Submitted: Nicaragua Missile Crisis, 2021 (Full Version)

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



Message

BeirutDude -> Submitted: Nicaragua Missile Crisis, 2021 (8/14/2021 12:29:25 AM)

Submitted most recent file is in the Community Scenarios Folder now

Thanks!

Between 2021 and 2024 the PRC courts Nicaraguan Dictator Daniel Ortega, first building two air bases and a port facility and finally deploying between 12 and 24 Transporter Erector Launchers (TELs) with nuclear tipped missiles to the country. The American President gives the PRC an ultimatum for their removal and the clock has been turned back 61 years...

Please read all of the games notes, I know they are extensive, but this could be the most intricate and complex scenario I have designed to date. I believe this one will be very difficult for the human player. Make sure the Special Messages Pop Up is activated.

I appreciate your feedback, so please give me some input on how this scenario can be improved...



gregb41352 -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/14/2021 12:32:57 AM)

Your scenarios are always a blast Beirutdude.
Thanks for making it.



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/14/2021 12:34:50 AM)

I hope you enjoy it.



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/14/2021 12:25:20 PM)

Opening moves, tanker missions/AEW and AAW escort missions deploying...

[image]local://upfiles/44561/9A0AA628C8E54CA2B8E7EEAB5CEE599B.jpg[/image]



Fido81 -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/14/2021 10:20:37 PM)

Setup
I noticed that Surge was turned off but available for the player to turn on. I recommend either setting it to on from the start, or mentioning this in the description/briefing.

I was somewhat surprised to see F-35As at a Naval Air Station (NAS Kingsville).

I enjoyed the inclusion of some US units I don't see much in scenarios - the E-4, AC-130 variants, and RC-135S were a treat to see in action!

Purely as a matter of personal preference (not a critique of the scenario design), I'm not a fan of tracking hosted units in AFB names - I do that in a spreadsheet or word document, so I removed them from the airport names.

Playthrough
I stumbled into the SSN during the period of rising tension, about 8 miles away from the carrier and heading in the other direction. I started tailing it with the Alexandria, and taking it out was the first thing accomplished after the ultimatum expired. 4 ADCAPs might've been overkill, but it had stumbled closer to the carrier than I'd have liked. I don't believe the Alexandria was ever counterdetected. This set the stage for my playthrough, with lots of micromanagement during the successful strikes (and not enough during the failures).

I tried a squadron-sized SEAD strike which, due to a lack of micromanagement, suffered approximately 90% attrition.

CSG-9 threw its entire TLAM-C loadout against a Chinese airbase on the west coast, and inadvertently neutralized the majority of the Badger threat that I hadn't even known about.

AFGSC led a large cruise missile strike on unidentified mobile targets. It wasn't so coordinated as it should have been, and many expensive missiles were attrited, but it was respectably successful. Between all the JASSMs and TACTOMs, the majority of the targets were neutralized.

My score with 31 hours left to go (and after the UTC time when I had expected a strike to be launched) was 31275, which was 50% more than the threshold for a Triumph, so I called it.

Questions
During the rising tension, I noticed that the TEZ radius was not defined until it was violated. Was this intentional?

Does destroying the IRBM facility have any impact on the nuclear strikes that come if the launchers were not destroyed?

It wasn't clear to me how to treat the Nicaraguan forces - should they be considered hostile or not? Explicit guidance on this in the briefing or an EAM might be helpful. I wound up attacking them anyways because I assumed their radars were integrated with the PRC's IADS, but realized after the fact that it might have been a mistake.

What's the role of Puerto Corinto in the scenario?

Is there a reason there's no biologics off the east coast?

Guidance about the diplomatic stances of Mexico, Honduras, Belize, and Guatemala would be helpful - is it permitted for aircraft or munitions to overfly them?

Impressions
This is a very interesting scenario - it's got elements of Gulf War style SEAD/DEAD and Scud hunting, with a very condensed timeframe.

It takes advantage of airframes in the database that I think are underappreciated.

The world-building is fantastic - among the best of any standalone scenario I've played.

The unlimited munitions enabled me to throw many (probably an unrealistically large amount of) very advanced cruise missiles at the targets, and eventually the defense ran out of ammunition, since SAMs don't get unlimited magazines from the scenario feature. I think the difficulty of the scenario would increase significantly (and appropriately) if loadouts were more limited and/or if the defense had more reloads. I'd suggest mobile ammunition trucks, not increased magazine depth in the SAM units themselves, to allow the player to create a hole in the IADS.

I would play this version again as a sandbox, and am eager to play through any future revisions you care to make. Thanks for making and sharing an excellent scenario!

Losses & Expenditures
SIDE: China
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
16x H-6G Badger [H-6M]
12x J-10C Vigorous Dragon
15x J-11B Flanker B [Su-27SK Copy]
5x J-20B Mighty Dragon
22x A/C Hangar (4x Very Large Aircraft)
1x Building (Medium)
1x Bunker (Comm Center)
1x Bunker (Missile Alert Facility (MAF))
1x Radar (China JY-14 Great Wall)
1x Radar (China Type 120 [JY-29/LSS-1 Mod])
1x Radar (China YLC-2V Mod [Type 305B])
1x Radar (China YLC-2V)
1x 30mm China LD-2000 [Type 730] [Cargo]
8x 35mm/90 PGZ-07 SPAAG [Cargo]
15x DF-100 [Nuclear] TEL [Cargo]
12x HQ-16A [LY-80] TEL [Cargo]
3x HQ-22 TEL [Cargo]
9x HQ-64 TEL [Aspide, LY-60] [Cargo]
2x HQ-9B TEL [Cargo]
3x Vehicle (China HQ-64 Illuminator) [Cargo]
3x Vehicle (HQ-16 FCR) [Cargo]
1x Type 093 Shang


