Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter

 
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 >> New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/7/2014 2:12:11 AM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
I am playing thru this and tweaking it (my first CMNAO scenario and I have a lot to learn), but I thought I would put it out early for comments and suggestions. Feedback is welcomed!

Kitchens Sink

I realized after posting the file that I forgot to switch the side to Nato, you can use the editor to do that...but by now you know where the enemy is hiding

Here is a Description of the Scenario so you can decide if you would like to give it a go:



Time Setting: May, 2016

Scenario Duration: 4 Days

It is the Spring of 2016, and tensions between the Russian Federation and NATO are at an all-time high. President Putin is still in power. In late 2014 Russia annexed all of the Ukraine, despite repeated promises to the contrary. Then on May 25, 2016 Russia launched airstrikes against 2 long-range air search radar installations located in eastern Poland....declaring them a "threat to Russian security". Russia has put to sea a powerful Carrier Strike group that has transited from the Black Sea the into the Eastern Med, with the stated intent to enter the Atlantic thru the Strait of Gibraltar. Several of Russia's best submarines cannot be accounted for, and the airfields in Sevastopol and Smolensk are full of the best bombers and fighters in the Russian inventory (including the vaunted T-50 PAK-FA fighter). Russia has also purchased meaningful numbers of Chinese anti-ship and land-attack ballistic missiles, and has deployed them in eastern Ukraine.

The Russian air attack on a NATO ally has caused a rapid response. The UN Security Council has called an emergency meeting in an attempt to de-escalate the situation. Putin himself is attending the UN meeting in Geneva. NATO has assembled it's best air assets into the region, centered around airbases at Rota and Aviano. A powerful NATO Carrier Battle Group and screening force are heading towards Gibraltar from the Atlantic side, and front-line NATO attack submarines are patrolling in the Atlantic and Med.

In case of failure at the UN meeting, NATO has drawn up plans for Operation Blue Storm, which includes the sinking of the majority of the Russian Carrier Strike Group, destroying a majority of the anti-ship ballistic missile sites, and crippling/destroying the bases at Smolensk and Sevastopol.

The best Russian military assets are now squared off against the best NATO has to offer. Can the situation be defused at the UN meeting in Geneva? We will know very soon.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kitchens Sink -- 6/7/2014 3:36:40 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/7/2014 2:30:59 AM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: online
The proper spelling is "Gibraltar".

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 2
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/7/2014 2:34:36 AM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
Dang it, I can spell Sevastopol but not Gibraltar....change noted.

(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 3
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 12:46:00 AM   
Supreme 2.0


Posts: 440
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Germany
Status: offline
Cool Intro! I'll give it a try

< Message edited by Supreme 2.0 -- 6/8/2014 1:46:23 AM >

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 4
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 12:55:52 AM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
I already have a list of about 12 things I need to improve/fix in the scenario (including my spelling). Also, the scenario is rather large and bogs down the computer at times. I find that saving the game and completely exiting/restarting CMANO speeds things up when it gets slow.

(in reply to Supreme 2.0)
Post #: 5
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 2:23:48 AM   
Gunner98


Posts: 2199
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline
Looks cool, I'll give it a shot. A couple comments from strolling around the ORBAT:
* I suspect that there would be some early warning in the Eastern Med (Greeks, Turks, Brits in Cyprus, and probably the Israelis).
* There is a Norwegian and a German SS in the Med, although not impossible it's improbable. The Italians have 4 Type 212, http://www.military-today.com/navy/u_212a_class.htm which could easily replace the U-Boat. Both the Greeks and Turks have Type 209's which don't quite match the Norgi 210 but their not far off.
* The Air Gp on the CVN seems a tad light. If no F-35's I think it would have 4 squadrons of Hornets, vice 3.
* A second Tyco would be nice, although 4 Burk's is a good escort, going into a high air threat area, I think CINCLANT would spring for more Air Defence
* The Hobart is a good AD ship but its inclusion into a 2nd Fleet CSG is unlikely. In the IO, Gulf, or WestPac, yes, but I think the standard allied grouping in the Atlantic would be limited to Canadian (but the TRUMPs are getting a bit old for this scenario) or perhaps a Brit - the Type 45 is pretty awesome.

Looking forward to giving it a whirl.

B

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 6
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 3:08:43 AM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
That is great input, thanks! I chose the Hobart because I liked it's AA firepower, but I would rather make the scenario more realistic by switching it out for another Tico. Maybe I will move the Hobart to the screening group to keep it in the game.

I purposely made the carrier air wings slightly weak, because us humans are always better than the game AI and I wanted to try to make things more difficult. I would use F35's, but I did not know which version was carrier-capable. An additional field in the database notating carrier-capable aircraft would be useful.

