Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing

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 >> Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/24/2020 4:32:05 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

My newest beta...a little Cold War action in and around Greece, set in 1946, featuring a carrier with plenty of planes, but no jets on the carriers.

As always, please let me know what you think. What is working, what isn't working, what could be improved? What can I do to make this a better, more challenging, more enjoyable scenario?

Thanks!

[version 3 uploaded 8:55 PM EST 10/29/2020]

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mgellis -- 10/30/2020 12:56:26 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/24/2020 7:00:00 PM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

Sweet! Though I notice that the Carrier group is in the Aegean, not the Adriatic......

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 2

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/24/2020 10:53:42 PM

BeirutDude

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

Giving it a run, been a long time since I played anything earlier than the 1970s!

Did you want all of the aircraft available for use?

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/25/2020 11:43:11 AM >

_____________________________

"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 Mgellis)

Post #: 3

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/25/2020 1:33:42 AM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

I just played it, and I was completely shocked by the results:

Started out well enough with simple strafing runs and a couple bombings on the insurgents, which only cost me 1 Corsair shot down to AAA, for alot of Insurgent units neutralized.

Didn't take me long to find the Soviet warships. Kept an eye on them with a surveillance Helldiver with Radar. However, at one point, the Helldiver flew over the Soviets and was fired upon, sustaining light damage. I decide not to strike yet as most of my aircraft won't be armed for several hours, though I do have two Helldivers ready with bombs.

As I continue my gun strafing attacks with Corsairs on Insurgents (plenty in reserve for fleet air defense), I notice that the Cruiser Little Rock has been Torpedoed!!!

That's enough. I launch my two available Helldivers against the Soviet Cruiser, and detach two destroyers to find and kill that submarine. The two helldivers attack and are damaged lightly, with all their bombs missing. I'm then able to follow up with 4 Corsairs armed with Rockets and 500lb bombs. All the rockets hit, ultimately causing serious damage to the Soviet cruiser, but I lose two Corsairs to AAA and the others are damaged. The Soviet ships then stop, with the cruiser having lost propulsion.

I am then attacked by a second submarine. No torpedoes hit, but send one of my detached destroyers to kill it, which it eventually does with an ASW mortar. The first destroyer is later sunk by the first submarine.

Now, here's the shocker. My radars have been on this whole time, and I have no issue detecting Soviet bombers far from my carrier, with plenty of time to intercept at long range with Corsairs. I can't launch all at once, but I launch Corsairs armed with guns (some with rockets ultimately), as they are ready and send them after the Il-4s.

The results are jaw dropping. My Corsairs get battered very hard by the Il-4s Gunners, with several being shot down. Most of the Il-4s reach the FDR carrier and release their bombs, destroying a large amount of my aircraft (I had launched several Helldivers against the Soviet ships when they were armed, so they were in the air when FDR got pummeled.)

FDR is heavily damaged, and USS New is outright sunk by the bombers, with only one bomber shot down by AAA.

What the hell is this!?!?!?!?!?!

I don't nessicarily blame you Mark, but this is ether an example of some serious issues with Command's portrayal of late WWII weaponry, or a shining example of the drop in US Conventional combat capability after the surrender of Japan. US forces were completely humiliated, less than two years after completely ripping the Japanese apart.

I really like this scenario and setup, but the performance of my Corsairs was absolutely abysmal, and my destroyers are proved quite limited in killing submarines, and my AAA was shockingly ineffective.

