Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

updated Deter, Detect, Defend - 1962

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Mods and Scenarios >> updated Deter, Detect, Defend - 1962 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
updated Deter, Detect, Defend - 1962 - 4/21/2014 6:57:08 AM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online
SCENARIO UPDATED FOR CMANO V1.11. SEE BELOW FOR DOWNLOAD LINK AND DETAILS

Find below a scenario based on a fictional (and probably impossible) attack on the West Coast of North America by Soviet bombers.

From the scenario description:

Defending North America, August 1962

Even before the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, a big fear of North Americans was the threat of manned bombers attacking from the Soviet Union. Concern over a "Bomber Gap" and "Missile Gap" and worry over the vulnerability of American cities to nuclear attack were very real. School kids and adult workers alike practiced "Duck and Cover" drills as the immediate action should an atomic attack occur. Government, business and private fallout shelters were everywhere, many stocked with food and water in anticipation of an attack. And civil defence authorities drummed it into the population that an attack could happen at any time and with very little notice.

In 1958 the United States and Canada created the North American Air Defence Command (NORAD) and although the Canadian military contribution was minor compared to that of the USAF, by virtue of geography Canada was essential to America's air defence and was an equal partner in the NORAD command structure. Both the RCAF and USAF Air Defense Commands were subordinated to NORAD HQ.

NORAD's motto and Mission Statement was Deter, Detect and Defend. It was to remain a model of a successful bilateral defence treaty for decades.

In this scenario, you are Commander of NORAD Region 25 headquartered at McChord AFB near Tacoma WA. A full scale nuclear attack is anticipated and DEFCON 1 has been ordered. You will get radar information from stations including those on the Pinetree Line as well as radar picket ships and aircraft over the Pacific ocean. The crisis has escalated into nuclear war very fast so your interceptor squadrons are largely at peacetime alert status. This was generally two aircraft at Ready +5, two or four at Ready +60 and the remainder unarmed and unready unless conducting training flights.
Release of nuclear weapons has been authorized and confirmed by the National Command Authority. We do not know or care what sequence of political or military events spawned this full-scale nuclear war or even which side is actually striking first.

Defend the named cities in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia from the incoming Soviet bombers. SAC has commenced offensive operations in accordance with SIOP-62 so there are no tankers or EW assets to support your mission but the Army's Nike Hercules batteries have been placed under your command in accordance with the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system.

Suggestions are welcome.

Edit:
Final version using Build 517 uploaded:
- Removed A/C unavailable due to maintenance
- Added some variability to some Soviet starting locations
- Corrected scenario description to restore the Cuban Missile Crisis to 1962. D'oh.

Thank you for the feedback!

-C


< Message edited by Randomizer -- 4/12/2016 8:04:03 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/21/2014 8:12:10 AM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: online
Just started, but this is a very good scenario, well put together.

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 2
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/21/2014 8:14:30 AM   
NickD

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 2/14/2014
Status: offline
Wow, tough (and scary) scenario. I lost Vancouver, Richmond and RCAF Comox, but shot down most of the attackers. My final score was a -100 disaster. The cruise missiles did all the damage.

SIDE: NORAD
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
14x CF-101B Voodoo
3x A/C Tarmac Space (4x Very Large Aircraft)
2x A/C Hangar (2x Large Aircraft)
3x Runway Access Point (Very Large Aircraft)
1x Runway Access Point (Large Aircraft)
1x A/C Weather Shelter (1x Medium Aircraft)
1x Building (Control Tower)
1x Radar (Generic Air Traffic Control)
1x Runway (1400m)
1x Ammo Revetment
1x AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 40k Liter Tank)
1x Runway (2600m)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
47x 20mm M39 x 2 Burst [80 rnds]
16x AIM-4G Falcon [IR]
30x AIM-4F Falcon [SARH]
65x MIM-14B Nike Hercules
10x AIM-4D Falcon
9x AIR-2A Genie [Nuclear]
64x Mk4 Mighty Mouse Rocket (Mk40)



SIDE: Soviet Union
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
12x 3M Bison B
15x Tu-22B Blinder A
6x Tu-16 Badger A
4x Tu-95KD Bear B


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
41x 23mm AM-23 x 2 Burst [50 rnds]
7x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
22x 23mm AM-23 x 2 Burst [50 rnds]
17x AS-3 Kangaroo [Kh-20M, ASM, 800kT Nuclear]
2x TN-9000 Tactical Nuclear Bomb



SIDE: Civilian
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x Marker (City)
1x Marker (Target)
3x Marker (Town)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------



SIDE: Pinetree Line
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------



SIDE: US Navy
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------



SIDE: Commercial
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x Single-Unit Airfield (1x 2001-2600m Runway)
1x DC-6
1x Britannia


EXPENDITURES:
------------------





< Message edited by NickD -- 4/21/2014 9:18:19 AM >

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 3
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/21/2014 2:33:04 PM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online
Thanks for the feedback! Any suggestions for improvement?

