Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/22/2014 1:47:05 AM   
djoos5


Posts: 382
Joined: 10/25/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline
US-Allies versus European Confederation

Date/Time: 20th July 1998
Location: North Sea and northern Europe
Playable Sides: United States-Allies



COMMENTARY, ABC NEWS

"Poverty. Despair. Rising ethnic and national hatreds. Fear. This is Europe today. A Europe in shambles, bleak, bitter, and adrift. A divided continent where old and dangerous ambitions the world thought safely buried are on the march again." Pictures tell the story - national flags of different designs and colors wave above a dozen different, strutting crowds in a dozen interwoven news clips. "When we won the cold war against communism, the world's democracies had a fleeting opportunity to secure a lasting peace founded on free trade and prosperity. We did not lose the historic opening by chance or simple bad luck. We threw it away."

It has been close to ten years since the Berlin Wall came down and Western Europe was once more unified with its eastern neighbors. The joy of the moment and the opportunities that came were fleeting as petty governments, racial and religious tensions, and poverty began to plague the newly independent countries. Economies broke down from Lithuania to Greece and fighting sprung up anew due to long held rivalries. It seemed that Europe would once more know a dark time.

But strength lay within the industrial giants – France and Germany. Their corporations stretched across the breadth of Europe and provided people with jobs. In Hungary, the French manufacturer, Eurocopter, kept many on the lines, which helped keep the peace. It was the same for many other companies, French and German alike.

With the economic might came the inevitable enticement of power and the French President made a play. If Europe could be unified, and the industrial might of France and Germany could be combined, it would create a new era of European prosperity - one which France would lead.

Diplomats from France departed for their powerful neighbor and soon the European Confederation, also known as EurCon, was created. Seeing the opportunity for jobs and to take care of their peoples’ needs, the smaller eastern nations fell into line. Only Poland declined the invitation to join, much to the French – now EurCon – President’s dislike. Germany’s large neighbor had resources and harborage that would aid in the new union’s growth. It was decided that economic sanctions and other financial restrictions would be placed on Poland, from the new confederacy, in hopes to break their will and bring them under EurCon’s umbrella.

It didn’t work. Instead, the people in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, after finding that to be part of EurCon meant you were vassals to the new kings – the people being worked hard in the French and German facilities – looked to their northern neighbor and wondered at their decision.

The charters that they had signed created legal challenges for the smaller countries to change their membership within the union, but the citizenry began to rise. Groups and unions formed demanding lighter workloads and better living conditions. It was only a matter of time before the EurCon President ordered troops to be moved into the smaller nations to quell the riots. Once more, the small nations of Eastern Europe felt the boot at their throat – this time from a new master. Or was it an old master, for it was troops from the once German Army that were moved into the region. It had an ill effect.

The French President knew that it was Poland, by defying the invitation to join EurCon, that was creating the unease in the rest of the eastern bloc. He decided it was time for more drastic measures. An agreement was made with Russia to cease all transfer of natural gas into Poland. The Baltic was closed so that no food or other commodities could reach Polish ports. Winter was coming and in no time, a humanitarian crisis was created in the heart of Europe.

The Poles had no choice. They sent diplomats to the United States and England to ask for aid. At the same time, they increased the readiness of their military. After the evidence was presented, the United States agreed to move an air wing to Poland for training exercises. Also, huge natural gas ships were sent from England and the US to provide the necessary fuel to keep the Poles from freezing in the upcoming winter.

With over thirty LNG tankers sitting in Gdansk, German SpecOP teams took to the sea in small boats laden with magnetic mines. The special force's divers swam under the large tankers and planted their explosives. The task done, the teams departed the area and it was then only a matter of time.

Gdansk lit up with the brilliance of many ships exploding – the deafening roar shattering windows in the city. With the one cruel blow, Europe was once more cast into war.

Note

This scenario provides multiple action groups and units for the player - save for aircraft loadouts, players will need to set up all actions for the Allied side.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by djoos5 -- 5/13/2016 8:39:06 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/22/2014 1:54:54 AM   
djoos5


Posts: 382
Joined: 10/25/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline
This is a request for those interested in running my scenario to play it through and give me feedback.