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
2x Generic Acoustic Decoy
142x PL-15
9x PL-10
18x 30mm China H/PJ-12 [Type 730, 240 rnds]
54x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
22x 23mm Type 23-3 Burst [40 rnds]
1x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
4x 1700 liter Drop Tank
1x 800 liter Drop Tank
90x HQ-12
32x SA-20b Gargoyle [48N6E2]
43x HQ-16A [SA-17 Semi-Copy]
14x 30mm Gsh-30-1 Burst [30 rnds]
40x HQ-9B
66x HQ-64 [Aspide, LY-60N]
28x HQ-22
142x 35mm/90 Twin Type-90 Burst [20 rnds, China Type 902 FC]



SIDE: CONUS Aimpoints
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------



SIDE: Nicaragua
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
11x J-7C Fishbed [MiG-21 Copy]
15x J-8F Finback B [J-8II]
3x Radar (Bar Lock A [P-37])
3x Radar (China HN-401R)
3x Radar (China HN-503)
2x Radar (China JY-8 Wall Rust)
1x Radar (China JY-8A Wall Rust)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
20x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
20x 30mm Type 30-1 x 2 Burst [30 rnds]
1x PL-8B [Python 3]
11x PL-12
5x 23mm Type 23-3 Burst [40 rnds]



SIDE: United States
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
3x B-1B Lancer
2x B-52H Stratofortress
1x F/A-18E Super Hornet Blk III
9x F/A-18F Super Hornet Blk III
1x F-35A Lightning II
4x F-35C Lightning II


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
173x AN/SSQ-62E DICASS
212x AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR
63x AN/SSQ-77B VLAD
4x Mk48 Mod 7 ADCAP CBASS
23x AGM-158B JASSM-ER [O-EMP]
15x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
8x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
66x RGM-109C Tomahawk Blk III TLAM-C
92x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
25x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
4x AN/ALE-55 FOTD
103x RGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
1x AIM-9X Sidewinder
8x AGM-154A JSOW [145 x BLU-97/B Dual Purpose]
6x AGM-88E AARGM
3x 480 USG Drop Tank
2x 330 USG CFT
1x AN/ALE-50 [RT-1646/ALE]
1x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
8x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IB
2x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA
88x ADM-160C MALD-J [Stand-In OECM]
44x AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA
1x AN/ALE-70 FOTD
5x AN/ALE-70(V)/T-1687 Expendable Decoy
132x AGM-158A JASSM [Penetrator]
24x AGM-158C LRASM
34x AGM-158B JASSM-ER
24x CBU-105 WCMD [CBU-97/B SFW, 10 x BLU-108/B Anti-Tank Bomblets]
40x GBU-39/B SDB



SIDE: Biologics
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------

EDIT: Possible Improvements
- Make the road-mobile IRBMs mobile (put them on a support mission along their route and add them to the strike mission to fire them)
- Communications jamming with EA-18s (implementable with Lua)
- Give the C-2s something to do
- Based on the diplomatic situation, consider adding basing in Panama (even if only for VTOL)
- Consider adding satellites. I haven't needed to do any ABM work in this scenario yet, but would a MASINT satellite or two be helpful?
- Consider adding UAVs beyond the AAR ones embarked on CSG-12 (Personally I like the idea of an RQ-180 or RQ-4 or two because I think the player is a bit short on dedicated recce assets)
- Civilian/neutral nation air traffic/shipping



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 12:16:03 AM)

Thanks for the play though and suggestions! Edited, as the original message was accidently posted before I finished ad QCed it.

quote:

Setup
I noticed that Surge was turned off but available for the player to turn on. I recommend either setting it to on from the start, or mentioning this in the description/briefing.


I have to check on that when I get back into the scenario, I played with using sustained ops and maybe didn't turn surge back on. Thanks.

quote:

I was somewhat surprised to see F-35As at a Naval Air Station (NAS Kingsville).


I thought I had covered this in the Game Notes? Units were staging to the Gulf coast for days prior to the scenario starting. Have to check. Thanks.

quote:

I enjoyed the inclusion of some US units I don't see much in scenarios - the E-4, AC-130 variants, and RC-135S were a treat to see in action!


Yeah I had fun putting them in. Especially the E-4Bs.

quote:

Purely as a matter of personal preference (not a critique of the scenario design), I'm not a fan of tracking hosted units in AFB names - I do that in a spreadsheet or word document, so I removed them from the airport names.


Well just did this as a player aide. Not sure everyone follows with a spreadsheet as you do, so given the base density I figured it would help. Did the same in the Libyan War, 1986 and folks seemed to have liked it.

Playthrough
quote:

I stumbled into the SSN during the period of rising tension, about 8 miles away from the carrier and heading in the other direction. I started tailing it with the Alexandria, and taking it out was the first thing accomplished after the ultimatum expired. 4 ADCAPs might've been overkill, but it had stumbled closer to the carrier than I'd have liked. I don't believe the Alexandria was ever counterdetected. This set the stage for my playthrough, with lots of micromanagement during the successful strikes (and not enough during the failures).


Glad you reported the SSN as being there, as it only has a 50% chance of appearance. So gald it showed up

quote:

I tried a squadron-sized SEAD strike which, due to a lack of micromanagement, suffered approximately 90% attrition.


I tried for a layered IADS so that sounds successful.

quote:

CSG-9 threw its entire TLAM-C loadout against a Chinese airbase on the west coast, and inadvertently neutralized the majority of the Badger threat that I hadn't even known about.


