RE: Red Storm (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

Maromak -> RE: Red Storm (12/17/2013 5:27:43 AM)

Perhaps include some locked waypoints for scenario objective locations with appropriate labeling.



Flankerk -> RE: Red Storm (12/17/2013 5:44:10 AM)



Sorry just meant I couldn't believe how fast this was running under the later builds, considering there is a lot going on, plenty of sonobuoys etc on a number of occasions I had to slow down the gameplay as I really couldn't keep up. It was running at a very fast speed on a minute time compression. I'm only part way through so only the air war really looks to be over. I wasn't so clear where the CVBG needed to head to and think I am right in saying most scenarios are going with the option, scrub mission if side is playable if you follow me.




Fonz -> RE: Red Storm (12/17/2013 5:53:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5

Fonz_, two things (I want to check my triggers):

1) Did the Soviet strike mission happen against the Nimitz as you came closer to the island?
2) Did the scoring work properly with each Yankee kill (should have received 35 points per kill)?



1) No it didn't but that was because the Nimitz was never detected by the Soviets. By the time I got close to Iceland I had already taken out the airbases.

2) Looking at the events, points are deducted if a Yankee reaches its destination. In the end one slipped by me, but it didn't reach its destination before the game clock ran out, so maybe allow more time there. In the end I had 136 points as a result of destroying all Soviet units except the one Yankee. (Sorry for the trouble in the eastern US)



djoos5 -> RE: Red Storm (12/17/2013 9:01:09 PM)

Flankerk - I do follow you. Cool, I might revise the orders and define a location that is the goal for the carrier group.

The idea of my entire campaign is: scenario 1 - contain the subs; scenario 2 - defend against Soviet Naval Air; scenario 3 - destroy Iceland as a Soviet forward base of operation.

So, maybe the carrier task force should have less planes available, or maybe have the Iceland strike happen at a designated time instead of a triggered event.

Cool, stuff to think about with my future scenario builds.

Fonz_ thanks for the input.

As I said above, I may change the trigger event for the Iceland strike. Or, I may push the carrier task force back further so that it doesn't even act as a player in this first scenario.

I will either increase the game time or reduce the distance to the goal for the Soviets.

Thanks!




Broncepulido -> RE: Red Storm (12/17/2013 9:19:20 PM)

Perhaps this link can help (I don't know if these radar sites are implemented in the scenario or database):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_Force_aircraft_control_and_warning_squadrons#Sites_Outside_the_United_States
The Iceland sites are designated H-xx, and in each individual entry of Iceland radar sites on Wikipedia are listed the radar types of each site.
Other link with links to similar stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USAF_Aerospace_Defense_Command_General_Surveillance_Radar_Stations



Bazza042 -> RE: Red Storm (12/18/2013 6:03:20 AM)

Hi,

I am a newbie having worked through only a few of the included scenarios to date, including the tutorials and I am finding this scenario a real challenge.

I am using Build 479

I left the allocations of aircraft to the various missions as in the original set up and promptly lost most of CAP1 to the storm of fighters
operating from Iceland. This dust up resulted in 50% losses to NATO with the remaining 50% on a Winchester RTB to Stornaway. The kill ration was 3-2 in
favour of NATO with the Tornados taking most of the 'hits'. The Russian fighters then enjoyed a Penguin supper knocking down the three Orions comprising
ASWPatrol 2.

So for my second run I doubled up the CAP1 Force with pretty much the same result. I lost 3x Tornado F.2A and 4x F-15C Eagle and downed 1x Il-38 May,
1x Su-27S Flanker B and 3x MiG-29 Fulcrum A. The remainder of the CAP1 trooping back to Stornaway on a Winchester RTB whilst the traditional Penguin buffet was hoovered up at speed.

So for the third attempt I reverted to the original scenario set up but changed the ROE to engage non-hostile targets. This didn't seem to make a heap
of difference my kill ratio slightly dropping to about 3 to 2.

