[2.10.19 - RELEASED Scenario] Scenario for Testing: OP Eagle Guardian

[gpotter511]

I was able to reproduce the issue that Templar42 had identified with Russian SAMs firing against NATO aircraft, and have a working theory of what's occurring. I'd like to thank templar for the diligent playtesting, and wonder if others might have suggestions for how to address the problem.

I believe the initial Russian posture towards NATO, "Unfriendly", is turning to "Hostile" when Russian forces observe NATO units firing upon the "little green men" operating inside the Baltic States. Subsequently, Russian SAMs take a shot at NATO aircraft within range consistent with their ROE - but not as intended, and well before hostilities are intended to kick off in the scenario.

I had thought I had previously resolved this issue by setting side "Unidentified Forces" as "Unfriendly" from the Russian perspective, but apparently not. For reference, the intended pre-war postures from the Russian point of view are meant to all be "Unfriendly".

I'd appreciate any suggestions folks have for addressing this problem. The one thing I don't want to do is create an incentive for players to initiate conflict with the Russians to "get the jump" on the opposing battle plan. Options I can imagine include:

* Set Russian ROE to "Weapons Hold", or firing in self-defense only, until the conflict is intended to kick off.
* Inactivate "collective responsibility" for NATO until the conflict is intended to kick off, or
* Another alternative I have not considered.

A save from just after reproduction of this error is attached.

[Gunner98]

Russian posture towards NATO, "Unfriendly", is turning to "Hostile" when Russian forces observe NATO units firing upon the "little green men" operating

gpotter511 - I am away from the game this week but this is a familiar problem. In the DLC 'Old Grudges Never Die' this was and in some ways still is a problem.

I suspect (but cannot check) that your 'little green men' are allied to Russia. If that is the case and the firing unit is identified as NATO, Russia will go hostile.

A quick fix is to break the alliance, cannot remember which works best - either make the LGMs neutral to Russia, or Russia neutral to the LGMs. You will lose the passage of information between the two but that is not entirely unrealistic I don't think. You can reestablish the allied posture when hostilities do begin.

This is a frustrating issue, which makes complete sense from a programming logic point of view, but can be a bugger identify and resolve.

[gpotter511]

Thanks, Gunner. Helps to know I'm not the first person to encounter this. I will play with this and hopefully be able to post a release-for-testing today with the issue resolved.

For reference, here are the various postures between the relevant sides:

* NATO --> Russia, "Little Green Men": Unfriendly
* Russia --> NATO, "Little Green Men": Unfriendly:
* "Little Green Men" --> NATO: Hostile
* "Little Green Men" --> Russia: Friendly

[gpotter511]

Thanks to all for their diligent feedback. I have uploaded a revised version of the scenario which accounts for many of the punch list items identified so far.

* Pre-Mature Russian Fire:This issue is believed resolved now that side "Russian Federation" is viewed as "Neutral", rather than "Friendly", by side "Unidentified Forces". If this continues to be an issue, there is a more aggressive step that can be taken to address it. Thanks especially to templar42 and Gunner98 for their assistance.
* Helicopter Re-naming: Great idea, RSMC. Thanks!
* Weather: The weather should be a bit more forgiving. Russia has been designed around the more challenging weather conditions, and there should still be enough challenging weather for players to have to plan for.

I've been looking further into the issue of SM-3/SM-6 deployment, and it certainly does appear that these weapons are/have been deployed among some of the Arleigh Burke-class vessels featured in this scenario. Does anyone know why the database versions of these units in Command aren't equipped with SM-3/SM-6s? I'd like to evaluate this before adding them in.

[Primarchx]

ORIGINAL: gpotter511

...
I've been looking further into the issue of SM-3/SM-6 deployment, and it certainly does appear that these weapons are/have been deployed among some of the Arleigh Burke-class vessels featured in this scenario. Does anyone know why the database versions of these units in Command aren't equipped with SM-3/SM-6s? I'd like to evaluate this before adding them in.

