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 - The V-Bombers, 1962

 
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 - The V-Bombers, 1962 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/17/2019 10:17:31 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		2019 has seen a bumper-crop of new scenarios so hopefully another won't introduce scenario fatigue in the community. Anyway, here's:

The V-Bombers

quote:

You are Commander in Chief, Bomber Command and responsible for the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent forces of Victor and Vulcan bombers and the American made PGM-17 Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM). For whatever reason, deterrence has failed and a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union and its allies has begun.


The situation is actually the same war as depicted in my previous Deter, Detect, Defend 1962 and Wargasm 1962 but now you get to play as the RAF attacking the Soviet Union.

Features include variable missile readiness, diversion airfields, limited weapons and London getting nuked repeatedly. The player receives points for destroying Soviet cities but loses them for every British city destroyed plus more for the destruction of the Windscale nuclear site and the atomic weapons development centre at Aldermaston. There is no defence from the Soviet missiles and the Player should quickly find him/herself deep in a VP hole. Do you use your Thors to destroy the Soviet PVO so your bombers have a shot at the cities or expend your missiles to even the score?

The scenario should be complete and the events have been tested but of course there are always errors of commission or omission that creep in. Would really like feedback to calibrate the scoring and assess difficulty but identifying problems will be appreciated. Thanks in advance for any tests.

-C

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 3/28/2019 11:23:09 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/18/2019 5:31:45 AM   
Zumwalt_446

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 2/18/2019
Status: offline 		Great scenario, as are Wargasm and Deter, Detect, Defend!

Just a few comments:

1. It is rather difficult to find the activated Thor missiles in between all of the neutral sites; this is compounded by the fact that the Thors are not named by their squadrons, but rather generically as units. Maybe labelling could be added for this purpose?

2. So far, all of the Thors have slowed significantly and detonated at about the midpoint of their flight, with none actually reaching their targets; I'm not sure if this is due to the scenario specifically, or the Thor as it is implemented in-game generally.

Thanks :)

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 2
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/18/2019 4:33:12 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Thanks for the test and welcome to the Forums.

Each Thor is named uniquely for its squadron/flight, for example 77-A = A-flight, 77 RAF and you are correct that locating the ready missiles can be difficult. I solved this by opening the OOB window (key "o") and selecting the particular missile when the ready message fires. This selects and centres on the missile to facilitate launching. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by labelling. Unfortunately centre and close is not an available option with Lua popup messages. To be honest, using Lua to change sides was just so much less work than teleporting or creating 59-new units via Lua scripts.

Real-life Thors were crap and even after they were relegated to satellite launching (Thor-Aginea) and research they had a significant failure rate. It is little solace to know that the Soviet SS-4/SS-5 suffer from failures as well. During testing, most that actually launched reached their targets although a good number malfunctioned or missed once there. If more data is developed and there is a consensus, rolling back the 75% ready event probability to 90 or 100% might be a fix.

-C

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 2/18/2019 5:29:45 PM >

(in reply to Zumwalt_446)
Post #: 3
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/25/2019 8:08:07 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Nothing else?

-C

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 4
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/26/2019 4:25:06 PM   
Schr75


Posts: 803
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Hi Randomizer

I just started this scen last night, so I´m not that far in yet.
I´m a real sucker for these cold war scens and i really like what I see so far.

So far I have scrambled all ready bombers and been nuked a few times, but luckily SS-4 and SS-5 missiles really suck, so a lot of duds have saved several targets.
The Thors ready events seems to work fine. The first handful have been fired already and are enroute to their targets.
Their reliability remains to be seen

Will let you know what happens.

Søren

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 5
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/26/2019 8:44:11 PM   
Schr75


Posts: 803
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		A few hours in and things are going as planned, if you can say that after getting nuked repeatedly
Will report back when done, but I think Zumwalt_446 is right about the Thors.

They slow to sub-sonic speed like 250 knots just before impact and that sounds a bit slow even for the old Mk2 RV.
I will do some testing and report the issue if relevant tomorrow.

Besides that. I love the attention to detail. Both of Cockcrofts follies got destroyed.
Nice detail

Søren

(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 6
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/27/2019 4:50:03 AM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Thanks for the feedback, including Cockcroft's Follies proved irresistible since they made such fine aimpoints. I tested the scenario to confirm your reports and have posted a test scenario with instructions to reproduce the issue in the Tech Support forum.

