[RELEASED] New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Moderator: MOD_Command
[RELEASED] New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Do you have nothing to do for the next month and a computer with a huge amount of memory? Then try out this mammoth scenario! [:)]
My third scenario from the book The War That Never Was by Michael A. Palmer, this one takes place in the north Pacific. The scope is as big as the region. The Soviet navy is trying to break out into the Pacific via the Kurile Islands, and the US Navy is trying to plug the gap. Japan is the wildcard. They are neutral but will help the US as much as they can without violating their neutrality. They should make life miserable for the Soviet player.
I have done very little testing so far, so please let me know if you find any bugs or strange behavior. I am not even sure my laptop has enough memory to run this. [:(]
Have fun!
Yokes
Edit: added more aircraft but spread their ready times out.
My third scenario from the book The War That Never Was by Michael A. Palmer, this one takes place in the north Pacific. The scope is as big as the region. The Soviet navy is trying to break out into the Pacific via the Kurile Islands, and the US Navy is trying to plug the gap. Japan is the wildcard. They are neutral but will help the US as much as they can without violating their neutrality. They should make life miserable for the Soviet player.
I have done very little testing so far, so please let me know if you find any bugs or strange behavior. I am not even sure my laptop has enough memory to run this. [:(]
Have fun!
Yokes
Edit: added more aircraft but spread their ready times out.
- Attachments
-
- Closing th..ver Was).zip
- (951.48 KiB) Downloaded 123 times
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Hi Yokes. I, for one, am enjoying your series of scenarios. Nothing to do for a month! Can I send you some work [;)]
Downloading...
Downloading...
Certa Cito
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Love those Cold War Scenarios!
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
wow, nice work
gave it a brief try but a tad to big with too much ging on for me to have a quick bash ,
any chance you may one day break some of your huge scens. down into smaller halves etc ?, it takes a fair while to get any thing done at 1:1 or 5:1
I'll go back and have another go when i have a week free.
J
gave it a brief try but a tad to big with too much ging on for me to have a quick bash ,
any chance you may one day break some of your huge scens. down into smaller halves etc ?, it takes a fair while to get any thing done at 1:1 or 5:1
I'll go back and have another go when i have a week free.
J
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
ORIGINAL: Jorm
wow, nice work
gave it a brief try but a tad to big with too much ging on for me to have a quick bash ,
any chance you may one day break some of your huge scens. down into smaller halves etc ?, it takes a fair while to get any thing done at 1:1 or 5:1
I'll go back and have another go when i have a week free.
J
Jorm,
Yeah, this one's a bit big. Not an afternoon's affair. I wanted to capture the immensity of the Pacific and the scope of a WWIII conflict in the region. This could be broken into chunks, but one of the things I love about the power of Command is the ability to simulate theater-wide conflicts. This shows how actions in one part of the theater influence the other parts. You may be dominating in one part of the theater only to find your enemy has unhinged your flank and now you are exposed.
This is likely the largest scenario I am going to create. (Well, once I get to the Norwegian Sea and the Kola...)
Be sure to download the latest if you try it again. I have been updating it pretty regularly.
Yokes
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Yokes, I love your scenarios...loved the book. Your scenarios are all I play really
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
I think this is done. I haven't finished a complete playthrough because it is so slow. (2600+ active units, 1200+ ms pulse times [X(]) I'll have to come back to this when I have more time.
I am impressed with the stability of build 490. This scenario really stresses the system and I get very few lockups.
Yokes
I am impressed with the stability of build 490. This scenario really stresses the system and I get very few lockups.
Yokes
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Actually been using this as a stress test for a new game mode we're working on.[:D]
Mike
Mike
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
I finally finished a game, more or less. The "no pulse" option REALLY helped speed things up.
I tried to make the AI competitive, but it is still pretty easy to work over the AI when playing as either side. I am hoping the new mission planner will allow us to give the AI more smarts.