Be careful of the T-50's....they are apparently made of Kryptonite or something....scary

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 7
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 3:20:57 AM   
NickD

 

Posts: 151
Joined: 2/14/2014
Status: offline
Australian warships haven't been deployed to the Mediterranean since the Second World War. If tensions were building up with Russia and the Australian Government wanted to make a contribution to US-led efforts, it would send warships to join the US 7th Fleet in the North Pacific.

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 8
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 5:09:06 AM   
Currahee

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 5/25/2014
Status: offline
The carrier capable F-35 version is the F-35C. The F-35B is theoretically big-deck carrier capable, but I don't think that would happen except in special circumstances. I personally would like full-strength Carrier air wings, but its not my scenario.
Interesting premise, and look forward to giving a shot in the future. F-35s vs. PAK-FAs? Those poor, poor, NATO pilots...let down by [insert primary cause of JSF program failure here].

_____________________________

Peace Through Superior Firepower.

When I retire, I will find a quite house in the countryside, buy the latest edition of Command, and play until I die of heart failure.

(in reply to NickD)
Post #: 9
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 4:11:10 PM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
Luckily you have some advanced Typhoons (Gen 5.2) and F-15E in Aviano to help out the F-35's. You are gonna need the 6 AMRAAM missile loads they carry.

I have shot down 2 PAK-FA's so far, but I had to gang up on them and use heavy jamming....and I lost some valuable aircraft in the process.

Enjoy!

(in reply to Currahee)
Post #: 10
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 10:04:05 PM   
Gunner98


Posts: 2199
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline
Those PAK-FA's are tough.

Simultaneous to an ineffective ARM strike on the SOV radars etc in west Ukraine, and about a bazillion SSMs coming in I get into a scrap with these guys.

SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x F-15E Strike Eagle
3x F-35A Lightning II


EXPENDITURES:
54x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4

SIDE: Russian Federation
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x Su-24MP Fencer F
3x T-50 PAK-FA

54 Freeking AMRAAM's - 4 hits!!!

BTW - I like it so far

B

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 11
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 10:17:47 PM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
LOL, I am a little further along. There is more "stuff" coming your way I think, but I will not spoil it for you. I need to put more AMRAAM at Aviano.

SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x F-15E Strike Eagle
3x F-35A Lightning II
2x Patriot M901
4x PLS Truck [THAAD]
1x Radar (AN/TPY-2)
1x Radar (ARSR-4)
1x Rafale B
1x Stinger MANPADS
4x Typhoon T.3
1x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-65)
4x Vehicle (AN/TPY-2 TMD-GBR)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
29x 20mm/85 M61A1 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
5x 20mm/85 M61A2 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
15x 30mm Giat 30/M791B Burst [25 rnds]
4x ADM-160B MALD [Active RF]
6x ADM-160C MALD-J [Stand-In OECM]
8x AGM-158A JASSM [Penetrator]
12x AGM-88C HARM
4x AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM P3I.3
170x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
14x AIM-132A ASRAAM
26x AIM-9X Sidewinder
14x AN/SSQ-53A DIFAR
68x AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR
92x AN/SSQ-62E DICASS
16x GBU-39/B SDB
1x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
12x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
12x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
25x Meteor
35x MICA EM
13x MICA IR
32x MIM-104E Patriot PAC-2 GEM+
70x MIM-104F Patriot PAC-3 ERINT
3x Mk50 Barracuda Mod 0 ALWT
24x RIM-161B SM-3 NTW Blk IB
8x SCALP EG
4x Storm Shadow
47x TSM 8050B Active RO



SIDE: Russian Federation
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
24x DF-21D ASBM TEL [CSS-5 Mod-4]
1x Il-78M Midas
1x PLA-885 Severodvinsk [Yasen, Granay]
1x Radar (Tin Trap [22Zh6])
2x SA-23a Gladiator [9A83M] TELAR
1x SA-23a Gladiator [9A84] LLV
1x SA-23b Giant [9A82M] TELAR
1x SA-23b Giant [9A85] LLV
1x SA-24 Grouse [9K338 Igla-S] MANPADS
3x SA-25 [50P6] TEL
2x Su-24MP Fencer F
9x T-50 PAK-FA
3x Tu-160 Blackjack
12x Tu-22M-3M Backfire C
1x Vehicle (Grill Pan [9S32M])
1x Vehicle (Paint Box [SPN-30] Jammer)
1x Vehicle (SA-25 FCR [50N6A])


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
46x AA-13 Arrow [R-37M]
36x DF-25 [Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-3]
36x DF-25 RV [Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-3]
4x Generic Acoustic Decoy
25x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
52x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
1x Generic Flare Salvo [2x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
12x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
156x Kh-101
64x RGB-41 [Search, Passive Omni]
42x RGB-48 [Search, Passive Directional]
100x RGB-75 [Basic Search, Passive Omni]
38x SA-23a Gladiator [9M83M]
1x SA-23b Giant [9M82M]
17x SA-25 [9M96]


Try tag-teaming the T-50s with 2 planes on diff axis and a jammer nearby. Ya gotta get close to get the PH up and manually pump 5-6 missiles at it. Chances are you will lose one of the attacking planes because you have to keep a radar lock or the T-50 will "ghost" on you and the missiles will veer off course. Wicked!