I am looking for critiques on:

Enemy disposition
Enemy strike attempts and threats
Mission complexity
Allied forces disposition

A couple things - I have set this up currently as Unlimited Ammunition, so please make sure you do not change that setting. Also, no US-Allied asset has orders to start - I am leaving the entire US-Allied setup in the player's hands. Lastly, scoring has not been given any attention yet except for the destruction of, or the successful transit of the fuel tankers to Gdansk.

I look forward to comments. I just finished the initial set up, so I have not yet had a chance to run it for myself to see what is broken.

Thanks in advance!!

< Message edited by djoos5 -- 9/20/2015 5:06:03 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 2
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/22/2014 2:14:20 AM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 1203
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline
Just started it.
Initial comments:
-The Tomcats are the 1990 version with no air to ground capability. Even if the 1998 version is too close, the 1994 version with that capability may work.
-You should probably set some of the planes to "Maintenance-unavailable" for plausibility if nothing else.

(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 3
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/22/2014 2:28:39 AM   
Patmanaut


Posts: 392
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
Hi

Larry Bond has written better novels IMHO, but I really liked the submarine operations from both sides.
They are really good material for CMANO scenarios.

I´ll be playing your scenario soon.

Thanks!

(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 4
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/22/2014 2:32:12 AM   
cf_dallas


Posts: 303
Joined: 4/13/2006
From: Grapevine, TX
Status: offline
Great book... might have to dig this one out of the box in the attic, it's been a long time since I read it. The visual that stuck with me (I think it was from this book) was Rafales and Typhoons (or maybe Tornados?) mixing it up over London.

_____________________________

Formerly cwemyss

(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 5
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/22/2014 9:01:06 AM   
greatTop

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Hey haven't started it yet, but I have a couple of questions. As it's based on a book how does the author justify the presence of Rafales M in 1998 in the French OOB(in that quantity) ? And how come Avord is used as a "fighter" base whilst it's more of a logistical one(AWACs+Tankers and some non-permanent Mirage 2000N). And Also never heard of Base aerienne de Lille (Don't think it ever existed, I know there is one not so far but it's Cambrai).

Cheers,

< Message edited by greatTop -- 9/22/2014 10:09:46 AM >

(in reply to cf_dallas)
Post #: 6
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/22/2014 8:46:24 PM   
djoos5


Posts: 382
Joined: 10/25/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Coiler12

Just started it.
Initial comments:
-The Tomcats are the 1990 version with no air to ground capability. Even if the 1998 version is too close, the 1994 version with that capability may work.
-You should probably set some of the planes to "Maintenance-unavailable" for plausibility if nothing else.


Thanks Coiler! I look forward to more input as you progress.

As to your comments - I will look at changing to the correct model of Tomcat. As the book only talks about them in the Air-to-Air role, I guess I didn't take in to account the Air-to-Mud variant.

As to making aircraft unavailable - I prefer setting them as Reserve and then giving them a defined time point that they will come available. This to me simulates aircraft being serviced, but still a potential option. I will address this change in the next scenario update.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Patmanaut

Larry Bond has written better novels IMHO, but I really liked the submarine operations from both sides.
They are really good material for CMANO scenarios.

I´ll be playing your scenario soon.

Thanks!


Hey Patmanaut,

I have read three of Bond's books - Red Phoenix, Cauldron, and Vortex. I have to say this one is my favorite - it's always interesting how people have varying opinions on a piece of work.

Anyway, I look forward to your comments!

quote:

ORIGINAL: cf_dallas

Great book... might have to dig this one out of the box in the attic, it's been a long time since I read it. The visual that stuck with me (I think it was from this book) was Rafales and Typhoons (or maybe Tornados?) mixing it up over London.


Hey cf_dallas,

I have it in hardcover, but I just bought it for my Kindle when I started the scenario design. Now owning it conveniently in my tablet, and having the need for info from the book, it has caused me to start to read it again.

I do not recall the scene you are referring to, though. The major furball in this book is over the North Sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: greatTop

Hey haven't started it yet, but I have a couple of questions. As it's based on a book how does the author justify the presence of Rafales M in 1998 in the French OOB(in that quantity) ? And how come Avord is used as a "fighter" base whilst it's more of a logistical one(AWACs+Tankers and some non-permanent Mirage 2000N). And Also never heard of Base aerienne de Lille (Don't think it ever existed, I know there is one not so far but it's Cambrai).

