Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" Updated V1.2 12-8-18

 
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 >> Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" Updated V1.2 12-8-18 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" Upd... - 12/4/2018 5:10:55 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Updated to Playtest Version 1.2 on 12-8 22:00 EST. Four big changes...

1. Tweaked the Teleport, now you must run the scenario for 1-2 seconds so the Soviet SAG missions move with it (they don't move on the Load Scenario trigger).
2. Tweaked Soviet SAG
3. Tweaked the AI missions
4. Tweaked teleport zones to make the scenario more challenging. Updated in this post and also below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATO vs. the Soviet Union in the Norwegian Sea, July 1989. This scenario is big! Really, really, really BIG! Please don't playtest if you're not willing to allow it to slow down at times! You have been warned...

This is my first attempt at using Lua Scripts and I've been working on it for a month and a half! So please be kind!

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/9/2018 5:17:49 PM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!
Post #: 1
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/4/2018 7:47:25 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

This scenario is big! Really, really, really BIG! Please don't playtest if you're not willing to allow it to slow down at times! You have been warned...



Challenge accepted

Ancalagon

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 2
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/4/2018 10:34:18 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: online
I have just hit start after an hour setting missions and I have like a hundred goblin contacs signalled by SOSUS (including three soviet subs positively IDed in less than ten minutes of play), an horde of ground contacts in the north of Norway, the first of surely many missile strikes (half a dozen sandbox, no idea who launched nor who targeted my EMCON ships I hope it "only" was a radar sat) and a kamikaze Bear F flying straight to Evenes and all its very angry Norwegian pilots mounted in their very deadly Viper fighters. Not a very smart move I would say, perhaps a little tweak of whaever was its mission would be advisable.

I return to play now, later more news (I hope without more kamikazes).

Ancalagon

EDIT: Last report of today, I'm twelve hours in the scenario and everything has been fairly normal (as in intense, deadly combat almost non-stop normal) but the saga of the kamikaze MPAs continued with a grand total of 8 Mail, May and Bear F downed due to the stupid behaviour of flying at spitting range of my northern bases.

Also something happened during one bomber raid, not sure if WAD of not.
The first planes of the raid seemed to be Badgers of several flavours and where mercilessly downed by my fairly well positioned CAP (those little Harriers are pure gold).
But when the Backfires (positively identified as such) coming after them where getting dangerously close to launching range, unexpectedly turned tail and went home without launching missiles.
Later, revising the losses & expenditures log, I found that along the Badgers I downed four Recon type Backfires (Tu-22MR).
Perhaps the bombers depend of them for targeting and they aborted when they lose contact info?
Don't know, not even sure there is any issue here or is perfectly normal behaviour. Just telling you to be sure.

Will keep playing tomorrow

Ancalagon

< Message edited by Ancalagon451 -- 12/5/2018 12:23:23 AM >

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 3
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/5/2018 12:30:51 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Not a very smart move I would say, perhaps a little tweak of whaever was its mission would be advisable.


This is a mission problem I couldn't solve for the MPA missions, But the initial Bear F should have had a course well north of there???

quote:

Last report of today, I'm twelve hours in the scenario and everything has been fairly normal (as in intense, deadly combat almost non-stop normal) but the saga of the kamikaze MPAs continued with a grand total of 8 Mail, May and Bear F downed due to the stupid behaviour of flying at spitting range of my northern bases.


This is were I really wish we could set waypoints for the missions and not just the unit.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/5/2018 12:32:34 AM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 4
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/5/2018 12:34:48 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Also something happened during one bomber raid, not sure if WAD of not.
The first planes of the raid seemed to be Badgers of several flavours and where mercilessly downed by my fairly well positioned CAP (those little Harriers are pure gold).
But when the Backfires (positively identified as such) coming after them where getting dangerously close to launching range, unexpectedly turned tail and went home without launching missiles.
Later, revising the losses & expenditures log, I found that along the Badgers I downed four Recon type Backfires (Tu-22MR).
Perhaps the bombers depend of them for targeting and they aborted when they lose contact info?
Don't know, not even sure there is any issue here or is perfectly normal behaviour. Just telling you to be sure.

Will keep playing tomorrow

Ancalagon


Thanks for looking at the scenario.

