[RELEASED] New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post new mods and scenarios here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Excroat3
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:36 am

[RELEASED] New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by Excroat3 »

Another one of my what if within a what if scenarios, this one taking place after the events of The Sixth Battle by Barrett Tillman (so spoilers for the book). This scenario is pretty difficult so I would like your opinions on the difficulty, scoring, events, etc. I want the scenario to be a challenge but still remain fun instead of frustrating. A side note, some units start with no loadout so be careful when taking stock of all your units. All airfields are not to be attacked. If you have read the book and there is an inconsistency between the book and the scenario, please let me know. I tried to keep everything from the book in the scenario, right down to the names of individual planes. Enjoy!

EDIT: Version 4 has been posted! Scroll down for changelog!
Attachments
The Sevent..le, 1992.zip
(472.71 KiB) Downloaded 51 times
Excroat3
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:36 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by Excroat3 »

Has anyone been able to play this one yet?
magi
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:06 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by magi »

i missed it.... looking at it now....
magi
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:06 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by magi »

i think it could be more fun if port elizabeth wasnt a single unit airfield... its only natural that it would be a target....
it seem like there should be some tanker assets....
is there a sub threat...?
there would probably be a long range shooter in the eisenhower groupe....
Excroat3
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:36 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by Excroat3 »

I could make Port Elizabeth a target but your main focus is to eliminate the UER SAGs and CVBGs off the coast
I could stage tankers out of Diego Garcia but there are KA-6s on the Eisenhower IIRC
Yes there is a sub threat, I added that to the briefing for the next version
Any recommendations for a long range shooter for the Eisenhower group?
cajunnavy
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Gulf Of Mexico

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by cajunnavy »

Excroat3,

Hi, I just finished the scenario. First, thank you for a great long weekend. Your scenario was a lot of fun.

I got a Triumph at 2730. I got every UER vessel except two Udaloys, and they had harpoons inbound when time expired. Is there some way I can send you the ending report? It seems I can't through the forum for 7 days after my 10th post.[;)]

I thought you did a great job of setting it up, there was lots of action (I even got into a surface action![:D]) but I would like to make a couple of observations if I may.

The Backfires out of the northern airbase, Quratro or something like that, well they never attacked me. I set up defense in depth toward both major threat axis, North for the CVGB and ENE for the Phibs and the French. I got bogies from both at about the same time and they were all Bears, I was able to take them out and the Backfires showed up. My AAW Screen over the Phibs and French task forces were able to take out 32 bombers. However, the bogies to the north of the CVGB just kinda hung around for a while then they left. I couldn't get my Tomcats to them before they bugged out. I waited a little over 20 hours, REALLY ready for them to show up and the same thing happened. I don't know if they were set up to be a decoy or not, but I never got attacked and I was thinking maybe I should have.[:D]

Also I noticed the CAP over Port Elizabeth seemed to be stacked just north of the airport. When things got a little clear on the water I was able to make repeated fighter sweeps with my Tomcats and take them all out plus the three Hawkeyeski's.

I never lost a ship but the cost in AC was tremendous! And my subs had a really bad weekend! I lost all but the Triumph. I don't know if a real admiral would have taken those losses. But I really wanted to try to sweep up the UER. Everything was totally going my way up until I tangled with the Kuznetsov and the two Moskva's. They all seemed to be together. I got 'em, but it really was tough.

Other than mentioning ASW in the brief, that's it for me. I found I had plenty of power if I was willing to take the losses that resulted. It was absolutely not frustrating, but it was VERY challenging!

I hope this makes some sense!

C
Excroat3
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:36 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by Excroat3 »

Thanks for the report! I think you can PM me the ending report. Both the backfire strikes are at their most extreme range, and I copied Gunner98's way of setting up backfire strikes (patrol area with prosecution zones). If you got the bears, the backfires have a very slim chance of detecting your CVBG, because I was initially very worried that the backfire strikes + the AsuW power of the SAGs would be way too overpowered. Next version I will be sure to edit the patrol zones so they can detect the carrier group. Thanks for your comments on the Port Elizabeth CAP, I will extend their patrol zone so any replacement CAP has more time to get in the air to counter any fighter sweeps. Could you elaborate a bit on how you dealt with the UER SAGs and CVBGs? Did the Backfire strike on the French group and PhibGru3 launch? It doesn't have to be in this thread, you can PM me if you want to keep your tactics a secret [:D]. Thanks a lot for this, I'm going to start work on it right now!
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5880
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by Gunner98 »

the backfires have a very slim chance of detecting your CVBG,

Excroat, haven't had a look at this one yet, been busy: but getting detection on a CVBG is quite a trick. Some ideas:

-Check the threshold levels of the mission, set it to 'unknown', weapons Free
-With these settings all you should need is some ESM hits, some Bear J's or even a decent Sub (tight patrol zone, wpns HOLD, doesn't prosecute, periscope depth) ~4-500 miles away, from 2-3 different directions should be able to get you some decent location data. You need to play with it a bit.
-If the scenario allows some 'innocent' traffic with the right posture is always helpful [;)] (see NF9.1)

There are some sneaky ideas that I have not tried yet, so if the methods above don't work PM me.