For the fourth attempt I set up an identical run to the above but fed additional aircraft (4 each time) into CAP1 at five minute intervals for the next 20 minutes. This, as somewhat expected
resulted, in a defeat in detail with each succeeding course losing about 50% of its aircraft, the remainder RTB (Winchester). Once the last course of CAP had been chewed up the Penguins were enjoyed as a desert.
The fifth attempt I put all the 'loaded' fighters from Stornaway into one gigantic CAP and trotted off on patrol. The same thing happened about 30% losses, mainly Tornados and 70% RTB(W). The Russians tucked in and then moved onto the Penguins....


I don't have many pilots who are at all keen to fly Orions at the moment.....

I think I might be doing something wrong here........

Obviously at this point the Nimitz battlegroup was too far away to offer assistance and, in any case I had understood that the 'invasion of Iceland' s the second scenario.

In the end I deactivated the 'air missions; based on Stornaway and had an enjoyable time trying to locate the Russian subs with the carrier group and the submarines.

So thoroughly enjoyed the scenario but left with three questions:

1. Should the Stornaway air missions be activated in this scenario?

2. If so, how do I keep the Orions in the air?

3. What am doing wrong with the CAP1 assets?

Please note I am not trying to fault the scenario it is very clearly operator error[&:]




strykerpsg -> RE: Red Storm (12/18/2013 7:39:07 AM)

If you look at the scenario in the editor, it's set up with all SU27's launched initially, so there will be a blood bath. Also, since you're receiving ESM from the SU's, why not designate all that have known bad guy ESM and shoot from afar versus engaging into the visual realm. Let's face it, the Tornado, while a grand aircraft, is no nimble dog fighter, unlike the Eagle. Use their BVR weapons to your advantage. Also, try modifying the launch of your Orion's until the air is cleared a bit, say about an hour after start time. The initial NATO strategy was to gain air superiority initially, then allow follow on forces to conduct supporting operations. just a thought.

Matt



Tomcat84 -> RE: Red Storm (12/18/2013 9:20:43 AM)

Will see if I can give this one a run on friday



Bazza042 -> RE: Red Storm (12/18/2013 3:03:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

If you look at the scenario in the editor, it's set up with all SU27's launched initially, so there will be a blood bath. Also, since you're receiving ESM from the SU's, why not designate all that have known bad guy ESM and shoot from afar versus engaging into the visual realm. Let's face it, the Tornado, while a grand aircraft, is no nimble dog fighter, unlike the Eagle. Use their BVR weapons to your advantage. Also, try modifying the launch of your Orion's until the air is cleared a bit, say about an hour after start time. The initial NATO strategy was to gain air superiority initially, then allow follow on forces to conduct supporting operations. just a thought.

Matt


Thanks Matt,

I didn't want to 'look at the other side' as this somewhat spoils the enjoyment.

I am not sure I fully understand your comments about 'bad guy ESM'. Surely if I set the 'Engage non-hostiles' to 'yes' does this not achieve the same thing? OK if a neutral is floating around he literally takes the bullet (or missile) but surely that means NATO will attack anything it sees. So where is the advantage, apart from saving the odd neutral, of doing one rather than the other?

I take your point about the delayed entry of the Orions. But I'm still at loss to see how I gain air superiority in the first place. If sending the whole Stornaway 'fighter force in one go doesn't hack it how is sending them piecemeal going to do it especially, as you remark, the Tornado seems somewhat of a liability in this environment.
I certainly lost a considerably higher % of Tornados than Sea Eagles

I was deliberately not trying to 'game' my way to victory but to try to achieve it by 'legitimate' means.

It appears clear from the posts in this thread that at least three people have overcome this aspect so I was seeking help.

Many thanks for your response and clarification. I'll have another go at flooding them with Sea Eagles, then with the Tornados, and then again with 're-armed' Sea Eagles. Then I'll find the pub where the Orion pilots are hiding
and put them up.

I do like the scenario and I haven't had this much enjoyment from a sim for quite a while.



Bazza042 -> RE: Red Storm (12/18/2013 3:05:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

Will see if I can give this one a run on friday

quote:

Will see if I can give this one a run on friday


Tomcat 84,

I'll be interested how you get on: just don't come back and say 'No Problem'[:)]



djoos5 -> RE: Red Storm (12/18/2013 8:41:15 PM)

Hey Bazza042, thanks for adding your input on how the scenario runs.