The only big flaw with the game right now is the SAHR missiles getting shot at ambiguous targets. There are jammers and SAHRs galore in this scenario, so there ends up being a lot of missiles shot a empty space and the magazines run out before targets do. <sarcasm>If those lazy devs would hurry up and fix it...</sarcasm> [:D]
I am guessing I haven't got much feedback on this because of its size. I hope a few more folks try it again with the "no-pulse" setting and give me some feedback. I didn't have as much guidance from the book on the balance of forces, so I would love some feedback on that.
Yokes
I tried to make the AI competitive, but it is still pretty easy to work over the AI when playing as either side. I am hoping the new mission planner will allow us to give the AI more smarts.
The only big flaw with the game right now is the SAHR missiles getting shot at ambiguous targets. There are jammers and SAHRs galore in this scenario, so there ends up being a lot of missiles shot a empty space and the magazines run out before targets do. <sarcasm>If those lazy devs would hurry up and fix it...</sarcasm> [:D]
I am guessing I haven't got much feedback on this because of its size. I hope a few more folks try it again with the "no-pulse" setting and give me some feedback. I didn't have as much guidance from the book on the balance of forces, so I would love some feedback on that.
Yokes
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Yokes
I'll give it a go, I like the big ones [:D]. Might get me started again on my CW series in the GIUK gap... Time time time....
BG
I'll give it a go, I like the big ones [:D]. Might get me started again on my CW series in the GIUK gap... Time time time....
BG
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/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
-
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:30 am
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
I tried it out...but my little laptop just couldn't hang... all these scenario seem pretty awesome though.
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
And the winner for the most appropriatly named unit in Command ... Goes to....tattle sinker [:D]
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/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Initial thoughts - very nice.
Comments:
The Ambush of the convoy was nasty. One thing it showed however, the Japanese ASW missions try to engage the Subs that were detected from half way across the Pacific. Recommend you turn the 'investigate contacts out of area' tab OFF for them.
The fight around Misawa is very tough, about an hour in and my losses are 1:1 with the Sov's - not good, and that's with APG-70 Eagle's. Well done there!
USAF squadrons should be 24 A/C max I think. The F-16s at Misawa are in a 36 plain group. Perhaps, you could focus the Falcons on Air to mud, drop thier number to 18-24, and add another Eagle squadron to focus on the AAW battle. Just a thought. A Spark-Vark or two may help them out as well.
The Klyuchi base on the peninsula is not mentioned in the brief. I wasn't sure what to do with it but I don't want it on my flank so am slamming it with TLAMs and a flock of A6's
General shortage of TLAMs, the Independence Gp doesn't have one! I know that they were relatively new in 89 but a handful with the Indi would be nice to take out some radars etc.
Now I know why AMRAAM was such an important development for USAF AAW - wow.
Very good scenario - enjoying it and quite happy with the game performance. AU count at 2700+ and still getting OK performance.
BG
Comments:
The Ambush of the convoy was nasty. One thing it showed however, the Japanese ASW missions try to engage the Subs that were detected from half way across the Pacific. Recommend you turn the 'investigate contacts out of area' tab OFF for them.
The fight around Misawa is very tough, about an hour in and my losses are 1:1 with the Sov's - not good, and that's with APG-70 Eagle's. Well done there!
USAF squadrons should be 24 A/C max I think. The F-16s at Misawa are in a 36 plain group. Perhaps, you could focus the Falcons on Air to mud, drop thier number to 18-24, and add another Eagle squadron to focus on the AAW battle. Just a thought. A Spark-Vark or two may help them out as well.
The Klyuchi base on the peninsula is not mentioned in the brief. I wasn't sure what to do with it but I don't want it on my flank so am slamming it with TLAMs and a flock of A6's
General shortage of TLAMs, the Independence Gp doesn't have one! I know that they were relatively new in 89 but a handful with the Indi would be nice to take out some radars etc.
Now I know why AMRAAM was such an important development for USAF AAW - wow.
Very good scenario - enjoying it and quite happy with the game performance. AU count at 2700+ and still getting OK performance.