No excuse for uploading the scenario with this issue. The only thing in my defence is that I never actually noticed the problems with Thor during testing since I never bothered to follow the outbound RAF missiles. It was enough that the ready events fired correctly and I was too busy trying to get the bombers through the Soviet air defences. D'oh.

-C

(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 7
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/27/2019 10:11:45 PM   
.Sirius


Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline 		Hi guys working on the Thornton issue at the moment got them to hit the target but get alot of malfunctions as well, will look into deeper tomorrow

_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 8
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/28/2019 11:18:51 AM   
IJV

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 11/18/2015
Status: offline 		Nice scenario! (Though obv. not quite functional due to the missile bug). I tried replacing some of the Thor mounts on the sites with Jupiter missiles but those have the same problem, wonder if they're a bit of a copy-and-paste job.

There is also I think a data problem with the Valiant - I'd noticed messing around with them myself that they seemed a bit useless as tankers, and either they're missing a zero somewhere or they'd have made great airliners as a loaded Valiant, tanker or otherwise, carries about 5t of fuel vs 41t for the Victor and 34t for the Vulcan!

(in reply to .Sirius)
Post #: 9
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/28/2019 5:22:23 PM   
Schr75


Posts: 803
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		I was just about to mention the tanker issue. I think IJV is right.
A fuel load of 5t is not much to refuel a thirsty Vulcan, and it sounds a bit low, but I have been unable to find any sources on the fuel load on the Valiant.

Regarding the missile bug, you can still play without problems. Your missiles just take a bit longer to hit their targets
I´m getting some good hits in with the Thors.

I do think that I have found an issue though.
The soviet interceptors attack the Swedish CAP over Gotland. They got shot down for their trouble, but you might want to place a no-fly zone around Sweden for the Soviets.

Spoilers below.

On a historical note. I see you have ringed Moscow with SA-2 sites. At that time it was defended by SA-1 Guild sites.
I don´t think it will make a difference game-play wise, but I think they would be a great addition.
You don´t find them anywhere else besides North Korea

Back to playing. Second wave of bombers are approaching. I´m behind on points but as you point out, points don´t really make sense in an all out nuclear war.
I am cheating a bit, attacking at low level contrary to doctrine, but it works brilliantly. Only lost a single Victor from the first wave.

When I´m done, I´ll retry with correct high altitude attacks.

Søren

(in reply to IJV)
Post #: 10
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/28/2019 7:11:03 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Thanks for the tests.

The Thors have been fixed, probably with the next update and I will upload the scenario again once this has been confirmed. I will also probably give the Player the correct Vulcan B.2 version as some are the post 1964 variant. That said the Red Beard loadouts hardly seem worth carrying and the W.177 are similar to the Mk-28 supplied by the Americans. Thoughts?

I did some tests with the Valiant tankers and they do not appear to have any buddy fuel. Will post on the Tech Support forum.

The CWDB does not include the SA-1 but the SA-2 was in widespread use at this time and presumably Moscow was first in line for protection. The web site Soviet Armed Forces 1945-1991 indicates most of the capitol defences were SA-2 so that's what I used.

-C

(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 11
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 2/28/2019 8:34:21 PM   
Schr75


Posts: 803
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Hi Randomizer

The SA-1 was added some times ago, can´t remember when exactly.
It´s DB ID # 1901 and 412.

Søren

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 12
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 3/1/2019 12:27:34 AM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		OK, the SA-1 facilities are batteries as opposed to battalions which is why I missed them in the DB. Looking at the stats, not sure what is to be gained from a game-play standpoint by replacing the single unit SA-2 battalions (18-launch rails) with three SA-1 batteries (6-launchers each) plus the associated radar and HQ. Seems like a lot of work (and adds to the AU count) but if there is a consensus that doing so would improve the scenario significantly I will certainly consider swapping out some Guidelines for Guilds.

-C

(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 13
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 3/1/2019 7:11:34 AM   
.Sirius


Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

OK, the SA-1 facilities are batteries as opposed to battalions which is why I missed them in the DB. Looking at the stats, not sure what is to be gained from a game-play standpoint by replacing the single unit SA-2 battalions (18-launch rails) with three SA-1 batteries (6-launchers each) plus the associated radar and HQ. Seems like a lot of work (and adds to the AU count) but if there is a consensus that doing so would improve the scenario significantly I will certainly consider swapping out some Guidelines for Guilds.