As the designer (and it is my first scenario design), I like to read how other people do to see if I set this stuff up right. The Soviets do start out with a heavy CAP - which should be following the 1/3 rule for both bases, but still that is about 7 total MIG's and SU27's.

I left the starting NATO missions in the game due to the idea of Fog of War - they know Iceland has been sacked, but NATO is not sure what assets they have there. Understand too that this is the starting scenario of a 3-scenario campaign and the idea is that NATO forces are still stretched and they have not had a lot of time yet to organize. My concept for this is that war has just been initiated by a quick Soviet aggression and NATO is reacting.

Anyway, when I play it I do as Strykerpsg added - I hold back on my P3's going out before my fighters have had a chance to sweep the Soviets back a bit. But as the designer, I don't have the unknown so I react immediately. So, in a way, you are getting the results I was trying to intend and as the player you have the fun of trying to react to seeming overwhelming odds. In truth, once the carrier does get close enough - the Soviets start to get it handed to them.

When playing, I also have initiated a multi-sub Tomahawk strike on Keflavik right at the beginning. It doesn't destroy the airport but it removes all the defenses and radar support from one of the Soviet airbases.

With my next scenario, I am going to try to create the same intensity and struggle to stave off the bad guys - not a no-win scenario - but one that challenges. The last one will reflect NATO with reinforced positions and an enemy that is now pulling back to defensive posture.

I hope my explanation made sense to what I am trying to achieve in the scenario creation.

All this said, I appreciate you posting your experiences so I know if I am creating a fun scenario that people will want to play and will be challenged. I will take your comments into account as I progress.



strykerpsg -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 2:41:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bazza042


Thanks Matt,

I didn't want to 'look at the other side' as this somewhat spoils the enjoyment.

I am not sure I fully understand your comments about 'bad guy ESM'. Surely if I set the 'Engage non-hostiles' to 'yes' does this not achieve the same thing? OK if a neutral is floating around he literally takes the bullet (or missile) but surely that means NATO will attack anything it sees. So where is the advantage, apart from saving the odd neutral, of doing one rather than the other?

I take your point about the delayed entry of the Orions. But I'm still at loss to see how I gain air superiority in the first place. If sending the whole Stornaway 'fighter force in one go doesn't hack it how is sending them piecemeal going to do it especially, as you remark, the Tornado seems somewhat of a liability in this environment.
I certainly lost a considerably higher % of Tornados than Sea Eagles

I was deliberately not trying to 'game' my way to victory but to try to achieve it by 'legitimate' means.

It appears clear from the posts in this thread that at least three people have overcome this aspect so I was seeking help.

Many thanks for your response and clarification. I'll have another go at flooding them with Sea Eagles, then with the Tornados, and then again with 're-armed' Sea Eagles. Then I'll find the pub where the Orion pilots are hiding
and put them up.

I do like the scenario and I haven't had this much enjoyment from a sim for quite a while.


Baz,

I'm glad you're enjoying the scenario as much as djoos enjoyed creating the challenge for each player. I apologize if I came across as sort of sterile in my explanation, but admittedly love tinkering with various scenarios and often edit them to have the loadouts I prefer and ready aircraft at my disposal, as well as tweaking what I can to make it either more challenging to me and/or more realistic, to me anyway.. :) What I meant by marking the unknowns as hostile is if you're already at war with country X and in theory, made Area X a no fly zone, then based on received ESM hits, can assume the receiving radars as hostile and engage before they enter into the visual realm, which seems to be the default if you do not make them hostile before hand. The AI also goes off visual confirmation, but the Soviet IR technology and optics will give them the advantage in the 90's. Also, your medium range Sparrows and Sky Flash loose their advantages in a close in fight, therefore negating the use of stand off for the incoming red horde.
Anyway, it's just how I perceive my ROE, unless stated otherwise in the scenario orders. Also, the Tornado is not a good dog fighter, compared to the Eagle, so would consider making the Tornados either reinforcements or using only their Sky Flash medium range missiles and immediately have them RTB once they are used. I'm modifying the scenario a bit with some surprises but don't want to hijack djoos excellent scenario so once I get mine tweaked and re-written a bit, I'll gladly share too.

