Updated to version 3.0 (7/20/18) Playtesting 4 Hanukkah War 2018 (Full Version)

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



Message

BeirutDude -> Updated to version 3.0 (7/20/18) Playtesting 4 Hanukkah War 2018 (5/27/2018 12:30:47 AM)

All,

Download updated to Version 3.0 (7/20/2018)

1. Removed all naval units
2. Removed all non SAM/SSM/or Targeted ground units (Barracks, Artillery, etc)
3. Removed all attack helios
4. (Hopefully) corrected an issue where the Russians immediately jump on the IAF and attack them. I've tested about 10 times without it reoccurring.
5. Fixed issue with Syrian/Iranian SSMs.
6. I DID NOT move IAF Squadrons form their actual bases to make it more playable. I feel there is a certain part of real world simulation that should occur with a scenario and given the small size of Israel and their normal operating procedure (to the best of my knowledge) they don't. Part of the challenge should be to create a Time On Target attack from spread out airbases. Otherwise, IMHO, your just blowing S*** up. To suggestions, go into the editor and adjust to your liking or when the aircraft are on a mission reassign them to the base you want them to return to. Either would work.
7. Some airbases are now single unit airbases, but given the huge amount of work to load magazines I wasn't redoing them wholesale. I don't use unlimited magazines as using up ammo is part of the challenge. That is a reason to reposition aircraft.
8. Corrected an issue with a low cloud deck.

New file in the attachment.

Download updated to Version 1.1 (5/28/2-18 11:27 a.m.)

Looking for a few GOOD and objective playtesters. This scenario may be a bit too long and is very much roughed out right now but I think the IAF might need about a week to accomplish the goals of the scenario. I have a stop set if the IDF/IAF accomplishes those goals earlier.

Honestly my (real) work has me working so many hours that if I playtested it myself it my be Hanukkah before I got it out!!!!!!!! So I'm asking for some help from a few objective individuals to playtest and give some constructive criticism.

The scenario is ripped out of the current and near future events in Israel and Syria. Basically, the IDF/IAF strikes of April and May have been successful in knocking back the Iranians in Syria for now but what is under the cover of bad weather in late November they had another go at placing IRBMs and S-300s in Syria?

I have extensively researched the IAF order of battle (with a few assumptions like bringing the F-35I up to a 12 aircraft squadron) and poured about a month of my free time into this scenario, so I hope you enjoy if you take it on.

Al "Beirutdude" Sandrik



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/27/2018 4:15:09 PM)

So playtesting a bit this morning...

1. added more IDF ground defenses around Mt Hermon and in the Golan
2. Set Patriots to not attack helicopters in WRA
3. Adjusted Patriot orientation
4. Added IDF IAI Harop TEL in the Golan (as I just discovered this morning they were used on May 10th against Syria).



AlexGGGG -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/28/2018 9:09:58 AM)

Check Side Briefing around "training of our and sailors"... our who and sailors? Something's missing there.



Primarchx -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/28/2018 2:06:18 PM)

Not liking having to wait 6 hours to strike anything, given that the Syrians start striking right away.



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/28/2018 2:34:15 PM)

Noted and Corrected/reworded. Thanks.



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/28/2018 2:45:07 PM)

Primarchx, Fair criticism/point!

I struggled with this based on past design work, I could make the loadouts available immediately, say within an hour or so. Problem I see is I change this is if someone doesn't like the loadouts, and got B****ed about with "Arctic Tsunami," which is one reason why I set it up this way to allow the player to change them to their liking.

So let me ask you this, you have a lot of experience more with the game than I do, do the loadouts I set looks good for the mission at hand or would you suggest different loadouts? If I ready them earlier the worst that happens is someone not liking the loadouts can still change them and then wait the 3/6 hours (depending upon loadout) for the changes.



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/28/2018 3:20:49 PM)

Download version 1.1 With the changes I indicated above and the suggestion from Primarchx above...



Primarchx -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/28/2018 5:06:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

Primarchx, Fair criticism/point!