Not sure what happened there as they've launched on me. I might play it again in God's eye view to see if it happens to me. I think you may be right you took out their targeting! There are satellites but...

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/5/2018 12:36:20 AM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 5
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/5/2018 12:39:11 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Too bad you can't set up a No Navigation Zone for just certain units. That would help for things like MPA transiting over a hot zone!

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 6
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/5/2018 2:49:38 AM   
Whicker

 

Posts: 381
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline
why not make a new base just for the MPA stuff on one of the islands above the mainland? Bear island seems a fitting place - little island half way up to the bigger islands. then they could happily go about their patrol without getting slaughtered - initially at least.
Maybe not as real as you would like, but certainly having those AC fly past the F-16s is not realistic either.

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 7
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/5/2018 12:05:07 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

why not make a new base just for the MPA stuff on one of the islands above the mainland? Bear island seems a fitting place - little island half way up to the bigger islands. then they could happily go about their patrol without getting slaughtered - initially at least.
Maybe not as real as you would like, but certainly having those AC fly past the F-16s is not realistic either.


I like it. Spetnaz and Paratroopers seized the island with transports flying in the needed loadouts and fuel. Let me look into this!

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Whicker)
Post #: 8
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/5/2018 12:17:32 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Doable!!!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Airport,_Longyear

Could be the Tom Clancy Iceland Scenario only easier (in some ways and harder in terms of environment!). Some will disagree but it would solve the problem. I'll keep the Whales to the Nord Kapp area and move the Mays and Bears to Longyear! THANKS!!!!!

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Whicker)
Post #: 9
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/5/2018 2:36:15 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Update based on Whicker's suggestion above. I stretched how many aircraft Longyear could take, but it really might be able to take almost a squadron!

Update, version 1.2 is below.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/9/2018 2:12:52 AM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Whicker)
Post #: 10
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/5/2018 5:27:14 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 3752
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Svalbard is a good option, you can reasonably expand it with Weather shelters (the canvas ones can be put up in a day or so.

Another option I've used is the hypothetical floating base. Cannot recall name and am away from the game but you can position it anywhere to get around this issue.

I'll try and give this a run next week.

B

_____________________________

Check out our upcoming novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!

http://northernfury.bhgdesigns.com/index.php

And our blog:

http://northernfury.bhgdesigns.com/blog

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 11
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/5/2018 7:38:24 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Svalbard is a good option, you can reasonably expand it with Weather shelters (the canvas ones can be put up in a day or so.


The problem is the Tarmac space. Looking on satellite imagery it can only hold 6 to 8 Il-38 May/P-3C Orion sized aircraft, but the only people who know this are You, me and anyone who reads this! I did expand the Tarmac over what it can really hold but doubt the Soviets could have dome so fast enough with permafrost!

quote:

I'll try and give this a run next week.


Thanks!

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 12
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/5/2018 9:04:03 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: online
OK, been playing until a little more than a day and half. The tally of MPAs stands at near forty. Whatever solution you implement make sure they don't come closer to 250nm from the Norwegian coast because my Vipers have been carrying interceptions at 200nm with no fuss.

That thing about the bombers not firing, forget it.

The second raid came and the mothershaggers fired.

Almost fifty high speed missiles .

Albeit the raid was succesfully defeated, with plenty of casualties in the reconaissance elements (but very few between the bombers themselves), three missiles where downed by Phalanx bursts. So it was a VERY close call.

On top of that their deployment was a highly resillient one, since I managed to down several tankers when they there mustering before the raid and I thought that would impede them to prosecute their mission. Instead they endured and carried on. Very impressive.

Between SOSUS and plenty of MPAs the submarine menace has been minimal, with the two glaring exceptions of the Oscar ships. One of them single-handedly almost wiped the STANAVFORLANT SAG (only one ship survived), and the other one attacked the Ex-Roosevelt SAG sinking one ship.

The soviet SAG resulted to be a submarine-proof one (damn Udaloy with VDS and Silex ASROCs everywhere), so after losing two subs I switched tactics and atritted it with Bucaneers, Orions and TASMs until it dissapeared.