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 12
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 10:51:59 PM   
Gunner98


Posts: 2199
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline
I think more AMRAAMs are a good idea! Talk about stuff on the way!

Aviano - which should be a real base not a Single unit airfield I think:

EXPENDITURES:
36x DF-25 [Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-3]
36x DF-25 RV [Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-3]
156x Kh-101

Ouch

AEGIS Ashore (very cool system) EMPTY
Patriot Bty about 17 rounds loaded
6 x Rafale's intercepting at min Alt - EMPTY

Scramble every airframe off the airfield as there are still 36 or so coming in. So my JASSM equipped F-35s, GBU loaded F-15s, and Storm Shadow loaded Typhoons scramble (as well as all the other stuff) and engage knocking down a about 16 with AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, ASRAMs etc (didn't get in for any gun shots)

There are 3 missiles left

The Gepards get 2 and one hits - Holly Cra#$!

I like this scenario!






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 13
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 10:58:03 PM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
Using the pre-planned multi-unit airfields available in the import file for all current airfields is one of the things I need to do, as well other things I have noted, and input from you guys.

I guess I should not have posted the Russian expenditures....hope I didn't spoil things.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 14
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 10:58:57 PM   
Gunner98


Posts: 2199
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Try tag-teaming the T-50s with 2 planes on diff axis and a jammer nearby. Ya gotta get close to get the PH up and manually pump 5-6 missiles at it. Chances are you will lose one of the attacking planes because you have to keep a radar lock or the T-50 will "ghost" on you and the missiles will veer off course. Wicked!


I came at a set of 4 T-50's supported by a Fencer Jammer - with 16 A/C in pairs, on slightly different attack angles, backed up by 2 jammers and an AWACS

Problem was that the Typhoons had to go home and get gas right in the middle of my brilliant plan, leaving me with 6 F-35s and 6 F-15s, with the T-15's heading the wrong way. All my AC were on fumes - and that little distraction at Aviano was going on!!!


My attack angles were too close to each other. I didn't manually dump the missiles, and I was too far from home.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gunner98 -- 6/9/2014 12:00:05 AM >

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 15
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/8/2014 11:22:55 PM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
Ha Ha...

I have now worn down most of the T-50's and have a B-52/B-1 attack on Sevastopol that is very close to firing range, complete with MALD and MALD-J support. I sent 3 Raptors along with it (they refueled en route). So what happens? The damn Fulcrum D's from the Russian Carrier group decide now is the time to move North towards my attack groups and I have no Aviano fighters in the area.

I wrote this darned scenario and I have no idea what is going to happen I wanted to see how the Raptors faired against the remaining T-50-s but now I have to use them on the Fulcrums.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 16
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/9/2014 2:54:25 PM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink

Using the pre-planned multi-unit airfields available in the import file for all current airfields is one of the things I need to do, as well other things I have noted, and input from you guys.

I guess I should not have posted the Russian expenditures....hope I didn't spoil things.


Be careful how many multi-unit airfields you put in. They're huge unit-count and resource hogs, and you should only put them in if the airbase is under a direct threat. (I only got as far as the initial barrage toward Aviano-that would be a legitimate contender, but some out-of-the-way one probably wouldn't be).

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 17
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/10/2014 12:20:49 AM   
Gunner98


Posts: 2199
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline
Couple more thoughts: The Sov carrier AC should probably be the SU-33D.

Also I suspect that with this much USAF airpower that they would send a couple E-3B's or even E-3Cs vice relying on the NATO E-3A's. Perhaps leave the A's at Aviano, that's a regular haunt for them and through some upgraded versions into Rota - let the player decide to forward deploy them or not.

B




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 18
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/14/2014 4:06:21 PM   
Flankerk

 

Posts: 407
Joined: 6/21/2006
Status: offline

Interesting ORBAT, agree with the adjustmenets mentioned above and look forward to playing any updated version.
Odd bits I found that might be worth a look.
The F-15E as air to air load outs I suspect wouldn't be right?
The one task force is named group 108 so needs altering ideally.
The mobile land attack missiles are on auto detect so the NATO player knows where these are.
I'm not sure about the patrol zone effectively in the bay of Biscay? I assume its Russian federation but as its locked the player side can see it?

