give her a heading of 090 or you can try to get in closer and pop off the Tomahawks within the SAM bubble to limit reaction time. Your choice...

quote:

By the way, how do you deal with the ballistic attack on the ships? was I supposed to destroy the launch pads before that point? limit the number of thaads launched prior to that?

A problem to be solved by the player but Okinawa's THAAD made a nice cover for me sitting it the lee of the island (But maybe I just got lucky as well????)

quote:

pretty sure I was gonna get clobbered before they turned back and went in the wrong direction.

I am not sure what happened there.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/18/2018 12:29:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 44

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/18/2018 2:08:10 PM

Gunner98

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

quote:

I think I'm going to Teleport them so each scenario has some randomness. Now to keep things random I would have to set up a Sea Control Mission inside the Teleport area so they would actually move after teleporting and not toward a predicable location (which they would if I just gave them a waypoint to track to).

There is a really good Lua solution to this which gives the designer a lot more control over the randomness. If you take a look at the scenario starting events for 'Old Grudges Never Die' or 'Pole Positions' there are good examples particularly for submarines.

Can't wait to get back to the game to try this one out.

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 BeirutDude)

Post #: 45

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/18/2018 6:18:38 PM

magi

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whicker

quote:

the ohio ssgn... would never go into a hi threat area... it would stand off and stay unknown.. a ghost...

I kept it out of the area as well, kind of figured that it didn't belong anywhere near the hostile zone, but the load of cruise missiles came in handy, that was cool.
I also noticed that the subs all had pretty intricate headings setup, I would delete them - maybe have it going in one direction a bit, but no need to have anything much there (same for the ships, let the player decide IMHO). I put the two ARGs together more or less as the one had more SAMs. When the designer puts such intricate paths for a unit I can't tell if I am supposed to keep on those paths or not.

By the way, how do you deal with the ballistic attack on the ships? was I supposed to destroy the launch pads before that point? limit the number of thaads launched prior to that? pretty sure I was gonna get clobbered before they turned back and went in the wrong direction.

quote:

what you have done is very cool and i thank you for it

Ditto.

hey Whicker....

(I also noticed that the subs all had pretty intricate headings)... ya me too... i deleted all the paths.. and also re positioned most of the units....

(I put the two ARGs together more or less as the one had more SAMs.).... i was thinking of doing this also.... the japanese shooters also have some ASBM SAMs in their loadouts.... but im probably going to swap out the flight I DDGs for fligh IIAs.... currently they are biased more for strike... i will reduce strike loads and bias them for AAW and with some ABMD abilities.... there are plenty of strike assits in the scenario... so 40-80 less tomahawks wont hurt much.. i may add an ageis cruiser....
i saw right away that with the composition of the us arg they were going to probably get creamed... i considered the groups could hang out under the Okinawa ABMD bubble untill you reduced chinese capabilities... however that might take too long and you might mot compleet the mission....

(By the way, how do you deal with the ballistic attack on the ships?).... we do this with aegis cruisers/destroyers/ddg 1000's.... ships capable of handling ABM/ASBM missiles... like the following....
RIM 161C& 161E SM3 NTW BLK IB&BLK II.... many of rhe RIMs with ABM mods and optimazation.... in hi threat enviorment.. you also need a layered air defense umbrella.. so you can start attriting the incoming way out there so you dont get over whelmed...

im starting on his 1.4.5 now...

have fun Magi.....

< Message edited by magi -- 10/18/2018 7:10:20 PM >

(in reply to Whicker)

Post #: 46

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/18/2018 8:28:45 PM

BeirutDude

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

My next design is going to be a small one that I intend to use to learn some LUA scripts/programing, but for now I'm going to finish this with what I know!

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 47

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/18/2018 8:34:51 PM

BeirutDude

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

quote:

I put the two ARGs together more or less as the one had more SAMs.

I have also done that bringing the Bonhomme Richard ARG along at 5 kts and the Kaga's ARG up to them at Flank (and both in the lee of Okinawa until time to make a run at the Senkaku).

Sounds to me like you are problem solving with what you have (unless you change them out

). It would be neat if every commander could change things out for the units they want to command vs. what they have!

But in the finial analysis it is just a game. Have fun...

_____________________________

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 48

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/18/2018 10:32:00 PM

BeirutDude

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

OK Playtest version 1.6 deleted.

I addressed the items just above with teleporting subs, moving some support squadrons and a few other clean up items. I really think this is it, unless someone finds a major problem I'm going to call it done. heck you can tweak a scenario forever.