Losses and Expenditures:

SIDE: United States
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x DD 710 Gearing
30x F4U-4 Corsair
9x SB2C-5 Helldiver

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
175x 12.7mm/50 MG x 6 Burst [150 rnds]
19x 127mm/38 AA-VT [AntiAircraft Common]
63x 127mm/38 HE-PD [HiCap]
10x 127mm/38 Twin AA-VT Burst [Anti-Aircraft Common, 2 rnds]
92x 127mm/38 Twin HE-PD Burst [HiCap, 2 rnds]
8x 20mm Mk12 x 2 [50 rnds]
39x 20mm/80 Twin Oerlikon Burst [20 rnds]
43x 40mm/56 Mk1 Twin Bofors DP Burst [4 rnds]
135x 40mm/56 Mk2 Quad Bofors DP Burst [8 rnds]
22x 7.62mm M2 .30 Cal
143x 76mm/50 Twin Frag Burst [2 rnds]
18x M64 500lb GPB
8x M65 1000lb GPB
8x Mk13B Pattern Runner
3x Mk6/9/14 Depth Charge Mortar
72x ZUNI 127mm HVAR Rocket

SIDE: Insurgents
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
4x 12.7mm/50 Quad M55 [Cargo]
21x 7.62mm MG [Cargo]
4x ML 4.2 inch (107mm) Mortar [Cargo]
5x Vehicle (Truck, Unarmed) [Cargo]

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
136x 12.7mm/50 Quad M55 Burst [20 rnds]

SIDE: Sovet Union
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x EM Gnevny
4x Il-4 Bob
1x KR Maxim Gorkiy
1x Shchuka Class

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
208x 100mm/56 Frag
5x 100mm/56 HE
112x 12.7mm/50 MG x 4 Burst [100 rnds]
222x 37mm/63 Single Burst [20 rnds]
422x 37mm/63 Twin Burst [20 rnds]
4x 53-27 Pattern Runner
4x 53-36 Straight Runner
8x 53-39 Straight Runner
35x 85mm/52 Twin
32x FAB-250M-54 GPB
14x FAB-500M-54 GPB

SIDE: Neutrals
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------

EXPENDITURES:
------------------

SIDE: Greece
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
40x 7.62mm MG Burst [20 rnds]

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 4

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/25/2020 1:58:59 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

Thanks for the catch! I can't believe I did that. Duh!

It has been fixed. Thanks again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

Sweet! Though I notice that the Carrier group is in the Aegean, not the Adriatic......

< Message edited by Mgellis -- 10/25/2020 2:00:22 AM >

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)

Post #: 5

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/25/2020 2:04:28 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

Interesting. I did know the IL-4s were pretty tough, but I didn't expect them to be that hard to kill. I'll have to see what other people say about their experiences to get a sense of what (if anything) I should change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

I just played it, and I was completely shocked by the results:

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)

Post #: 6

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/25/2020 11:41:09 AM

BeirutDude

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

Dr. Gellis,

I had very similar results to HalflifeExpert (I feel better now). Before I say another word I very much enjoyed the scenario! Was nice to play something without ASROCS and SAMs. Was disorienting for me to play something without ASROC and SAMs!

Some suggestions...

1. The CVBG is positioned for actual combat against the insurgents, and potential combat against the USSR. Yet only about 12 aircraft are readied at sunrise local time. I think the strike package against the Insurgents would be armed with the pilots in the ready room in a ready status (or Wardroom having breakfast). With USSR air bases in Bulgaria and the USSR I would have a long range CAP mission readied and a close in CAP readied. Likely a pair each to launch on patrol with sunrise with a pair each for Alert status (at least I believe a smart player would set up their missions that way with the readied aircraft).

2. All of the USN aircraft are Regular proficiency. I would mix in a few Veterans and one or two Aces with a good number of cadets (no novices as they shouldn't be on a carrier even in 1946). In 1946, if I'm remembering my history right, the squadrons were a mixed bag of WWII vets with a lot of new draftees without combat experience. I assume the same for the Soviets.

3. Not sure of the size of a 1946 USN squadron, but seems like, since they are worth points, there should be some aircraft in maintenance status unless you want to keep unit counts low, but having a full carrier air wing operational just doesn't look/feel right.

4. I never got to where the Soviet SAG was an issue as the IL's took out my air wing hitting the Roosevelt before I had a chance and I resigned the match. Might I suggest teleporting them for some randomness?

5. The CV BG Operations box should probably a tad bit further south and away from the peninsulas. I get they had to come in there to launch against the insurgents but I doubt any battle group commander would have brought the battle group that close to land.