I think the strikes are intended to go in on Aviano from Russia, but counter strikes back to the Russian air bases, however all are single unit bases, and need to be built or imported.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 19
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/15/2014 12:32:21 AM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
I have version 2 about ready. I have included most/all of the input received, and added a few ugly surprises. I chose the F-15E because it truly has multi-role capability...carrying both a heavy AA load as well as some standoff ASu weapons. Aviano needs both capabilities to help take out the Ballistic Missile sites...and just in case some bombers and/or missiles show up , and the F-15C only has AAW capability that I can see. Is it unrealistic to have some of the F-15E loaded out AAW Heavy? I did some reading and it's touted as a pretty good fighter variant as well as strike. Also, I think the briefing explains the locked no-nav zone in the Bay of Biscay...there is a Russian SSBN there that NATO is not supposed to provoke....no telling what it could do . I will double-check the auto detect settings for the ballistic missile units, they should def be hidden.

Other changes I have made:

1. Deleted the Hobart and added a Brit type 45 to the Carrier force, deleted a Arleigh-Burke and added a Tyco also.
2. Made various loadout changes to ships/subs to take advantage of the Tomahawk Multi-Mission instead of TATCOM, and other loadout changes to both NATO and Russian carrier wings, missile loads, etc.
3. Added more AI patrols and "stuff" on the enemy side
4. Imported "real" airbases instead of single-unit ones
5. Switched the positions of Seawolf and Virginia class subs, Seawolf is now carrier support, and Virginia class is in the Med.
5. Changed Norwegian and German subs in the Med for Italian and Greek units
6. Added scoring criteria...this needs more work I think
7. Using E-3C's now instead of E3-A's

Lots of other tweaks...I should have version 2 out in a few days. Thanks for all the input received!



(in reply to Flankerk)
Post #: 20
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/15/2014 7:46:17 PM   
Flankerk

 

Posts: 407
Joined: 6/21/2006
Status: offline
Missed the patrol zone sorry, not entirely sure its a likely patrol zone mind so might need moving?
For the Med I know a few others will be wondering, but a German sub I can see, less likely a Norwegian unless I have missed the plot entirely?

I think with the built airbases this will be a challenging and interesting scenario.

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 21
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/16/2014 11:06:15 AM   
Gunner98


Posts: 2199
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline
Look forward to the new version - have lost the plot on the run I was doing - something to do with a wedding and hangover...

B

(in reply to Flankerk)
Post #: 22
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/19/2014 1:51:47 AM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
Ok, after countless tweaks and twists...attached is the latest version of Gibraltar. A couple of side-notes:

1. There was no import file for Smolensk Airbase, so I imported another one (Chernigovka), moved it to the right spot, and re-named the airbase group. The sub-units still carry the old Chernigovka name but it matters not to the scenario scoring or play. There were just too many sub units to rename and I was lazy.

2. I think the scoring is working ok, you get baseline points for most all Russian targets, bonus points for critical and/or high-value targets, and subtracted points the same way if the NATO side gets whacked.

Enjoy, and pls provide feedback.



Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 23
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/24/2014 2:22:47 PM   
Flankerk

 

Posts: 407
Joined: 6/21/2006
Status: offline

Tried the newest version and won, sort of. The end game triggered as a triumph at 551 points, however I lost the escorting group so four ships lost.
the intro implies that is a defeat, however to be truthful protecting the screening force is extremely difficult with what's arranged against it.

As it is, this is a pretty tough scenario, the distances involved are massive, and I found NATO air power mostly confined to close to the base for at least the first day. Venturing out against the PAK-FA proved unwise. I decided in the end to ignore them, using aircraft as escorts for the bombers, then following the missiles in. This tended to work, and I even caught two PAK-FA refuelling from a tanker.

I never really got in a proper attack against Smolensk, all ordnance ended up being expended against Sevastapol which was flattened.

I quite liked the fact that NATO tends to be on the back foot for a long time, my score was at disaster, again for at least a day.
It also took a long time to take out all the jammers, once that was done a satellite pass then found the Ukrainian targets, however they'd already made passes and not picked up much with the jamming environment.

A few things I wondered:-

The absence of weather I think distorts the sub warfare, they tended to get picked up pretty easily, including my own.
The Russian SAG has I think a weird patrol for the Helix, these seemed to be operating out at about 100 NM from the carriers, and were also distorted to be off centre. The net effect was any head on submarine attack (Astute) cruised through and didn't go through the ASW perimeter at all.

