Community Scenarios - seal clubbing?

[madavid0]

I noticed that many, if not most, of the modern era scenarios being created are seal-clubbing expeditions; meaning, carrier groups with F-35, Super Hornets, Burkes, Ticos and LA-class subs, etc, against developing world hellholes whose' job it is only to spam whack-a-mole 3rd gen export jets for target practice and ancient Soviet era corvettes. Generally the only "threat" is an S-300 installation they bought from Russia or China.

[navwarcol]

So.. the solution would be to make one that is not. I look forward to see it when you finish![:)]

[Tomcat84]

Have you tried Red Flag 2017

I like to think that it shouldn't make your life too easy.

I look forward to your opinion

On the other hand what you describe might also because in many real life events it had been a case of mighty USAF vs simple opposition.

And of course you should build one if you have editor questions post in the Mods & Scenarios forum and we will be glad to help.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: madavid0

I noticed that many, if not most, of the modern era scenarios being created are seal-clubbing expeditions; meaning, carrier groups with F-35, Super Hornets, Burkes, Ticos and LA-class subs, etc, against developing world hellholes whose' job it is only to spam whack-a-mole 3rd gen export jets for target practice and ancient Soviet era corvettes. Generally the only "threat" is an S-300 installation they bought from Russia or China.

Sounds like a challenge. Lets see what you got chief[:)] Or are you just all talk and no walk.

Mike

[kylania]

While this isn't a downloadable scenario, Hellfish does a great job of describing his playthrough of a modern conflict of US Navy vs BrahMos. can't post links yet, but google for usn brahmos militaryphotos and check page 5 of the thread for the start of the AAR.

[navwarcol]

Should add here also... realistic victory conditions can make even the 'seal clubbing' quite a challenge. In the real world the one doing the clubbing, often, but not always, the USN, is held to a pretty tight victory condition... try where even 1 loss is a defeat, or where you cannot expend more than a handful of weapons, or surround that poor baby seal with a great many neutrals and consider even hitting one, will be a loss, then play through it, and you will probably enjoy the challenge.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: madavid0

I noticed that many, if not most, of the modern era scenarios being created are seal-clubbing expeditions; meaning, carrier groups with F-35, Super Hornets, Burkes, Ticos and LA-class subs, etc, against developing world hellholes whose' job it is only to spam whack-a-mole 3rd gen export jets for target practice and ancient Soviet era corvettes. Generally the only "threat" is an S-300 installation they bought from Russia or China.

I agree this is a challenge for scenario design. One way I handle it is that, if it is clear the major power is going to win, then the question of victory conditions becomes "how much does it cost?" So, for example, you may get 5 points for taking out an enemy plane, but you lose 20 if one of your own gets shot down. So you can take out the objectives, but any losses keeps the scenario from being a triumph and even a few can turn a "victory" into a "disaster."

Another way to manage it is to say that there is some other crisis going on and only a few units are available. So the carrier battle group gets reduced to a couple of destroyers, a submarine, and a single squadron of planes and a few tankers at a base in a friendly country 300 miles away. This sounds a lot like the "hunter-killer surface action groups" some people are talking about as part of the US Navy's future.

Or maybe the U.S. is so busy they won't be sending anything and it's left to a medium-sized E.U. or U.N. task force with some Dutch, Spanish, and Greek ships and planes to take care of the issue. Suddenly, dealing with those 20 or 30 ancient MiGs isn't such a cake walk anymore.

Oh, and forget the S-300 SAMs...these days what you really have to worry about is a battery of shore-based cruise missiles...cheap enough, compared to a fleet of warships, that most countries can afford a few and a nice way to punish anyone who sends their ships too close to your coastline.

So, yes, I agree it is an issue, but there are ways to deal with it.

[thewood1]

The obvious thing to do is play the other side. You don't always have to play the US if your a true wargamer. Most of the official scenario allow you to do that.

[Casinn]

And help test the scenarios in the scenario area, put in your feedback on what you think is too easy.

I've run into a few that I thought were going too easy just to run into a surprise the scenario maker tossed in.

[Death6]

Try out Operation Reclaimed Might on the workshop. Contains some surprises that stop the clubbing.

[Gunner98]

Northern Fury has a few seal's that bite back.

[Cik]

it's necessarily pretty difficult to model a very symmetrical engagement just because of the nature of the modern world.

it's easier in WWI/II or some hypothetial SF thing. ultimately the best you can do is either make it yourself or provide insight while the stuff is in development.