I wondered if that would happen. That happened in a playthrough I did as well. I'll tweak the Badger strike a bit, maybe increase the strike distance.

quote:

AFGSC led a large cruise missile strike on unidentified mobile targets. It wasn't so coordinated as it should have been, and many expensive missiles were attrited, but it was respectably successful. Between all the JASSMs and TACTOMs, the majority of the targets were neutralized.


Yeah, this is why I was playing with sustained ops. I think I'm going to have to load the magazines and loose the unlimited magazines.

quote:

My score with 31 hours left to go (and after the UTC time when I had expected a strike to be launched) was 31275, which was 50% more than the threshold for a Triumph, so I called it.


There were still a few PLA(RF) TELs left that might have launched their DF-100s.

Questions
quote:

During the rising tension, I noticed that the TEZ radius was not defined until it was violated. Was this intentional?


The radius was defined in pop up messages both from POTUS and the Chinese Ambassador within the first hour of game play. Did you not get the popups?

quote:

Does destroying the IRBM facility have any impact on the nuclear strikes that come if the launchers were not destroyed?


No, their just additional VPs. The main points are the TELs

quote:

It wasn't clear to me how to treat the Nicaraguan forces - should they be considered hostile or not? Explicit guidance on this in the briefing or an EAM might be helpful. I wound up attacking them anyways because I assumed their radars were integrated with the PRC's IADS, but realized after the fact that it might have been a mistake.


No in either the briefing or one of the messages I do state the Nicaraguan and PLA have an integrated AD system. The Nicaraguans should have attacked you. They're pretty weak so you might just not have noticed them. Their bases and units aren't worth any points, their just the little guys in the way of the Titans.

quote:

What's the role of Puerto Corinto in the scenario?


It is the homeport for the PLA subs and is a target to be destroyed, worth VPs.

quote:

Is there a reason there's no biologics off the east coast?


Yes there are no hostile subs in the Atlantic thus why add extra units to slow things down on weaker machines. That's also why CSG-12 doesn't have any MH-60Rs on the aircraft carrier.

quote:

Guidance about the diplomatic stances of Mexico, Honduras, Belize, and Guatemala would be helpful - is it permitted for aircraft or munitions to overfly them?


So I kind of just assumed if there wasn't a no fly zone, it was fair game to the players to overfly. You make a fair point, commanders should have some guidance on this. I can add a message or section in the scenario notes for this.

Impressions
quote:

This is a very interesting scenario - it's got elements of Gulf War style SEAD/DEAD and Scud hunting, with a very condensed timeframe.

It takes advantage of airframes in the database that I think are underappreciated.

The world-building is fantastic - among the best of any standalone scenario I've played.


Thank you, much appreciated.

quote:

The unlimited munitions enabled me to throw many (probably an unrealistically large amount of) very advanced cruise missiles at the targets, and eventually the defense ran out of ammunition, since SAMs don't get unlimited magazines from the scenario feature.


Yeah, something I already considered the unlimited magazines have to go.

quote:

I think the difficulty of the scenario would increase significantly (and appropriately) if loadouts were more limited and/or if the defense had more reloads.


Agreed the U.S. needs to be more limited.

quote:

I'd suggest mobile ammunition trucks, not increased magazine depth in the SAM units themselves, to allow the player to create a hole in the IADS.


I'm not sure that works. I did something like that once in the original Command version and the units didn't see the extra loadouts. I think they have to be in the magazines for the launchers to see them. So what you suggest might have to be a Lua script, and this one is petty heavy in Lua scripting now. I am not a Lua coder, that is for sure!

quote:

I would play this version again as a sandbox, and am eager to play through any future revisions you care to make. Thanks for making and sharing an excellent scenario!


Thank you

Losses & Expenditures
SIDE: China
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
16x H-6G Badger [H-6M]
12x J-10C Vigorous Dragon
15x J-11B Flanker B [Su-27SK Copy]
5x J-20B Mighty Dragon
22x A/C Hangar (4x Very Large Aircraft)
1x Building (Medium)
1x Bunker (Comm Center)
1x Bunker (Missile Alert Facility (MAF))
1x Radar (China JY-14 Great Wall)
1x Radar (China Type 120 [JY-29/LSS-1 Mod])
1x Radar (China YLC-2V Mod [Type 305B])
1x Radar (China YLC-2V)
1x 30mm China LD-2000 [Type 730] [Cargo]
8x 35mm/90 PGZ-07 SPAAG [Cargo]
15x DF-100 [Nuclear] TEL [Cargo]
12x HQ-16A [LY-80] TEL [Cargo]
3x HQ-22 TEL [Cargo]
9x HQ-64 TEL [Aspide, LY-60] [Cargo]
2x HQ-9B TEL [Cargo]
3x Vehicle (China HQ-64 Illuminator) [Cargo]
3x Vehicle (HQ-16 FCR) [Cargo]
1x Type 093 Shang


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
2x Generic Acoustic Decoy
142x PL-15
9x PL-10
18x 30mm China H/PJ-12 [Type 730, 240 rnds]
54x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
22x 23mm Type 23-3 Burst [40 rnds]
1x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
4x 1700 liter Drop Tank
1x 800 liter Drop Tank
90x HQ-12
32x SA-20b Gargoyle [48N6E2]
43x HQ-16A [SA-17 Semi-Copy]
14x 30mm Gsh-30-1 Burst [30 rnds]
40x HQ-9B
66x HQ-64 [Aspide, LY-60N]
28x HQ-22
142x 35mm/90 Twin Type-90 Burst [20 rnds, China Type 902 FC]



SIDE: CONUS Aimpoints
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------