6. Nice description but I thought it telegraphed too much. I knew the Soviets were going to attack. Actually to me might be more fun, and have more replay value, if the Soviet hostilities were based on a random time generation or randomly based on the American attack? The IL strike had to be airborne from the start, if they were a readied strike reacting to the American attack on the insurgents might be a little more historically palatable. Given the current timing the U.S. would be in the U.N. screaming about the Soviet preplanned attack. Plus, IMHO if I got in there, and out, accomplishing my mission against the insurgents without a Soviet reaction, I'd feel pretty lucky and like I accomplished my mission.

Al

_____________________________

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 7

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/25/2020 12:20:13 PM

.Sirius

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

Hi going to go thru this scenario tonight but here's the typical USN CAG WW2

Typical air group composition aboard the Yorktown Class carriers, at the beginning of World War II, consisted of approximately 72 aircraft:

1 fighter squadron (VF) composed of 18 Grumman F4F Wildcats
1 bombing squadron (VB) composed of 18 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers
1 scouting squadron (VS) composed of 18 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers
1 torpedo squadron (VT) composed of 18 Douglas TBD Devastator or Grumman TBF/TBM Avenger torpedo bombers
During the course of the war in the Pacific, the compositions of the air groups changed drastically. The scouting squadrons were disestablished by early 1943 and the number of fighter planes was increased continuously. Typically in 1943 an Essex class carrier carried 36 fighters, 36 bombers and 18 torpedo planes.

By the end of WWII, a typical Essex air group was over 100 aircraft, consisting of :

1 squadron of 18 Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters
4 squadrons of 72 Vought F4U Corsair fighter/bombers
1 squadron of 12 Grumman TBM Avenger torpedo bombers

For the CAG for USS F.D Roosevelt Sept 1946

VF-75 Gay Blades - F4U4 Corsair
VBF-75 Green Pawns - F4U4 Corsair
VB-75 Vee Bee - SB2C-5 Helldiver
VT-75 Vee Bee - SB2C-5 Helldiver

_____________________________

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 BeirutDude)

Post #: 8

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/25/2020 12:30:09 PM

BeirutDude

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

quote:

For the CAG for USS F.D Roosevelt Sept 1946

VF-75 Gay Blades - F4U4 Corsair
VBF-75 Green Pawns - F4U4 Corsair
VB-75 Vee Bee - SB2C-5 Helldiver
VT-75 Vee Bee - SB2C-5 Helldiver

I certainly wasn't questioning whether Dr. Gellis got the squadrons right, I assumed as much given his attention to detail. My only question is if the number of aircraft 20/squadron was a full 1946 squadron and if so suggesting that some (20-40%/squadron) should be in maintenance status. If they were 24 aircraft/squadrons and maintenance was already built into the air wing (4 aircraft/squadron), then I would suggest the maintenance aircraft should be represented for their point values. I know sometimes I don't bother with them if they're not worth points, as why use up the resources for little bang (the Korean Missile Crisis scenario I'm working on is like that).

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/25/2020 12:32:07 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to .Sirius)

Post #: 9

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/25/2020 12:42:09 PM

.Sirius

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

From my days, you would look at around 20% of aircraft down due to routine maintenance as well as the usual Pilot bending itfor the guys to buff out !

_____________________________

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 BeirutDude)

Post #: 10

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/26/2020 12:28:29 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

Quick question...

What books and/or web sites did you get this information from? I had a hard time tracking down what planes were on the Roosevelt. I finally found some listings for carriers (there are a couple of sites dedicated to carriers and their aircraft) in the 40s and went from there.

Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: .Sirius

Hi going to go thru this scenario tonight but here's the typical USN CAG WW2

Typical air group composition aboard the Yorktown Class carriers, at the beginning of World War II, consisted of approximately 72 aircraft:

1 fighter squadron (VF) composed of 18 Grumman F4F Wildcats
1 bombing squadron (VB) composed of 18 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers
1 scouting squadron (VS) composed of 18 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers
1 torpedo squadron (VT) composed of 18 Douglas TBD Devastator or Grumman TBF/TBM Avenger torpedo bombers
During the course of the war in the Pacific, the compositions of the air groups changed drastically. The scouting squadrons were disestablished by early 1943 and the number of fighter planes was increased continuously. Typically in 1943 an Essex class carrier carried 36 fighters, 36 bombers and 18 torpedo planes.

By the end of WWII, a typical Essex air group was over 100 aircraft, consisting of :

1 squadron of 18 Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters
4 squadrons of 72 Vought F4U Corsair fighter/bombers
1 squadron of 12 Grumman TBM Avenger torpedo bombers

For the CAG for USS F.D Roosevelt Sept 1946

VF-75 Gay Blades - F4U4 Corsair
VBF-75 Green Pawns - F4U4 Corsair
VB-75 Vee Bee - SB2C-5 Helldiver
VT-75 Vee Bee - SB2C-5 Helldiver

(in reply to .Sirius)

Post #: 11

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/26/2020 12:39:27 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

I have to ask--although I'm not sure I really want to know--what the hell does that mean? I'm hoping you mean bending as in "fender bender," or whatever the equivalent would be for an aircraft.

quote:

as well as the usual Pilot bending itfor the guys to buff out !

(in reply to .Sirius)

Post #: 12

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/26/2020 12:52:59 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

Changes have been made for the carrier and its aircraft; I'm going to wait for a few more comments and then upload version 2. I've also included the approx. 20% unavailable/maintenance status in aircraft loadouts.

quote:

For the CAG for USS F.D Roosevelt Sept 1946

VF-75 Gay Blades - F4U4 Corsair
VBF-75 Green Pawns - F4U4 Corsair
VB-75 Vee Bee - SB2C-5 Helldiver
VT-75 Vee Bee - SB2C-5 Helldiver

(in reply to .Sirius)

Post #: 13

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/26/2020 9:55:21 PM

schweggy

Posts: 87
Joined: 2/3/2015
Status: offline

I ran through this today. The Il-4's are a real PITA. I've lost half the Roosevelt's compliment of Crusaders beating the first wave back, but 3 got through on the second wave and sunk one of the destroyers. The only sub I've come across, a Lenientss class was able to stuff a single fish in the Roosevelt causing minimal damage before being sunk. The attacks on the insurgents went off without issues, but another wave of Il-4's was able to sink another destroyer, so I'm down to the carrier, CL and one DD. The Russian surface group has been dispatched with no losses, but man, those F4U-4's are damn near worthless.

With another wave of Il-4's inbound I think I'll end up losing the last DD, or one of the other ships as I don't have enough planes to blunt this attack. At one point I had a victory sewed up, but now, I'm not so sure.

With about 9 hours to go and that next wave of Il-4's inbound I've lost over 30 of my fighters and the remaining ones are nowhere near ready. Whoopsie... this is going to hurt.

I've no suggestions for modifications other than something to supplement the F4U's?

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 14

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/27/2020 10:39:20 PM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

Yeah that's pretty much what happened to me. It's surprising since the IL-4 has only 2 .30 Cals and a single .50 cal for gun defense, and yet i've found pairs and quads of Corsairs were being hurt badly by single and pairs of IL-4s

(in reply to schweggy)

Post #: 15

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/28/2020 12:51:48 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

Version 2, which will be uploaded in the next day or so, will have some F-80s at Larissa. Not many, but maybe enough to make the IL-4s less of a threat.

quote:

I've no suggestions for modifications other than something to supplement the F4U's?

(in reply to schweggy)

Post #: 16

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/28/2020 1:53:14 AM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

Hmm that will be interesting to try. I think band-aid solutions may need to be the solution for the time being, until a possible WW2 Expansion to the system.