I also noticed IL38 MAY patrolling the Black Sea, no chance of any NATO asset there though. The odd MAY seemed to also be tasked with AAW, as they headed towards Aviano and met the likes of Typhoons and Rafale, might need looking at.

Otherwise an interesting scenario, and several awkward problems for the player to solve.


SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
3x NH90 NFH
1x F 710 La Fayette
2x Radar (ARSR-4)
1x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-65)
1x Patriot M901
1x Patriot M901
1x Stinger MANPADS
2x Vehicle (AN/TPY-2 TMD-GBR)
2x PLS Truck [THAAD]
1x Radar (AN/TPY-2)
1x Ammo Bunker (Surface)
4x Rafale B
3x F-15E Strike Eagle
1x Lynx Mk88A
1x F 215 Brandenburg [Type F123]
1x D 650 Aquitaine [FREMM]
1x S-70B-1 Seahawk [HS.23]
1x F 101 Alvaro De Bazan
6x F-22A Raptor
1x E-3C Sentry
2x MQ-4C Triton UAV [Global Hawk Mod]
1x EA-6B Prowler ICAP III
3x F-35B Lightning II
1x Typhoon T.3


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
16x Aster 15 PAAMS [GWS.45 Sea Viper]
24x RIM-162A ESSM
14x RIM-162B ESSM
3x R.440N Crotale-NG VT1
40x RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR Blk IIIA
13x RIM-116B RAM Blk I
2x 100mm/55 Model 1968 PFHE Burst [4 rnds]
2x DAGAIE Mk2 LEM Chaff
24x RIM-161B SM-3 NTW Blk IB
148x MIM-104F Patriot PAC-3 ERINT
71x MIM-104E Patriot PAC-2 GEM+
337x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
40x MICA EM
14x MICA IR
52x Meteor
14x AIM-132A ASRAAM
48x AGM-88C HARM
23x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
4x AIM-9X Sidewinder
5x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Dual Spectral]
44x UGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]
12x UGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]
16x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
2x 76mm/62 Compact HE Burst [4 rnds]
7x DUAL TRAP Chaff/Flare
12x 76mm/62 Super Rapido HE Burst [2 rnds]
5x SEALEM Chaff
1x 127mm/54 HECVT
2x 20mm/120 Meroka Mod 2B Burst [144 rnds]
4x Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]
32x AGM-86D Blk II CALCM [1200lb Penetator]
8x Mk48 Mod 7 ADCAP CBASS
8x ADM-160B MALD [Active RF]
8x ADM-160C MALD-J [Stand-In OECM]
40x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
13x AN/SSQ-62E DICASS
9x AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR
16x UGM-109C Tomahawk Blk III TLAM
14x Spearfish Mod 0
2x Mk46 NEARTIP Mod 5A(SW)
56x AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA
14x SCALP EG
10x Mk54 LHT Mod 0
32x AGM-86C Blk IA CALCM
288x AGM-158B JASSM-ER
4x SUT Mod 4
4x TAU-2000 Torpedo Jammer & Decoy
116x RGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]
40x GBU-39/B SDB
36x AGM-158A JASSM [Penetrator]



SIDE: Russian Federation
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
4x MiG-31BM Foxhound
19x Tu-22M-3M Backfire C
9x Su-35S Flanker
3x Yak-44 Hawkeyeski
24x Su-33 Flanker D
7x Su-24MP Fencer F
8x Il-38N May
5x Il-78M Midas
12x SA-23a Gladiator [9A83M] TELAR
6x SA-23b Giant [9A82M] TELAR
3x A-50 Mainstay A
2x PLA-971M Akula II
17x Ka-27PL Helix A
1x SKR Admiral Sergey Gorshkov [Pr.2235.0]
1x RKR Admiral Nakhimov [Pr.1144 Orlan, Ex-Kalinin]
1x PLARK-949A Oscar II [Antey]
1x MPK Gremyashchy [Pr.2038.5, Improved Steregushchy]
1x RKR Slava [Pr.1164 Atlant]
3x Vehicle (Grill Pan [9S32M])
3x SA-23b Giant [9A85] LLV
6x SA-23a Gladiator [9A84] LLV
1x PLA-885 Severodvinsk [Yasen, Granay]
1x TAKR Ulyanovsk [Pr.1143.7 Orel]
6x Ka-52K Hokum B
1x TAKR Admiral Kuznetsov [Pr.1143.5]
1x SKR Admiral Grigorovich [Pr.1135.6M]
1x MPK Soobrazitelny [Pr.2038.1, Mod Steregushchy]
10x T-50 PAK-FA
24x A/C Hardened Aircraft Shelter (1x Large Aircraft)
2x A/C Hangar (2x Medium Aircraft)
4x A/C Revetment (1x Large Aircraft)
7x Runway Access Point (Very Large Aircraft)
4x AvGas (150k Liter Tank)
25x A/C Tarmac Space (2x Large Aircraft)
10x A/C Open Parking Spot (1x Very Large Aircraft)
3x A/C Open Parking Spot (1x Large Aircraft)
2x Vehicle (Paint Box [SPN-30] Jammer)
3x Vehicle (SA-25 FCR [50N6A])
12x SA-25 [50P6] TEL
36x DF-21D ASBM TEL [CSS-5 Mod-4]
9x SA-24 Grouse [9K338 Igla-S] MANPADS
36x DF-25 TEL
2x Radar (Tin Trap [22Zh6])
1x Radar (Back Net [P-80])
1x Building (Control Tower)
6x MiG-29K Fulcrum D
1x Runway (3200m)
1x PL-20120 [Sarov Class]
1x Ammo Pad