SIDE: Nicaragua
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
11x J-7C Fishbed [MiG-21 Copy]
15x J-8F Finback B [J-8II]
3x Radar (Bar Lock A [P-37])
3x Radar (China HN-401R)
3x Radar (China HN-503)
2x Radar (China JY-8 Wall Rust)
1x Radar (China JY-8A Wall Rust)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
20x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
20x 30mm Type 30-1 x 2 Burst [30 rnds]
1x PL-8B [Python 3]
11x PL-12
5x 23mm Type 23-3 Burst [40 rnds]



SIDE: United States
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
3x B-1B Lancer
2x B-52H Stratofortress
1x F/A-18E Super Hornet Blk III
9x F/A-18F Super Hornet Blk III
1x F-35A Lightning II
4x F-35C Lightning II


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
173x AN/SSQ-62E DICASS
212x AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR
63x AN/SSQ-77B VLAD
4x Mk48 Mod 7 ADCAP CBASS
23x AGM-158B JASSM-ER [O-EMP]
15x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
8x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
66x RGM-109C Tomahawk Blk III TLAM-C
92x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
25x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
4x AN/ALE-55 FOTD
103x RGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
1x AIM-9X Sidewinder
8x AGM-154A JSOW [145 x BLU-97/B Dual Purpose]
6x AGM-88E AARGM
3x 480 USG Drop Tank
2x 330 USG CFT
1x AN/ALE-50 [RT-1646/ALE]
1x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
8x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IB
2x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA
88x ADM-160C MALD-J [Stand-In OECM]
44x AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA
1x AN/ALE-70 FOTD
5x AN/ALE-70(V)/T-1687 Expendable Decoy
132x AGM-158A JASSM [Penetrator]
24x AGM-158C LRASM
34x AGM-158B JASSM-ER
24x CBU-105 WCMD [CBU-97/B SFW, 10 x BLU-108/B Anti-Tank Bomblets]
40x GBU-39/B SDB



SIDE: Biologics
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------

EDIT: Possible Improvements
quote:

- Make the road-mobile IRBMs mobile (put them on a support mission along their route and add them to the strike mission to fire them)


I thought about that, at this point though I think it would mess up the scripting in the events.
.
quote:

- Communications jamming with EA-18s (implementable with Lua)


I think it is heavily weighted in favor of the U.S. right now, so not sure about doing this. Also, did I mention I'm not a Lua coder? [:D]

quote:

- Give the C-2s something to do


This is up to the players. I usually give them a 2 ton loadout and use them for maritime patrol myself.

quote:

- Based on the diplomatic situation, consider adding basing in Panama (even if only for VTOL)


Again I considered Kingston Jamaica, Costa Rica and Panama for U.S. bases, but wanted to give the AI a fighting chance. Coming at it from all directions would, IMHO, really overwhelm things. Also one thing a learned about scenario design is you have to stop somewhere! [:D]

quote:

- Consider adding satellites. I haven't needed to do any ABM work in this scenario yet, but would a MASINT satellite or two be helpful?


That was one reason why the Tropical Depression is in the scenario with the heavy rainfall to limit satellites. I love and hate them, they are great for realism and surveillance, but they slooooooooow the game down at time. I might add a few as it seems to be unrealistic to not have them. Optical should be useless with the weather though.

quote:

- Consider adding UAVs beyond the AAR ones embarked on CSG-12 (Personally I like the idea of an RQ-180 or RQ-4 or two because I think the player is a bit short on dedicated recce assets)


Yes!!! I was going to add some at Key West Intl and forgot! Thanks. [:(]

quote:

- Civilian/neutral nation air traffic/shipping


This comes under the scenario design aspect of "does it really add to the scenario?" If there were PLA(N) surface units (and I considered some missile boats at the port) I'd add fishing boats/merchants, but does it really add to the main goal, which is an air/missile campaign over Central America. Given a crisis of this magnitude most civilian air traffic would have avoided the area, as would most merchants. So I see this as a drag on computer resources for little gain. My laptop is pretty much a beast and I configured it for Command, but there are folk playing on machines that this would slow waaaaaaaay down.



Fido81 -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 12:49:40 AM)

If I didn't catch 'em all, I'd better get going on that replay.

You did call out the F-35As specifically - that's my bad.

Maritime patrol is an intriguing use for the C-2s that I hadn't considered.

The Nicaraguans did attack - I just wasn't sure whether that was because I'd done something wrong or not.

I got the pop-up from the diplomat that specifies the ADIZ is 400 nm, and while a TEZ is mentioned, no radius is defined in the message.

I happen to agree adding limited magazines to the US is probably the better way to restore balance to the forces. C:MO now allows UNREP of ground units (https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=4982). I've checked it out today manually, but I haven't yet tried to implement it for a computer-controlled side.



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 12:55:28 AM)

Hmmmmm Surge was on when I went to edit it. I wonder if I messed up and put the test version up? I had one version and that was all I did to us was turn off surge, so it doesn't sound like it impacted the playtest above as Fido81 turned it on.

I did a bit of tweaking to the description and I bumped up the Triumph to 30,000 vp so far.



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 1:14:04 AM)

quote:

If I didn't catch 'em all, I'd better get going on that replay.


Well wait until I tweak the Mags! [:D]

quote:

You did call out the F-35As specifically - that's my bad.


I did but there is a LOT in this description. One of the largest I've ever done.

quote:

Maritime patrol is an intriguing use for the C-2s that I hadn't considered.


So when I was stationed at NAS Cecil Field I used to fly out with the COD (the old one based on the S-1 Tracker airframe) and when we were airborne they would let me take the left seat in the cockpit. We did some spotting of Cuban refuges in the Florida Staits at time. So I just do it based on personal experience.

quote:

The Nicaraguans did attack - I just wasn't sure whether that was because I'd done something wrong or not.