I'm not sure of it's strategic purpose, if it's mission was deny the airspace to my MPAs to protect the soviet subs, then it was badly positioned to do so. Almost all of them where sunk many hours before the SAG started to being a menace.

I have deployed in Bodo all the Bucaneers, Phantoms and Strike Tornados and, after a fairly intense use of al of them (except Tornados, all downed in a badly planned strike against the SAG), I'm not feeling constrained by the available supplies.

In fact I feel that I could have redeployed the Fighter Tornados without problem, and that would have enabled me to intensively raid the bomber mustering zone and strangle the strikes in their craddle, so to speak.

So, unless there is a truckload of action pending in the second half (perhaps something related with that massive Red Army in the north?) you shoud reduce substantially the ammunition available in Bodo.

Unfortunately tomorrow I'm going on travel and my laptop doesn't have the guts for such a heavy scenario, so the second half report will not be done until next week, sorry.

Hope this wall of text is helpful to you, and thank you for your work.

Ancalagon



< Message edited by Ancalagon451 -- 12/5/2018 9:13:14 PM >

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 13
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/7/2018 11:47:42 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

So, unless there is a truckload of action pending in the second half (perhaps something related with that massive Red Army in the north?) you shoud reduce substantially the ammunition available in Bodo.


Done, actually across the board! I about quartered AAMs across all of the bases. It gets to easy to throw everything including, the kitchen sink, and those bases probably had ALL OF NATO's AAM stocks for a year of combat!!!!!! Not quite but yeah good call!

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 14
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/7/2018 11:50:04 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

I'm not sure of it's strategic purpose, if it's mission was deny the airspace to my MPAs to protect the soviet subs, then it was badly positioned to do so. Almost all of them where sunk many hours before the SAG started to being a menace.


Yeah, Originally it was closer to the NATO SAGs and teleported with the subs but then I moved it to try to protect the strike. I have a new thought for trying to protect the Backfire strike....

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 15
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/9/2018 2:11:52 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Updated to Playtest Version 1.2 on 12-8 22:00 EST. For big changes...

1. Tweaked the Teleport, now you must run the scenario for 1-2 seconds so the Soviet SAG missions move with it (they don't move on the Load Scenario trigger).
2. Tweaked Soviet SAG
3. Tweaked the AI missions
4. Tweaked teleport zones to make the scenario more challenging.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/9/2018 5:18:58 PM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 16
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/9/2018 2:10:00 PM   
JPFisher55

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 11/22/2014
Status: offline
BeirutDude, the above file has the wrong scenario. I played Arctic Tsunami and enjoyed it.

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 17
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/9/2018 5:27:34 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
OMG!

Sorry About that everyone! Actually I was wondering when I was going to do something like this as I'm juggling two very similar scenarios at the same time! I blame being older than dirt, tired when I zipped them last night and thinking ahead to adjustments to Arctic Tsunami 2019 when I zipped this one!

The current version of The Gauntlet 1989 is in the attachment below.

Glad you enjoyed Arctic Tsunami 2019, I actually made a few very small adjustments to it this morning and posted those in the ready for the Community Pack thread, but they were very minor updates.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/9/2018 5:29:20 PM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to JPFisher55)
Post #: 18
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/13/2018 11:20:03 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: online
OK, I finally decided to give the new version a try, and dear sir, It's a monster.

The repositioning of the SAG and switching from Kirov to Kiev changes everything. And the first three hours where nothing but enduring missile strikes, avoiding enemy subs just under my ships (did you tweak their teleport zones or was just bad luck on my part?) and making hastly planned and in the end uneffective ASuW strikes.

I lost all the STANAVFORLANT and all the Invincible escorts. The carrier itself along with the last SAG survived and that decided me to continue. During the following lull I lost two subs to the Soviet SAG (again) and attrited it to death with Harpoon and Sea Eagle missiles (also again), Forgers are able to deny airspace to enablers and patrolling MPAs (as opposed to striking ones) but no more than that.

Once the SAG was sunk things more or less switched back to routine except that it's last ditch missile attack literally depleted my ships of SAM (last few missiles were confronted only with chaff and CIWS). So I had nothing to defend me from the next bomber raid except less than two dozen fighters. Half of them armed only with Sidewinders.

I did it .