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 17

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/28/2020 12:56:06 PM

schweggy

Posts: 87
Joined: 2/3/2015
Status: offline

That, or maybe reduce the number of Il-4's? I think, with proper planning and knowing the F4U's are generally worthless a player could beat back 2 waves, perhaps losing a destroyer like I did and still pull off a marginal win. Of course they'd have to sink the Soviet ships, successfully eliminate the insurgents, etc.

It's still a cool scenario.

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 18

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/28/2020 8:13:49 PM

tylerblakebrandon

Posts: 173
Joined: 5/11/2020
Status: offline

I think part of this issue is just the armament of the F4U against the bombers. I'll reference this section taken from the P-51 Wiki entry.

quote:

P-51 introduction
The P-51 Mustang was a solution to the need for an effective bomber escort. It used a common, reliable engine and had internal space for a larger-than-average fuel load. With external fuel tanks, it could accompany the bombers from England to Germany and back.[55]

By the time the Pointblank offensive resumed in early 1944, matters had changed. Bomber escort defenses were initially layered, using the shorter-range P-38s and P-47s to escort the bombers during the initial stages of the raid before handing over to the P-51s when they were forced to turn for home. This provided continuous coverage during the raid. The Mustang was so clearly superior to earlier US designs that the 8th Air Force began to steadily switch its fighter groups to the Mustang, first swapping arriving P-47 groups to the 9th Air Force in exchange for those that were using P-51s, then gradually converting its Thunderbolt and Lightning groups. By the end of 1944, 14 of its 15 groups flew the Mustang.[56]

The Luftwaffe's twin-engined Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy fighters brought up to deal with the bombers proved to be easy prey for the Mustangs, and had to be quickly withdrawn from combat. The Focke-Wulf Fw 190A, already suffering from poor high-altitude performance, was outperformed by the Mustang at the B-17's altitude, and when laden with heavy bomber-hunting weapons as a replacement for the more vulnerable twin-engined Zerst�rer heavy fighters, it suffered heavy losses. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 had comparable performance at high altitudes, but its lightweight airframe was even more greatly affected by increases in armament. The Mustang's much lighter armament, tuned for antifighter combat, allowed it to overcome these single-engined opponents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

(in reply to schweggy)

Post #: 19

RE: Danger in the Adriatic, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/28/2020 9:28:33 PM

.Sirius

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

I have to ask--although I'm not sure I really want to know--what the hell does that mean? I'm hoping you mean bending as in "fender bender," or whatever the equivalent would be for an aircraft.

quote:

as well as the usual Pilot bending itfor the guys to buff out !

yeah it means a term like fender bender, UK pilot dont break their toys they bend them heh

_____________________________

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 Mgellis)

Post #: 20

RE: Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/29/2020 5:12:49 PM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

Version 2 has been uploaded with various changes, including the addition of a few F-80s, pretty much the only US jets available at the time.

Please let me know what you think. Thanks!

(in reply to .Sirius)

Post #: 21

RE: Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/29/2020 9:17:33 PM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

I've played the second version, and I regret to report that the F-80s didn't make much of a difference.

I lost 5 of the 6 F-80s to the bomber gunners, with the last one getting back to base damaged. I also lost several Corsairs to those gunners as well. It seems that the attack AI for this era of aircraft is to go with simple "shoot from behind", which makes them vulnerable to tail guns. Plus, .50 Cals don't seem to have the punch needed to knock down Il-4s

Fortunately I was able to ultimately destroy or turn back most of the bombers. Only two got over the carrier group, but the AAA was completely ineffective, and looking at the expended ordinance, it seems that my ships are for some reason using HE rounds instead of their plentiful VT fused rounds, which has to be a bug to me. I can't see any reason to use HE rounds against aircraft when VT fuses are available.

I lost one destroyer to a submarine, but my ships took no other damage. That submarine was a bastard to take out, and I ultimately couldn't do it. My destroyer kept maneuvering on top of it, but since it doesn't have any forward mounted ASW mortars, it keeps having to pass over the sub, while simultaneously loosing contact, meaning it can't drop depth charges. It was during this battle that USS Cone was sunk.

I was able to sink all 3 soviet warships with aircraft, but it did take several sorties.