The DB loadouts for any multi-weapon VLS like the Mk41 always needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The all-TLAM-and-ESSM load on current DDG 51-class entries is a strange one. Feel free to edit it to match what you want it to be, just make sure you generate a delta file that indicates those changes and include it in the compressed folder you distribute the scenario in.

[Gunner98]

Does anyone know why the database versions of these units in Command aren't equipped with SM-3/SM-6s?

The DB entries are generic. There was a bunch of stuff floating around a while back - probably in Wayne's dropbox, outlining what the standard loadout for an ASM mission, AD misson, ASW, ABM etc. They are entirly configurable both in real life and the game

Edit: Primarchx beat me to it...

[Gunner98]

OK its called the: VLS loadout planner. It is in Wayne's dropbox here:

https://www.dropbox.com/search/personal ... eu0Uzdk%3D

If you don't have access just PM him and he'll give it to you or I can download and send.

B

[Ancalagon451]

I'm short of time these days so I haven't been able to try this monster of yours, but I've been taking a look at the Russian side and found some issues with the ORBAT:

1st.- MiG-25RBT were retired in 2013, tactical reconaissance is carried by Su-24MR and Forpost (IAI Searcher) drones.

2nd.- There is a flight of Su-35 in Voronezh armed with Alamo only loadouts, while I agree that the current stockpile of russian Adder missiles is bound to be quite limited; I found hard to believe that they would cripple their very best fighters in the main zone of operations arming them with such obsolete weapons. Specially being so few of them that a single transport can carry enought missiles for four or five loadout per plane.

If you want to represent their limited availability you can employ the mixed Adder/Alamo B loadout.

3rd.- Most, if not all of the Arrow missiles must go. As you can see here the official Russian statement (which tend to be optimistic at best) is than eight months ago they where still carrying firing tests.

Complete the tests to satisfaction, put the weapon in production to such a rate than more than a hundred have already been produced and requip fifty to sixty planes with them in such a short period is simply not feasible unless they were in a full war footing, which they aren't.

So, most if not all of the Foxhounds must be downgraded to Amos, and the scenario rebalanced aproppiately since the reduction in combat capability it's huge (the range of AA-9 against fighter-size targets it's only 40-50nm due to radar power limitations).

4rd.- There is a dozen of unassigned Froogfoots in reserve in Voronezh, perhaps they are later activated by an event or are leftovers of a previous iteration, just a heads up.

5th.- This is for the Americans, four B-2 availabe in 12 hour after being caught flat footed seems too optimist to me, I not sure of this one and I would like to hear more cualified people opinions, but I would put only two and give one of then a 24-36h ready time.

Next week will have some free time again and I'll give it a try. Until them congratulations for such an impressive work.

Ancalagon

[templar42]

ORIGINAL: Ancalagon451
3rd.- Most, if not all of the Arrow missiles must go. As you can see here the official Russian statement (which tend to be optimistic at best) is than eight months ago they where still carrying firing tests.

Complete the tests to satisfaction, put the weapon in production to such a rate than more than a hundred have already been produced and requip fifty to sixty planes with them in such a short period is simply not feasible unless they were in a full war footing, which they aren't.

So, most if not all of the Foxhounds must be downgraded to Amos, and the scenario rebalanced aproppiately since the reduction in combat capability it's huge (the range of AA-9 against fighter-size targets it's only 40-50nm due to radar power limitations).
Ancalagon

This is a very good point about the Foxhound / Arrow combination. However, the scenario also gives the UK 9 fully operational F-35s (not possible presently), and presumably the Russians have been planning this operation for some time, so in the alternative historical timeline this scenario is based on it doesn't seem so unreasonable that there might be a few AA-13 warshots available. Whether the number currently in the scenario is reasonable is another question.

[gpotter511]

Thanks very much for the kind words, Ancalagon451. That's very helpful information. Regarding the Foxhounds, I'd been hoping to achieve as much realism as possible, so I'll adjust around an Amos-based loadout.

templar42 - the thinking here was that the 9 F-35Bs delivered to the RAF as of last August would be pressed into emergency service. Simply not feasible, I take it? Appreciate these and any further thoughts you have from playing through the scenario.

