Updated Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post new mods and scenarios here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

Updated Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Randomizer »

SAC brings Nuclear War to the Soviet Union in 1962

From the Scenario Description:

As Commander in Chief, President John F. Kennedy was surprised to discover that the Joint Chief's of Staff (JCS) master nuclear war plan, SIOP-62 (Single Integrated Operational Plan for fiscal year 1962) required a massive attack against targets in the USSR, Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) regardless of whether the latter countries were involved in the triggering crisis or not. Everything nuclear in the US arsenal was to be launched or carried to well over a thousand targets in a massive, single and prolonged attack dubbed by some unknown wag as a "wargasm". The plan provided no real options between not attacking at all and expending every available nuclear weapon in one hugely destructive strike. That SIOP-62 was a significant improvement over what came before says much about the chaos that surrounded American nuclear war planning in the 1950's.

The principle elements of SIOP-62 were deemed to be sound so Strategic Air Command (SAC), the JCS, the President's National Security Council (NSC) and other agencies went to work on SIOP-63; preparing at least five-additional optional responses and the specialized target lists they required. By 1962 over 400 civilian and more than 600 major military sites had been identified as probable high priority targets in the USSR alone and the total number of potential targets numbered into the thousands. Many had more than one aim point and multiple weapons assigned to ensure complete destruction (usually with a generous overkill allowance) and SAC planned to deliver in excess of 3500 megatons (MT) to targets in the Soviet Union without using the Navy's Polaris submarines. Even today most of the specifics of the various historical SIOPs and associated target lists are highly classified.

In this scenario you are Commanding Officer, 92nd Strategic Aerospace Wing, a SAC formation based at Fairchild Air Force Base near Spokane WA. DEFCON-1 has just been ordered and nuclear release is authorized by the national command authority. The causes of this sudden escalation to nuclear war are irrelevant to the execution of your orders so no narrative is included. You are to implement the war plan in accordance with the orders found in the scenario briefing and target list provided. Only your piece of the operation is simulated, other SAC wings are assumed to be conducting their own operations under centralized command and control from SAC HQ. A non-editable Navigation Zone prevents entry of your aircraft into airspace that has been allocated to other wings for operations or that is otherwise restricted. At this time roughly one-third of SAC's bombers and all serviceable ICBM's were designated on alert, that is to say ready to launch in less than 15-minutes. For game purposes you have to select targets for your Wing, a target list is provided as a printable *.rtf file and the rationale for this is discussed in the designer's notes. You have the complete SAC wing, 45 x B-52 bombers, 36 x KC-135 tankers and nine Atlas-E missiles. Facilities at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska are available to you and there is a handful of assets there that you can draw upon. Targets and known defences are visible on the map and you may discover others and even targets of opportunity as the operation unfolds.

Scenario updated for CMANO v1.11 RC8 Build 808.

Copy into the Community Scenario (or wherever you keep your community scenarios), overwriting the original. Scenario change log below. The scenario description has the version and CMANO info.


ADDENDUM 05/04/16

Updated to CMANO v810 including a fix for missing ordnance at Elmendorf AFB due to a rebuilding error located between the chair and the keyboard. If you downloaded the update, please download this and overwrite the scenario files. Apologies for the error, the person involved has been sacked (metaphorically).

Thanks for your patience.
Coiler12
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:11 pm
Contact:

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Coiler12 »

Started playing it, looks good so far (Just gotten through the missile salvo)

Only a few issues. First is that the title is a little-crude [;)], and second is that given how aerial refueling in Command can be clunky, I wasn't looking forward to wrestling with many tankers and even more B-52s.
RoryAndersonCDT
Posts: 1826
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:45 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by RoryAndersonCDT »

Command Dev Team
Technical Lead
Dimitris
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Dimitris »

That's a great piece of work.
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Primarchx »

True enough for the tanker issue. I'd like the ability to tie various units/missions to specific tanker missions if desired. In a complex scenario asking a/c to tank is an invitation to turn a carefully choreographed air operation into a knotted ball of yarn.
ORIGINAL: Coiler12

Started playing it, looks good so far (Just gotten through the missile salvo)

Only a few issues. First is that the title is a little-crude [;)], and second is that given how aerial refueling in Command can be clunky, I wasn't looking forward to wrestling with many tankers and even more B-52s.
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Randomizer »

Thanks for trying the scenario and the feedback.

