|
bsq -> RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Big Stick (Syria 2014) (12/26/2013 8:23:56 AM)
|
Thanks for the very comprehensive 'debrief' above, it will take me a while to address/fix the issues/points you raise, but here goes...
quote:
1. The exclusion zone over Lebanon effectively prevents the best part of the SyAAF from defending their airspace. It acts as a buffer across which I can lob standoff ordnance with impunity. As a result, the SyAAF MiG-29s were a complete non-factor. I destroyed the airbases, IADS and fighter presence in the southern part of the country through the first night, and by midday the SyAAF was gone in its entirety.
There is still flex to beef up the SyAAF - but I made the the airbases single unit because I did not intend for them to be targets. When I first modelled Syria, I used multi-unit assests, this stopped my CPU dead in its tracks (even when over-clocked - a 3rd Gen I7 with 16 GB of RAM), there were over 4000 AU's even before the missile swarms were in the air... So I need to find a way to keep the player 'on task' - because wiping out SyAAF on the ground, in the first few hours, is not what is intended
quote:
2. The ammo bunkers (surface) are extremely tough. I don't know if this was a matter of choosing which target to use, or a DB issue, but they are virtually impervious to destruction. I pounded them with all manner of ordnance, including just about everything at my disposal, from cruise missiles to Mavericks to SLAM to the usual penetrating bombs (BLU-109 et al). You can damage them, but it seems that they will hang on despite the incessant pounding, and eventually expire from fires. In any case, I got bored of pounding on them, otherwise the points would have continued to rack up.
May have to change the threshold to damaged at say 75%... several have commented on the near impossibilty to destroy these bunkers. Given the images of what single GBU hits did to Iragi HAS and surface bunkers in GW1, I am surprised these are modelled to be so tough.
quote:
3. Not only are the bunkers (too?) tough, but there are an awful lot of them. Perhaps too many, especially around Hamah. Maybe you should designate a portion which are suspected CW storage if you want to keep them all.
This could be fixed by the same method, points for high damage rather than destruction.
quote:
4. The NATO/coalition task force has no replenishment ship. It would be unusual for such a force to deploy without one (or more).
Was toying with the idea, but unrep does not work properly so left it out for the time being.
quote:
5. The player has an awful lot of ordnance at his disposal. It makes for excellent fun, playing with the expensive toys, but I am not sure how realistic it is to have hundreds upon hundreds of PGMs on hand. Recall how quickly NATO partners began to run out of PGMs during the Libya campaign.
Every time someone reports that they 'dismantled Syria' I am thinking this, clearly I assumed 'restraint' [;)]- may have to enforce it [:D]
quote:
6. Already discussed, but for some reason, the Israelis did not like me shooting at the Syrians and tried to intercept my cruise missiles wherever possible. Often successfully and at extended ranges, even when using stealthy ordnance, so this might be a DB issue as well.
Yep, not sure about this one, may have to switch them off till I get a fix.
quote:
7. It is difficult to destroy the docks at Tartus without the Russian ships incurring some blast damage, even when using the less heavy ordnance. Also, the Slava class cruiser Moskva became hostile early on, despite not being damaged and perhaps only because my missiles were flying too close to her. This might be entirely intentional.
Moskva going hostile is not intentional unless you sink something. It is possible to do this to the docks, its all about weapon choice [8D]
quote:
8. There were several 'SA-26' sites. Did you mean to say 'SS-N-26'?
No I meant SA-26 - reporting name for the Pechora 2 M - found in several sources
quote:
9. The 'pop up' S-300 threat was nicely done, and extremely disconcerting (which is good!) Fortunately for me, I had SEAD packages already enroute into Syria when it happened, and was able to smack down the S-300 sites quickly.
S-300 is modelled incorrectly, it would be nigh on impossible to do this simply IRL. The problem is it fires all its missiles stupidly and has 12 in flight before the real shooting starts. I may have to try looking at 3 LST = 3 S-300 Groups...
quote:
10. The Syrian 'non-military' presence was good, but it didn't feel as though there were enough of them to complicate matters. I would add more.
Plan to, your comments here justify the inclusion of them and I want to try to use them to complicate matters further.
quote:
11. Also, the industrial targets around Damascus were perhaps too easy to pick out and attack amongst the other buildings. Maybe the buildings should also be 'non-military'?
The map I used for this showed a lot more units in Adra - I you overlay one, you will see my selection criteria (and know my favourite colour [:D])
quote:
12. There are lots of tankers and AEW&C/ELINT assets available, but I didn't use them much at all. Most of the aircraft (excepting the A-10s) could perform their missions without the need for refueling. All of the extra AEW&C/ELINT and tankers at Souda, for example, remained on the ground the whole time.
Perhaps I approached this from an 'ATO' perspective and didn't reckon on players 'launching the fleet' at Syria. They are there to help you. Tankers to replenish your CAP and HVAA. HVAA to help build the picture. I want to force the player to do a few things, I am still a way from that point...
quote:
There are probably some smaller points I am forgetting, but I hope these are useful to you. Fun scenario!
Thanks once again for your persistence in running it to completion and taking the time for such a thourogh debrief.
|
|
|
|