Thanks for your feedback on my limited explanation and djoos, thanks for making what I've always considered as the pinnacle of making or breaking the NATO alliance in any foreseen conflict, as Iceland is key to success of who controls the Atlantic and reinforcing of Europe.



djoos5 -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 2:57:22 AM)

Stykerpsg please include me on your update - I would love to see your changes. I have no ego issues and have no problem with a collaborative effort.



Bazza042 -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 5:10:28 AM)

djoos5,

Many thanks for your comments and, indeed, for the scenario.

Please understand that I was not criticizing the scenario, more highlighting my own incompetence in dealing with the situation.

As I mentioned I don't like going 'behind the scenes' to see what the other guy has: it just spoils it for me. I am playing for enjoyment rather
to manufacture a 'win' based on detailed pre-knowledge of what the enemy has in store. I prefer the fog of war even if, as in this case, I get
roughed up somewhat.

I think my only comment/suggestion might be that some of the 'missions', such as the Orions, might be set to 'inactive' at the start of the scenario.

I very much appreciate the missions being pre-established but a number of scenario makers, in a similar situation, have made subsequent missions inactive
so it doesn't all kick off at the start of the scenario. I have a tendency, and it may be a purely personal one, to follow what I assume to be the scenario
makers train of thought so, in this case, I assumed - in the absence of any pre-knowledge - that the Orions need to be up there right from the start.

Hence anyone playing this scenario for the first time is probably going to get his Orions wiped out at the outset, before he learns and then probably restarts
the scenario. This means that your first (unpleasant!) surprise is lost[:)]. If the Orion missions, for example, were inactive at the start of the scenario
this gives a pretty clear 'steer' that its probably not a good idea to get them in the air immediately.

Just a thought....

I would echo strykerpsg's comments about the scenario. It is a real pleasure to see a 'realistic' situation being set up in the GIUK gap during the Cold War period.
Harpoon had quite a few, they are less common here.

Thanks again for the work you have done on this.



Bazza042 -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 5:20:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bazza042


Thanks Matt,

I didn't want to 'look at the other side' as this somewhat spoils the enjoyment.

I am not sure I fully understand your comments about 'bad guy ESM'. Surely if I set the 'Engage non-hostiles' to 'yes' does this not achieve the same thing? OK if a neutral is floating around he literally takes the bullet (or missile) but surely that means NATO will attack anything it sees. So where is the advantage, apart from saving the odd neutral, of doing one rather than the other?

I take your point about the delayed entry of the Orions. But I'm still at loss to see how I gain air superiority in the first place. If sending the whole Stornaway 'fighter force in one go doesn't hack it how is sending them piecemeal going to do it especially, as you remark, the Tornado seems somewhat of a liability in this environment.
I certainly lost a considerably higher % of Tornados than Sea Eagles

I was deliberately not trying to 'game' my way to victory but to try to achieve it by 'legitimate' means.

It appears clear from the posts in this thread that at least three people have overcome this aspect so I was seeking help.

Many thanks for your response and clarification. I'll have another go at flooding them with Sea Eagles, then with the Tornados, and then again with 're-armed' Sea Eagles. Then I'll find the pub where the Orion pilots are hiding
and put them up.

I do like the scenario and I haven't had this much enjoyment from a sim for quite a while.


Baz,

I'm glad you're enjoying the scenario as much as djoos enjoyed creating the challenge for each player. I apologize if I came across as sort of sterile in my explanation, but admittedly love tinkering with various scenarios and often edit them to have the loadouts I prefer and ready aircraft at my disposal, as well as tweaking what I can to make it either more challenging to me and/or more realistic, to me anyway.. :) What I meant by marking the unknowns as hostile is if you're already at war with country X and in theory, made Area X a no fly zone, then based on received ESM hits, can assume the receiving radars as hostile and engage before they enter into the visual realm, which seems to be the default if you do not make them hostile before hand. The AI also goes off visual confirmation, but the Soviet IR technology and optics will give them the advantage in the 90's. Also, your medium range Sparrows and Sky Flash loose their advantages in a close in fight, therefore negating the use of stand off for the incoming red horde.
Anyway, it's just how I perceive my ROE, unless stated otherwise in the scenario orders. Also, the Tornado is not a good dog fighter, compared to the Eagle, so would consider making the Tornados either reinforcements or using only their Sky Flash medium range missiles and immediately have them RTB once they are used. I'm modifying the scenario a bit with some surprises but don't want to hijack djoos excellent scenario so once I get mine tweaked and re-written a bit, I'll gladly share too.