I'd been planning to release this on Steam on Sunday, consistent with the timeline of the actual scenario. What do folks think of that? Would it be worth holding off another week to incorporate more playtesting?

[templar42]

ORIGINAL: gpotter511

templar42 - the thinking here was that the 9 F-35Bs delivered to the RAF as of last August would be pressed into emergency service. Simply not feasible, I take it? Appreciate these and any further thoughts you have from playing through the scenario.

Actually I think I was out of date there - I didn't realise the UK programme was so far advanced! Yes it does seem reasonable that they'd be pressed into service.

I noted down a few things as I played through:

Coningsby doesn't have any Meteor in the magazines so the 29 Squadron FGR.4s there have to omit optional weapons on A2G loadouts. Not sure whether this is deliberate to model NATO not being at full readiness.

There appears to be a database error such that GR.4 loadouts with differing numbers of Storm Shadow require a different version of the ECM pod. To work around this, I suggest adding a couple of Sky Shadow Mk2 DECM pods to the magazines at Akotiri so that the player can use 2x or 4x Storm Shadow Loadouts.

The database only allows Apaches to carry AGM-114Ls if they are also carrying larger numbers of AGM-114Ks. It's rather annoying that CMANO imposes these sort of loadouts. Therefore, at Amari I predict that there will end up being an unusable stock of AGM-114Ls once the player has expended the Ks. This might be intentional, but if not, I'd suggest increasing K stocks there.

Charles de Gaulle is only carrying about 80 AAMs in total, which will severely restrict operations if the scenario lasts 6 days. The magazine also lacks any air to ground weapons other than a few Scalp and AMSP.

300 victory points each time a hapless IL-78 gets shot down compared to 0 for A-50s and 150 for the SA-21 seems a little unbalanced. Additionally, I was horrified when my complacency allowed the Allied command centre at Naples to be destroyed, but surprised that I didn't lose any victory points.

Should the Kaliningrad facilities be single unit? As a general rule, single unit facilities should be used where the player isn't supposed to attack them, or where attack would be impractical anyway. I know I can't send ground units into Kaliningrad, but surely I should expect to be able to strike its airfields?

For added challenge and realism, it could be an idea to add a couple of SA-22 fire units to Kaliningrad. Given the strategic importance of its SA-21 battery, it should have some point defence. I found it quite easy to swarm Kaliningrad with AASMs and RBS-15s, especially after the Growler fired off many rounds at long range at fighters that it had little chance of hitting even with the active seekers.

[gpotter511]

Great ideas. I will be working on a significant balance pass over the next few days, so please - keep the notes coming!

Re: Kaliningrad - I went to heavy usage of SUAs to cut down on unit bloat, Kaliningrad included. As the scenario has evolved, the contest has become one of degrading NATO's ability to reinforce for a counterassault vs. degrading Russia's ability to conduct a campaign that can strike into the heart of Europe. Thus, most of the targetable facilities are bomber bases. However, you're right that this is a bit unrealistic. I will consider.

Has anyone completed the scenario with victory conditions either way?

[alghblag]

The ships leaving Warnemunde have no helicopter torpedoes aboard. Not sure if it's intentional or not, so just FYI. Garibaldi's a bit short on ammo for the Harriers as well.

[gpotter511]

Thanks, alghblag - very helpful. Adding to punch list.

[templar42]

I do think the Russian tanker track is too close to the border of the Baltic states - the tankers are often only 30 miles behind the FEBA, which makes them easy targets.

[gpotter511]

Operation Eagle Guardian has been released! Version 3 of this scenario is attached. Thanks so much to everyone who has offered feedback so far. Updates in this release:

• (General) Briefing and Description Updated
• (General) Victory Point Scheme Overhauled
o (NATO) Various adjustments to point values for destruction of certain Russian combatants; point value now awarded for destruction of Russian fixed-wing AEW.
o (NATO) Point value substantially reduced for saving RyanAir Flight 441
o (Russia) Various adjustments to point values for destruction of certain NATO combatants; point value now awarded for destruction of NATO ISR aircraft.
• (NATO) RAF Tornados and associated loadouts removed from RAF Akrotiri, consistent with real-world conditions
• (NATO) F-35 aircraft in Norway and UK set to “novice” proficiency due to outstanding technical limitations of delivered F-35s
• (NATO) Removed FGS Erfurt reflecting recent collision in the Kiel Canal
• (NATO) Removed six (6) Lynx Mk88 helicopters as BRAUNSCHWEIG-class motherships were not eligible; added two (2) P-3C Maritime Patrol Aircraft and increased relevant munitions
• (NATO) Restocked the Charles de Gaulle’s magazines for AAM, buddy stores
• (NATO) Added Meteor armament for Project Centurion Typhoons at RAF Coningsby
• (NATO) Restocked AGM-114K Hellfire missiles at Amari and Lielvarde ABs
• (NATO) SM-3 missiles added to USS PORTER and USS DONALD COOK consistent with ABM mission
• (NATO) Doubled the magazine stocks of Italian carrier GIUSEPPE GARIBALDI
• (Russia) Added Pantsir-1 SHORAD systems to assist in defense of Kaliningrad S-400 battery
• (Russia) Removed impractical number of AA-13 Arrow missiles for MiG-31 interceptors and replaced with AA-9 Amos. Adjusted relevant scripts to reflect.
• (Russia) AA loadout for Su-35s at Voronezh adjusted

Operation Eagle Guardian will continue to be supported, and will also be added to the Community Scenarios thread as well as Steam. Thanks everyone who helped make this possible, and I look forward to your hopefully enjoying the scenario!

[templar42]

I played to early on Day 2 using the first updated version of the scenario. It's been great fun up to this point.

I have one or two bits of feedback but the most glaring is this: 5 hours after the Russians initiated hostilities, I'd destroyed all the invasion forces - well over 400 vehicles - and by a few hours later had destroyed pretty all the helicopters and fighter aircraft in the central area that had ever launched. Siauliai was devastated by Kh-22s and I didn't even get a shot at the bombers from Dyagilevo that launched them. Overall though, my casualties were light and I spent the rest of the day destroying every SAM battery on the map except the ones in Syria, and every aircraft that launched, plus all the remaining TU-22s at Olenegorsk once they landed after an attack I mostly foiled. A fun day!

I was preparing to spend the next few hours reducing the Med and Norwegian Sea battlegroups (I'd sanitised the Baltic already) and carefully guarding against any other bombers in single unit airfields, when I got a special message at 00:30:33 to say that Russian forces were assessed to be in control of strategic ports and airfields in Estonia and Latvia, and Lielvardes had been captured.

I get this is scripted, but what about the total destruction I was entitled to think I'd inflicted on the invasion force? It doesn't seem satisfactory that the Russian side launched very few sorties and moved no ground units prior to this message, and yet magically captured parts of the Baltic states. Should the player be expected to just accept that they destroyed all the ground forces around the Baltic states and achieved air supremacy, but that doesn't count because it's not in the script? I therefore wonder whether you should consider some sort of forking logic in the scripted events so that if the Russian invasion forces are destroyed before Day 2 something else happens instead.

[gpotter511]

templar42 - that's wild! Thrilled that you enjoyed playing it out that far.

For those events to have triggered, Russian forces should have had to have occupied a specific zone centered on Riga and Tallinn for 6 hours. If you destroyed all Russian forces by 0500 11FEB, they never should have made it and the events never should have triggered.

To confirm, you destroyed all Russian ground vehicles, and they never approached Tallinn or Riga? I will investigate, as that's odd. The scenario is designed to reward players for achieving the success that you experienced.

[templar42]

I'm glad you identified 0500 - I saved twice just before and after that time as I was worried at the time that I might provoke the Russians if I obliterated the non-BMEW C4I facilities around Moscow (they didn't seem to mind)!

I just opened the attached saves in the editor and in fact the only Russian unit in the Baltic states is a single SA-25 section 14nm inside the Latvian border. Being personnel it wasn't visible to AESA radars. Nothing ever got to Riga or Tallinn.

Hope these saves might be of use.