-C

(in reply to NickD)
Post #: 4
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/21/2014 4:17:31 PM   
Casinn

 

Posts: 343
Joined: 7/27/2013
Status: offline
Nice to command the Nike missile battery I grew up living next to. :)

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 5
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/21/2014 9:42:48 PM   
bdziec

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 9/30/2013
Status: offline
Doesn't work for me


< Message edited by bdziec -- 4/21/2014 10:43:06 PM >

(in reply to Casinn)
Post #: 6
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/21/2014 11:01:59 PM   
mikkey


Posts: 2513
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
bdziec, you have the last official v1.03 update and public B507 update?

(in reply to bdziec)
Post #: 7
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/21/2014 11:20:34 PM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdziec

Doesn't work for me


As Mikkey says. Also uses the CWDB v411 from Build 507.

-C

(in reply to bdziec)
Post #: 8
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/22/2014 8:28:12 AM   
NickD

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 2/14/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Thanks for the feedback! Any suggestions for improvement?

-C


Maybe chop out the aircraft in maintenance? - they just get in the way when managing the air forces. You could also include a note in the briefing about the Soviets having cruise missiles as I had no idea that this was the case during this era.

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 9
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/22/2014 8:41:28 AM   
Jorm


Posts: 541
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Melbourne
Status: offline
wow, chilling stuff
enjoyed this very much. 4

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 10
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/22/2014 8:17:10 PM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: NickD

Maybe chop out the aircraft in maintenance? - they just get in the way when managing the air forces. You could also include a note in the briefing about the Soviets having cruise missiles as I had no idea that this was the case during this era.

Thanks for the feedback.

From the mission orders, emphasis added:

quote:

2. MISSION CONFIRMED. DEFEND MAJOR POPULATION CENTRES IN YOUR AO FROM SOVIET BOMBERS AND MISSILES.


Originally it was all gravity bombs but further research disclosed that the nuclear tipped AS-3 Kitchen became operational in 1960. I went on the assumption that little was known about the specifics. For the first run through I had a Golf SSB off the coast but the Nike Hercules' could not handle ballistic missiles so that Soviet asset was dropped.

I'm of two minds about aircraft in maintenance and so unavailable but taking up space. That said I proceeded on the assumption that in this situation, everything that could fly would fly with the non-flyers being cannibalized with considerable haste. If deleting these aircraft improves the situation no problem but I wanted some extraneous (if minor) "noise" inflicted on the Player in what is hopefully a stress-filled situation.

Edit: Golf's were SSB not SSBN. D'oh...

-C

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 4/22/2014 11:47:49 PM >

(in reply to NickD)
Post #: 11
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/22/2014 9:16:09 PM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: online
You could keep the SSB as a random challenge. Set it to just sit there at first, then have a random event that has it fire at one of your cities. If you pass, it still sits there for the rest of the scenario. If you fail, it's lose a city right away, which adds to the tension.

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 12
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/23/2014 9:55:09 AM   
NickD

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 2/14/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

From the mission orders, emphasis added:

quote:

2. MISSION CONFIRMED. DEFEND MAJOR POPULATION CENTRES IN YOUR AO FROM SOVIET BOMBERS AND MISSILES.


oops - I missed that. You could tweak this to 'bombers launching cruise missiles' or similar, but I might have missed that anyway


quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
I'm of two minds about aircraft in maintenance and so unavailable but taking up space. That said I proceeded on the assumption that in this situation, everything that could fly would fly with the non-flyers being cannibalized with considerable haste. If deleting these aircraft improves the situation no problem but I wanted some extraneous (if minor) "noise" inflicted on the Player in what is hopefully a stress-filled situation.


I have to say that I generally don't like including aircraft in maintenance on the grounds that they add clutter for no gain to players (and are rather unrealistic in scenarios covering deliberate attack missions or for air forces where squadron strengths are inflated to allow a sensible number of aircraft to be operational on any given day). Unless there are points attached to aircraft being destroyed on the ground, It seems better to just adjust the number of aircraft down to only include the 'flyers'.

< Message edited by NickD -- 4/23/2014 10:56:47 AM >

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 13
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/23/2014 9:57:48 AM   
Dimitris


Posts: 10915
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
Even before the 1963 Cuban Missile Crisis,


Shouldn't that be "1962 Cuban Missile Crisis"? </text nazi>

_____________________________


(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 14
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/23/2014 3:21:26 PM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
Even before the 1963 Cuban Missile Crisis,


Shouldn't that be "1962 Cuban Missile Crisis"? </text nazi>

I am indeed guilty of calendar dyslexia and prostate myself at you're feat in object humidity... Give me a break I was only seven at the time and was wishing I was really eight!