-C

Hi Chris, I'll make the changes in the db in the mean time for the Sa-1 if you want I'll make an import file for the SA-1 Ring around Moscow if it helps I have the kmz file somewhere

_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 14
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 3/1/2019 9:51:55 AM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline 		Are there plans to finally switch the incorrect SARH guidance of both systems plus the SA-3, for the correct radio command guidance?

Now that the ilumination range have been detached from the detection range, it's probable that the difference in both systems have stopped being a trivial one like before.

Ancalagon

EDIT: SA-4 and SA-8 are also radio-command guided systems, and both are modelled as SARH ones

< Message edited by Ancalagon451 -- 3/1/2019 10:29:47 AM >

(in reply to .Sirius)
Post #: 15
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 3/1/2019 5:30:19 PM   
Schr75


Posts: 803
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Hi Randomizer

As I said, swapping out the SA-2s with SA-1s will probably not make much of a difference, except for historical accuracy, so please don´t do it just because of me.
If Sirius can make an import file though, it shouldn´t be too much work and then I think it would be worth the trouble.

Either way i´m happy.
This is a great scen and i´m looking forward to try it again with the DB fixes Sirius have made.

Søren

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 16
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 3/1/2019 6:47:29 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Hi Paul. Would be happy to accept an import file for the Moscow air defences in this era. Thanks.

@ Ancalagon451, I my opinion and given the scale of CMANO am reasonably sure that SARH vs. radio command guidance is a distinction without a difference, at least until communications jamming is completely modelled and the intentionally incorporated into the scenario by the author.

-C

(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 17
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 3/1/2019 8:51:05 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline 		That's the official reason, and for a long time I agreed that is a reasonable placeholder, but right now SARH systems work with an ilumination range calculated separately from the acquisition one and that's not how a command guidance works; also we aren't really sure that DECM systems work the same against the modeled "false" missile seeker as they would working directly against the battery radar in ilumination mode, plus for a brief time command link jamming was a thing.

So it could very well be that the placeholder isn't good anymore. And guiven that the involucred sytems include some of the most widely deployed and employed in combat in all history, including THE most widely deployed and employed in combat ever, an incorrect modelling here it's not a trivial thing.

Of course it could also be that all those factors have been already taken in account and the SARH modeling is still a good enough aproximation. If so, much better, no changes needed means no need to squash bugs later.

But just in case, i'm giving a heads up here.

Ancalagon



< Message edited by Ancalagon451 -- 3/2/2019 11:10:10 AM >

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 18
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 3/2/2019 8:32:00 AM   
IJV

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 11/18/2015
Status: offline 		The difference between SA-1 vs SA-2 on a per-missile basis does actually seem to be surprisingly large (out of curiosity, I tried throwing a big pile of bombers across a line of SA-1b sites from one side and a line of SA-2b sites from the other) at least against high-altitude attacks - hit probability per SA-1 is about 1/4 to 1/3 of an SA-2. The SA-1 seems to be more of a B-29 killer and has its max target speed set as 550kts which means high-altitude jet bombers are fast enough to really dumpster its hit chance.

OTOH the SA-1 sites are actually *much* larger than the SA-2 sites, not smaller - an SA-2 site has 6 ready and 12 reserve missiles on six launchers, an SA-1 site has 60 ready and 60 reserve as it's ten groups of six launchers per site.

Whether it's worth fiddling with might depend on whether the difficulty of attacking Moscow is thought to be right - could also be interesting to have the SA-1 sites exist but have their approximate locations known, with some SA-2 sites additional - do I then go toss my vaguely functional MRBMs at stuff as soon as they launch, do I hold onto a few to kick in the door to Moscow, does that get them blown up before I use them, does it even work in the end...

(Seriously, the sites are big - I went looking on GMaps and found several with no more effort than 'look for a ring of things around Moscow' - though amusingly they mostly seem to have been turned into bases for holiday cottages nowadays!)