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
228x Kh-101
24x SS-N-19 Shipwreck [P-700 Granit]
36x DF-25 [Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-3]
36x DF-25 RV [Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-3]
134x RGB-75 [Basic Search, Passive Omni]
6x AS-4 Kitchen B Mod 3 [Kh-22NA INS+TERCOM]
1x AA-9 Amos [R-33S, ARH]
48x RGB-48 [Search, Passive Directional]
107x RGB-41 [Search, Passive Omni]
52x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
241x SA-25 [9M96]
67x SA-23a Gladiator [9M83M]
28x AA-12 Adder A [R-77, RVV-AE]
123x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
23x AA-11 Archer [R-73]
1x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
32x SS-N-26 Sapless [P-800 Onyx]
230x AA-13 Arrow [R-37M]
11x AA-11 Archer [R-73M]
11x SS-N-16 Stallion [RPK-7 Vodopei, UMGT-1 Torpedo]
6x SS-N-15 Starfish [RPK-6 Vodopad, UMGT-1 Torpedo]
5x SA-23b Giant [9M82M]
3x MG-114 Berilly
11x Generic Acoustic Decoy
28x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH]
17x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27RE, LR SARH]
6x SS-N-15 Starfish [RPK-6 Veder, UMGT-1 Torpedo]
16x SA-N-21c Growler [9M96]
1x Paket-NK
4x RBU-12000 Torpedo Decoy Salvo [UDAV-1, 10 rnds]
4x SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM]
28x SA-N-9 Gauntlet [9M330-2 Kinzhal]
9x AK-630M 30mm/65 Gatling Burst [400 rnds]
3x AK-130 130mm/54 Twin Frag Burst [2 rnds]
10x 30mm Twin Gatling Gsh-6-30K Burst [375 rnds]
14x SA-N-11a Grisom [9M311K]
1x SA-N-12 Grizzly [9M317]
90x PK-10 Flare [SO-50]
5x Generic Acoustic Decoy
11x 100mm/59 A-190 Frag
1x 30mm Twin Gatling Gsh-6-30KD [375 rnds]
1x SA-N-11b Grisom [9M311K-1]
1x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka Burst [50 rnds]
2x USET-80K
13x SA-21a Growler [48N6DM]




(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 24
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/24/2014 6:43:45 PM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
Thanks for the input. I am working on V3 of this scenario, upgraded to the latest build 546 and the newest database (which contained adjustments for the T-50 stealth and other tweaks by the developers). I am going to wait for the editor save bug and issues with import/export and sonars to be fixed in Build 546 before proceeding further with V3. I also wonder how a U.S. satellite flying at 350 miles above the earth gets it's radar jammed by a Fencer aircraft flying at 40,000 feet....is that possible?

I am going to adjust the scoring so that losing 4 ships/subs puts the player at "disaster" and keeps you there (or notifies you that you lost). I just have to figure out how to do it with the scoring mechanism. Other adjustments to scoring are also necessary.

Enemy sub patrols using the AI are not optimal, partly because they have to cruise at shallow depth or they will not use their standoff weapons. This is an issue I raised in the Tech Forum, enemy subs running on the AI don't seem to want to change depth or speed to fire appropriate weapons when "engaged offensive"...they only change course to intercept. Perhaps I have missed something. I will look at sea state/weather settings also.

I will also check the Russian SAG ASW zone for the Helix, and the orphan IL38 May.

