RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (Full Version)

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



Message

magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (3/20/2015 8:11:32 PM)

Okay… just looking at the opening scenario and looking at the map… And reading the briefs… We may as well say that we are at war with EurCon....
In the greater strategic picture… They are screwed…
The first thing would be to block them from breaking out Into the Atlantic… Deny them access to the Straits of Gibraltar and to the Suez Canal… and inhibit their commercial sea traffic into the Atlantic from their coats… that in itself would bring about their eventual demise…
The alpha objective for blue force is to relieve the Slavic Alies... VIa sea lanes through the Baltic......
EuroCon alpha objective is to deny this relief operation…
That means realistically it will be a huge battle in the North Sea… Where EurCon should place major naval assets blocking and denying access to the Baltic…
Then they could have assets in three dimensions through the Baltic all the way to .... Fighting a massive battle of attrition…
This is a can-do for the allies...... It would be a huge costly battle… But eventually they would prevail and EuroCon would have to submit…



magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (3/20/2015 8:41:41 PM)

There is too much separation between… CVY – 7.1… CVY – 7.2… The carrier battle group CVBG – 22.1... They should be deployed in closer proximity to provide mutual support… With the carrier battle group leading the way…
CVY – 7.2 have no organic ASW air assets which seems improbable…
I don't understand the positioning of CVB G – 22.2 so far to the south…
There should be OECM Aircraft… EC – 130H compass call… EF – 111A ravens or somesuch thing… In both Poland and Great Britain…
There should be easy – E-8C joint STAR in both Great Britain in Poland…
There should be antiradiation missiles and capable carriers… In both Poland and Great Britain...
The British should have subsurface forces in the North Sea

These are the things I see at first glance… It might be more once I started it…
I love how big this thing is… And should be bigger maybe....



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (3/20/2015 10:13:57 PM)

Thanks, Magi! I appreciate the second set of eyes.

Let me give you my thoughts on the design - including the theme of the novel on which this scenario will now be loosely based. These thoughts may require a re-wording for the opening brief and ROE.

Postures: France and Germany are now allied and have basically pressured the smaller nations into this thing called the European Confederation (EurCon). Poland doesn't wish to join, and so EurCon is trying to force them in by sabotage and cutting off fuel lines, communications, and resources by closing the sea lanes to Gdansk. Their goal is to have the Poles submit to this new governing alliance.

America and England are sending aid - both resources and military (with caveats such as training mission) - but have not committed to aggression against the EurCon. Nobody on the allied side wants war. EurCon on the other hand being bully-ish and feeling indomitable due to the old problem for American aid having to cross 1,000's of miles of ocean, are willing to smash any aid that might come believing America and England don't have the political will to hash out another European affair. In the book they go as far as nukes to destroy an interfering carrier group.

Positions: So, that is why the current set up. US is just moving assets into place and their priority mission is relief to Poland, not making war. Thus CVBG 22.2 is so far south.

As for moving the CVBG's into the North Sea - should they? With the range of US aircraft to give overhead support to the convoys, would they bring the carriers into such a small area of water? I know... the North Sea is not small per se, but it would probably have carrier captains in a bit of a frenzy to be within land-base strike distance, too.

I am not broadening the battle to the Med - so no Straits or North American blockings. Even though this is a continental conflict, I want to try and keep it close to the book and have the action happen in the North Sea and Baltic. This too should limit AU counts and make the scenario run more quickly. I do not like playing scenarios that are bogged down due to the overwhelmed PC processor having so many assets to manage.

Otherwise, I am going to take your recommendations and put them into play. I will add the new assets to the US and EurCon forces. I will add more subs and surface vessels for the multiple nations. But again, the story is going to try and be kept that it is a relief mission that flares into an exchange of fire. Both sides will try to bring it to a quick end by making political knock-outs. Those I will not put as spoilers here.