I struggled with this based on past design work, I could make the loadouts available immediately, say within an hour or so. Problem I see is I change this is if someone doesn't like the loadouts, and got B****ed about with "Arctic Tsunami," which is one reason why I set it up this way to allow the player to change them to their liking.

So let me ask you this, you have a lot of experience more with the game than I do, do the loadouts I set looks good for the mission at hand or would you suggest different loadouts? If I ready them earlier the worst that happens is someone not liking the loadouts can still change them and then wait the 3/6 hours (depending upon loadout) for the changes.


Given that a player can change loadouts in 6hrs they could change to their preferred load anyway, while still using any author-provided loadout at the start.

Also, the Dolphin-class sub is set to active radar due to global EMCON setting.



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/28/2018 9:15:00 PM)

quote:

Given that a player can change loadouts in 6hrs they could change to their preferred load anyway, while still using any author-provided loadout at the start.


Agreed. I toyed with changing the start time but if someone wants to change loadouts the current time would give them an early night strike so will leave as is.

quote:

Also, the Dolphin-class sub is set to active radar due to global EMCON setting.


Thank you will correct!!!!! Appreciate your catching this.



AlexGGGG -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/29/2018 7:40:31 AM)

I'm still playing but overall it looks good (you know, to catch a typo in a briefing one only needs one minute; playing it through is different).

Initial loadouts are, I'd say, acceptable for me. I would shift more into SEAD and CAP, and less CAS/Bomb loadouts, but that's a matter of taste. Also I can still do it in time, so no problem. Anyway I don't think you can have initial loadouts to please everyone at the same time. Moreover, if I don't like the loadouts, I can always use the scen editor.

I wonder however, not neccessarily in application to this scenario, but just as an abstract idea, if one can do this:

1. set all loadouts to Reserve
2. adjust magazines accordingly (to reflect the fact that there are now no missiles on aircraft)
3. delay all enemy missions by 6 hours.

most ground-capable aircraft takes 6 hours to load.

so I will immediately at start of the scenario define loadouts, and fast forward the time acceleration; in 3 hours I will have CAP but CAP can't attack enemy ground installations; and in 6 hours I will have my aircraft loaded as I please.

However as I wrote this idea out, I see that it is stupid because sub-based missiles and ship-based stuff, and artillery, do not need load time. So this will not work, but I leave it here because maybe someone else can do better.




BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/29/2018 11:26:09 PM)

I have always found Scenario Design to be a trade off and there will never be a perfect scenario.

I'm going to play with changing the Syrian initial posture from Hostile to Unfriendly. That might keep them from attacking until the IDF actually commences its bombing runs.



Tailhook -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/29/2018 11:54:55 PM)

Just downloaded it. At the risk of having any surpises spoiled, why exactly are their ground forces present? I'm looking at what looks like several hundred ground units that I'm told pretty much explicitly not to use (something about keeping units from advancing into weird territory). If they're merely to keep the AI honest, why not give said enemy a no navigation zone (for just ground units so air units can still attack if they want) so they don't attempt to do anything like that? Failing that, maybe grouping ground units. I can't make heads or tails of what is going on along the border and I'm only 3 seconds in. Looking at it in the editor I see sizable Syrian and Hezbollah ground elements, presumably to keep me from invading as well. Given the rather basic layout of the ground combat model in this game, am I expected to repel a push from the enemy and/or invade Syria with my ground forces? Neither of those are expressed in the intent in the briefing. And frankly neither seems fun with the units I have. Another alternative if you really want to keep them all there would be assign them to a separate IDF side allied with the player, and grouping them up. This will reduce the clutter, remove the temptation to march on Damascus, and make it easier to manage my own OOB.