Thanks for your feedback on my limited explanation and djoos, thanks for making what I've always considered as the pinnacle of making or breaking the NATO alliance in any foreseen conflict, as Iceland is key to success of who controls the Atlantic and reinforcing of Europe.


quote:

Baz,

I'm glad you're enjoying the scenario as much as djoos enjoyed creating the challenge for each player. I apologize if I came across as sort of sterile in my explanation, but admittedly love tinkering with various scenarios and often edit them to have the loadouts I prefer and ready aircraft at my disposal, as well as tweaking what I can to make it either more challenging to me and/or more realistic, to me anyway.. :) What I meant by marking the unknowns as hostile is if you're already at war with country X and in theory, made Area X a no fly zone, then based on received ESM hits, can assume the receiving radars as hostile and engage before they enter into the visual realm, which seems to be the default if you do not make them hostile before hand. The AI also goes off visual confirmation, but the Soviet IR technology and optics will give them the advantage in the 90's. Also, your medium range Sparrows and Sky Flash loose their advantages in a close in fight, therefore negating the use of stand off for the incoming red horde.
Anyway, it's just how I perceive my ROE, unless stated otherwise in the scenario orders. Also, the Tornado is not a good dog fighter, compared to the Eagle, so would consider making the Tornados either reinforcements or using only their Sky Flash medium range missiles and immediately have them RTB once they are used. I'm modifying the scenario a bit with some surprises but don't want to hijack djoos excellent scenario so once I get mine tweaked and re-written a bit, I'll gladly share too.

Thanks for your feedback on my limited explanation and djoos, thanks for making what I've always considered as the pinnacle of making or breaking the NATO alliance in any foreseen conflict, as Iceland is key to success of who controls the Atlantic and reinforcing of Europe.



I, in turn, would apologize if it appeared that I was criticizing your explanation, that wasn't my intention. I was grateful for your feedback, especially your comments on the Sea Eagles and Tornado's relative effectiveness in this sort of situation. I have very limited knowledge on the subject.

Thanks also for your expanded explanation on your ESM comments which clarified your earlier post considerably. It was, again, that I don't understand many of the nuances of the sim and therefore didn't properly comprehend the point you were making. It wasn't your explanation that was the problem, merely my comprehension of the point you were making.....

Thanks again for the guidance.



strykerpsg -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 5:22:25 AM)

I would like to add that having Orion's airborne in the beginning is very feasible and the fact that you're hunting subs coming to support Iceland and the Atlantic shipping lanes would certainly want those critical assets up sooner than later. That being said though is why I went into the editor, to change the airborne sensor settings of the Orion's when they take off, to no ESM emissions, except sonar, so they would have to be inside the SU or MiG radar to be detected, versus having them zero in on their radiating radar. So, couple of ways to approach the scenario untouched, just requires some micor-managing is all or, reset their ESM before it kicks off.

djoos, I will gladly send you what I have by the weekend. I think you'll like the surprises I posted in, though makes it a bit more potentially upsetting, depending on your strategy. :)



Bazza042 -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 1:14:54 PM)


SOME SPOILERS HERE


Strykerpsg,

I absolutely understand your position.

I think we would agree that:

a) that the player cannot meet the scenario objective without at least some Orions.

b) that the initial set up of the scenario, if unaltered, will result in the loss of certainly three and may be six, of the nine, available Orions.

I believe that the initial set up of any scenario should be sufficiently 'structured' to ensure that, in the very early stages, given a reasonable level of luck the key assets, in this case the Orions, have a reasonable chance of survival.

So I believe based on your comments that there are two alternative ways of structuring the commencement of this specific scenario, both equally valid:

a) Is to adopt the changes to the load outs that you recommend in your earlier post and to leave the Orions mission as active. Which is probably closer to what this 'narrative' is seeking

or

b) To leave the loadouts unchanged and to make the Orions mission inactive.

And, of course there may well be others.