I still think the scenario is good, but It's crippled by the limitations of the engine. I hate to say this, but perhaps disabling aircraft damage could actually make this more playable?

SIDE: United States
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
14x F4U-4 Corsair
5x F-80A Shooting Star
1x SB2C-5 Helldiver
1x DD 710 Gearing

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
103x 12.7mm/50 MG x 6 Burst [150 rnds]
43x 20mm Mk12 x 2 [50 rnds]
134x M64 500lb GPB
32x M65 1000lb GPB
220x 7.62mm M2 .30 Cal
51x 127mm/38 Twin HE-PD Burst [HiCap, 2 rnds]
125x 40mm/56 Mk2 Quad Bofors DP Burst [8 rnds]
82x 20mm/80 Twin Oerlikon Burst [20 rnds]
38x 127mm/38 HE-PD [HiCap]
69x 40mm/56 Mk1 Twin Bofors DP Burst [4 rnds]
50x 76mm/50 Twin Frag Burst [2 rnds]
14x 127mm/38 Twin AA-VT Burst [Anti-Aircraft Common, 2 rnds]
104x ZUNI 127mm HVAR Rocket
3x 127mm/38 AA-VT [AntiAircraft Common]
6x M47 100lb Napalm

SIDE: Insurgents
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
4x 12.7mm/50 Quad M55 [Cargo]
18x 7.62mm MG [Cargo]
4x ML 4.2 inch (107mm) Mortar [Cargo]
8x Vehicle (Truck, Unarmed) [Cargo]

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
94x 12.7mm/50 Quad M55 Burst [20 rnds]

SIDE: Sovet Union
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
10x Il-4 Bob
2x EM Gnevny
1x KR Maxim Gorkiy

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
106x 12.7mm/50 MG x 4 Burst [100 rnds]
281x 37mm/63 Single Burst [20 rnds]
150x 37mm/63 Twin Burst [20 rnds]
170x 85mm/52 Twin
89x 100mm/56 Frag
9x 53-39 Straight Runner
52x 100mm/56 HE
3x 53-27 Pattern Runner
2x 53-36 Straight Runner
8x FAB-250M-54 GPB
4x FAB-500M-54 GPB

SIDE: Neutrals
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------

EXPENDITURES:
------------------

SIDE: Greece
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
60x 7.62mm MG Burst [20 rnds]

< Message edited by HalfLifeExpert -- 10/29/2020 9:20:31 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 22

RE: Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/30/2020 1:00:01 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

I just uploaded version 3. I'm kind of cheating...I swapped out a few of the F4-U corsairs for F4-U5s, which have 20mm guns. Let's see if that makes a difference. The database says they were available in 1946, but I don't know if any were on the Roosevelt at the time.

The F-80s are still available. With the -U5s, are they still needed?

As always, comments, feedback, etc. is welcome. Thanks!

quote:

I've played the second version, and I regret to report that the F-80s didn't make much of a difference.

I lost 5 of the 6 F-80s to the bomber gunners, with the last one getting back to base damaged. I also lost several Corsairs to those gunners as well. It seems that the attack AI for this era of aircraft is to go with simple "shoot from behind", which makes them vulnerable to tail guns. Plus, .50 Cals don't seem to have the punch needed to knock down Il-4s

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)

Post #: 23

RE: Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/30/2020 9:41:01 PM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

Okay then. Just downloaded V3. I hope the F4U-5s can be enough.

I've actually tried to model the problem with IL-2 1946, as both aircraft are modelled. The Gunners of the IL-4 are dangerous, but I was still able to score kills with the standard .50 Cal armed variant. I tried again with the 20mm variant, and it seems that it really does have a better punch, provided you can hit the target.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to have the side doctrine enable Gun Strafing by default, given the nature of the aircraft weaponry we are working with. It's also nice to have the Helldiver rear gunners firing on the insurgents after weapons release.