Naval side, from the editor. Looks like Syrian navy units have a massive loop of waypoints to follow near where they start, but aren't assigned to a mission. Perhaps get rid of the waypoints and give them a sea control mission so that if I attempt to move my own ships in they will engage them. Right now I'm pretty sure they'll circle ad-nauseum until they hit the last waypoint, and won't ever fire an offensive weapon. As for the Russian group, their waypoints have them go out to sea 65 nm and then just stop. Again, I think a mission, even if it's just a support one, will pay off in keeping them moving aroun. With a 7 day scenario they'll just sit still for about 6 days and 12 hours of it.

As for the "I can't stop you from using nuclear weapons..." just go to the side doctrine in the editor for Israel and uncheck the box next to "Use nuclear weapons" and the player will no longer be able to grant themselves permission.

Other OOB issues: I see that you've modeled basically the entire IDF Air force. This includes a lot of utility aircraft and trainers that I have no use for. In an already huge battle, these serve no purpose. You also don't use single unit airfields. If it is expected that these will fall under attack then this is fine, but if there is no AI coding to attack them you may consider replacing them with single unit airfields on the Israeli side to save on active unit count. There's also only one Iron Dome battery on the entire side, which is quite surprising given the presence of so many other IDF units plus the nature of the threat.

Looking at the enemy side it doesn't look like there's a mission in place to trigger SSM/MLRS/IRBM attacks on Israel or Israeli forces. I don't believe the AI will do so on their own, and if they did I don't think it would be smart. You could have an IRBM attack on say an Israeli airfield with like a 4 day delay or something, for example.

A bit more nitpicky, but as loadouts were discussed: They're kind of assigned haphazardly within squadrons. It would be nicer from a player perspective if you grouped jets with similar loadouts "next to each other" in a squadron. So of say 12 jets (2 down for maintanence) instead of 1, 3, 6 and 7 being equipped with GBU-XX and 2,4,5, and 8 having GBU-YY, have 1-4 use GBU-XX loadout and 5-8 use GBU-YY loadout. With the alphabet soup of military nomenclature and the large amount of units this will make management just a little bit easier. But that's something I can remedy myself without too much issue.

Please take all of this as constructive criticism. I love the concept of the scenario and it looks like a lot of fun, just needs some polishing.



AlexGGGG -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/30/2018 11:41:48 AM)

Tailhook, at a risk of spoiling, arty and MLRS have good range to beat the carp of of some units if you just enable opportunistic targeting for these specific arty and MLRSes. This is just a variant of tactics. Adjust opportunism, drop some aircraft below the cloud layer and fly along the border, and this will do you some SEAD by artillery.

Also trainer aircraft can be used as spotters. UAVs which have spotter option can also be loaded with Spike-ER or something like that, to actually shoot. Trainers can't shoot but they can spot.



Primarchx -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/30/2018 2:51:40 PM)

Speaking of cloud deck, does it need to be at 10k? That just tosses so many weapons out the window (for a week).



AlexGGGG -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/30/2018 3:20:45 PM)

BeirutDude,

are enemies actually supposed to attack? because I played through with some success, but I never got a strong attack, like, no ground invasion attempted against me, and no ballistic missiles fired. Is that intended or something did not work?



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/30/2018 4:49:14 PM)

So first thank you for taking the time for the detailed feedback extremely valuable!!!!!!!!

quote:

Just downloaded it. At the risk of having any surprises spoiled, why exactly are their ground forces present?


So the back story is with my Arctic Tsunami Scenario a player presented me with the unrealistic, but valid tactic of moving the S-400 Battalion into northern Norway to cut NATO access to the northern airbases. This was an attempt to avoid that same circumstance.

quote:

I'm looking at what looks like several hundred ground units that I'm told pretty much explicitly not to use (something about keeping units from advancing into weird territory). If they're merely to keep the AI honest, why not give said enemy a no navigation zone (for just ground units so air units can still attack if they want) so they don't attempt to do anything like that?


Thought about that but want the IAF to be vulnerable to attack. Also didn't know you could set up an exclusion area just for ground units. I do like your other suggestion below though...

quote:

Failing that, maybe grouping ground units. I can't make heads or tails of what is going on along the border and I'm only 3 seconds in. Looking at it in the editor I see sizable Syrian and Hezbollah ground elements, presumably to keep me from invading as well. Given the rather basic layout of the ground combat model in this game, am I expected to repel a push from the enemy and/or invade Syria with my ground forces? Neither of those are expressed in the intent in the briefing.