Cheers,


Hey greatTop,

There is nothing in the book that I remember (re-reading it now though and have not found anything) that Larry Bond gives for justification. I am going to make the assumption that since the book was released in 1993 (hardcover), thus written in the few years preceding this date, Larry Bond made his own assumption that the Rafale would be in service by 1998. Or, the author went ahead with adding the non-present fighter anyway as it is all fiction.

Using this same train of thought, I also took liberty in the scenario and fast-tracked the Eurofighter Typhoon into service. Both jets were in their experimental phases in 1986 (Rafale) and 1994 (Typhoon), so I went with the idea that France and Germany would press to have these aircraft in service by the time the EurCon was put together.

As for the Avord, France air base - I picked a central French airbase to stage the tankers and the Sentries. I also threw in some fighters here just so I would be able to give some central France AAW support and defend the Sentries. It was the better option then to add another air base for the fighters - a lower AU count means better performance.

As for the Base aerienne de Lille - I think I did a Google Maps search of airports along northern France and found the one in Lille. I don't know why I missed Cambrai - I even did a wiki search of French air force bases. I will adjust the name of the base in my next scenario update.

Thanks for the input thus far, everyone!

Feel free to tear it up. I don't have thin skin and want to make sure it does the novel justice.



< Message edited by djoos5 -- 9/22/2014 9:48:06 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 7
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/23/2014 1:15:51 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Just starting up. A couple observations on US force allocation:

-The USAF’s 48th FW has been at RAF Lakenheath for several decades and would make a good basis for the USAF presence.

http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10661
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/48th_Fighter_Wing

That’s 48 x F-15E’s and 24 x F-15C’s – nice package

Some other USAF forces ready in Europe, are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Forces_in_Europe_-_Air_Forces_Africa - some would have to move due to the scenario but the 48th would certainly be in place I think.

-I think some RN elements would be useful, perhaps a Type 23 or two as part of the convoy escorts – which could certainly use an ASW FF or 2. Perhaps an RN sub.

-The CVBG’s are a bit thin on ‘Cold War’ style escorts. One more CG and one more ASW escort would not be out of place but probably not critical – also the escorts don’t have their ASW Helo’s, which are essential.

-RAF Fighter Sqns are usually 12 A/C each

-I believe that the only base remaining in the UK that can host the B-52 is RAF Fairford, could be wrong on that but it is certainly the base most associated with them.
-RAF Mildenhall is the natural start point for the tankers and heavies (E-3s) but they could be almost anywhere

-You mention in the brief that there are 22 C-130’s for the 82nd and 101st. There are only 10 at the base but in reality 22 might be able to drop a Brigade on light scales, and only the 82nd as the 101st is an Air Assault Div with its own Aviation Bde and is not airborne as such.
-Along that line you may want to mention the Brit, 16th Air Assault Bde which has elements that can do both airborne and airmobile.

These are all minor points – it looks like a good set up and I remember reading the book many years ago – a good one.

B


(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 8
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/23/2014 7:30:16 AM   
greatTop

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: djoos5


Hey greatTop,

There is nothing in the book that I remember (re-reading it now though and have not found anything) that Larry Bond gives for justification. I am going to make the assumption that since the book was released in 1993 (hardcover), thus written in the few years preceding this date, Larry Bond made his own assumption that the Rafale would be in service by 1998. Or, the author went ahead with adding the non-present fighter anyway as it is all fiction.

Using this same train of thought, I also took liberty in the scenario and fast-tracked the Eurofighter Typhoon into service. Both jets were in their experimental phases in 1986 (Rafale) and 1994 (Typhoon), so I went with the idea that France and Germany would press to have these aircraft in service by the time the EurCon was put together.

As for the Avord, France air base - I picked a central French airbase to stage the tankers and the Sentries. I also threw in some fighters here just so I would be able to give some central France AAW support and defend the Sentries. It was the better option then to add another air base for the fighters - a lower AU count means better performance.

As for the Base aerienne de Lille - I think I did a Google Maps search of airports along northern France and found the one in Lille. I don't know why I missed Cambrai - I even did a wiki search of French air force bases. I will adjust the name of the base in my next scenario update.

Thanks for the input thus far, everyone!

Feel free to tear it up. I don't have thin skin and want to make sure it does the novel justice.