BG
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/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
ORIGINAL: Gunner98
Initial thoughts - very nice.
Comments:
The Ambush of the convoy was nasty. One thing it showed however, the Japanese ASW missions try to engage the Subs that were detected from half way across the Pacific. Recommend you turn the 'investigate contacts out of area' tab OFF for them.
I have been going back and forth on this. I WANT the long-ranged patrol planes (P-3s, Il-38s) to prosecute "nearby" targets, but just not on the other side of the world. If I force them to stay in their patrol zone then they won't prosecute any "nearby" targets. This is where the future "expanded patrol zone" feature will be really helpful.
But I will consider switching it back to stay in their zones.
The fight around Misawa is very tough, about an hour in and my losses are 1:1 with the Sov's - not good, and that's with APG-70 Eagle's. Well done there!
USAF squadrons should be 24 A/C max I think. The F-16s at Misawa are in a 36 plain group. Perhaps, you could focus the Falcons on Air to mud, drop thier number to 18-24, and add another Eagle squadron to focus on the AAW battle. Just a thought. A Spark-Vark or two may help them out as well.
Thanks for the info on squadron size. This is another thing I have been trying to work out. I have been treating a squadron as 12 (for both USAF and Russia) to keep the number of units in balance. But I found that attrition caused the air battle to die down about 5 hours in, and I would like it to keep going longer. So I think the right way to do it is to double the number of fighters (both USAF and Soviet) but have groups of them with delayed ready times to "stagger" the fight.
I personally like the mix of Eagles to Falcons. I think it represents reality a bit better. (I am assuming if WWIII ever kicked off we would be using those Falcons as interceptors, since that's what they were originally designed to do. Having no BVR weapons is really interesting in this regard, as you point out later.) You have given me some ideas that I think will improve things.
The Klyuchi base on the peninsula is not mentioned in the brief. I wasn't sure what to do with it but I don't want it on my flank so am slamming it with TLAMs and a flock of A6's
Intelligence doesn't always have all the answers... [:)]
General shortage of TLAMs, the Independence Gp doesn't have one! I know that they were relatively new in 89 but a handful with the Indi would be nice to take out some radars etc.
Well, the only ships at the time with VLS was a couple of Ticos and perhaps a few Spruances. I have been trying to find good information on when specific Spruances were updated with VLS but have been largely unsuccessful. If anyone has any references I would be very grateful!
It's amazing what a difference a single ship with 50+ TLAMs makes.
Now I know why AMRAAM was such an important development for USAF AAW - wow.
Agree completely. It's amazing the difference between an F-16 with only Sidewinders and one with AMRAAMs. The good news is your opponent only has SAHR missiles as well.
Very good scenario - enjoying it and quite happy with the game performance. AU count at 2700+ and still getting OK performance.
BG
Thanks for the kind words and the great feedback!
I have been very impressed with the latest builds in terms of stability. The earlier builds seemed to lock up much more often when missile seekers were in use. This scenario puts a lot of seekers up with very few freezes. Well done devs!
Yokes
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Yokes
One option for the ASW is to build 2 missions - one for the short range helos etc and limit that, another with the same RPs for the big guys and don't limit them.
Squadron sizes. Cannot remember where I found it but I'll look it up again:
USAF:
Ftrs & attack (one & 2 engine) 24/Sqn, 3 Sqn/wing
Tpt and tankers, 8/sqn
AWACS and 'special' types 4/Sqn
USN/Marines
Ftrs & attack 12/Sqn
MPA & ASW 8/Sqn
Specials 4/Sqn
Russian/Soviet
Air Regt: 40-42, 3 Regts/Div
There is a lot of variation in this one. Red Heal helped me out with some of the inconsistencies. I'll try and dig up the site
As far as the Spruence's, I don't have one site but:
according to this site:http://navysite.de/dd/dd963class.htm
DD 974, DD 976, DD 979, DD 983, DD 984, DD 986 and DD 990 are with the Tomahawk box launchers and the ASROC launcher
and this one gives a bit more refinement: https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-963.htm
This site is a good one for the Tyco's
http://navysite.de/cg/cg47class.htm
From 1986 on, all the other ships were equipped with the Mk-41 VLS and the ASROC launcher was removed
One option for the ASW is to build 2 missions - one for the short range helos etc and limit that, another with the same RPs for the big guys and don't limit them.