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 19
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 3/28/2019 11:26:42 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		The V-Bombers scenario has been removed by the author as the Thor missile bug and insufficient fuel issue for the Valiant tankers have not been fixed in the last CWDB updates.

-C

(in reply to IJV)
Post #: 20
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 3/31/2019 12:44:53 PM   
.Sirius


Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

The V-Bombers scenario has been removed by the author as the Thor missile bug and insufficient fuel issue for the Valiant tankers have not been fixed in the last CWDB updates.

-C

Latest CWDB is in test at the present time with all the amends for V Bombers and Thornton Missiles

_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 21
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 4/14/2019 1:57:37 PM   
stolypin

 

Posts: 217
Joined: 12/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: .Sirius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

The V-Bombers scenario has been removed by the author as the Thor missile bug and insufficient fuel issue for the Valiant tankers have not been fixed in the last CWDB updates.

-C

Latest CWDB is in test at the present time with all the amends for V Bombers and Thornton Missiles


Good news. I'm ready to give this one a play.

(in reply to .Sirius)
Post #: 22
RE: New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 - 4/20/2019 8:19:16 AM   
LaughingBuccaneer

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 11/23/2017
Status: offline 		Please can we have Royal Observer Corps above ground Orlit Posts images and below ground
( surface images ) of their 3 man nuclear bunker monitoring posts. The Mark 1 Eyeballs in
action !!
Particularly as so many were built ( 1563 in all ) at various out of the way places &
locations throughout the British Isles.

Although in 1962 they were maybe less than half way through establishing their bunkers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Observer_Corps_Monitoring_Post

< Message edited by LaughingBuccaneer -- 4/20/2019 8:22:41 AM >

(in reply to .Sirius)
Post #: 23
Fixed, and Updated: The V-Bombers, 1962 - 4/29/2019 7:14:48 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Thanks to the Developers Team for fixing the issues with the Valiant tankers and PGM-17 Thor re-entry vehicles in Build 1009.27.14. The scenario should now work as intended. The zip file contains two versions of the scenario, one with A/C damage enabled for owners of Chains of War and the other without. a Delta and another general *.ini files and the RAF target list for the northwest Soviet Union.

The following changes have been made to the scenario:

- Moscow's air defences have been completely re-worked and now feature concentric rings of SA-1 Guild batteries and SA-2 Guideline battalions with the associated radars.

- There are now a huge number of KS-19 100mm AAA gun batteries protecting everything for all of you wanna-be low-flyers.

- The Player briefing includes an intelligence summery of the expected air defences.

- A no-fly zone has been created south of 53* latitude. This prevents player cheating by approaching the targets from Ukraine where there are no Soviet defences. The premise is that RAF and NATO air assets can get limited number of Bomber Command planes through DDR and Polish airspace but only in a corridor between the Baltic Sea and 53* North.

- Thor missile readiness has been restored to 100% probability but the player can still expect that CMANO will provide between 20 and 30% failures after launch. There are more details on this in the Designer's Notes section of the Scenario Description.

- I have retained the WM.177 gravity bombs to simulate the US-supplied Mk.28 staged thermonuclear weapons.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

The V-Bombers has been withdrawn again for some major tweaking. Thanks for your patience.


< Message edited by Randomizer -- 5/1/2019 4:37:17 PM >

(in reply to LaughingBuccaneer)
Post #: 24
RE: Fixed, and Updated: The V-Bombers, 1962 - 4/29/2019 11:45:22 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline 		OK, gave it a try and while I'm less than three hours in play I already found some Issues.

First: for some motive the neutral missile launchers are being countinuously lost and re-detected several times per second While not game-breaking, this is very annoying and blocks you fron using the log to see relevant information. Not sure if this is something related to scenario configuration or a game bug.

Second: there seems to be some mislabeling in the target package, I've found two AZ4501 and one Marker (target) not relabeled. I've also been unable to locate AZ4202/AZ4508.

Related to this, locating a specific target on the map is quite time consuming, it would be a big help if you put the coordinates in the "RAF target list" document.

Not sure if third: With half of the Thor force expended, the reliability has been 20% of SUCCESSFUL detonations. Tomorrow will restart to see if it's been a case of "statistical outliers" AKA: lucky SOBs but anyone who is playing this scenario, please share your data about Thor reliability to help confirm/disprove that the damned THOR bug is still alive.