I think at the moment that the existing initial set up, which is what I would suggest most people would start with, will result in the loss of a significant % of the Orions which in turn means that it is very unlikely (impossible?) the objectives of the scenario can be met. At this point I would suggest most players would opt to restart the scenario and will then plan differently.

I guess our differences probably arise from at what point do you see this (any?) scenario starting?

In your case you clearly see it starting with a re-organisation of the load outs and missions prior to putting the 'planes' in the air. {My only (very) slight issue with this is that there is rarely enough information in the scenario briefing to make a sensible decision on this.}

I tend to see a scenario as beginning with the (default) launch of the planes and work on from there.


May I please assure djoos5 that I am absolutely not 'having a go' at his scenario, which I thoroughly enjoy. I just don't think that starting with default options that lead inexorably to the loss of key assets, and almost certain failure to achieve the objectives, is the approach to adopt. There is a 'surprise' towards the start of the scenario, which is excellent, but unfortunately the impact is almost totally lost as the result is so severe that most people will restart the scenario and now know what is coming their way......


Obviously if the scenario objectives can be achieved with reasonable luck using the existing default options I would withdraw all reservations expressed above.

And again djoos5 many thanks for the scenario and I hope its continuations.






djoos5 -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 3:42:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bazza042

djoos5,

Many thanks for your comments and, indeed, for the scenario.

Please understand that I was not criticizing the scenario, more highlighting my own incompetence in dealing with the situation.

As I mentioned I don't like going 'behind the scenes' to see what the other guy has: it just spoils it for me. I am playing for enjoyment rather
to manufacture a 'win' based on detailed pre-knowledge of what the enemy has in store. I prefer the fog of war even if, as in this case, I get
roughed up somewhat.

I think my only comment/suggestion might be that some of the 'missions', such as the Orions, might be set to 'inactive' at the start of the scenario.

I very much appreciate the missions being pre-established but a number of scenario makers, in a similar situation, have made subsequent missions inactive
so it doesn't all kick off at the start of the scenario. I have a tendency, and it may be a purely personal one, to follow what I assume to be the scenario
makers train of thought so, in this case, I assumed - in the absence of any pre-knowledge - that the Orions need to be up there right from the start.

Hence anyone playing this scenario for the first time is probably going to get his Orions wiped out at the outset, before he learns and then probably restarts
the scenario. This means that your first (unpleasant!) surprise is lost[:)]. If the Orion missions, for example, were inactive at the start of the scenario
this gives a pretty clear 'steer' that its probably not a good idea to get them in the air immediately.

Just a thought....

I would echo strykerpsg's comments about the scenario. It is a real pleasure to see a 'realistic' situation being set up in the GIUK gap during the Cold War period.
Harpoon had quite a few, they are less common here.

Thanks again for the work you have done on this.


Hey Bazza042,

To start, everything you said was taken with good intent - I felt no criticism from your comments. In fact, they help and I had asked for just this thing. I consider myself a wargamer, but four kids and all the other stuff real life can throw at me, I am not able to invest the time in these hobbies that I would like to. Truthfully, I only stumbled across CMANO because I came to see if there were any updates to my Harpoon games.

Anyway, I appreciate the input a lot. I am making a list of edits for this scenario based on what you and others are telling me. I am going to wait and see Stryukerpsg's changes and see if he doesn't mind if I use his ideas in the campaign.

Regarding your last comment, I am like you - growing up during the Cold War years (at least the 70's and 80's) I am a usual suspects kind of wargamer. The amount of money that was put into these two Armed Forces made for some amazing platforms and it is fun to run these hypotheticals.



Bazza042 -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 4:23:23 PM)

Hi djoos5,

Thanks for not taking my comments amiss[:)]

I absolutely bow the knee to strykerpsg and his comments about the appropriate loadouts and tactics, which seem to work well.
And clearly others have had as much enjoyment from your scenario as I have.

It looks as though our interests (and probably ages!) are pretty similar although where you got the time from to create this excellent scenario
I really don't know but more power to you! Looking forward to the others in due course.

I also enjoyed Harpoon in the early days before it sub divided into all its different versions and databases but, not surprisingly, ten years+
later this is a much better and more polished product. This seems as far ahead of its time now, as Harpoon was back then.

