Saddam's Final Gamble (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message

Mad Cow -> Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 12:02:41 AM)

2 B-1B's
2 B-52's
1 F-117
1 F-15
1 F-15E
1 F-16
2 Tornado's
11 Apache's

Those are my aircraft lost by turn 4.

Not so concerned about the Apache's, since I have been very aggressive with them.

But the loss of the bombers really sucks.

I only direct attacked with them once, and that was targeting a scud unit in Baghdad on turn 1. I think I lost 2 B-52's in that attack.

[8|]



Mad Cow -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 12:03:10 AM)

BTW, fun scenario. 



GJK -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 12:38:52 AM)

What did the Iraqi's down a B-52 with - a SAM or Ftr? If Ftr, doesn't the US have total air supremacy? I obviously haven't played that scenario so just curious.



Terminus -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 12:53:16 AM)

The Iraqis don't have an air force in that scenario, so...



Williamb -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 12:55:24 AM)

A B -52 Crashed on the way back to deigo Garcia after damage from an Iraqi raid so it is possible.

Onlt stealth Aircraft (F - 117) downed was in Bosnia in the 1990s. So again possible but rare.

Think both were from ground fire.



Terminus -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 12:59:17 AM)

The F-117 was brought down during the Kosovo war in 99, by an SA-3. Supposedly, the pilot dipped below the clouds (that particular campaign was plagued by unending crap weather), and the missile battery fired on backup optical direction. Kablammo!



Williamb -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 1:01:52 AM)

Yeah is why I did the thread on what works and doesnt work in TOAW.

Air Power is a little too abstract.

REally would love to see a marrage of WITP and TOAW. Keeping track of individual pilots and ships and units would be massive but a hell of a lot of fun.

The Estern front. Soveit Invasion of Europe or Iraqi freedom getting WITP treatment ? Awesome concept maybe someday.



Mad Cow -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 2:21:44 AM)

I have now lost:

15 Hornets
2 F-15E's
3 F-15's
2 F-14's
5 B-1B's [X(]
4 B-52's [X(]
7 Tornados
3 Sea Harriers
25 Apaches
3 Kiowa Warrior's


And a handful of other helos.

So far I have yet to lose a single M1A1 or M1A2, but the US forces of the Marines and 3ID have yet to really engage in a serious battle.

The Brits, however, have seen serious fighting for Basra, slicing through the Iraqi defense at Um Qasr on the first day, they have now advanced to the suburbs of Basra.

On 3.21, Basra fell to a suprise attack by Royal Commandos and elements of the 3rd and 1st Paras.

Due to heavy suburban fighting, many civilians were killed taking Basra and I lost 50 VP's. [:(]

The British lost just 2 Challenger tanks while cutting up the Iraqi 51st Division which was protecting Basra while the Commandos and Paras were sneaking in the back door.



Mad Cow -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 2:23:13 AM)

Also it should be noted that just because they are listed as lost doesn;t meant that they were shot down, but damaged enough to have to leave the campaign.

Still, I think 9 heavy bombers plus the F-117 going down in the first couple days of the campaign is a little much.



*Lava* -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 2:27:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Cow
Still, I think 9 heavy bombers plus the F-117 going down in the first couple days of the campaign is a little much.



Thought they "fixed that."

Wasn't the complaint that missiles were too ineffective?

Ray (alias Lava)



*Lava* -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 2:30:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The F-117 was brought down during the Kosovo war in 99, by an SA-3. Supposedly, the pilot dipped below the clouds (that particular campaign was plagued by unending crap weather), and the missile battery fired on backup optical direction. Kablammo!


Hmm..

I read an interview of the SAM battery commander. He said that the Americans were using the same routes over and over, so he moved his battery to line him up directly in their path. He did use optical guidance, from what he said, but that was so as to not warn the pilot by turning on his radar.

Ray (alias Lava)



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 5:07:35 AM)

Is this scenario playable vs. the PO? I remember reading that it was HtH only.

Also, in a game of "Iraqi Freedom" that I played during the real 2003 war (I was so twisted to play the scenario - whipped up in record time - while the major operations where developing) I lost 123 M1A2 in a single attack! That was with the flawed 1.06 patch (didn't knew of the problems at the time) and it caused some shock. Just imagine the same event happening in the real world [X(]



ralphtricky -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 5:17:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Cow
Still, I think 9 heavy bombers plus the F-117 going down in the first couple days of the campaign is a little much.



Thought they "fixed that."

Wasn't the complaint that missiles were too ineffective?

Ray (alias Lava)

We're looking at it.



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 5:26:09 AM)

Maybe air losses are due to the fact that the anti-air routines have been reworked, and some designers, in the past, put much more AA batteries in the scenario than it was called for to compensate for the ineffectuality of the AA model.