Thanks, and please bounce more thoughts and advice off of this. I want this to be a good scenario.



magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (3/21/2015 5:12:03 AM)

Hummmm..... Well… I think the storyline in the book is strategically politically flawed… no responsible power in the right mind would even use tactical nukes… Because if you use them then the other side will use them..... And it's so hard for me to understand how you would not be in a state of war and you were simply trying to get humanitarian aid to an ally after you've had a carrier task group nuked...
I certainly believe you don't need to involve the med that's a different theater and you could just assume what's going on down there would be a logical reaction to contain France and Germany…
But unless the allies totally dominate the North Sea Baltic… I don't think it's realistic that the relief convoys could make it through… It's a chokepoint and very easy to deny and control... It would take great force to push ones wait through…
But it is a really fascinating problem… And would make a very cool scenario… i'm having fun and I'm going to keep playing it but I'm adding some stuff with the editor… however I believe I am going to initiate war… In Poland I'm going to strike and destroy the three branches as soon as I can get my aircraft into the air… I may have to give myself a little more capable assets there with the editor... I've added a couple ravens and JSTARS And I may give them a few F-15 ease for a couple of aardvarks… For the fun of it…

Gunner is really good in this theater and time period… He is far more knowledgeable than I am… You should ask him what he thinks….



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (3/21/2015 5:43:06 AM)

Well you will have a lot of work, the scenario attached has a lot of holes still.

Have fun and I look forward to any suggestions.



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/20/2015 3:55:49 PM)

It's been a long while, but I finally think I have a solid scenario here.

It is the first time I created one on this scale, so I would appreciate all critiques and suggestions.

I removed the custom overlays in the package due to upload size limits, but there are images. You will need to create a Cauldron folder in your Scenarios so the Descriptions and orders know where to find the pics.

The file is attached to the initial post in this thread.



magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/20/2015 4:07:37 PM)

Cool... I'll check it out....



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/20/2015 4:58:36 PM)

Hey Magi,

If you want the overlays, let me know. I will zip them up separate and email them to you. The folder for them will go in the Cauldron scenario folder.

If you see any breakdown - please shoot me a post. I want to know if something doesn't work, make sense, or anything.

I just read through Kushan's post on his Cauldron scenario series... that might even be the way to do it - have the multiple theaters in different scenarios. I just always wonder how to tie that stuff together for wins and losses; what do you do about assets used up?

Anyway, I look forward to your comments.

DJ



magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/20/2015 6:46:50 PM)

given such a capable enemy.... i believe the allies would have all our best stuff with us.....jstar.. B1s.. B2s.. more EW/OECM aircraft in poland... f16s in england..... etc etc...
if you look at this from the allied side having mission orientation view... the asset balance and disposition would be somewhat different.... currently there is a bias toward Eurcon....
i do not believ they would have all the tankers in poland where they are at risk... maybe one or two... they should be in england where they would sustain air ops...



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/20/2015 8:08:39 PM)

Okay - that can be done, but it would diverge from the book.

In the book, the US forces in Poland are limited to just a small group of F-16's and their crews that are there to train with the Poles. In fact, the whole book is about the retreat of the Polish forces against the newer, more powerful Rafales. I did add an F-15 group to bolster the forces assigned to Poland, but that was about it.

I kind of set it up that the US air assets have reached the UK and need to be dispersed from there - one of the reasons the mission is 10 days long, too.

In the book, too, the primary US offensive weapons come from the carriers, which are still out to see and need to be brought into range. Again, I am trying to convey the idea of build up.

If it is not working, let me know and I can think about another re-tool.

There are 'Spark-varks' in England that can be ferried to Poland. The tankers are positioned to help with the long transits (north of Germany). What other ECM/OECM craft do you think I should add?

With my above reasons for the current asset layout, let me know if you still think it should change and thanks for the input. I look forward to more!

[:D]



magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/20/2015 8:10:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5

Hey Magi,

If you want the overlays, let me know. I will zip them up separate and email them to you. The folder for them will go in the Cauldron scenario folder.

If you see any breakdown - please shoot me a post. I want to know if something doesn't work, make sense, or anything.

I just read through Kushan's post on his Cauldron scenario series... that might even be the way to do it - have the multiple theaters in different scenarios. I just always wonder how to tie that stuff together for wins and losses; what do you do about assets used up?

Anyway, I look forward to your comments.