So I just beefed up the wording on that. If it confused you , others would be confused and sometimes as a designer you make assumptions that just aren't right.

quote:

I got the pop-up from the diplomat that specifies the ADIZ is 400 nm, and while a TEZ is mentioned, no radius is defined in the message.


Roger that. See assumptions above. The POTUS message states 260nm and maybe I just assumed. I have already addressed that in the notes for the same reason given above. It's good feedback, and I've addressed it for the next version.

quote:

I happen to agree adding limited magazines to the US is probably the better way to restore balance to the forces. C:MO now allows UNREP of ground units (https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=4982). I've checked it out today manually, but I haven't yet tried to implement it for a computer-controlled side.


Yeah, I knew this was a problem, I even started to tweak the magazines two nights ago and then decided to put the scenario out and see what happens. You confirmed what I already knew. Also there a nukes in the unlimited loadouts that the USAF doesn't use anymore. Going to take me about a week to tweak that. I'm going to take the scenario down and repost it when I have more tweaks done. Thanks for the help!!!!! Much appreciated!



Kushan04 -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 1:21:14 AM)

I'm still in the setup phase...haven't even hit start yet.

Love the world building you've done here. I'm going to assume any country that doesn't have a NFZ (Mexico, Belize, Panama, etc.) have authorized me to fly over.

Not that the scenario needs more units but perhaps add a few E-6Bs over CONUS. Already have NAOC and AF1, might as well have E-6s as well. You already have two of the bases where they fly out of (Tinker and Offut). Could add Patuxent River NAS as well but as you said have to stop adding bases at some point.

You mention in the description to leave the Air Force One mission intact. To avoid players messing with it, you could move AF1, E-4, and E-6s (if they are added) and the AF1 support tankers to their own allied side. That will still have the world building of them being present, but the player unable to mess with them.

Are the Patriot Btys meant for AD or for ABM? If they are meant for ABM perhaps replace them with THAAD?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
quote:

Purely as a matter of personal preference (not a critique of the scenario design), I'm not a fan of tracking hosted units in AFB names - I do that in a spreadsheet or word document, so I removed them from the airport names.


Well just did this as a player aide. Not sure everyone follows with a spreadsheet as you do, so given the base density I figured it would help. Did the same in the Libyan War, 1986 and folks seemed to have liked it.


I'm not a fan of unit names in the base name either.



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 1:31:57 AM)

quote:

Love the world building you've done here. I'm going to assume any country that doesn't have a NFZ (Mexico, Belize, Panama, etc.) have authorized me to fly over.


Thank you and yes. I will address the counties/diplomatic situation either in the notes or side briefing.

quote:

Not that the scenario needs more units but perhaps add a few E-6Bs over CONUS. Already have NAOC and AF1, might as well have E-6s as well. You already have two of the bases where they fly out of (Tinker and Offut). Could add Patuxent River NAS as well but as you said have to stop adding bases at some point.


Sure, I actually considered that but didn't as there weren't any Trident SSBNs. But yeah why not. There was an SSBN in my first version, it was a short nuclear war!!!! [:D]

quote:

You mention in the description to leave the Air Force One mission intact. To avoid players messing with it, you could move AF1, E-4, and E-6s (if they are added) and the AF1 support tankers to their own allied side. That will still have the world building of them being present, but the player unable to mess with them.


Good idea! I like it!!!!!

quote:

Are the Patriot Btys meant for AD or for ABM? If they are meant for ABM perhaps replace them with THAAD?


THAADs won't fire against the type of missile in Nicaragua (doesn't fly high enough). They were in there but were useless (other than as a tracking radar). So the Patriots are in an ABM role.

As to the names OK you've convinced me. I will remove the aircraft type from the base names.

Might I suggest you wait to play until I've tweaked the magazines?



Kushan04 -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 2:56:16 AM)

E-6Bs are also used to control the USAF nuclear forces. When the USAF retired its Looking Glass aircraft, the E-6Bs took up the role for them as well as the navy Trident submarines.

I just checked its actually the other way around. The DF-100s are a cruise missile, they fly way lower then THAAD can intercept at. THAAD is used for high altitude, Patriot for lower altitudes.

Are the positions of the missile launchers, and other Chinese units, randomized?



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 4:03:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kushan04

E-6Bs are also used to control the USAF nuclear forces. When the USAF retired its Looking Glass aircraft, the E-6Bs took up the role for them as well as the navy Trident submarines.


I did not realize that. I thought the E-4Bs had taken over the "Looking Glass" role. Thanks! Issue is Can you load an allied aircraft on a Friendly base? I made Command Aircraft its own side. I am going to try to place them on Offutt but if not I made Joint Base Andrews as Command Aircraft side base. So I can base them there but prefer the E-6Bs to be at Offutt.

quote:

I just checked its actually the other way around. The DF-100s are a cruise missile, they fly way lower then THAAD can intercept at. THAAD is used for high altitude, Patriot for lower altitudes.


Let me clarify my statement...

"THAADs won't fire against the type of missile in Nicaragua (the DF-100 doesn't fly high enough for THAAD to engage). They were in there but were useless (other than as a tracking radar). So the Patriots are in an ABM role."

I was tired and made an assumption my remarks were clear. Also I was typing in a very cramped and noisy environment, hard to concentrate. We were making the same point differently.


quote:

Are the positions of the missile launchers, and other Chinese units, randomized?


NO!!!!

Now here is why...
I am always very careful in my scenario unit placement to ensure a unit CAN ACTUALLY GET TO ITS LOCATION! I am sometimes driven crazy by designers who do things like placing a mobile Cheese Board radar at the top of a sheer cliff with no roads leading there, because it is the highest place and radars work better there! How did it get there? last time I looked we didn't have real world teleportation yet.