[SeaQueen]

If you're interested in ways to make scenarios harder, here's my suggestions:

1) Layer up surface to air missiles sites. Really, a long-ranged strategic SAM system like the S-300 is only a part of a layered defense. When an S-300 covers the whole country, multiple SA-11s, SA-6s, and SA-3s protect each airbase, and anti-aircraft guns of varying types are there to sop-up the rest, it's a lot harder.

2) Adjust WRA. You can significantly improve the Pk of a weapons system by adjusting the engagement ranges. Shoot the fewest number of missiles necessary to be effective given the defensive scheme you've built. I start with one and then up it from there as I test the scenario. There's a balance to be struck between weapons expenditures and long-term survivability. Also this allows you to (sort of) prioritize targets. If you're going to engage the bombers at 30NM and the fighters at 15NM, guess what gets shot at first? It's not perfect, but it helps you concentrate on your enemy's centers of gravity.

3) Make sure you use prosecution areas and don't always intercept aircraft at maximum range.

4) Don't think in terms of single systems, think in terms of combinations of systems.

ORIGINAL: madavid0

I noticed that many, if not most, of the modern era scenarios being created are seal-clubbing expeditions; meaning, carrier groups with F-35, Super Hornets, Burkes, Ticos and LA-class subs, etc, against developing world hellholes whose' job it is only to spam whack-a-mole 3rd gen export jets for target practice and ancient Soviet era corvettes. Generally the only "threat" is an S-300 installation they bought from Russia or China.

[Sardaukar]

I have played NF 2: "X-ray station" from NATO side... Really won only once, since losing subs.

[AlGrant]

Just reading through this thread and wondering if the OP was going to respond to the advice given ... then I realised that the original post is from 2015!
And the original poster hasn't logged in for over a year. [:D]

Nice of everybody to answer though.

I think that SeaQueen's advice on WRA is well worth noting - WRA is something that is often overlooked and can make a big difference.

Perhaps the Mods & Scenarios section of the forum would benefit from a dedicated thread or section on scenario design advice/ideas to keep these useful bits of info in one area and make them easier to find.

[Primarchx]

WRA makes a difference. It provides a great way to change up force behaviors. I think it takes time for scenario designers to really wrap their heads around and get experience in all the options that WRA and Lua enhancements have provided. It's a much different day today than in 2015.

[thewood1]

Its not just designers not taking advantage of WRA. I see it in a lot of posts where people either can't figure out how to adjust what large flights are attacking. I consistently forget to go back and look at WRA and don't realize it until my ships start rolling out expensive SM-6s to kill a Mig-21. The practice I have started using is going back and reviewing WRA settings periodically and adjust them based on remaining ammo and new threats.

[SeaQueen]

Thanks. The WRA menu, in my opinion is where a lot of the real decisions about tactics are made. That's how you decide how to employ your weapons! That's important! I think sometimes people neglect it because they have to pay attention to what's going on. Suppose you've got a FFG depending itself against cruise missiles. You might be fine with shooting 1 missile, against a slower cruise missile (Pk = ~0.87) so you usually get them on 1 or 2 shots and you have at least that many opportunities. Against a supersonic cruise missile you probably want to shoot more (Pk = ~0.62) because you might only have one chance of killing them before they hit. That kind of probabilistic logic is new to a lot of people. Over a few hour long scenario, or single day scenario, your WRA probably doesn't matter much. In a scenario that lasts a few days, though, it gets to be a big problem.

I made a convoy escort scenario in the South China Sea. In it, it's a little worrisome how quickly the VLS tubes on my DDG start to look a little empty between attacks from ASBMs, cruise missiles and the occasional close in submarine. It's also interesting to fiddle with the VLS loadout in that scenario because with the mix of threats it's an opened question what you want to carry with you. Make a bad decision and you might not have the weapon you need to deal with the threat you're facing. A good scenario, for me, is one that has a lot of room for fiddling around with different ideas on weapons employment, maneuver/positioning, and target prioritization.

ORIGINAL: AlGrant
I think that SeaQueen's advice on WRA is well worth noting - WRA is something that is often overlooked and can make a big difference.

[thewood1]

WRA and the withdrawal logic, to me, is what transformed Command from a game on the edge of being a simulation to a true sandbox simulation. With proper planning, lua, events, and some effort, you can do a hands off simulation of several sides running out their strategy and tactics. Even having used WRA a lot, I still have to sit and write stuff down to get it right.

[Primarchx]

Tell me more about withdrawal logic. Does that mean RTB to rearm or something else?