< Message edited by HalfLifeExpert -- 10/30/2020 9:44:38 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 24

RE: Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/30/2020 10:20:00 PM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

UPDATE:

The F4U-5s made all the difference. I've so far had two different pairs of them engage single bombers (which are as they come in) and the bombers are shot down with no Corsair losses!

I think this is the answer, I also made a point of manually insuring that all the 5 Inch mounts on my ships were armed with VT fuses, that may be something to tweak, as last time the ships were firing mostly HE at aircraft.

Now if only the Command engine had a non gatling sound for 20mm.......

Also, you should check if any US destroyers in 1946 had forward mounted Hedgehogs.... Im going after a sub right now, and my destroyer has to keep losing contact to try and fire weapons (since they are all rear facing) and yet the depth charges need a precise target to engage. It's a paradox.

< Message edited by HalfLifeExpert -- 10/30/2020 10:29:58 PM >

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)

Post #: 25

RE: Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/30/2020 10:46:17 PM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

One more thing, I just noticed that two of my Corsairs appear to have landed on the Cruiser Little Rock.......and are rearming. I

This can't be right can it? I know the Cruiser has some floatplanes, but operating Corsairs is a whole different thing.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)

Post #: 26

RE: Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/30/2020 11:01:10 PM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

More Corsairs landing on the Little Rock. There's obviously a DB error where the cruiser is also an aircraft carrier.

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)

Post #: 27

RE: Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/30/2020 11:24:32 PM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

Just finished the scenario. Got a Major Victory with a score of 760.

By happenstance, I was able to avoid the last two bomber raids, because after I finished off the insurgents, I moved my carrier group to the south, and the bombers didn't find their targets, many of which ran out of fuel and crashed.

My losses and expenditures below are inflated because several Il-4s crashed after the timer ran out. I wanted to see how my VT fuse armed ships would do against them, but they were too high up anyway.

I lost 1 Helldiver to the Insurgents, and the rest to AAA from the Soviet Warships. Only suffered a couple damaged aircraft from the bombers. Ended up not needing the F-80s.

SIDE: United States
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
3x F4U-4 Corsair
3x SB2C-5 Helldiver

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
59x 12.7mm/50 MG x 6 Burst [150 rnds]
106x 20mm Mk12 x 2 [50 rnds]
181x 7.62mm M2 .30 Cal
72x M64 500lb GPB
28x M65 1000lb GPB
6x Mk6/9/14 Depth Charge Mortar
104x ZUNI 127mm HVAR Rocket

SIDE: Insurgents
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
4x 12.7mm/50 Quad M55 [Cargo]
24x 7.62mm MG [Cargo]
4x ML 4.2 inch (107mm) Mortar [Cargo]
8x Vehicle (Truck, Unarmed) [Cargo]

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
130x 12.7mm/50 Quad M55 Burst [20 rnds]

SIDE: Sovet Union
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x EM Gnevny
20x Il-4 Bob
1x KR Maxim Gorkiy
1x Leninets Class

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
75x 100mm/56 Frag
31x 100mm/56 HE
23x 12.7mm/50 MG x 4 Burst [100 rnds]
156x 37mm/63 Single Burst [20 rnds]
242x 37mm/63 Twin Burst [20 rnds]
27x 85mm/52 Twin
12x FAB-250M-54 GPB
6x FAB-500M-54 GPB

SIDE: Neutrals
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------

EXPENDITURES:
------------------

SIDE: Greece
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
40x 7.62mm MG Burst [20 rnds]

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)

Post #: 28

RE: Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/31/2020 3:22:27 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

I agree. That's got to be a game glitch...so I don't there's anything I can do about it. Sorry!

quote:

One more thing, I just noticed that two of my Corsairs appear to have landed on the Cruiser Little Rock.......and are rearming. I

This can't be right can it? I know the Cruiser has some floatplanes, but operating Corsairs is a whole different thing.

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)

Post #: 29

RE: Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing - 10/31/2020 3:28:37 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

I reported the issue with the Corsairs. Thanks for all the feedback!

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Danger in the Aegean, 1946 - new beta for testing

Page: [1] 2 next > >>