I managed to position and sustain a CAP north of parallel 70º, with Tornados coming all the way from Scotland. The rest of the fighters from Bodo and a Flanking Invincible, and I strangled the strike in its craddle.

After that, it was a waiting game for the amphibs arrival and unloading, with a moment of sheer terror then some Soviet strike fighters decided that the ships were much more valuable targets than the rubble of Andoya and the other northern bases (damn ruskies with a working brain).

Triumph at the end but a damn bloody one.

Now relevant points:

Great idea the changes in position and composition of the SAG, it covers both the bombers and the submarines.

The munitions cut in Bodo it's very annoying (as it should) but it's still posible operate all Phantoms and Eagles from there during almost all the scenario duration. Not having Tornado F.3 munitions there, was a nasty surprise (as it should).

The problem of kamikaze MPAs is solved. Only once I saw one, overflying Norwegian bases (and the fool even survived since it did it when there was no ready interceptors ), so you can chalk it to a fluke and call it done.

I put a Side level doctrine forbidding refuel and UNREP to avoid whatever happened last time, until the devs give it an eye. The ships have more than enough fuel to make the trip at flank speed, so you should delete or put back in their groups the tankers. Micromanaging them it's very annoying.

As of right now the biggest problem is, and sorry for the bluntness, one of boredom. After the frantic start you have more than a day to recompose yourseld, destroy the SAG and preparing for the second round, and that it's a little too much. Not sure what can be done without excessively beefing the enemy.

But the worst offender it's not that but the time after the second strike, when you still have more than two day of play and probably more than one for the amphibs to arrive and unload. I played all that time on the background while I was studying Chemistry .

Here I do have a pair of suggestions.

First, cut in half unloading time. Not realistic, I know, but this one seems to me one of those times when you have to compromise for sake of enjoying the game. You can (and should) cut a day from game time to maintain the time presure. Also put a special message indicating the completion of unloading and perhaps another informing of the start when the ships arrive to the landing zone. I play with events not visible and I only discovered that the ships where scoring when I happened to check the scoring log.

Second, once there are ships in the landing zone, reassign all tactical strikers to anti-ship duties. Some Fencers did it accidentally in my playtest and they managed to damage several escorts.

Third, SSGNs shouldn't play to be SSNs after they expend their missiles, I'm not sure if there whould be enough time to do it but you should try rearming them. Give them a home base in Kola with proper magazines, and a retreat doctrine to send them to base when their primary offensive weapon is depleted (and lets hope the devs have programed them to consider only their missiles as primary weapons).

All this would make the second part of the scenario much more engaging. Also much more deadly, so perhaps you should put some extra ships with a readying time of twenty hours in Scotland and use them as reinforcements.

All said still a good scenario as is, is just the lull on the second half annoyed me to no end.

Hope any of this helps you, and again thanks for your work.

Ancalagon

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 19
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/14/2018 12:25:34 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

OK, I finally decided to give the new version a try, and dear sir, It's a monster.


That's what happens when I have too much time on my hands!

quote:

The repositioning of the SAG and switching from Kirov to Kiev changes everything. And the first three hours where nothing but enduring missile strikes, avoiding enemy subs just under my ships (did you tweak their teleport zones or was just bad luck on my part?) and making hastly planned and in the end uneffective ASuW strikes.


I did tweak the zones to help with coordination of the initial strikes at the expense of latter strikes as you noted.

quote:

I lost all the STANAVFORLANT and all the Invincible escorts. The carrier itself along with the last SAG survived and that decided me to continue. During the following lull I lost two subs to the Soviet SAG (again) and attrited it to death with Harpoon and Sea Eagle missiles (also again), Forgers are able to deny airspace to enablers and patrolling MPAs (as opposed to striking ones) but no more than that.


I had a very similar playtest

quote:

Once the SAG was sunk things more or less switched back to routine except that it's last ditch missile attack literally depleted my ships of SAM (last few missiles were confronted only with chaff and CIWS). So I had nothing to defend me from the next bomber raid except less than two dozen fighters. Half of them armed only with Sidewinders.


Again I had a similar experience.

quote:

I did it .

I managed to position and sustain a CAP north of parallel 70º, with Tornados coming all the way from Scotland. The rest of the fighters from Bodo and a Flanking Invincible, and I strangled the strike in its craddle.