I did well on my run thru, but of course I knew what was going to happen and when. The Astute sub pummeled the Russian SAG because I had taken out all of the helo's and Mays prior to the sub run. I also got a run at Smolensk after the B-1's regenerated from Sevastopol attacks. I kept all my screening force, but the Yasen attack with then Onyx missiles was a close call. Scored 646 points but was using Build 546 upgrade so it's not an apples/apples comparison:

SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x EA-6B Prowler ICAP III
1x F-15E Strike Eagle
5x F-22A Raptor
1x F-35B Lightning II
1x Patriot M901
2x Patriot M901
5x PLS Truck [THAAD]
1x Radar (AN/TPY-2)
1x Radar (ARSR-4)
1x Stinger MANPADS
1x Typhoon T.3
1x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-65)
4x Vehicle (AN/TPY-2 TMD-GBR)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
13x 20mm/85 M61A2 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
11x 25mm GAU-22/A Equalizer Burst [30 rnds]
40x 27mm Mauser BK-27 Burst [30 rnds]
18x 30mm Giat 30/M791B Burst [25 rnds]
4x 76mm/62 Super Rapido HE Burst [2 rnds]
24x ADM-160B MALD [Active RF]
24x ADM-160C MALD-J [Stand-In OECM]
16x AGM-154C JSOW [BROACH]
288x AGM-158B JASSM-ER
16x AGM-84D Harpoon IC
36x AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA
16x AGM-86D Blk II CALCM [1200lb Penetator]
32x AGM-88C HARM
254x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
34x AIM-132A ASRAAM
38x AIM-9X Sidewinder
36x AN/SSQ-53A DIFAR
372x AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR
7x AN/SSQ-62A DICASS
312x AN/SSQ-62E DICASS
1x Ariel Mk2 FOTRD
16x Aster 15 PAAMS [GWS.45 Sea Viper]
32x GBU-39/B SDB
22x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
5x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
3x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Dual Spectral]
2x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Dual Spectral]
156x Meteor
50x MICA EM
18x MICA IR
14x MIM-104E Patriot PAC-2 GEM+
44x MIM-104F Patriot PAC-3 ERINT
1x Mk46 NEARTIP Mod 5
8x Mk54 LHT Mod 0
3x MU-90 Impact
24x RIM-161B SM-3 NTW Blk IB
32x RIM-162A ESSM
15x RIM-162B ESSM
1x RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR Blk IIIA
12x SCALP EG
2x SEALEM Chaff
16x Spearfish Mod 0
8x Storm Shadow
35x TSM 8050B Active RO
20x UGM-109C Tomahawk Blk III TLAM
20x UGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]
12x UGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]



SIDE: Russian Federation
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
4x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka
3x A/C Hangar (2x Medium Aircraft)
4x A/C Hardened Aircraft Shelter (1x Large Aircraft)
3x A/C Open Parking Spot (1x Large Aircraft)
21x A/C Open Parking Spot (1x Medium Aircraft)
4x A/C Revetment (1x Large Aircraft)
5x A/C Tarmac Space (2x Large Aircraft)
3x A-50 Mainstay A
1x Ammo Bunker (Surface)
4x AvGas (150k Liter Tank)
36x DF-21D ASBM TEL [CSS-5 Mod-4]
32x DF-25 TEL
5x Il-38N May
3x Il-78M Midas
17x Ka-27PL Helix A
6x Ka-52K Hokum B
2x MiG-29K Fulcrum D
4x MiG-31BM Foxhound
1x MPK Gremyashchy [Pr.2038.5, Improved Steregushchy]
1x MPK Soobrazitelny [Pr.2038.1, Mod Steregushchy]
1x PL-636.3 Kilo [Varshavyanka]
1x PLA-885 Severodvinsk [Yasen, Granay]
1x PLA-971M Akula II
1x PLARK-949A Oscar II [Antey]
2x Radar (Back Net [P-80])
2x Radar (Tin Trap [22Zh6])
1x RKR Admiral Nakhimov [Pr.1144 Orlan, Ex-Kalinin]
1x RKR Slava [Pr.1164 Atlant]
1x Runway (2600m)
1x Runway (3200m)
6x Runway Access Point (Very Large Aircraft)
2x SA-16 Gimlet [9K310 Igla-1] MANPADS
6x SA-21 Growler TEL
10x SA-23a Gladiator [9A83M] TELAR
5x SA-23a Gladiator [9A84] LLV
4x SA-23b Giant [9A82M] TELAR
2x SA-23b Giant [9A85] LLV
8x SA-24 Grouse [9K338 Igla-S] MANPADS
11x SA-25 [50P6] TEL
1x SKR Admiral Grigorovich [Pr.1135.6M]
1x SKR Admiral Sergey Gorshkov [Pr.2235.0]
5x Su-24MP Fencer F
24x Su-33 Flanker D
8x Su-35S Flanker
9x T-50 PAK-FA
1x TAKR Admiral Kuznetsov [Pr.1143.5]
1x TAKR Ulyanovsk [Pr.1143.7 Orel]
12x Tu-22M-3M Backfire C
1x Vehicle (Cheese Board [96L6])
1x Vehicle (Grave Stone [92N2E])
3x Vehicle (Grill Pan [9S32M])
2x Vehicle (Paint Box [SPN-30] Jammer)
3x Vehicle (SA-25 FCR [50N6A])
3x Yak-44 Hawkeyeski