DJ


Thank you sir..... I don't really know how to use overlays… However I've started this scenario and its really pretty cool… There is a lot of assets and a lot going on… That I'm just in the process of checking everything out and setting myself up… Which will take me an hours .... And so I think I am a slow anally abscessed player… I don't know how guys play big scenario so fast it takes me bloody days..... This is going to be a long one… But it is very cool looking…

If you're wanting to keep track of losses and attrition of assets for like a campaign or a series… You should talk to Gunner… I suspect he has like a database… And what he does is as he beta tests his scenarios… And guys test for him… He probably take some probable average of the losses.... Keeping track of expenditures and replenishment would just be a matter of telling up all the stuff that gets used through scenario play…
Of course different people will play differently and have some different results… And it something you would just have to make a good judgment call... I don't think it would have to be perfect… Just make it possible or probable and that would probably be Goodnuf for the gamer's..... Well it would work for me anyway…



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/20/2015 8:18:22 PM)

Yea, I am slow on the game process, too! Part of it is fearing to commit forces and lose them too quickly. [:D]

Anyway, the overlays are just the bridges over the Odra river. I built them using Tomcat84's method of blending overlays so you can zoom in close to see the spans.

They add to the scenario, but are not critical to it.



wild_Willie2 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/20/2015 8:37:44 PM)

Ok, I just had a go at your scenario and the first thing I noticed was that the F15's in Poland can only fire the AMRAAM A missiles, while the Eurofighters fire the 2003 AIM-120C-5 variant, outranging the US forces considerately.

I had a deeper look and you used 2007 Typhoons and 2002 Rafales (with their corresponding weapons) in this 1998 scenario against 1992-1993 era F16's and F15's, making US air operations on the eastern front extremely difficult. Either remove the Eurofigters or upgrade the f15/16's to later models in order to make things more balanced.

Will continue playing tomorrow so I can get a better feel of scenario's next stage.






djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/20/2015 10:52:41 PM)

Yea, Larry Bond published the book in 1993, although the setting is 1998 and it was assumed the Rafale would be in service.

So, I wedged in the Rafale even though the service dates are off. I took the liberty to add the Eurofighter, too, to bolster the EU assets.

As to the older variants in Poland, I went with the idea that the US is going to sell off its older stocks to countries.

Maybe I should just change the year of the scenario to accommodate the EU assets. It will break from the book, but that is no big deal.

Thanks for the input and I look forward to what else you send me.



magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/21/2015 1:35:14 AM)

either way is ok with me.... because i dont care about the book.... but i do care about your scenario....

one or usually two spruances class dd's should be with each carrier group/cvbg thats what they were made for...



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/21/2015 1:52:11 AM)

Thanks, Magi! I am taking notes of the changes needed.



magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/21/2015 6:57:29 AM)

I just spent a few hours setting myself up.... I made a number of adjustments.... I'll send you an attachment and some notes explaining/defending my changes and position... My aproch is mission oriented as I see it.... Using our doctrine as I unprofessionally understand it..... and the assets we had available at the time...
You can check it out and see if any of it is useful to you.....



wild_Willie2 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/21/2015 3:47:58 PM)

Ok, just had a go again but got really bored and quit as nothing happened for a looooong time while I was waiting for the US fleet to even approach Denmark after I shot up the invading ground forces. I suggest you put the US fleets closer to the continent at the start of the scenario so things move along at a quicker pace. Also if you program a few fighter sweeps into Poland you can easily destroy the Polish AF by sheer numbers and advanced weapons alone.

I would also suggest changing airfields from single unit to multi unit entities so players can attack something while waiting on the fleet to move to Denmark.
Btw, why did you even put the western CV into the game? It can't do anything useful there, there simply aren't any destructible targets in western Europe and you don't need it to beat the single unescorted raid on the UK. Maybe put the French CV in to bay of Biscay, you can then use that CV to hunt the french CV.

This scenario has potential, but as it stands now it's to long with to little action happening.





djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/21/2015 5:48:25 PM)

Sorry you didn't like it.

It raises the question, did you read the book?

The scenario is set up to model the book, which was about relief to Poland while not trying to start World War III. Poland doesn't win in the book - it kind of gets its ass kicked across the border. The US forces build up and then do a surprise political move - which should happen in the game. In the meantime, the primary mission is to get the freighters to Gdansk.