I'm also enjoying the interchanges on this forum: so far it hasn't developed into the 'factionalism' that marred the Harpoon boards. I think that
the designers show incredible patience and, mainly they seem to have thought of most things before we ask.... When someone asked whether jump jet
Harriers were supported the answer was 'yes' they have invisible 'bases' from which to take off!

I am enjoying this sim as much as any since Command Ops: they both have the virtue of having good, even excellent, AI which you can largely leave
to its own devices. In so many games the 'enemy' AI is so feeble it doesn't present much of a challenge and you daren't leave the AI to manage your
own troops. Here I tend to let the AI handle the actual fighting and concentrate on trying to find those damn subs......



djoos5 -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 4:32:06 PM)

Okay, my list of changes are:

1) change the airbases to multiple-unit
2) change trigger for Iceland strike on carrier task force
3) change P3's radar state
4) reduce the number of Orion's in the air at the onset
5) reduce the distance for the Yankees to travel for scoring
6) edit briefing to give the player a better understanding of objectives and potential threats

If anyone else had a suggested change, please post it here.

Thanks!



djoos5 -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 4:40:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bazza042

It looks as though our interests (and probably ages!) are pretty similar although where you got the time from to create this excellent scenario I really don't know but more power to you! Looking forward to the others in due course.



LOL! Yea, finding time that my wife or children don't claim is a challenge. I keep looking at the Northern Fury scenarios and then laugh at my creations! The work in those scenarios is fantastic and well thought out - and must have taken a good bit of time. I keep having trouble running them due to the computer slow-down, but I continue to try.

They are also a great example of how to build a good elaborate scenario, which I intend to use in aiding me on building Scenarios II and III of this campaign. This said, I am glad that my first attempt is getting good play time and input.



.Sirius -> RE: Red Storm (12/19/2013 8:25:50 PM)

Working on a "Dance of the Vampires" myself for the CWDB set in 1975



Bazza042 -> RE: Red Storm (12/20/2013 4:14:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5

Okay, my list of changes are:

1) change the airbases to multiple-unit
2) change trigger for Iceland strike on carrier task force
3) change P3's radar state
4) reduce the number of Orion's in the air at the onset
5) reduce the distance for the Yankees to travel for scoring
6) edit briefing to give the player a better understanding of objectives and potential threats

If anyone else had a suggested change, please post it here.

Thanks!


quote:

Okay, my list of changes are:

1) change the airbases to multiple-unit
2) change trigger for Iceland strike on carrier task force
3) change P3's radar state
4) reduce the number of Orion's in the air at the onset
5) reduce the distance for the Yankees to travel for scoring
6) edit briefing to give the player a better understanding of objectives and potential threats

If anyone else had a suggested change, please post it here.

Thanks!


I'll be interested to see how that works out......



Tomcat84 -> RE: Red Storm (12/20/2013 3:17:48 PM)


Started on it today. One thing that I dont really like is that the AI has an RTB when winchester doctrine.

Combined with the light loadouts on the Flanker (but Flanker loadouts are kind of odd anyway, I will pm Ragnar about it) this means that as soon as their Alamo's are wasted they turn for home.

So I would recommend you disable that one. And consider beefing the Flanker up to a tougher loadout, but if you dont want to introduce the more capable 10C, consider changing to the 1986 version as it has a 6 x Alamo A loadout.

Another thing you can think about it is wether or not you should enable automatic evasion, as this is almost guaranteed to trash any of their airborne Alamo's when they go to the notch. In a number of cases this meant they would notch, trash their own missiles, mine might miss, and they RTB.

My jamming also was a factor. And once they RTB they really RTB. They will go engaged defensive if you fire at them but otherwise they go home at a nice 480 knots even if you fly right up on their 6 and hose em with AIM-9s.

So I found a nice tactic to degrade them but it's not as fun so for now I will hold off and see what happens in your next change.

But I enjoyed coming up with a plan though (I assumed 10Cs on the Flankers, those not being there made things a little calmer).

Oh before I forget, I noticed all the fighters on Stornoway were available, no maintenance. And the Tomcats on the Nimitz I thought maybe a bit too heavily cut down by maintenance unavailable but thats own discretion of course.