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
28x 130mm/54 A-192 Frag
8x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka Burst [50 rnds]
14x 30mm Twin Gatling Gsh-6-30K Burst [375 rnds]
4x 30mm Twin Gatling Gsh-6-30KD [375 rnds]
5x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH]
8x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27RE, LR SARH]
6x AA-11 Archer [R-73]
2x AA-11 Archer [R-73M]
11x AA-12 Adder A [R-77, RVV-AE]
54x AA-13 Arrow [R-37M]
5x AK-130 130mm/54 Twin Frag Burst [2 rnds]
4x AK-630M 30mm/65 Gatling Burst [400 rnds]
2x AS-4 Kitchen B Mod 3 [Kh-22NA INS+TERCOM]
36x DF-25 [Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-3]
36x DF-25 RV [Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-3]
10x Generic Acoustic Decoy
6x Generic Acoustic Decoy
97x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
30x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
1x Generic Flare Salvo [2x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
15x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
228x Kh-101
1x MG-114 Berilly
37x PK-10 Chaff [SR-50]
41x PK-10 Flare [SO-50]
6x RBU-12000 Torpedo Decoy Salvo [UDAV-1, 10 rnds]
88x RGB-41 [Search, Passive Omni]
47x RGB-48 [Search, Passive Directional]
118x RGB-75 [Basic Search, Passive Omni]
5x SA-21a Growler [48N6DM]
30x SA-23a Gladiator [9M83M]
131x SA-25 [9M96]
21x SA-N-11a Grisom [9M311K]
7x SA-N-11b Grisom [9M311K-1]
21x SA-N-12 Grizzly [9M317]
60x SA-N-21c Growler [9M96]
2x SA-N-4b Gecko [9M33M3]
113x SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM]
7x SA-N-9 Gauntlet [9M330-2 Kinzhal]
6x SS-N-15 Starfish [RPK-6 Veder, UMGT-1 Torpedo]
24x SS-N-19 Shipwreck [P-700 Granit]
32x SS-N-26 Sapless [P-800 Onyx]
1x USET-80






(in reply to Flankerk)
Post #: 25
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/24/2014 7:41:19 PM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: online
quote:


I am going to adjust the scoring so that losing 4 ships/subs puts the player at "disaster" and keeps you there (or notifies you that you lost). I just have to figure out how to do it with the scoring mechanism. Other adjustments to scoring are also necessary.


I don't think that's possible, but you could up the point losses for individual ships.

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 26
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/24/2014 9:22:24 PM   
Flankerk

 

Posts: 407
Joined: 6/21/2006
Status: offline

Probably the most difficult task would be protecting all four, the missions assigned to the subs worked really well, and I had two very nasty surprise attacks. The sub AI also worked very well indeed. I knew roughly where the attack came from, and sent in the Seawolf. It wasn't at a high speed cruise, but promptly had to outrun several standoff ASW attacks. Once I evaded those, came back in and picked up a sub, this was the Akula II I think. Headed towards torpedo range and lost the contact. Couldn't pick it up again for ages and ended up having to call in loads of active sonar-buoy helicopter searches. Found it eventually closing on the Seawolf (or perhaps the task force) but at a sneaky speed of two knots. No wonder I lost the contact.

Its also possible the satellite pass just hadn't been close to the missile sections before and I misunderstood mind.

(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 27
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 6/24/2014 9:45:50 PM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
I used the Advanced Global Hawk's awesome sensor suite to detect the Ballistic Missile sites in Ukraine, and later used one of them to keep tabs on the Russian SAG when it was safe to do so.

The satellite jamming issue I was referring to was the fact that the Lacrosse shows "Jammed" when it flies near/over a Fencer Jammer. I'm not altogether sure that a Fencer can do that to an active satellite radar due to the vertical distances involved. Maybe I should post it in the Tech Forum for the Developers to look at as it may be totally realistic.

I need to do something to get the NATO Carrier Group in the game. It's dead weight on the scenario right now.

(in reply to Flankerk)
Post #: 28
RE: New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter - 7/4/2014 11:37:19 AM   
Galahad78

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 9/28/2009
Status: offline
Wow, looks like a very interesting scenario, will try v2.

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Mods and Scenarios >> New Scenario for Beta Testing: Gibralter 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

0.180