After that, it was a waiting game for the amphibs arrival and unloading, with a moment of sheer terror then some Soviet strike fighters decided that the ships were much more valuable targets than the rubble of Andoya and the other northern bases (damn ruskies with a working brain).

Triumph at the end but a damn bloody one.

Now relevant points:

quote:

Great idea the changes in position and composition of the SAG, it covers both the bombers and the submarines.


Thank you, I think it helps.

quote:

The munitions cut in Bodo it's very annoying (as it should) but it's still posible operate all Phantoms and Eagles from there during almost all the scenario duration. Not having Tornado F.3 munitions there, was a nasty surprise (as it should).

The problem of kamikaze MPAs is solved. Only once I saw one, overflying Norwegian bases (and the fool even survived since it did it when there was no ready interceptors ), so you can chalk it to a fluke and call it done.


So actually that is one reason for the Tromso area strikes. I was never able to vector the returning aircraft away from there so they are partly there to soak off NATO CAP.

quote:

I put a Side level doctrine forbidding refuel and UNREP to avoid whatever happened last time, until the devs give it an eye. The ships have more than enough fuel to make the trip at flank speed, so you should delete or put back in their groups the tankers. Micromanaging them it's very annoying.


So I tested it having the Orange Leaf Unrep Ocean and it turned into a disaster.

quote:

As of right now the biggest problem is, and sorry for the bluntness, one of boredom. After the frantic start you have more than a day to recompose yourseld, destroy the SAG and preparing for the second round, and that it's a little too much. Not sure what can be done without excessively beefing the enemy.


Was there a day two backfire strike? There should have been...

quote:

But the worst offender it's not that but the time after the second strike, when you still have more than two day of play and probably more than one for the amphibs to arrive and unload. I played all that time on the background while I was studying Chemistry .

Here I do have a pair of suggestions.


quote:

First, cut in half unloading time. Not realistic, I know, but this one seems to me one of those times when you have to compromise for sake of enjoying the game. You can (and should) cut a day from game time to maintain the time presure. Also put a special message indicating the completion of unloading and perhaps another informing of the start when the ships arrive to the landing zone. I play with events not visible and I only discovered that the ships where scoring when I happened to check the scoring log.


Not sure how to do that except on a ship by ship basis. I didn't want to just give points for a group as only one ship might make it so each ship gets points for unloading.

quote:

Second, once there are ships in the landing zone, reassign all tactical strikers to anti-ship duties. Some Fencers did it accidentally in my playtest and they managed to damage several escorts.


Good idea I will look at it.

quote:

Third, SSGNs shouldn't play to be SSNs after they expend their missiles, I'm not sure if there whould be enough time to do it but you should try rearming them. Give them a home base in Kola with proper magazines, and a retreat doctrine to send them to base when their primary offensive weapon is depleted (and lets hope the devs have programed them to consider only their missiles as primary weapons).


I agree realistic but they wouldn't have the time in the scenario.

quote:

All this would make the second part of the scenario much more engaging. Also much more deadly, so perhaps you should put some extra ships with a readying time of twenty hours in Scotland and use them as reinforcements.

All said still a good scenario as is, is just the lull on the second half annoyed me to no end.

quote:

Hope any of this helps you, and again thanks for your work.


Thank you for your help!

Ancalagon


< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/14/2018 12:29:25 AM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 20
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/16/2018 2:12:49 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
It took me three tries but I think I replicated why you didn't have a strike on the 16th.

1. Weather kept the optical satellites from finding your forces during the Afternoon 15th and overnight 15th-16th as the storm came in.
2. You got lucky and none of the MPA aircraft found you before the ASuW strike was assigned on the 16th.
3. Thus the ASuw mission RTBed.

So randomly you lucked out! Fog of War. 07/16 Backfire Strike from a test run (Some NATO removed for speed).




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/16/2018 3:11:50 AM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 21
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/16/2018 2:21:50 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: online
So, I had a strike less than three hours in the scenario, then a second one more or less a day after ( I think there was in the ballpark of twenty-six hours later). This didn't seem wrong to me since roughly matched a rearm time of 20 hours plus some extra time for the bombers to complete landing queues before start rearming, and the strike event to trigger after rearming was complete. That second one it's when I killed them while mustering.