Squadron sizes. Cannot remember where I found it but I'll look it up again:
USAF:
Ftrs & attack (one & 2 engine) 24/Sqn, 3 Sqn/wing
Tpt and tankers, 8/sqn
AWACS and 'special' types 4/Sqn
USN/Marines
Ftrs & attack 12/Sqn
MPA & ASW 8/Sqn
Specials 4/Sqn
Russian/Soviet
Air Regt: 40-42, 3 Regts/Div
There is a lot of variation in this one. Red Heal helped me out with some of the inconsistencies. I'll try and dig up the site
As far as the Spruence's, I don't have one site but:
according to this site:http://navysite.de/dd/dd963class.htm
DD 974, DD 976, DD 979, DD 983, DD 984, DD 986 and DD 990 are with the Tomahawk box launchers and the ASROC launcher
and this one gives a bit more refinement: https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-963.htm
This site is a good one for the Tyco's
http://navysite.de/cg/cg47class.htm
From 1986 on, all the other ships were equipped with the Mk-41 VLS and the ASROC launcher was removed
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/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
A bit more info I found for the 11th Air Army which is/was the Soviet Air Force in the Far East:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Air_Defence_Army
The data is not perfect but you can cross reference the Ftr Regts with this site:
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/iap/iap.htm
For USAF forces, Wiki has this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Air_Forces If you go to current units at the bottom you can drill in and see what AC the units had at the time.
For the USMC air deployments:
The only ones I can find who are currently posted in Japan are VMFA(AW)242 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMFA(AW)-242 . But I'm sure any sqn from 1 MAW could reasonably be in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Air_Defence_Army
The data is not perfect but you can cross reference the Ftr Regts with this site:
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/iap/iap.htm
For USAF forces, Wiki has this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Air_Forces If you go to current units at the bottom you can drill in and see what AC the units had at the time.
For the USMC air deployments:
The only ones I can find who are currently posted in Japan are VMFA(AW)242 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMFA(AW)-242 . But I'm sure any sqn from 1 MAW could reasonably be in Japan.
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/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
ORIGINAL: Gunner98
A bit more info I found for the 11th Air Army which is/was the Soviet Air Force in the Far East:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Air_Defence_Army
The data is not perfect but you can cross reference the Ftr Regts with this site:
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/iap/iap.htm
For USAF forces, Wiki has this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Air_Forces If you go to current units at the bottom you can drill in and see what AC the units had at the time.
For the USMC air deployments:
The only ones I can find who are currently posted in Japan are VMFA(AW)242 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMFA(AW)-242 . But I'm sure any sqn from 1 MAW could reasonably be in Japan.
Fantastic! [:D]
Of course, you just made me a lot more work... [:-]
Yokes
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Sorry bout that[;)] I came across these sites researching some of my yet to be shared scenarios.
B
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/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
Well 90 min in and the Runway at Misawa got smoked. I like the way that triggered the Japanese into action but at the cost of 22 A/C locked on the ground and another dozen or so diverting to far away places. The Runway grade taxiway does not seem to be working and I reported that, so I think its a restart for me.
I need to check out Flashpoint Crimea tonight though and I'll get back to this one shortly [:D] Very nice so far.
BG
I need to check out Flashpoint Crimea tonight though and I'll get back to this one shortly [:D] Very nice so far.
BG
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/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
RE: New scenario for testing: Closing the Kurile Gap (The War That Never Was)
I spent some time testing this scenario out, and I made a fairly sizable change to the air battle. I approximately doubled the number of land-based fighters, but I spread out their ready times. My goal is to "spread out" the air battle so that it isn't just one brief, massive furball.
I welcome comments.
Yokes
I welcome comments.
Yokes