I guess Larry Bond didn't see the budget cuts coming for the French Airforce... Anyways as you said it's a fiction so he was free to do whatever he wanted to, and I'm not complaining here, I'm personnaly a huge fan of the Rafale so I'm always glad to see it used in scenarios.
Nevertheless last observation on the subject. The "M" stands for Marine which means Navy in French, is the carrier based variant of the Rafale. Perhaps not the more adequate one for the scenario even if the B/C came into service later on.

Firing up the scenario now :)

(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 9
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/23/2014 7:59:10 PM   
djoos5


Posts: 382
Joined: 10/25/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline
Thanks, Gunner! I am taking notes. And to you, too, greatTop! I will make the edit in the new revision.

_____________________________


(in reply to greatTop)
Post #: 10
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/25/2014 2:08:50 PM   
ojms


Posts: 230
Joined: 9/16/2014
Status: offline
Hi,

I've discovered a bug not sure if it's an issue with the scenario or bug in command.

If you have a look at the message log it's constantly refreshing with this:

"11:44:07 - Base contact 4/19th Panzergrenadier Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 2/19th Panzergrenadier Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 4/2e Armored Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 3/2e Armored Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 3/19th Panzergrenadier Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 6/19th Panzergrenadier Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 2/2e Armored Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 4/19th Panzergrenadier Bgde has been lost."

Please see the attached file to recreate this.

Cheers

Attachment (1)

(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 11
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/25/2014 2:19:16 PM   
ojms


Posts: 230
Joined: 9/16/2014
Status: offline
Hi,

Sorry forgot to comment on what I liked!

1. I'm not sure why there are KC-135 based in Poland, I've got them to fly over to the UK for support there.

2. Why no French fleet? I can't remember where it is in the book, but it would make things much more difficult!

3. Why no German ships? I would imagine that some in the Baltic sea would make life much more difficult, also it might be better to mix some neutral merchants in there as well.

4. I found it pretty easy to intercept the E-3 that was taking off from France and flying to Germany, maybe provide an escort for these?

5. I'm sure you know about this but the magazines are completely empty, is this on purpose?

Oh and those Rafale's are hard if not impossible to kill! Although I notice they are the M version which is the Navy version ,sit that correct?

Hope this helps.

Cheers.


(in reply to ojms)
Post #: 12
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/25/2014 11:12:16 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ojms

Hi,

I've discovered a bug not sure if it's an issue with the scenario or bug in command.

If you have a look at the message log it's constantly refreshing with this:

"11:44:07 - Base contact 4/19th Panzergrenadier Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 2/19th Panzergrenadier Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 4/2e Armored Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 3/2e Armored Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 3/19th Panzergrenadier Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 6/19th Panzergrenadier Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 2/2e Armored Bgde has been lost.
11:44:07 - Base contact 4/19th Panzergrenadier Bgde has been lost."

Please see the attached file to recreate this.

Cheers


Please update you game to the latest version. 1.05 should resolve this and is due tomorrow or so.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to ojms)
Post #: 13
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/25/2014 11:27:15 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

Oh and those Rafale's are hard if not impossible to kill! Although I notice they are the M version which is the Navy version ,sit that correct?


I have to agree. Perhaps add some Spark Vark's from 42 ECS which were stationed in the UK (Lakenheath I think) until the early 90's. They may be able to help cut through he electrons on those Rafale's a bit.

Some Squadron names would be useful in sorting out AC when assigning missions.

The AC ammo at base is important, I think. Helps keep the game in balance a bit more.


B

(in reply to ojms)
Post #: 14
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/26/2014 7:15:42 AM   
ojms


Posts: 230
Joined: 9/16/2014
Status: offline
Thanks! I'm away in Portugal this weekend but will try it when I'm back probably Wednesday.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 15
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/26/2014 7:16:28 AM   
ojms


Posts: 230
Joined: 9/16/2014
Status: offline
I got the EA-6 over from the Carriers but it was too late, I think I lost about 10 Tornado's and Eagle's.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 16
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/28/2014 11:33:46 PM   
Lawdog1700

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/6/2014
Status: offline
Another issue I found with the F-14s on both CVs. On both vessels there are no available loadouts for the F-14s. Other than "Ferry" or "Reserve" I cannot put any ordinance on those aircraft. I am running the new v 1.05. I hope this helps and can be corrected. Looks like a cool scenario, but when I saw I could not load my fighters, I shut it down. I will give it another go after updates are completed.