Secondary missions are ordered as they come up - surgical strikes on certain EU assets that could be used if certain people think it is their last hope.

In the book, the EU tries to wait out Poland and hope that they come to the negotiation table, instead of relying on the US and England. So there are no fighter sweeps - at least not until the German armor is ordered forward. At which point, the Poles try to bottleneck them at the bridges. Hence, the mission in the scenario to destroy the bridges.

The whole point is to try and hold them off until support comes with the limited assets you have.

As for Single-unit airfields - I use them to contain the number of Active Units in game. They are not necessarily the primary targets.

The second carrier task force is there (primarily) for the players in case France's nuclear strike is a success. I didn't want to leave them with nothing if the nukes hit.

Anyway, sorry I bored you.



wild_Willie2 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/21/2015 8:15:37 PM)

Don't take this to personal, as I said, the scenario has potential but needs to be modified in order to make it a bit more interesting to the average player who doesn't want to play a scenario actively for an hour and then sit staring at a screen for another few hours in which nothing more happens than seeing a CV TF steaming towards Denmark and beyond.

I haven't read the book but I think that trying to reproduce a fictional war accurately in a single scenario is very difficult as you can easily skip 15 hours in a story but not in this game.

Gunner98 solved this problem by splitting his book up into several separate scenarios, each limited in scope in order to optimize play speed but each with specific challenges, mission goals and assets. You could follow his example and do the same, create a scenario in which you need to destroy the bridges (only possible in your scenario if I you got VERY lucky and I always lost every single AC while trying to do so. I ended up just sending my army units forwards in order to blow it up), another scenario in which you will need to stop the armored assault and a last scenario in which you will have to cross the Denmark strait and resupply Gdansk. By limiting the scope of each of these scenarios, you can still offer a player the same tactical problems as in your book, but you can concentrate the challenges in a shorter time frame and the the game can also be run at much higher speeds.

If you really want, you can keep the scenario as it is now but you will need to make a few changes to keep it playable.
* Move the Northern TF's to a latitude roughly equal the southern tip of Norway to speed up the scenario.
* Remove the western CV. If the first carrier gets nuked, no player will wait for three hours real time simply to get this second CV into the same position where the first one got sunk.
* Remove the bases in France and the UK, they play no significant role in this scenario and only slow things down.
* Remove the Eurofighters from the game, they are way to overpowered for this scenario, simply replace them with Phantoms. 180 modern fighters with AWACS support and AMRAAM misses can easily hold their own against 25 F-15'/ F
16's and 20 Mig-29's so you really don't need the Eurofighters.
* Giving the Euro's 180 fighters and then keeping them on their side of the border is nonsensical, the euro's are willing to invade Poland with ground forces but wont send in fighters to destroy the Polish AF or cover their
ground forces? Move all the Polish AC to the Gdansk region and have them fight defensibly against fighter sweeps and bombing runs against their airfields (see the "Northern fury 5" scenario for inspiration).

Again, don't take this to personal but as the constructive criticism that it is. I would't have test played this scenario for four hours if it did not have potential.



Excroat3 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/21/2015 8:53:25 PM)

I've been keeping tabs on this scenario, and I was wondering if it would just be easier to have 2 scenarios, a "player friendly" one, where you can stray from the book in order to make it more entertaining/difficult, and a "book friendly" scenario, where players who read the book can play through and see what it all looked like, and maybe even get a better ending than what was in the book.

just my 2 cents [:)]



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/21/2015 9:20:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

Don't take this to personal, as I said, the scenario has potential but needs to be modified in order to make it a bit more interesting to the average player who doesn't want to play a scenario actively for an hour and then sit staring at a screen for another few hours in which nothing more happens than seeing a CV TF steaming towards Denmark and beyond.

I haven't read the book but I think that trying to reproduce a fictional war accurately in a single scenario is very difficult as you can easily skip 15 hours in a story but not in this game.

