Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (and how I fixed them)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (and how I fixed them)

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 >> Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (and how I fixed them)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (and ... - 3/8/2020 11:09:44 PM

Eboreg

Posts: 230
Joined: 3/14/2019
Status: offline

I'll have to say, out of all the DLCs I've played, Chains of War is my personal favorite. The reason why is because it's massive and has no bad scenarios in the main lineup. Having said that, I view it as a little flawed since there are some oversights in design and I've taken it upon myself to create some modified scenarios to fix these problems. Of course, I'm not going to post the fixed scenarios here for fear of incurring the wrath of moderators but I am going to post a small changelist:

Blue Dawn:
* Changed EMCON on "Sub North" and "Sub South" missions to Radar-Passive

Salvo:
* Moved 822nd Bgd Bat 2 [DF-21D] ASBM closer to Wendeng AB
* Moved all individual TELs to their formation spots so they can fire immediately
* Added an action to the "US Counterattack" event to make the US declare China as hostile
* Removed "Chinese aircraft destroyed" trigger and replaced with "Chinese Bomber destroyed", "Chinese AWACs destroyed", and "Chinese Tanker destroyed" triggers for each type of aircraft respectively
* Changed "China Lost 50 Points for losing aircraft" event to "China Lost 50 Points for losing high-value aircraft" and added "Chinese Bomber destroyed", "Chinese AWACs destroyed", and "Chinese Tanker destroyed" to it

Okinawa Bound:
* Changed "220pm" trigger to go off at 2:20 AM
* Changed "Start" trigger to go off at 1:00 AM
* Changed EMCON on "USS Hawaii Trak" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "Okinawa Phib Zone" mission to Radar-Passive

Korean Ground Game:
* Set "ROK-US Scores Points for Killing Inf Co" Event to Repeatable
* Set "ROK-US Scores Points for Killing MRLS" Event to Repeatable
* Set "US Scores Points for Killing Mobile Artillery" Event to Repeatable
* Disabled "Event 11" and "Event 11 Cleanup" Events
* Changed "Central DMZ Attack 3" Action to put the Reference Point at the same location as the spawned unit
* Moved starting Reference Point of "Central Rally 3" mission closer to frontline so units assigned to it don't backtrack and take themselves out of the fight
* Changed "Wave 4 Adds and Assigns" Action to put the "AAA 9" unit at Lat 39.409783240791 Lon 127.278427989859

Showpieces:
* Changed EMCON on "Chengzhen 4" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "North Kilo" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "North Song" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "PLAN 316 Trak" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "PLAN 334 Trak" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "PLAN 336 Trak" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "PLAN 341 Trak" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "South Kilo" mission to Radar-Passive

Air Sea Battle:
* Changed EMCON on all J-11D Flankers at Suixi to Don't Inherit Radar-Active OECM-Passive
* Changed "Add ASBMs" Action to put the "ASBM 2" unit at Lat 23.1556911468506 Lon 114.102333068848
* Changed EMCON on "Kilo A PZ" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "Kilo B PZ" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "Kilo C PZ" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "Ming PZ" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "Song A PZ" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "Yuan A" mission to Radar-Passive
* Changed EMCON on "Yuan B" mission to Radar-Passive
* Edited every LCS in TF 77 to replace its Hellfire module with an unedited Hellfire module and add two NSM quads from 2013
* Added two conditions, "Destroyed Unit is not on Chinese Mainland" and "Destroyed Unit is on Chinese Mainland" that assumes the unit is on the Chinese Mainland if its latitude is equal to or over 18.1
* Changed "TF 77 Scores 100 Points For Destroying A Facility" event to add "Destroyed Unit is not on Chinese Mainland" condition
* Added "TF 77 Loses 500 Points For Attacking the Chinese Mainland" event with "PLAN Facility Destroyed" trigger, "Destroyed Unit is on Chinese Mainland" condition, and "TF 77 Loses 500 Points" action

The reason for each change is as follows:

* Subs should not have their radars turned on but they keep doing this throughout the campaign.
* The ASBM battery in "Salvo" is out of range of the Reagan Task Force meaning the player has to manually move it, this does not increase difficulty in a fair way and only causes frustration.
* It's possible to defeat the entire "Salvo" mission without the US ever declaring you hostile and launching its counterattack, this is an obvious design flaw that needed to be fixed.
* It's unreasonable to expect China to not tolerate the trading of fighters in such an attack shown in "Salvo" so I changed the event to only go off if Chinese bombers, AEW craft, or tankers are shot down.
* In "Okinawa Bound", Strike Group 1 uses the "2pm" and "220pm" triggers to launch and end its Tomahawk Strike on Luqiao AB respectively. However "2pm" goes off at 2:00 AM and "220pm" goes off at 2:20 PM leaving the TF incredibly vulnerable during a 12-hour period. I originally changed the "2pm" trigger to go off at 2:00 PM but this caused the strike to get launched far too late for my liking so I changed the end time rather than the start time in the final variant.
* The "Start" trigger in "Okinawa Bound" doesn't go off at the start of the scenario which felt like an obvious oversight.
* "Event 11" in "Korean Ground Game" sends a support request that you're pretty much going to have to tell to buzz off AND it spawns a unit in a zone that disables forward movement for one of the later waves.
* The "AAA 9" ground unit in "Korean Ground Game" was supposed to give cover for a group of mobile artillery in Wave 4 but in the original scenario, it spawns well away from them causing it to move off on its own and leaving the artillery it's supposed to protect without said protection.
* The J-11Ds at Suixi AB in "Air Sea Battle" are there to escort strikes on your Task Force but the missions they're assigned to have them turn their radars off and their jammers on since there are also ECM aircraft attached to these missions. This oversight makes them effectively useless.
* In the original "Air Sea Battle", "ASBM 2" is spawned in Northern Siberia effectively taking it out of the fight.
* The original choice of 4 Harpoons each in terms of rushing armament to the LCSs in "Air Sea Battle" was a little pessimistic so I changed them to a rush delivery of 8 unmodified Norwegian NSMs each. These missiles aren't present in "Hail Mary" based on the assumption that they were all expended in "Air Sea Battle".
* Finally, the briefing in "Air Sea Battle" requests that you not attack the Chinese mainland but the scenario gives no penalties for doing so so I added one.

Now if you want to do this to your versions of the scenarios (if the devs don't that is

) feel free. Just be warned: They are designed to make the scenarios harder.

< Message edited by Eboreg -- 3/10/2020 9:31:12 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (... - 3/9/2020 7:28:20 AM

Tailhook

Posts: 293
Joined: 1/18/2015
Status: offline

Good changes. I have a couple in house modifications of my own I�ve done.

From memory:
Salvo - adjust scoring so chinese aircraft losses (fighters anyway) are less catastrophic to your score. It can be almost impossible to win this scenario without gaming it, and the notion that in such an attack China wouldn�t gladly trade fighters is silly.

Last two scenarios: Give each LCS 8x NSM. Give each carrier strike group a Supply class fast replenishment ship with more munitions onboard. These are the ones dedicated to going with a carrier group, not the slower oilers and dry cargo ships. Those meet in predetermined times and places, but are too slow to follow along, especially in an all out war scenario.

(in reply to Eboreg)

Post #: 2

RE: Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (... - 3/9/2020 1:45:53 PM

Eboreg

Posts: 230
Joined: 3/14/2019
Status: offline

Interesting changes... even if I don't really agree with them...

I've found that in Salvo, there are more than enough points to spare if you only concern yourself with attacking the Hardened Aircraft Shelters (1 Large Aircraft) on Okinawa as secondary targets since they give as many points as a damaged runway when destroyed and only use your aircraft as a barrier against cruise missiles.

For the last two scenarios, the LCSs aren't really that necessary and I suspect that the rushed development of them in this alternate timeline would make the Harpoons that they do get the only real option. Keep in mind that the entire conflict only lasts a month. As for the extra munitions ships, I would love to know what they add to the scenarios in terms of actual gameplay especially since I've never really had a problem with running out of ammunition in my playthroughs.