Will fix for the "final" version.

Thanks.

-C

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 15
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/23/2014 3:25:00 PM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online
NickD wrote:
quote:

I have to say that I generally don't like including aircraft in maintenance on the grounds that they add clutter for no gain to players (and are rather unrealistic in scenarios covering deliberate attack missions or for air forces where squadron strengths are inflated to allow a sensible number of aircraft to be operational on any given day). Unless there are points attached to aircraft being destroyed on the ground, It seems better to just adjust the number of aircraft down to only include the 'flyers'.


Good point, given the short nature of the scenario. Am doing some minor tweaking on the scenario and will seriously consider your suggestion. Thanks.

(in reply to NickD)
Post #: 16
RE: New Scenario for Testing - Deter, Detect, Defend - ... - 4/23/2014 6:52:59 PM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online
Final(?) version posted in Post #1.

-C

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 17
Deter, Detect, Defend - 1962 Magazine Fix - 5/25/2014 2:46:12 AM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online
Just learned that the release version of the scenario has no weapons in the NORAD magazines so it would appear that I uploaded the wrong version. Please find attached corrected version below. Sorry for the inconvenience, you should now have lots of AIR-2A Genie's, AIM-4 of assorted flavours and even some Mighty Mouse rockets to use.

-C



< Message edited by Randomizer -- 4/12/2016 7:39:33 PM >

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 18
RE: Deter, Detect, Defend - 1962 Magazine Fix - 5/25/2014 7:06:41 AM   
Dimitris


Posts: 10915
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
Thanks Chris.

Uploaded updated version and refreshed the download links.

_____________________________


(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 19
RE: Deter, Detect, Defend - 1962 Magazine Fix - 5/25/2014 7:27:00 PM   
hb921

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 5/13/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Sorry for the inconvenience, you should now have lots of AIR-2A Genie's, AIM-4 of assorted flavours and even some Mighty Mouse rockets to use.

-C




Well, I wouldn't call it inconvenience, I would call it a challenge ;) I was wondering if missiles were in so short supply in 1962, but was to lazy to check... or assumed that NORAD was catched on peace footing and missiles aren't at hand.

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 20
RE: Deter, Detect, Defend - 1962 Magazine Fix - 5/25/2014 10:13:04 PM   
DirtyFred


Posts: 99
Joined: 5/22/2014
Status: offline
just started playing... will post a detailed AA-Report when finished

duck and cover!!!



_____________________________

One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

(in reply to hb921)
Post #: 21
Updated Scenario: Deter, Detect, Defend 1962 - 4/12/2016 8:01:00 PM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online
Find attached an updated version of my very first CMANO scenario.

Change Log:
- Updated for Build 813 in CMANO V1.11
- All Soviet missions have been re-written using ROE and WRA criteria
- All units updated to latest CWDB
- The Seattle Space Needle is now a potential Soviet target.
- Scoring should now work as intended. NORAD's task is to defend British Columbia's coastal cities and America's Pacific Northwest. The Player starts out with 1500 points and destruction of civilian cities (-100 VP) and towns (-50 VP) costs are subtracted from that total.
- Fort Lewis is now represented including Gray's Army Airfield.
- The Seattle area Nike Hercules defenses have been degraded somewhat. Some launchers are off-line, some missiles have been deleted and several radars start damaged. These were Army Reserve installations and it's pretty rare to see an un-posed photo of a Nike battery where everything looks operational; where all the missiles are sitting on their launchers and presumably the electronics also had serviceability of less than 100% Because the batteries are reserves, their proficiency is reduced to Novice.
- All Soviet units and the civil airliners now have random starting locations.
- There are a couple of additional "flavour" messages for the Player.
- The Soviets have jammers now.

Hopefully the defence of the Pacific Coast of North America has gotten a bit more difficult. Unzip into wherever your Community Scenarios live, overwriting the original files. Please advise in case of problems or with suggestions for improvements and run the scenario for 1-minute before giving any orders. Thanks in advance for any feedback.

-C

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 4/12/2016 8:10:13 PM >

(in reply to DirtyFred)
Post #: 22
RE: Updated Scenario: Deter, Detect, Defend 1962 - 1/31/2017 3:45:40 PM   
WBailey

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/6/2016
Status: offline
In reality, back in 1962 would any of the Seattle area Nike Hercules missiles have been equipped with their nuclear warheads? Is that information available publicly?