Further, I think the Hawkeyes on Nimitz dont have an AEW loadout. Doesnt really affect much I think but is nice to make things just right. And finally some boom tanker support for the Eagles from somewhere might be useful

Keep up the nice work! And I will definitely play again when updated :)



quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5

Okay, my list of changes are:

1) change the airbases to multiple-unit
2) change trigger for Iceland strike on carrier task force
3) change P3's radar state
4) reduce the number of Orion's in the air at the onset
5) reduce the distance for the Yankees to travel for scoring
6) edit briefing to give the player a better understanding of objectives and potential threats

If anyone else had a suggested change, please post it here.

Thanks!





djoos5 -> RE: Red Storm (12/20/2013 5:52:05 PM)

Thanks, Tomcat84!

I appreciate the input and will add the changes to the list.



strykerpsg -> RE: Red Storm (12/20/2013 7:37:42 PM)

Djoos, PM sent. :)



GBOATZ -> RE: Red Storm (12/24/2013 12:34:02 AM)

Djoos,

As someone who is NOT a former air force pilot, military historian, computer programmer, defense analyst or war gaming purist and who is just a former Harpooner who one day received an email stating that I may enjoy this game and purchased it, I believe I can honestly say that yours is the best scenario I've played to date, has clear cut guidelines and offers a challenge, but not overly so that I have to go online to Wikipedia to understand every nuance. You may see my name on this forum from months ago, but I've found that too often when I asked for help, I've instead received answers that were trite, condescending or who just plain ignored me and that's fine as I'm just a novice trying to enjoy myself and get my money's worth and I hope others won't flame you due to my opinions, but I was moved to offer you high praise in how your tone regarding Bazza, another novice as he was clearly reaching out to you and I appreciated how you responded in kind. That says a lot about you as a person and your character. My hat is off to you both for a great scenario and that you seem to be a true gentleman, something many of the other new players would appreciate in lieu of trying to interact with "know it all's who seem to always want to be the smartest person in the room" could learn from.

I wish I could have sent this to you personally but I don't know how so that is just one more thing others here can hold against me, but since I spent my 80 dollars for the game and it included this forum, it is the only way I know to communicate and hope others will not hold my comments against you.

My Best to you,



Tomcat84 -> RE: Red Storm (12/24/2013 6:06:53 AM)

Hey Gnoatz, I'm sorry to read that you've had some issues getting useful answers from people. I hope I haven't been one of them, as I think I always try to be helpful even if to me the answer is obvious because I've done something already.

If you ever need any help please feel free to ask and I'll do my best. And to do so in private, look to the left side of my post, at the bottom left there should be three buttons, one of em is a button labelled "pm". That stands for private message. If you hit that you should get a new popup window in which you can send a message much like an email, with a subject etc. Hope that helps.

Also now that I have the chance to do some self promoting ;) : if you like air to air scenarios check out my Frisian Flag scenario. I'm pretty happy with the briefing, objectives etc so I'm curious what you think. It can be found here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3490799

Keep enjoying Command and again feel free to ask questions when needed.



GBOATZ -> RE: Red Storm (12/24/2013 6:54:58 PM)

Hi Tomcat,

Attempted to send you a PM, but don't know if it got there. Suffice it to say none of what I have experienced was directed at you, in fact, I once asked a question regarding rotating and fixed reference points and you were so kind as to even create a YouTube video to help me and hopefully others and for that I was extremely grateful.

My point is although I enjoy the strategy and challenge of this game, admittedly there is a steep learning curve far and beyond anything I've experienced heretofore in other versions of harpoon and although I've been reminded (too often) of this it is the tone and hubris of some of the posters that has made me reluctant to make inquiries. I've found it's far easier to simply monitor issues, maintain updates and review others information for as a teacher, I have a very low tolerance towards incivility and arrogance and after all, at the end of the day, it's only a game.

My best to you



Tomcat84 -> RE: Red Storm (12/24/2013 7:29:36 PM)

Hey man,

I didn't receive a PM, so instead I've sent you one so that you can easily reply to it to send me anything.

If you don't get a popup about it, you can get to your inbox by clicking "Inbox" near the very top right of any forum page, or by going to this link:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/pm.asp

Then you should see a message sitting there.




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8886719