No they are just there to keep SSM/SAM units from unrealistically advancing to bring opposing airbases under indirect fire. Originally this was going to be optional to play from both sides.

quote:

And frankly neither seems fun with the units I have.


Agreed!

quote:

Another alternative if you really want to keep them all there would be assign them to a separate IDF side allied with the player, and grouping them up. This will reduce the clutter, remove the temptation to march on Damascus, and make it easier to manage my own OOB.


I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS IDEA!!!!!!! Yes I Think I will do this. There are certain ground units the Israeli player should be using LORA for example that I agree get lost. Thank you!

quote:

Naval side, from the editor. Looks like Syrian navy units have a massive loop of waypoints to follow near where they start, but aren't assigned to a mission. Perhaps get rid of the waypoints and give them a sea control mission so that if I attempt to move my own ships in they will engage them. Right now I'm pretty sure they'll circle ad-nauseum until they hit the last waypoint, and won't ever fire an offensive weapon. As for the Russian group, their waypoints have them go out to sea 65 nm and then just stop. Again, I think a mission, even if it's just a support one, will pay off in keeping them moving around. With a 7 day scenario they'll just sit still for about 6 days and 12 hours of it.


Agreed, I thought both had a Sea Control Mission set up but let me check that!

quote:

As for the "I can't stop you from using nuclear weapons..." just go to the side doctrine in the editor for Israel and uncheck the box next to "Use nuclear weapons" and the player will no longer be able to grant themselves permission.


Duh! [X(] Now I feel kinda stupid, but some will go into the Scenario Editor and change it, but yeah there’s a DUH! moment for me!

quote:

Other OOB issues: I see that you've modeled basically the entire IDF Air force. This includes a lot of utility aircraft and trainers that I have no use for. In an already huge battle, these serve no purpose.


Yeah, I got a little crazy there with the thought that someone might drop forward observers as tried to used the cargo but honestly I don’t understand it! Not sure why the units show up as load outs for the magazines but then need to be separately set up?

quote:

You also don't use single unit airfields. If it is expected that these will fall under attack then this is fine, but if there is no AI coding to attack them you may consider replacing them with single unit airfields on the Israeli side to save on active unit count.


They are supposed to be targets for SSMs (If in range)/IRBMs. Let me check on that this was originall supposed to br played from either side but changed my mind 3/4s in.

quote:

There's also only one Iron Dome battery on the entire side, which is quite surprising given the presence of so many other IDF units plus the nature of the threat.


Thanks, again let me check on that. I think I used an older source for data on Iron Dome.

quote:

Looking at the enemy side it doesn't look like there's a mission in place to trigger SSM/MLRS/IRBM attacks on Israel or Israeli forces. I don't believe the AI will do so on their own, and if they did I don't think it would be smart. You could have an IRBM attack on say an Israeli airfield with like a 4 day delay or something, for example.


That was the intention. I think what happened here was it was supposed to be a two side option and then I decided against that going only for the IDF. So I think I missed setting them up with that change. That’s why we playtest! Thanks!
Also, my thoughts are no one would want to play Syria/Iran. Think that is valid?

quote:

A bit more nitpicky, but as loadouts were discussed: They're kind of assigned haphazardly within squadrons. It would be nicer from a player perspective if you grouped jets with similar loadouts "next to each other" in a squadron. So of say 12 jets (2 down for maintanence) instead of 1, 3, 6 and 7 being equipped with GBU-XX and 2,4,5, and 8 having GBU-YY, have 1-4 use GBU-XX loadout and 5-8 use GBU-YY loadout. With the alphabet soup of military nomenclature and the large amount of units this will make management just a little bit easier. But that's something I can remedy myself without too much issue.
No I ran into that with my play test and came to the same conclusion!


quote:

Please take all of this as constructive criticism. I love the concept of the scenario and it looks like a lot of fun, just needs some polishing.