(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 17
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/29/2014 1:41:00 AM   
djoos5


Posts: 382
Joined: 10/25/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ojms

Sorry forgot to comment on what I liked!

1. I'm not sure why there are KC-135 based in Poland, I've got them to fly over to the UK for support there.

2. Why no French fleet? I can't remember where it is in the book, but it would make things much more difficult!

3. Why no German ships? I would imagine that some in the Baltic sea would make life much more difficult, also it might be better to mix some neutral merchants in there as well.

4. I found it pretty easy to intercept the E-3 that was taking off from France and flying to Germany, maybe provide an escort for these?

5. I'm sure you know about this but the magazines are completely empty, is this on purpose?

Oh and those Rafale's are hard if not impossible to kill! Although I notice they are the M version which is the Navy version ,sit that correct?

Hope this helps.

Cheers.


Hey ojms,

Thanks for taking the time... to respond to your input:

1. The KC-135's are for tanker support, in case the Allies needed them.
2. There is no naval interaction in the book. The only two incidents to speak of is the special ops mission to blow up the tankers before the war starts, and the French/German air attack on the carrier task force. EurCon ships and subs play very little role in the book, although I have added some enemy vessels. Perhaps I will enhance this, but I was trying to keep a manageable unit count.
3. see 2 above.
4. can't provide and escort for support missions, but I will see about the French/German AAW patrols.
5. yes, I hate stocking ammo bunkers and so I always develop my scenarios with unlimited ammo as the preset. I will get around to correcting this.

I haven't even had a chance to run this thing myself, yet. I will see about the Rafale count... maybe reduce it if it destabilizes any balance.

Thanks for the input - it definitely helps!


< Message edited by djoos5 -- 9/29/2014 2:42:12 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ojms)
Post #: 18
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/29/2014 1:45:48 AM   
djoos5


Posts: 382
Joined: 10/25/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

I have to agree. Perhaps add some Spark Vark's from 42 ECS which were stationed in the UK (Lakenheath I think) until the early 90's. They may be able to help cut through he electrons on those Rafale's a bit.

Some Squadron names would be useful in sorting out AC when assigning missions.

The AC ammo at base is important, I think. Helps keep the game in balance a bit more.


Hey Gunner,

I will look at the Rafale count and maybe reduce the number of available aircraft.

I thought I had given each squadron a name on the US/Allies side. I will look into that, too. As I told ojms, I will add bunker stores as I progress through the mission development. I understand the need to keep resources at a limit to make it more of a challenge.

Thanks again! I am adding notes to my changelog.

_____________________________


(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 19
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 9/29/2014 1:47:43 AM   
djoos5


Posts: 382
Joined: 10/25/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lawdog1700

Another issue I found with the F-14s on both CVs. On both vessels there are no available loadouts for the F-14s. Other than "Ferry" or "Reserve" I cannot put any ordinance on those aircraft. I am running the new v 1.05. I hope this helps and can be corrected. Looks like a cool scenario, but when I saw I could not load my fighters, I shut it down. I will give it another go after updates are completed.


Hey Lawdog,

You will need to set the preferences at startup to Unlimited Ammo - that will add all the weapon stores in the bunkers. I will be adding ammo soon so that players may play with either option.

Thanks!


_____________________________


(in reply to Lawdog1700)
Post #: 20
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 1/5/2015 12:16:38 PM   
George Patton


Posts: 1238
Joined: 7/12/2005
From: Lugano, Switzerland
Status: offline
It would be cool to play the scenario with EURCON.

(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 21
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 1/5/2015 1:16:37 PM   
tommo8993

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
Just finished reading this book. Yeah it would be cool playing EUROCON

(in reply to George Patton)
Post #: 22
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 1/5/2015 1:38:13 PM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 1203
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline
I've also read the book and it's not very good.

Taken in isolation, the fighting isn't too bad. However, the novel as a whole has two major flaws. The first is that it was written in the awkward immediate post-USSR "Who do we use as the antagonist now?". The second is that rather than just quickly glossing over the absurdities of the premise, the book drags the politics on for waaaay too long before the real draw begins.