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 23
RE: Updated Scenario: Deter, Detect, Defend 1962 - 1/31/2017 5:35:56 PM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online
I spent a considerable amount of time and effort looking for some non-anecdotal information on this question and while I found nothing that seemed believable, my assessment is that the available W7 warheads were probably stored at the special weapons magazine in Fort Lewis and not dispersed to the firing batteries unless necessary. Since the war portrayed in Deter, Detect, Defend starts without warning, only the conventional warheads are used. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. In 1962 the armed services were in a continual battle over custody of nuclear weapons with the Department of Energy (DoE) responsible for the manufacture and storage of all nuclear weapons and components that had not been allocated to direct military control. Most Nike Hercules batteries were National Guard with the high-readiness installations in Alaska and south Florida as exceptions. For the most part it appears that the custodial requirements for storage and maintenance of nuclear material exceeded what might be practical for most NG units with regards to infrastructure, training and personnel qualifications.

2. In December 1962, President Kennedy vetoed a DoD plan to increase the dispersal of warheads from DoE to DoD custody. Since clawing the weapons back from the services seems unlikely in this era, presumably they had not yet been delivered to the military. In any event, SAC and the Navy probably had priority over the Army in the CONUS.

3. The presence in nearby Fort Lewis of appropriate special weapons storage facilities and technical expertise makes dispersal to the Puget Sound Hercules firing batteries expensive and arguably unnecessary since in a crisis, warheads and personal could be quickly deployed under Regular Army control.

4. Information indicates that only 2500 W7 warheads were manufactured for some 25,000 MIM-14B missiles. This means that even under ideal circumstances nine out of ten missiles would be conventionally armed.

5. The 1960 BOMARC accident in New Jersey pointed to the hazard of nuclear warheads mated to live missiles near urban centres.

My assessment for designing the scenario was that the Puget Sound Hercules firing batteries were probably equipped with conventional warheads at this time. Spent considerable time in The Nuclear Vault (nsarchive.gwu.edu) were there is a large document archive but much of the relevant material is still redacted to uselessness.

-C

(in reply to WBailey)
Post #: 24
RE: Updated Scenario: Deter, Detect, Defend 1962 - 1/31/2017 6:08:03 PM   
WBailey

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/6/2016
Status: offline
That is a very detailed and appreciated reply!
But you should really take into consideration whether the air defenses would be kept at a higher readiness if the Soviet bomber force was as strong as portrayed in your scenario

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 25
RE: Updated Scenario: Deter, Detect, Defend 1962 - 1/31/2017 6:36:33 PM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online
In the public threat assessment the Soviet bomber threat WAS as strong as portrayed in the scenario even though the reality was far different and the "bomber gap" was overwhelmingly in the United States' favour. Add all the air defence nukes you want, I think the status quo as presented is reasonable and accurate.

-C

(in reply to WBailey)
Post #: 26
RE: Updated Scenario: Deter, Detect, Defend 1962 - 7/28/2017 12:49:43 AM   
Eggstor

 

Posts: 263
Joined: 1/24/2016
Status: offline
Something very odd happened to the scenario in the Community Scenario Pack rebuilds - [link="http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4320961"]the CF-101s at RCAF Comox that had been loaded with air-to-air missiles switched to a (nonexistent) Offensive ECM loadout, and because the magazine at the airbase also was jazzed up, they cannot be rearmed.

Worse, I attempted to rebuild the scenario from the last link in this post, and the game kicked back several "missing loadout" messages because of differences between CWDB 442 and CWDB 467 (the current one).

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 27
RE: Updated Scenario: Deter, Detect, Defend 1962 - 7/28/2017 3:18:53 AM   
Randomizer

 

Posts: 1178
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: online
There sometimes seems to be issues when scenarios created for older, less capable and detailed versions of CMANO get rebuilt during the Community Scenario updates. That's why I posted an updated (to Build 936.11) version of the scenario (and others) extensively re-written and with additional features and details:

Randomizer's Nuclear Apocalypse Collection

I suspect that most scenario authors do not spend a lot of time updating their earlier works for the community at large as it's time consuming and for the most part, subject to the law of diminishing returns. Updates of older scenarios also do not seem to make into newer versions of the Community Scenario downloads either. This is not intended as a complaint, maintaining the scenario bank has to be labour intensive and a fairly thankless task and all credit to Mr. Molina for taking on the job.

Most scenario authors will probably fix specific items that are brought to our attention so thank you for posting this. However, sometimes fixes that go beyond just a deep rebuild are just not worth the effort; the references are not so available anymore or we have just moved on to other scenarios. I updated the above scenarios and packaged them together because I have an odd fondness for Cold War nuclear Armageddon situations but currently have no plans to tweak my other scenarios in the Community pack.

Thanks for the heads up, hope that you enjoy the CMANO v1.12 version of Deter, Detect, Defend, now with aircraft damage, reduced Nike Hercules readiness and more randomized Soviet and Commercial deployments.

-C

(in reply to Eggstor)
Post #: 28
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Mods and Scenarios >> updated Deter, Detect, Defend - 1962 Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141