@ Coiler12, The title may be distasteful to some but it was apparently a term originated very high up in the USAF chain of command in reference to SIOP-62's single massive attack [1]. I found it irresistible but unless the community as a whole is offended, I would prefer not to come up with a new title.

The Tanker problem was unsolvable but as I have not experienced much of the grief with air-refuelling as some CMANO Players. Also there was the issue that tankers and bombers have a hot-dog/bun relationship. Like hot-dogs come in dozen's and buns come in eight packs, bombers came in 15-plane squadrons and tankers came 12 to the squadron.

You will probably need to micromanage much of the force at least until they have tanked for the final leg of the outward mission. However, the problems were very real and my intention was that the Player approach the issue as did the SAC planners more than that of the tactical commanders. I am reluctant to alter the OOB too much, there were always more bombers than tankers in SAC and while there were originally some additional KC-97 tankers at McChord but they were deleted about midway through the scenario's long gestation period.
I'd like the ability to tie various units/missions to specific tanker missions if desired.
I could not figure out how to do this in CMANO. One solution was to create tanker boxes outside Soviet radar coverage and cycle tankers through them staged from Elmendorf AFB. Bombers are routed manually to the tanker box, refuel and proceed to the target. Since the system was never actually executed for real (although continually practised under very realistic conditions) the entire operation may well have degenerated into a "knotted ball of wool" but fortunately we never got the opportunity to find out.

I am open to suggestions with the caveat that the scenario deliberately covers only the tasks and resources allocated to the 92nd SAW. In the background every other SAC Wing is competing for finite resources and airspace in what would likely have been a very centralized command and control regime.

My hope is that the scenario provides the tiniest glimpse of the issue facing SAC planners and the Alert crews during this time period.

[1] The 'wargasm' anecdote comes from 15-Minutes: Curtis LeMay and the Countdown to Nuclear Annihilation so it is apparently legitimate. The book is something of an anti-nuclear polemic but it is well referenced and fits in well with other material that was consulted.
Kitchens Sink
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 8:55 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Kitchens Sink »

Looks interesting, but I am getting some very weird behavior with trying to plot courses for groups of B-52's, or even single bomber units. Its sort of like they don't want to follow orders to go where I want them to, and lots of strange plot lines and station markers appear when trying to plot courses. A couple of game crashes along the way also.

Possibly I have some setting wrong. I have 8GB of RAM, and am using the latest 1.04 version of CMANO. I'll try again.
Boltzmann
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:16 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Boltzmann »

I get the same weird autoplanned routes. attaching save.
Attachments
Wargasm1962_Eric1.zip
(531.6 KiB) Downloaded 17 times
User avatar
Jorm
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 5:40 am
Location: Melbourne

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Jorm »

yes i have had the same issue
also some of the US units turned red when hit with a malfunctioning soviet nuke, very odd, ill see if i can recreate.

great scenario though, i really enjoyed the concept very much. I love that this game gives us the ability to explore the 'what if's' of the cold war ...
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Randomizer »

Thanks for the feedback. I am not sure what is happening but then I never tried to build attack missions direct from Fairchild and used manual plotting to a refuelling point near Soviet airspace but beyond detection range.

I confess to only a single test mission from Fairchild AFB early in the scenario development process and it was a manually plotted 3-plane group. Subsequent testing with the Player side was primarily aimed at tweaking the Soviet air defence response (also the ICBM strikes from both sides). To save time I just created test air groups just outside radar coverage and had no-such issues with the strike missions that were generated.

@ Boltzman. Thanks for the save, there does certainly appear to be navigation problems with land-strike missions at continental ranges. I will post on the Tech Support forum and point the Team at your post and uploaded saved game.

Apologies for the issues.

-C
Boltzmann
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:16 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Boltzmann »

No problem. I really enjoy this scenario and always like to help if I can.
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Randomizer »

ORIGINAL: Boltzmann

No problem. I really enjoy this scenario and always like to help if I can.
It's appreciated, thank you.

I think that there may be an issue with giving too many targets to a Group, particularly one that has to transit large distances and carries both short-ranged gravity bombs and long-ranged standoff weapons.

I got rid of the confusing multiple course tracks for the Group assigned to strike Madagan by doing the following:

- Deselected the Group from the Madagan mission. This cancelled the multiple course tracks leaving only a single track;
- Deleted the two SAM site targets from the Target Selection menu;
- Still with the now unassigned Group selected, pressed F3 to open the Set Course window and then Esc to cancel the current track;
- Ran the scenario for a couple of seconds;
- Re-assigned the Group to the modified Madagan mission;
- Ran the scenario, a new single path has been plotted for the Group and that confusing mass of tracks have vanished.