(in reply to tommo8993)
Post #: 23
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 1/5/2015 7:18:23 PM   
djoos5


Posts: 382
Joined: 10/25/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline
This scenario is still in work. I am currently learning to play with the new scripting tool that we now have.

Give me time to polish this up. I do not like how it plays, right now - might even size it down some or turn it into a series of battles. But, I have no problem re-tooling it to make EURCON as a playable side.

I will keep you all posted.

_____________________________


(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 24
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 1/5/2015 8:14:07 PM   
magi

 

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline
Hurry… I really want to play this scenario… The idea is very intriguing… When you have the next version I would love the beta play… good luck…
you don't have to completely follow the storyline… It should just be a template or a guideline.. A theme..... The addition of Eurocon naval assets and forces would be more realistic and interesting addition… I hope you would include that…

(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 25
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 1/5/2015 8:17:15 PM   
magi

 

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Just starting up. A couple observations on US force allocation:

-The USAF’s 48th FW has been at RAF Lakenheath for several decades and would make a good basis for the USAF presence.

http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10661
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/48th_Fighter_Wing

That’s 48 x F-15E’s and 24 x F-15C’s – nice package

Some other USAF forces ready in Europe, are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Forces_in_Europe_-_Air_Forces_Africa - some would have to move due to the scenario but the 48th would certainly be in place I think.

-I think some RN elements would be useful, perhaps a Type 23 or two as part of the convoy escorts – which could certainly use an ASW FF or 2. Perhaps an RN sub.

-The CVBG’s are a bit thin on ‘Cold War’ style escorts. One more CG and one more ASW escort would not be out of place but probably not critical – also the escorts don’t have their ASW Helo’s, which are essential.

-RAF Fighter Sqns are usually 12 A/C each

-I believe that the only base remaining in the UK that can host the B-52 is RAF Fairford, could be wrong on that but it is certainly the base most associated with them.
-RAF Mildenhall is the natural start point for the tankers and heavies (E-3s) but they could be almost anywhere

-You mention in the brief that there are 22 C-130’s for the 82nd and 101st. There are only 10 at the base but in reality 22 might be able to drop a Brigade on light scales, and only the 82nd as the 101st is an Air Assault Div with its own Aviation Bde and is not airborne as such.
-Along that line you may want to mention the Brit, 16th Air Assault Bde which has elements that can do both airborne and airmobile.

These are all minor points – it looks like a good set up and I remember reading the book many years ago – a good one.



Gunner… You are such a. Marvel..... A great resource… Your scenarios are by far my favorite the attention to detail and the Plausible doctrine etc. etc. it's outstanding really…

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 26
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 3/17/2015 8:33:53 PM   
djoos5


Posts: 382
Joined: 10/25/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline
Ok- this scenario is in re-editing.

The book had very little naval action except to see France and Germany try to bomb a US taskforce out of existence. It doesn't mean the scenario needs follow suit. Do you think I should add British, French, and German naval forces?

It is a continental conflict, so I do not want to have too high of an AU count - that can kill a game.

I will wait to hear some opinions as I work on the redesign.


Things that have been added so far:
images
overlays
new LUA scripting for cool effects
mission edits
Gunner98 comments and suggestions have been taken into account


< Message edited by djoos5 -- 3/17/2015 9:35:39 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to magi)
Post #: 27
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 3/19/2015 4:25:01 AM   
magi

 

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline
^^^i like big.... hurry i want to play it....

(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 28
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 3/19/2015 9:56:10 PM   
djoos5


Posts: 382
Joined: 10/25/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline
Give me a week to get things cleaned up, Magi, and I should have it ready to beta test.

Knowing that they have the upper hand by controlling the necessary sea lanes by using land-based aircraft, would Germany and France put to sea any great force of surface ships to confront American and British carrier battle groups? Submarines I can definitely see being a platform to control the waterways around the European continent, but would they use ships? If they did use ships, would they position them far out to sea in either the Atlantic or North Sea?

If so, what would you suggest the makeup to be of any combined fleet SAG or CBG?

< Message edited by djoos5 -- 3/19/2015 10:56:41 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to magi)
Post #: 29
RE: CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 - 3/20/2015 7:18:17 PM   
magi

 

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline
Okiedokie.... I need to look at this… I'm going to go loaded up now…

(in reply to djoos5)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> CAULDRON - US-Allies versus EURCON - 1998 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

8.500