I converted Poland 1.33 for TOAW III and ran the first turn - and German aircrafts attacking Polish airfields took from 50% to 80% casualties [X(] But I suspect that under COW model the ratio would have been more realistic.



Mad Cow -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 6:08:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

Is this scenario playable vs. the PO? I remember reading that it was HtH only.


Hm, yea, just looked over the briefing and it does say pbem only. Dont know how I missed that, but I'm too far into it to quit the now. The Iraqi player isn't doing too bad right nbow.






Mad Cow -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 6:11:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Cow
Still, I think 9 heavy bombers plus the F-117 going down in the first couple days of the campaign is a little much.



Thought they "fixed that."

Wasn't the complaint that missiles were too ineffective?

Ray (alias Lava)

We're looking at it.



Turn 9:

Apaches - 46
Tornados - 12
A-10's - 2
B-52 - 5
B-1B - 6
F-15 - 5
Hornet's - 22



Belisarios -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 6:40:58 AM)

Sure it's not Iraqi SCUDS hitting your airfields?



Mad Cow -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 9:26:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarios

Sure it's not Iraqi SCUDS hitting your airfields?


No I am not sure. I watch the Iraqi turn and see nothing that would indicate that they are attacking my airfields whatsoever. So I doubt that is it.

I think they are being shot down while flying interidiction or combat support missions.



ralphtricky -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 9:30:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Cow

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarios

Sure it's not Iraqi SCUDS hitting your airfields?


No I am not sure. I watch the Iraqi turn and see nothing that would indicate that they are attacking my airfields whatsoever. So I doubt that is it.

I think they are being shot down while flying interidiction of combat support missions.

I think that you're right. Some members of the team identified this earlier. We 'over fixed' the anti-aircraft fire. We've almost got a patch together to fix it.

Thanks,
Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer



golden delicious -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 4:48:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

I converted Poland 1.33 for TOAW III and ran the first turn - and German aircrafts attacking Polish airfields took from 50% to 80% casualties [X(] But I suspect that under COW model the ratio would have been more realistic.


The reason for this is that without the modified .exe the "wartime airfield" equipment transmogrifies into an aircraft carrier- with all of 180 AA strength. Two of these per airfield and you can say goodbye to your bomber force.

The moral of the story is to wait for the BioEd to be reworked for TOAW III, even if it deprives you of the chance to play some very good scenarios [:D]

As to the scenario in the thread's title, good fun and very thoroughly done, but I think the absence of political penalties for the coalition makes it too easy for them to just focus on the conventional battle, which they can't lose. Also the loss penalty as currently calibrated, combined with the replacement system, means the US can shrug off the deaths of 1,000 infantrymen but is appalled at the loss of a handful of bombers. Looking at the AA in the scenario, I don't think there are too many peices, but perhaps supply and readiness of these units should be slashed.



Terminus -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 4:53:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The F-117 was brought down during the Kosovo war in 99, by an SA-3. Supposedly, the pilot dipped below the clouds (that particular campaign was plagued by unending crap weather), and the missile battery fired on backup optical direction. Kablammo!


Hmm..

I read an interview of the SAM battery commander. He said that the Americans were using the same routes over and over, so he moved his battery to line him up directly in their path. He did use optical guidance, from what he said, but that was so as to not warn the pilot by turning on his radar.

Ray (alias Lava)


Yeah, well... The US would say the weather was to blame, and the Serbs would say that the Americans were predictable.



golden delicious -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 4:55:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Yeah, well... The US would say the weather was to blame, and the Serbs would say that the Americans were predictable.


It does sound pretty plausible. The stealth aircraft have this reputation for invulnerability, and the Serbs have one for military incompetence. I can definitely see the USAF getting cocky and paying for it.



Terminus -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 4:56:20 PM)

Absolutely didn't say it wasn't plausible. Just listing the knee-jerk explanations that both sides would offer.



JMS2 -> RE: Saddam's Final Gamble (6/12/2006 9:50:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Cow

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Cow
Still, I think 9 heavy bombers plus the F-117 going down in the first couple days of the campaign is a little much.



Thought they "fixed that."

Wasn't the complaint that missiles were too ineffective?

Ray (alias Lava)

We're looking at it.



Turn 9:

Apaches - 46
Tornados - 12
A-10's - 2
B-52 - 5
B-1B - 6
F-15 - 5
Hornet's - 22


We got this check from Saddam, and now nobody can't complain that SAMs don't work [;)] Actually, not all aircraft are 100% lost, a significant % is only damaged and returned to the replacement pool.

I believe this is now fixed.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.375