I should probably also mention that I'm considering adding an event in Air Sea Battle to make TF 77 lose 600 points for attacking the Chinese mainland especially since I make it a habit to Tomahawk the OTH radars in order to allow my Task Force to better approach the Philippines undetected despite the fact that this is blatantly against orders. I already have the code in place, I'm just debating whether or not to actually commit.

< Message edited by Eboreg -- 3/9/2020 1:52:46 PM >

(in reply to Tailhook)

Post #: 3

RE: Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (... - 3/9/2020 8:09:02 PM

Tailhook

Posts: 293
Joined: 1/18/2015
Status: offline

Right, and that's the method I ultimately used to advance it. The issue is that you can't afford to use ANY aircraft as like SEAD or fighter sweep to try and get more missiles through because their loss is so catastrophic. Like a limited ISR or H-6 style asset I'd understand, but not so much the other fighters. I'd be willing to bet that China would trade some fighters in order to do significantly more damage on their targets.

The LCS's aren't necessarily rushed in this timeline and indeed the missile was first successfully tested in 2014 on an LCS. I imagine that in a full blown war, especially after a month had passed, that there would be a rush order from Norway or someone else with them, at least enough to outfit the 3-4 LCS that are available in the scenario. Otherwise they don't serve much of a point. I don't think I ultimately even used them, but it was a valid change in my mind, especially since there's some other OOB decisions I don't think are realistic (the inclusion of USN F/A-18Cs being one. Like yes they technically weren't yet retired in this time frame but speaking from experience they 100% would have just brought in a much more capable Super Hornet squadron to fill that gap).

As for the supply issues, on my first run through a few years ago (before some changes were made to the game) I found that my AMRAAM supply in particular was really hurting, especially when my task was basically "use these two air wings to destroy all of China"

(in reply to Eboreg)

Post #: 4

RE: Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (... - 3/9/2020 9:25:55 PM

Eboreg

Posts: 230
Joined: 3/14/2019
Status: offline

I see... I guess that makes some degree of sense...

That does leave me wondering, did the Forward Air Bases in Hail Mary used to have the extensive stock of munitions that they have now or were they completely empty like I always suspected from other players' complaints?

(in reply to Tailhook)

Post #: 5

RE: Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (... - 3/9/2020 10:46:54 PM

Tailhook

Posts: 293
Joined: 1/18/2015
Status: offline

From memory on initial release, and I could be mistaken, only one or two of them had ordnance. I remember "shuttling" ammo using C-17s from Australia (in that when one would land I'd add ammo using the editor).

(in reply to Eboreg)

Post #: 6

RE: Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (... - 3/10/2020 5:02:29 PM

Eboreg

Posts: 230
Joined: 3/14/2019
Status: offline

Alright, I added some of your changes to the changelog (and made them in my versions of the scenarios). One thing of note is that I added Norwegian NSMs to the LCSs in "Air Sea Battle" instead of the American ones on the basis that this was a rush delivery and there was no time to make the modifications.

(in reply to Tailhook)

Post #: 7

RE: Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (... - 3/10/2020 5:55:16 PM

morphin

Posts: 572
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: Switzerland
Status: offline

May you can give me your adapted scenarios?
Thank's

(in reply to Eboreg)

Post #: 8

RE: Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (... - 3/10/2020 6:27:49 PM

Eboreg

Posts: 230
Joined: 3/14/2019
Status: offline

Judging from your message history, it seems you do have the Chains of War DLC already so... sure.

(in reply to morphin)

Post #: 9

RE: Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (... - 3/13/2020 5:06:01 AM

magi

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailhook

From memory on initial release, and I could be mistaken, only one or two of them had ordnance. I remember "shuttling" ammo using C-17s from Australia (in that when one would land I'd add ammo using the editor).

i do this sort of thing... i always play in editor mode... it really adds to the game....

(in reply to Tailhook)

Post #: 10

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Problems with "Chains of War" scenarios (and how I fixed them)

Page: [1]