Gunner98 solved this problem by splitting his book up into several separate scenarios, each limited in scope in order to optimize play speed but each with specific challenges, mission goals and assets. You could follow his example and do the same, create a scenario in which you need to destroy the bridges (only possible in your scenario if I you got VERY lucky and I always lost every single AC while trying to do so. I ended up just sending my army units forwards in order to blow it up), another scenario in which you will need to stop the armored assault and a last scenario in which you will have to cross the Denmark strait and resupply Gdansk. By limiting the scope of each of these scenarios, you can still offer a player the same tactical problems as in your book, but you can concentrate the challenges in a shorter time frame and the the game can also be run at much higher speeds.

If you really want, you can keep the scenario as it is now but you will need to make a few changes to keep it playable.
* Move the Northern TF's to a latitude roughly equal the southern tip of Norway to speed up the scenario.
* Remove the western CV. If the first carrier gets nuked, no player will wait for three hours real time simply to get this second CV into the same position where the first one got sunk.
* Remove the bases in France and the UK, they play no significant role in this scenario and only slow things down.
* Remove the Eurofighters from the game, they are way to overpowered for this scenario, simply replace them with Phantoms. 180 modern fighters with AWACS support and AMRAAM misses can easily hold their own against 25 F-15'/ F
16's and 20 Mig-29's so you really don't need the Eurofighters.
* Giving the Euro's 180 fighters and then keeping them on their side of the border is nonsensical, the euro's are willing to invade Poland with ground forces but wont send in fighters to destroy the Polish AF or cover their
ground forces? Move all the Polish AC to the Gdansk region and have them fight defensibly against fighter sweeps and bombing runs against their airfields (see the "Northern fury 5" scenario for inspiration).

Again, don't take this to personal but as the constructive criticism that it is. I would't have test played this scenario for four hours if it did not have potential.


Thanks for the input, Wild_Willie!

I do not take it personally - I asked for critique and you gave it to me. Sometimes it is a hard pill to swallow when you've worked on something for so long. Also, it is sometimes hard to convey a story in a scenario (although I think some other designers have had great success doing it). It is harder still when you are trying to give credence to the title on which it is based.

I will take your suggestions along with Magi's. I have no problem doing a total re-haul of the scenario. I have been working on it off and on now for over a year, so a little more time to make it right (for all players) is not too much to ask.

Excraot - I have thought about breaking it up into theaters. I tried a project like that with Red Storm Rising, but it fell apart on me because I did not know how to convey the loss of assets (or no loss) from one scenario to the next. I guess I could do it by making an asset part of one theater and not another.

Kushan has taken on this idea of multiple scenarios, so I think I will leave mine as is - just look into the suggested improvements - and leave the multi-scenario to his creation.

Ok...I am taking it back to the drawing board, but I would still appreciate any critiques and suggestions should someone try to play it in its current iteration. Also, please let me know if something seems broken.



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/21/2015 9:24:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: magi

I just spent a few hours setting myself up.... I made a number of adjustments.... I'll send you an attachment and some notes explaining/defending my changes and position... My aproch is mission oriented as I see it.... Using our doctrine as I unprofessionally understand it..... and the assets we had available at the time...
You can check it out and see if any of it is useful to you.....


Hey Magi,

Did you PM me the attachment? Or maybe email me? Didn't get anything, but I look forward to seeing what you have done.



Kushan04 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/22/2015 1:03:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5
Kushan has taken on this idea of multiple scenarios, so I think I will leave mine as is - just look into the suggested improvements - and leave the multi-scenario to his creation.


Feel free to break your scenario up if it works better. My original plan was to do something similar to you and have a massive month long scenario but realized pretty early on that its not quite possible to do effectively on the scripting side yet. So I decided to break mine up. Also think we are doing slight variations of the same theme, I'm doing mine set in 2018 and using the book merely to provide situations and background, where you seem to be sticking closer to the source material.

Keep up the good work.