Update: the scenario has been released...

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/19/2018 8:38:56 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 49

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/19/2018 3:45:15 AM

magi

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

well... im playing this 1.4.5 now about 2 hours into it..... i spent hours checking everything out...and setting myself up...
have my all my stuff the way i want it... i planted 4 of the japnese subs in the chinese zone... none have been detected yet in the last 2 hours... three of them are at periscope depth hoping to intercept the liaoning... i think 1 of them will make it...
i will probably be playing till 2 in the morning... thank you very much....

i launched my b52s... im thinking of preempting.. and shoot first....

< Message edited by magi -- 10/19/2018 3:48:52 AM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 50

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/19/2018 1:06:28 PM

Ancalagon451

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

Perhaps you should tweak the teleport zone a little, two of my subs have been spawned almost on top of a chinese tourist beach.

Ancalagon

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Ancalagon451 -- 10/19/2018 1:07:07 PM >

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 51

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/19/2018 2:13:08 PM

BeirutDude

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

Ancalagon451, Got a little carried away there, I can do that

Edit, fixed. Thanks.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/19/2018 2:21:13 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Ancalagon451)

Post #: 52

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/19/2018 3:37:58 PM

templar42

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

Great scenario! Really good fun. Just two tiny points which might be worth tidying up: I didn't seem to score VPs for killing Chinese H-6 tanker variants, and I noticed that I lost only 50 VPs when one of my F-22s was shot down whereas I gained 100 for each J-20 kill. Surely they should at least be at parity, and probably the F-22 kill should have hurt my score a lot more than it did? Thanks for these scenarios - really enjoyed this one and Nordkapp 1985.

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 53

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/19/2018 8:24:40 PM

BeirutDude

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

quote:

Great scenario! Really good fun.

Glad you enjoyed it!

quote:

Just two tiny points which might be worth tidying up: I didn't seem to score VPs for killing Chinese H-6 tanker variants, and I noticed that I lost only 50 VPs when one of my F-22s was shot down whereas I gained 100 for each J-20 kill. Surely they should at least be at parity, and probably the F-22 kill should have hurt my score a lot more than it did? Thanks for these scenarios

THANKS! I cleaned both up. When your doing scenarios like this the design drags on for a few weeks, an hour or two at a time, and sometimes you mix things up. The tankers are now worth 0005 pts each (same as USAF KC-135s) and the loss of an F-22A will be cost the USAF 150 points not 50!

quote:

- really enjoyed this one and Nordkapp 1985.

THANK YOU! Eventually I will clean up that MiG error with NordKapp 85, and actually appreciate your pointing it out. I need a rest from it (and this one) and will come back to it in a few weeks. This one is actually designed/set up to go both ways and I think in a few weeks I will set up the missions for the Japanese-US side and allow folks to play the PRC.

_____________________________

(in reply to templar42)

Post #: 54

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/19/2018 8:39:36 PM

BeirutDude

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

Released! Thanks for your help everyone...

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 55

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/19/2018 9:57:45 PM

magi

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

thank you sir... this is very cool indeed.... you did good....
when you start on another one... i would like to play test it....

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 56

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/20/2018 12:54:48 PM

BeirutDude

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

Thank you and be careful what you ask for, as I really appreciate the offer and will take you up on it!!!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 57

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/21/2018 11:17:06 PM

magi

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

Okidokie.......

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 58

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/22/2018 12:55:12 AM

Selchu

Posts: 98
Joined: 5/7/2017
Status: offline

Awesome wee mission.
I'm going through it again.
The only things I have noticed are that I made it to midnight with no attacks by either side. What I did end up with was a no shots fired furball over both Kaneda and alot of H-6s orbiting my ARGS.
To this end I find I am starting the fight when the H-6s get in range as they are entering my 'no-fly' zone.
I have also moved the ARGs close together.

The only thing I think is missing from the scenario is event messages during the mission to help continue on with the story. The brief is awesome and easily one of the best i ever read. I just think that something during the mission would make it better.

Either way. NICE WORK SIR!

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 59

RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019 - 10/22/2018 1:00:50 AM

Selchu

Posts: 98
Joined: 5/7/2017
Status: offline

Also how did you setup the ARG ASW points? i have never before seen them move with a surface ship and really wanna know how to do this so I can use it in other scenarios (Probably a beginner question i know)

(in reply to Selchu)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Scenario for playtest: Senkaku Islands Clash 2019