B
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
Excroat3
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:36 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by Excroat3 »

Version 1 is up!

CHANGELOG:
Added subsurface threat to briefing
Changed scoring
Multiple minor changes to patrol zones, typos, etc.
cajunnavy
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Gulf Of Mexico

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by cajunnavy »

Excroat3,

I sent you a couple of PM's. Did you get them?

C
Excroat3
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:36 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by Excroat3 »

ORIGINAL: cajunnavy

Excroat3,

I sent you a couple of PM's. Did you get them?

C
I have not received them [:(]
cajunnavy
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Gulf Of Mexico

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by cajunnavy »

Well Dang! One was the ending report and one was on how I did it.

I must have done something wrong. I'll try again.

C
Excroat3
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:36 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by Excroat3 »

ORIGINAL: cajunnavy

Well Dang! One was the ending report and one was on how I did it.

I must have done something wrong. I'll try again.

C
Now I got the ending report (and replied), but I have not gotten your PM on how you did it

This forum is super confusing lol
cajunnavy
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Gulf Of Mexico

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by cajunnavy »

You Got that right Brother! [:D]
cajunnavy
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Gulf Of Mexico

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by cajunnavy »

Looking at my options I may have sent you two e-mails last night instead of two PM's.

I really don't know what I'm doing. [:D]
User avatar
wild_Willie2
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by wild_Willie2 »

Just finished version 0 and its an interesting scenario but not terrible difficult and I sank all enemy surface vessel and finished with 2700 points.

I contracted the eastern TF's into a single compact group and shrugged of the backfire strike without a single loss (my CAP was out of position and the bombers where not intercepted). I only lost two french ships due to an Akula getting to close, but this was more because I was to lazy to set up ASW patrols. The Su-25 attack might have worked in the books but is useless in game as these where all shot down by SAM's before getting even close. I would definitely change them for better strike craft with standoff weapons (SU-24's) that can survive this attack. The brit subs are also useless as every single vessel can outrun their torpedos :s

An interesting scenario but I would get a bit more creative regarding the surface strikes to make it perfect.

Good job.

W.

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
Excroat3
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:36 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by Excroat3 »

And I was thinking that the scenario was going to be too difficult! [:D] I can't do much about the Su-25 strike if I want to stay realistic to the forces that were actually in theater for the book. What do you recommend I do to the british subs? I also have no idea how to make the UER surface groups more effective other than moving them closer to NATO forces. I will definitely go a bit further and add some more UER aircraft out of captured bases in South Africa.
cajunnavy
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Gulf Of Mexico

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by cajunnavy »

Wild Willie,

Dis the Backfires from that northern base attack you?

C
Excroat3
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:36 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by Excroat3 »

Version 2 is up! I tried to increase the difficulty by adding more UER airbases w/ fighers, as well as more bombers. This may be a bit too much, so please let me know how you feel about it!

CHANGELOG:
Changed scoring
Added Lanseria International airport w/ Badgers, Flankers, and Mainstays
Added AFB Bloemspruit w/ Su-24s and Mig-21s
Misc tweaks and fixes
Changed briefing
Gave 4 Mirage III CZ fighters to NATO side
magi
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:06 am

RE: New Scenario For Testing - The Seventh Battle, 1992

Post by magi »

first.... i really like the geographic theater of this scenario.... i just started it.... i dont know how you guys can play so fast... i am so slow.... but i look at everything... i have a feeling this is gonna be really fun when your finished...

i do believe there should be some s-3's on the eisenhower as they didnt go any where without them... and they are multi mission asset...
groups of that time would probably have a long range shooter... like a.. leahy... belknap.. cgn bainbridge... etc...
the british and french torpedoes are challenging.... you gotta be right on top of your prey... you could stick a 688 in there... that would be reasonable...
i think the burks should have more sm2's and fewer tlams...
some oceanhawks instead of so many seahawks on eisenhower...

im going to load this new version now...

Post Reply

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”