Excroat3 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/22/2015 3:05:14 AM)

I did not mean that you have to make 2 completely different scenarios, just 2 mainly similar copies of the same one. For example, you could release this scenario as it is as a "true to the book" release. Then, you could copy this scenario, make the changes that people suggested (such as moving the CVBG to the west, adding more polish aircraft/euro fighter sweeps, or whatever else people ask for that would not be true to the book)
quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5

Excraot - I have thought about breaking it up into theaters. I tried a project like that with Red Storm Rising, but it fell apart on me because I did not know how to convey the loss of assets (or no loss) from one scenario to the next. I guess I could do it by making an asset part of one theater and not another.




magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/22/2015 5:33:30 AM)

djoos

ok...... take a look.... i made changes in force composition and disposition... for a couple of reasons...
on the surface warfare issues... by the mid to late 90's many new advanced platforms were becoming operational and replacing older assets..... by may of 1998.. virginia class cgn, belknap cg's and kid class dd's had all been decommissioned... and all sprunce dd's left had vls upgrades...
thier role and missions taken over with the arlie burke class ddg's... soooo... i replaced the older stuff with the newer stuff.... i did reduce the tlam's and loaded aaw stuff....
the carrier battle groups would probably not have oh perry's mission unless they were going to split them off for a co related mission... there would be another burke or sprunce in their place.... if you feel they add to much leverage as escorts to the convoys you could replace them with british platforms of this period and remain faithful to your intent in this scenerio.....
also each carrier battle group would have one or two ssn's with them.... i only included one however as local forces.. the british quite naturally are meeting those needs.... i believe in the real deal the royal navy would have a task force making a sub sweep in front of us as we closed the northern aproch of the north sea... as regional asw work is one of the alpha nato roles their navy is designed and trained for....
i think it would be cool to have a british task group makeing a sweep from south to north until meeting... [I am probably the freddy kruger of scenerio creep]......
as for air assets in this time frame and the way we fight.... there would be ew warfare aircraft [ae-6b prowler], j stars, b1's, b2's and f117's.... and more f16's... i added a dozen and reduced the tornado's.....
i dont believe there were anymore ef-111 ravens by 98.... the air force has not had any oecm aircraft organically since around this period of time... it is my understanding that EW air craft are operated jointly now and flown by navy and marine aviators... so the spark varks should be swaped out with prowler's... the prowlers suite is more powewful... so you might nee as many of them at lakenheath...

the way i see it is... is that eurcon can not and does not need to come out to fight as we ingress in to the north sea.... as they have no longer range air strikers.. and would wait till we got to mouth of the skagerrak... their best bet would be to atrit the allies with submarines on the way in....
eurcon's biggest advantage is geography.... they should mine the whole bloody approach all the way to the baltic... mine and countermeasures warfare should be a major component to the game play....

you should use gunners trick of of having comercial air and sea traffic as being friendly with eurcon.... then they will share awareness.... free recon....

i agree a 100 percent with willie in that the red bases should not be single unit airfields.... everything should be targetablable.... red and blue....

i am really rambling on here.... this is a draft not a refined piece.... take a look and let me know what you think... you would probably want to do things different and i dont want to be a hog and stick my finger in your pie...



magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/22/2015 3:03:19 PM)

Well I just read A wiki synopsis of the Cauldron… Thank goodness for those things I don't want to read the book now..... But it does give me a better idea of what's going on here ..... I can't believe EurCon did not stop the convoy or have a big fight over with in the ballhdick sea.....

But I am convinced it would be very hard to run this as one big scenario and try to follow the story line… something would happen in gameplay… That would probably set general warfare off ......

I think there is a weakness in the briefing as there is no expression of EurCon's intent militarily or little of disposition and composition of there forces.....



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/22/2015 5:16:31 PM)

Thanks, man!

I appreciate your time spent and I will be re-tooling this scenario. Thanks for the upload, too. I think I am going to take this all the way back to start.



magi -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (9/22/2015 5:50:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5

Thanks, man!

I appreciate your time spent and I will be re-tooling this scenario. Thanks for the upload, too. I think I am going to take this all the way back to start.



yeah I should've gone to the beginning.… Isn't that much gameplaying time… But I had already started the scenario… And then decide if I want to modify it should've gone back to zero hour ....

You may want to set things up differently than how I see things… however I do hope you make everything targetable......



djoos5 -> RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 (5/13/2016 8:40:58 PM)

I am bumping this because Mike made a call for long duration scenarios.

Understand, this scenario needs to be re-tooled for the features in the new CMANO build, as well as the suggestions made by previous players. I have just not had the time to get around to it.

Still, it is here as an option.

As always, critiques of the scenario are appreciated.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.283203