Agreed! Thanks, and no this was all good and some of the things you mentioned I was finding myself. I have limited time these days so put this scenario out a bit earlier than I usually like. Like I said, this is why we playtest them!



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (5/30/2018 4:50:24 PM)

Yeah, Originally this was going to be playable from both sides and I think that needs more work. Look for version 2.0 please!!!!!!! [:)]

Thanks for your feedback!



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (6/9/2018 9:06:25 PM)

Found a huge problem with the scoring! Have a major update almost ready, version 2.0 Want to play it another time or two before I release for more playtesting. Most of the above has been addressed, but not totally how indicated. Ground forces are now just artillery and ADA with a No Navigation Zone for ground forces. Initial aircraft load outs are more logical now and if you don't get the IRBMs by day two your bases may be struck.



NMDanny -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (7/13/2018 3:55:02 PM)

I played a couple of game hours of this scenario, unfortunately it runs very slow on my laptop but here's my feedback:

- At some point, Russia became hostile to me for a reason I don't understand, maybe my ships were getting too close to their fleet.. Anyway I deleted their faction as I have no interest in fighting a S-400 battery or their very strong destroyers. The naval combat seems pointless anyway (I could easily destroy those Syrian missile boats either with my ships or with an airstrike if I really wanted to..), and probably hurts performance.

- Having IAF units scattered around Israel, while realistic, feels a bit tedious from a gameplay standpoint, especially because of the sluggish gameplay(long flight times). Since the narrative is that Israel initiates the attacks, it would make sense for them to station more jets closer to battle(Ramat David) - maybe a couple of F-16I's and Apache helicopters?

- Various useless buildings that just clutter the game and/or hurt performance. e.g, SAMs, Radars, naval bases in central/southern Israel, nuclear base/TELs (it's not like a scud has any chance of accurately hitting those..)
Many parts of Syria can probably be omitted since they're not relevant to the battle.

- Useless units that clutter the airbase unit selection, e.g jets on maintenance, test flight(Manat) jets like Mig-23/29, Blk 30 falcons, Cobras(out of service). At the very least, move the maintenance jets to the bottom of each list.

- Maybe I haven't played enough, but I haven't seen a single Syrian/Hezbollah shell or rocket fired at me.. I did witness many attack sorties by Syrian aircraft on my units though, which was a fair challenge considering my few expensive SAMs.


Overall I think it's a good scenario if not for performance issues.



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (7/13/2018 10:16:46 PM)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to look at this one as a learning experience and withdraw it. [X(] Might do a redesign for the future. Thanks again.



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (7/18/2018 2:24:03 AM)

Working on a major revamp/Version 3.0 will only cover air and missile war. All Naval units removed and all ground units not Sensor, SAM or SSM. Some air fields have been changed to single unit airfields and all attack helios are removed. That should help take care of the slowdown. Took many but not all of your suggestions. I feel the Russians need to be in the scenario and coordinating the IAF strike from their home fields is part of the challenge IMHO.



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (7/20/2018 1:44:58 PM)

NMDanny, Corrected/utilized a lot of what you suggested. I balanced a lot of you comments between game vs. simulation. So I took a lot of your comments and removed a lot of units. But left a lot of things as I feel they would really be. In any case I think it should perform better now. See download above for Version 3.0 if you want to give the new version a whirl. Thanks for your help.



morphin -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (1/19/2019 2:20:12 PM)

Every Magazine on every Airfield is emtpy???? Is this ok?

Andy



morphin -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (1/19/2019 2:26:54 PM)

ok. the version in the community scenario pack seems not o.k I have downloaded from here and everything is fine (i see magazins loadouts)

Andy



BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Playtesting: the Hanukkah War of 2018 (1/19/2019 4:09:41 PM)

It sounds to me like the INI File and the Delta file were not applied in the community pack.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625