I would suggest using caution when allotting multiple targets to a Group with a mixed bag of ordnance and perhaps manually using the Hound Dog missiles to take out the airfields/SAM sites manually.

It would be nice if the Team could look at this as I suspect that there may be some difficulty for the AI to calculate attack profiles when employing assets possessing both long and short-ranged weapons allocated to attacking multiple targets. It appears as though the game is working as designed but perhaps the Player needs to be less general when creating missions using assets armed with vastly different types of ordnance. This multiple course thing might be due to the AI trying to sort out multiple a/c attacking multiple targets with multiple and diverse weapons. It may work better if the Player gives the mission planning AI less work to do

Perhaps I never encountered this problem in testing because I only allotted a single target to each B-52 Group (three a/c or single a/c launched in groups of three) and targeted the standoff missiles and drones manually.

Could you please see if this (or some similar execution) solves the problem?

Thanks in advance.

-C
Kitchens Sink
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 8:55 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Kitchens Sink »

Just FYI, I had the course plot problems by just trying to have B52 units transit to the conflict area manually (i.e....not assigned to any Strike Mission, just trying to plot a course to the general area. The problem may extend deeper.
Lawdog1700
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:30 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Lawdog1700 »

I was having the same problems with the tankers that I assigned to support missions. Most of them left their designated tracks and flew into the Soviet Union. That was a huge problem. I restarted and when I plotted the tanker missions I got all kinds of strange lines on my screen. I flew the B-52 strikes manually and then seemed to work fine, but without the tankers they all came up short.
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Randomizer »

@ Kitchens Sink and Lawdog1700.

First thank you for the testing the scenario and the feedback.

For Kitchens Sinks, I do not know why you're seeing the multiple course tracks even when using manual plotting. I cannot reproduce this issue manually and experiencing it when employing the Mission Editor has been reported and acknowledged by the Team over on the Bug forum.

For Lawdog1700. Spent much of the day trying to recreate the problems you have described with the tankers. I set up a small (~30 nm square) tanker box in the middle of the Bering Sea, placed 3 x KC-135's from Elmendorf AFB on a support mission and the aircraft worked as intended. The tankers stayed on course in their box, I manually refuelled a trio of B-52's and successfully sent them on to Petropavlosk; one bomber controlled manually and the other two on single target missions with the Hound Dog cruise missiles and decoys being launched manually from all three bombers.

So I am not sure if what you're both seeing is scenario related (that I might be able to fix) or simulation related. Any suggestions are most welcome.

-C
Lawdog1700
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:30 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Lawdog1700 »

My situation was like this: do roughly the same thing you did, but put every single tanker on the support mission. Do not do the "1/3" rule. I sortied every tanker ahead of my bombers and then had my bombers go through that area to refuel and proceed into Russia. Most of the tankers complied...some just kept going into the Soviet Union. Why is it that when I had 3 bomber groups only 1 of the bombers would refuel? The other 2 would not and would turn back.
Dimitris
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Dimitris »

The "multiple plotted courses" problem has been fixed in Build 593.
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: New Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Randomizer »

User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: Updated Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Randomizer »

Scenario updated for CMANO v 1.11. File can be found in Post #1 above.

Changelog:
- Database updated to latest CWDB build.
- Anomalous PVO patrol zones have been fixed.
- Anomalous PLayer-spotted Soviet targets have been fixed.
- Soviet intercept and CAP missions have been tweaked for ROE and WRA
- Errors in the Soviet RSVN missions have been fixed. Additional US cities may be hit by Soviet ICBM's if you fail to apply counter-force targeting.
- 567th Strategic Missile Squadron's Atlas 1E missiles now ready at random times. The Player will get a message when a missile is ready and the facility icon deploys on the map. All missiles will be ready by Start Time +33-minutes.
- The Player's Target List, omitted from the last Community Scenario upload is included in this file.
- There is still intentionally no scoring in place. Nobody wins a nuclear exchange (at least I cannot figure out any reasonable scoring regime) and you should know how well you have done as Commander of the 92nd Strategic Wing when the fallout settles.

Thanks.

-C
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: Updated Scenario - Wargasm 1962

Post by Primarchx »

I was just thinking about this scenario. Well done!
Post Reply

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”