Ok, what does that have to do with this scenario? TELs, SAMs and Mobile Radars are IFR (I Follow Roads [:D] ) and in this area there aren't many roads that can support those units. I considered teleporting for randomization, but those teleports would need to be along the very sparse road network to follow my rule above, so it just didn't make sense. Instead I took the approach I believe a real commander would take for deployment and the TELs and their IADS protection are dispersed along the main highways that could support them. This is one reason why I made the weather so bad to make recon more challenging. There is another aspect to this, in the real world Intel is looking for units where they are likely to be. So I feel it is very realistic for them to dispersed along the highways so no single TEL is close enough to the others to be hit by a single aircraft conventionally (maybe a nuke could get two or so, but I tried to take that into account as well).

Al





Selchu -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 5:02:55 PM)

Bugger. Saw this last night and was planning to download today but was late to the party. Dude I await your rereleased version!



Kushan04 -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 5:23:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
Thanks! Issue is Can you load an allied aircraft on a Friendly base? I made Command Aircraft its own side. I am going to try to place them on Offutt but if not I made Joint Base Andrews as Command Aircraft side base. So I can base them there but prefer the E-6Bs to be at Offutt.[/color]


Yes, you can base allied aircraft at another allies base. I had the same setup in EDC. The USN carrier groups are on an allied but unplayable side, but the aircraft on them are on the players side.



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 8:50:50 PM)

quote:

Yes, you can base allied aircraft at another allies base. I had the same setup in EDC. The USN carrier groups are on an allied but unplayable side, but the aircraft on them are on the players side.


I got it. Originally I was having issues because I didn't realize the Command Aircraft had a "Neutral" posture to the United States. Soon as I adjusted it to "Friendly" it was fine.



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 8:52:15 PM)

quote:

Bugger. Saw this last night and was planning to download today but was late to the party. Dude I await your rereleased version!


It will be better without the unlimited magazines. Like I said, I knew it was a mistake but still had to try it.



Selchu -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 9:39:28 PM)

I'll take a shot at it with or without lol.



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/15/2021 10:53:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Selchu

I'll take a shot at it with or without lol.


Actually I'm making some pretty good progress. All of the Magazines have been loaded out thanks to a rainy day. Going to look them over again and make sure there aren't too many PGMs. But the great wave of JASSMs will be greatly reduced.

I thought about reducing the number of TLAMs but this close to the CONUS, with all of the ships they could be stripped from let alone the shore based depots/magazines, I don't find the current number to be inaccurate.

Added SIGINT/radar satellites (a few optical as well, but they shouldn't work with the cloud cover). Hope they don't slow things down too much.

I was toying with adding some bases in Mexico earlier on and Fido81's comments prompted me to do what I was considering adding two USAF recon drone bases in Mexico, one for each coast. I don't think we would forward deploy much more than that. maybe I might throw station tankers down there.

Tweaking the wording the the descriptions and looking at adding some more EAMs.

"Command Aircraft" are now their own side "Friendly" to the Human player per Kushan04's suggestion. So you just don't control the strategic assets.

Aircraft type(s) removed from airbase names.

Now I know I have used EMP weapons before but weren't they removed nd only in the Professional version now?

Tweaked scoring so a Triumph is now 40,000 VPs.

Added 8 EC-130H Compass Call aircraft (Cecil Airport Jacksonville and Dallas/Fort Worth). Part of the staging of assets to the Gulf coast/southern states.





Fido81 -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/16/2021 1:16:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude



Now I know I have used EMP weapons before but weren't they removed nd only in the Professional version now?





I believe omnidirectional EMPs are usable by everybody, high altitude nuclear explosion EMPs are usable by everybody (but not the player in this scenario because they have no ballistic missiles), and directional EMPs are Pro only.



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/16/2021 3:59:42 PM)

quote:

C:MO now allows UNREP of ground units (https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=4982). I've checked it out today manually, but I haven't yet tried to implement it for a computer-controlled side.


I missed that. Thanks. I think I'm leaving the extra rounds in the magazines with the idea the PLA would have had time to build bunkers/revetments in planned the deployment areas for the SAMs. That said, this dovetails nicely with another scenario Idea I have...



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/16/2021 4:01:33 PM)

quote:

I believe omnidirectional EMPs are usable by everybody, high altitude nuclear explosion EMPs are usable by everybody (but not the player in this scenario because they have no ballistic missiles), and directional EMPs are Pro only.


Thanks, I can never remember which we can use as I want to zero out the unusable (Directional EMP) weapons so no one loads them accidently.



BDukes -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/16/2021 5:45:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

quote:

I believe omnidirectional EMPs are usable by everybody, high altitude nuclear explosion EMPs are usable by everybody (but not the player in this scenario because they have no ballistic missiles), and directional EMPs are Pro only.


Thanks, I can never remember which we can use as I want to zero out the unusable (Directional EMP) weapons so no one loads them accidently.


Weird. Its just an arc[:)]


Mike



BeirutDude -> PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-16-2021) (8/16/2021 11:34:40 PM)

NEWER VERSION BELOW AS OF 08-30-2021

All the magazines are now loaded out!

All of the changes above have been made. Clarified some of the points made in the suggestions (size of Exclusion zone, Nicaragua's status, etc.). Thanks for the suggestions so far, keep them coming. We might not always agree, but I do try to listen. Sometimes like with the names of the bases I can be swayed by popular opinion! [:D]



Kushan04 -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/17/2021 2:13:03 AM)

Downloaded. With temperatures back to normal I might actually get to play games this week.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
quote:

Are the positions of the missile launchers, and other Chinese units, randomized?


NO!!!!

Now here is why...
I am always very careful in my scenario unit placement to ensure a unit CAN ACTUALLY GET TO ITS LOCATION! I am sometimes driven crazy by designers who do things like placing a mobile Cheese Board radar at the top of a sheer cliff with no roads leading there, because it is the highest place and radars work better there! How did it get there? last time I looked we didn't have real world teleportation yet.