No more issues, this is a consultation: What are the nukes at the dispersal bases for? Other than a pair of bombers at Conigsby, which remained at home due to not being enough bombs for them, the only use I see is for rearming returning bombers and make a second go. If that the case then those pilots had balls of adamantium, being the Apocalypse horsemen not once but twice .

Tomorrow will restart and see what happens, thank you for such an impressive work.

Ancalagon

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 25
RE: Fixed, and Updated: The V-Bombers, 1962 - 4/30/2019 4:32:11 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Thanks for the feedback. You're running Build 1009.27.14? The warhead issue was still present in 1009.27.13, I posted unsatisfactory test data from this build (.13) in the Tech Support thread but after the latest build was released another series of tests with the 1009.27.14 yielded 39 out of 48 successful Thor sorties so I figured that the problem was solved. Will run another series of tests.

The continual re-spotting of the Thor launchers can be tiresome. Will try setting all to auto-located and see if that fixes the irritant.

I think that the final version will just display the targets on the list as auto-located and I will scrap the entire target list scheme.

As near as I could determine there were no strategic weapons stored in advance at any of the dispersal bases so it became necessary to send some. To me it is doubtful that the National Command Authority would see Bomber Command as a one-shot weapon and the scheme existed to preserve the bomber force, presumably to carry out further strikes. The nucs at the dispersal bases are there in case you want to send follow on sorties. Fortunately nobody really knows whether the surviving bomber crews would fly again; I think that most probably would, if only because some might have no home to go back to but it's fine if you think not. Adamantium balls are a feature of CMANO's virtual crews and not a bug...

-C

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 26
RE: Fixed, and Updated: The V-Bombers, 1962 - 4/30/2019 4:41:46 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline 		Second try, good news is that this time I got 15 successful detonations from 23 launched missiles. So it seems that I really was unlucky last time.

Bad news: Events for 218sq missiles do not reasign the associated launchers to the player's side, perhaps there is some grammar problem with their script.

I thought this one would be less of a monster than Wargasm but that's hardly so. The enemy ORBAT is mindblowing. Will continue playing at a future date but right now I'm literally expended, the extremly grimmness of the narrative also doesn't help.

Amazing work what you did here.

Ancalagon

EDIT: Yes, both runs were made with 1009.27.14, also I think you should leave the target as is, having to blind fire and then perform BDA It's an added layer of realism, just putting the coordinates in the list is enough.



< Message edited by Ancalagon451 -- 4/30/2019 4:45:56 PM >

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 27
RE: Fixed, and Updated: The V-Bombers, 1962 - 4/30/2019 5:11:56 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline 		Disregard the 218sq Issue, revising the losses log, I found that the soviets blasted a full squadron before any of it's missiles were activated.

Checking the ORBATs in the save file, I confirmed that the only absent one is the 218. So the events are working as intended and giving me the missile ready message, but such missile doesn't exist anymore.

No idea how can this be avoided without heavy Lua scripting or another truckload of events, so it's probably better that you just put a warning message in the briefing and call it a day.

Ancalagon

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 28
RE: Fixed, and Updated: The V-Bombers, 1962 - 4/30/2019 5:22:21 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Just to be clear, you had none of 218 Squadron's missiles ready? According to the triggers, missile 218-A should ready by time 21:34:00 but the B missile will not be liable for readiness for hours and missile C may not ready until the following day.

I found no error in the triggers or scripts but missile readiness was randomized by individual missile rather than squadron.

Thank you for the kind words. If you think it grim to play, building The V-Bombers has been an emotional roller coaster throughout its over-long gestation period.

-C

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 29
RE: Fixed, and Updated: The V-Bombers, 1962 - 4/30/2019 5:51:38 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline 		I have 3 missile launchers as losses for the QRA-forces side, I have none in bomber command side side but I do have a control building loss.

So It seems to me that a soviet nuke hit a squadron before any of it's missiles where active.

Checking the ORBATs of both sides I managed to locate all launchers but 218's. If you also say that the grammar for their events it's correct, then I think the more probably outcome is that 218 is the squadron blasted away.

If 218sq has some fast readiness events, then I suppose they got unlucky and one of the first soviet missiles took them out.

Ancalagon

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> New Scenario - The V-Bombers, 1962 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.938