Ok, what does that have to do with this scenario? TELs, SAMs and Mobile Radars are IFR (I Follow Roads [:D] ) and in this area there aren't many roads that can support those units. I considered teleporting for randomization, but those teleports would need to be along the very sparse road network to follow my rule above, so it just didn't make sense. Instead I took the approach I believe a real commander would take for deployment and the TELs and their IADS protection are dispersed along the main highways that could support them. This is one reason why I made the weather so bad to make recon more challenging. There is another aspect to this, in the real world Intel is looking for units where they are likely to be. So I feel it is very realistic for them to dispersed along the highways so no single TEL is close enough to the others to be hit by a single aircraft conventionally (maybe a nuke could get two or so, but I tried to take that into account as well).


That wasn't meant as a criticism. Was asking for planning on subsequent play throughs.

I agree with your reasoning. If these were Scuds in the Iraqi desert then I think not randomizing would be a missed opportunity. But in the jungle like this is set in, with limited roads, not randomizing makes perfect sense.

As for units being on top of mountains, where there's a will (or a commissar with pistol) there's a way.



BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-13-2021) (8/17/2021 2:46:25 PM)

quote:

That wasn't meant as a criticism. Was asking for planning on subsequent play throughs.


So I didn't take it as a criticism, but it (obviously) did touch an issue for me.

quote:

I agree with your reasoning. If these were Scuds in the Iraqi desert then I think not randomizing would be a missed opportunity. But in the jungle like this is set in, with limited roads, not randomizing makes perfect sense.


Yeah, probably another reason i reacted so strongly is this was something I struggled with game play vs. realism. That is why I tried to add so many other features that would add to it, like bad weather, and restricted recon before the attacks. Also players can play with different loadouts for additional replay value. I may do one if the desert with the TELs teleporting! Iran maybe? Pakistan? Libya in the 1990s with the good Colonel having gotten both nukes and some Scuds might be fun!

quote:

As for units being on top of mountains, where there's a will (or a commissar with pistol) there's a way.


Well maybe I think too much like an American [:D] Yes, military history is replete with forces doing the unexpected or "impossible" (Torpedoes at a "too shallow" Pearl Harbor). On this, yes I can see some of the older radars helioed to the top, I can see a switchback path getting it up there. I can even see some being disassembled and taken u by pack mule and reassembled. BuT, those would be exceptions not the rule, like some designers think! Consider the USMC transportable GATOR radar, meant to be portable, and look at all that goes with it!!!!

https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/land/an-tps-80-ground-air-task-oriented-radar-g-ator/

Imagine a Cheese Board taken up there. So yes older units and some newer units, but I think folks really need to think about where they are placing MOST modern radars in ultra modern scenarios.



Selchu -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-16-2021) (8/17/2021 8:19:27 PM)

Downloaded before you change your mind.

quote:


So I didn't take it as a criticism, but it (obviously) did touch an issue for me.


Someone make this man a White Russian QUICK!



BDukes -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-16-2021) (8/17/2021 11:25:25 PM)

Excellent as usual, BD. I'm about 1/2 through will post a final tally when done. I'm a huge fan of your sandbox-type scenarios! Nice touches with the weather as well!

Ok, my nitpicks to pay the bill.

Typo in West Palm Beach Airport. I do that all the time!
CV Groups- CSG-12 CVN has no MH-60S or MH-60R helos. I know this is dressing, but C-2's should be replaced with CMV-22B.
JATM is on the CV's so its a possible loadout. Did you want that?
Numerous Squadron #'s are higher than in real life, but it's your game world.
Global Hawks are high-end strategic drones. Very pricey and won't be forward. Perhaps the Medium drones like Reapers, Avenger, etc., in Mexico?
Any chance you can plop a few reference points down after the general location message? I had to google where these locations are. (I know boo hoo!)
Lot of clicks due to so many facilities being so close to each other. I usually end up grouping as much as I can, but it would be a good playability thing.
I did give it the full salvo tomahawk test before playing for real and was able to kill known radars, tons of aircraft and shut down all runways of the big fields. A lot of different approaches to handle this issue. It is something I'm always tinkering with on my end.

Thanks again!

Mike





BDukes -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-16-2021) (8/18/2021 11:14:43 PM)

Finished- Trillion dollar victory and a lot of McFish sandwiches for us this year. VLA's a whale!Q

Scored 38700

Thanks again BD! Good time as always!

quote:


SIDE: China
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
21x H-6G Badger [H-6M]
24x J-10C Vigorous Dragon
11x J-11B Flanker B [Su-27SK Copy]
6x J-20B Mighty Dragon
4x Y-8Q Cub [GX6]
29x A/C Hangar (4x Very Large Aircraft)
34x A/C Hardened Aircraft Shelter (1x Large Aircraft)
3x A/C Underground Aircraft Shelter (4x Large Aircraft)
1x Building (Electric Sub Station)
1x Building (Large)
1x Building (Transformer)
1x Building (Very Large Leadership Compound)
1x Bunker (Comm Center)
1x Bunker (Missile Alert Facility (MAF))
1x Radar (China JY-14 Great Wall)
5x Radar (China Type 120 [JY-29/LSS-1 Mod])
3x Radar (China YLC-2V Mod [Type 305B])
2x Radar (China YLC-2V)
1x Radar (China YLC-8B)
2x Radar (HQ-16A Search Radar)
1x Structure (Generator)
1x Structure (Power Station - Gas)
1x Underground Hardened Bunker (C3M)
4x 30mm China LD-2000 [Type 730] [Cargo]
4x 35mm/90 PGZ-07 SPAAG [Cargo]
18x DF-100 [Nuclear] TEL [Cargo]
17x HQ-12 Twin Rail [Cargo]
12x HQ-16A [LY-80] TEL [Cargo]
3x HQ-22 TEL [Cargo]
10x HQ-64 TEL [Aspide, LY-60] [Cargo]
16x HQ-9B TEL [Cargo]
3x SA-16 Gimlet [9K310 Igla-1] MANPADS [Cargo]
4x SA-20b Gargoyle [5P85SE] TEL [Cargo]
1x Vehicle (Cheese Board [96L6E]) [Cargo]
1x Vehicle (China H-200 HQ-22 Mod) [Cargo]
2x Vehicle (China H-200) [Cargo]
5x Vehicle (China HQ-64 Illuminator) [Cargo]
2x Vehicle (China HT-233 [HQ-9]) [Cargo]
2x Vehicle (China YLC-2V) [Cargo]
3x Vehicle (HQ-16 FCR) [Cargo]
1x Vehicle (Tombstone [30N6E]) [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
88x HQ-16A [SA-17 Semi-Copy]
72x PL-15
11x 23mm Type 23-3 Burst [40 rnds]
14x 30mm China H/PJ-12 [Type 730, 240 rnds]
13x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
27x 30mm Gsh-30-1 Burst [30 rnds]
94x HQ-64 [Aspide, LY-60N]
32x SA-20b Gargoyle [48N6E2]
97x HQ-12
128x 35mm/90 Twin Type-90 Burst [20 rnds, China Type 902 FC]
149x HQ-9B
5x PL-10
9x HQ-22
2x YJ-12



SIDE: CONUS Aimpoints
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------



SIDE: Nicaragua
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
7x J-7C Fishbed [MiG-21 Copy]
18x J-8F Finback B [J-8II]
1x Ammo Pad
4x Radar (Bar Lock A [P-37])
4x Radar (China HN-401R)
4x Radar (China HN-503)
3x Radar (China JY-8 Wall Rust)
1x Radar (China JY-8A Wall Rust)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
38x 30mm Type 30-1 x 2 Burst [30 rnds]
10x PL-8B [Python 3]
12x PL-12
7x 23mm Type 23-3 Burst [40 rnds]
22x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]



SIDE: United States
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
3x F/A-18F Super Hornet Blk III
2x F-35A Lightning II
3x RQ-4B Global Hawk Blk 40 UAV


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
3x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA
166x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
84x RGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]
108x RGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
104x RGM-109C Tomahawk Blk III TLAM-C
6x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IB
8x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
102x RGM-109D Tomahawk Blk III TLAM-D
1x AN/ALE-50 [RT-1646/ALE]
1x RUM-139C VLA [Mk54]
1x RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB
179x GBU-53/B SDB-II
39x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
4x AN/ALE-70 FOTD
10x AN/ALE-70(V)/T-1687 Expendable Decoy
16x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
2x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Dual Spectral]
32x AGM-88E AARGM
32x AGM-154A JSOW [145 x BLU-97/B Dual Purpose]
20x GBU-31(V)4/B JDAM [BLU-109A/B]
12x AGM-154C-1 JSOW [BROACH]
2x AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA
192x AGM-158B JASSM-ER



SIDE: Biologics
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x Biologic Orcas


EXPENDITURES:
------------------



SIDE: Command Aircraft
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------






BeirutDude -> RE: PT: Nicaragua Missile Crisis (Ver 08-16-2021) (8/20/2021 10:57:04 PM)

quote:

Ok, my nitpicks to pay the bill.


Thank you!

quote:

Typo in West Palm Beach Airport. I do that all the time!


Thanks, my dyslexia gets the best of me at times.

quote:

CV Groups- CSG-12 CVN has no MH-60S or MH-60R helos. I know this is dressing,


Covered that in the discussion, left them out with the excuse they wanted to maximize flight deck space, but really with no ASW missions in the Atlantic I figured I've save the units to maximize performance.

quote:

but C-2's should be replaced with CMV-22B.


Thanks, I thought the Greyhounds weren't being replaced until 2027, but saw they are doing it early! TY!

quote:

JATM is on the CV's so its a possible loadout. Did you want that?


Yeah, they weren't a lot, and I figured they'd get some early versions. That said, I decided to take the ones in the Mags out.

quote:

Numerous Squadron #'s are higher than in real life, but it's your game world.


Which ones? I did 8 aircraft for tankers, MPA, electronic and helios, 12 for carrier squadrons, 18 for F-22s and F-35 and 24 for regular AF fighter/multirole. So if I'm high on any I'd like to correct but those are the numbers I know of.

quote:

Global Hawks are high-end strategic drones. Very pricey and won't be forward. Perhaps the Medium drones like Reapers, Avenger, etc., in Mexico?


I could change the Global Hawks out, they were a late add. The Mexico thing was to spread some of the clutter out, and show some diplomatic support.

quote:

Any chance you can plop a few reference points down after the general location message? I had to google where these locations are. (I know boo hoo!)


Yeah that's easy, did it in a Syria Scenario in the past.

quote:

Lot of clicks due to so many facilities being so close to each other. I usually end up grouping as much as I can, but it would be a good playability thing.


I probably can group the Civilian facilities where they are clustered, Like Tampa and Jacksonville.

quote:

I did give it the full salvo tomahawk test before playing for real and was able to kill known radars, tons of aircraft and shut down all runways of the big fields. A lot of different approaches to handle this issue. It is something I'm always tinkering with on my end.


I tweaked the TLAMs down, but the fact is if this were really happening we would overwhelm them with TLAMs. It's just the American way! [:D] [:)] [8D]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.9375