If I understand you correctly, there should have been yet another strike between those two, still during the first day of the scenario? Done by fresh bombers which didn't participate in the first one I suppose?

If that's so I seriouly doubt I would have survived, but I suppose it is a way to cut short the lull after the first battery of strikes .

Ancalagon

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 22
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/16/2018 3:55:33 PM   
GThomas63

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 12/16/2018
Status: offline
Just started playing this. Looks good. A couple questions:

1. I noticed the Roosevelt is down for repairs. Is its Carrier Air Wing on the way to Norway?
2. I always thought the plan was for a MEB (and associated fixed wing assets) to fly into Norway within a few days of hostilities starting and marry up with prepositioned equipment. True/False?

Perhaps this was ommitted to make it more of a "fair" fight but it seems like NATO would marshal more fixed wing (at least one carrier or USMC/USAF/ANG and position them in Iceland/Shetlands/Norway) before "running the gauntlet." Similar to the OOB's in the Northern Fury scenarios.

Thanks for creating this!

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 23
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/20/2018 8:10:32 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Sorry this took so long to reply but I'm working mid-shifts and never at my best then

So yes then the second strike was about on time. I was toying with maybe adding a second Soviet SAG around Frunze. I did add the basing for the SSNs/SSGNs

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 24
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/20/2018 8:36:02 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Just started playing this. Looks good. A couple questions:

1. I noticed the Roosevelt is down for repairs. Is its Carrier Air Wing on the way to Norway?


Two AS-4 Kitchens hit her catching much of the air wing on the flight and hanger decks. (truth is the air wing just weighed the scenario too heavily toward NATO. The original version had the Roosevelt in the SAG [CVBG] and it just wasn't a contest!).

quote:

2. I always thought the plan was for a MEB (and associated fixed wing assets) to fly into Norway within a few days of hostilities starting and marry up with prepositioned equipment. True/False?


Yes and no. The Northern Wedding and Ocean Safari exercises had the amphibs bring at least a MAU to two MAUs to Norway in the late 70s and early 80s. As I recall toward the end of the cold war '87-'91 some USMC equipment was stockpiled in the caves for the Marines to marry up with but I don't think that was ever completed. Interestingly we are currently returning to stockpiling prepositioned forces in Norway.

quote:

Perhaps this was ommitted to make it more of a "fair" fight but it seems like NATO would marshal more fixed wing (at least one carrier or USMC/USAF/ANG and position them in Iceland/Shetlands/Norway) before "running the gauntlet." Similar to the OOB's in the Northern Fury scenarios.


Yes it was just a NATO slaughter of the Northern Banner Fleet in playtesting with more aircraft and the CVBG (either tipped the balance too much). Just goes to show how far the Soviet Union was outclassed at the time the Berlin Wall fell! I've attached the last playtest with the USS Roosevelt CVBG and additional NATO aircraft included & I think you can see how much they just skew the scenario in favor of the West. By 1989 the Soviets were just too far behind, with a few good units, but not the overall top to bottom skills of NATO. BTW the "No Roosevelt" variant in that ZIP was the beginning of the variant that eventually became "The Gauntlet"

I also played with creating a Med variant of the first 7 days of the war (still am actually) and it is just a Soviet slaughter! Between the UK, Italy, France and US and with no decent bases/logistics the Soviets are simply butchered. Also nobody ever explained to me how the Badgers and Backfires were getting past Turkey's AAW/ADA/SAMs and Incirlik, so they really had to cross over Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to have any chance and that brings them into the NATO AAW intercept range from Italy and Greece. Bottom Line, the Soviet Med fleet/deployment was doomed! All they could do was die well...

quote:

Thanks for creating this!


Enjoy

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/20/2018 8:37:31 PM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to GThomas63)
Post #: 25
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/20/2018 9:00:47 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: online
quote:

Sorry this took so long to reply but I'm working mid-shifts and never at my best then


Don't worry, family, work and friends comes always first.

quote:

So yes then the second strike was about on time. I was toying with maybe adding a second Soviet SAG around Frunze. I did add the basing for the SSNs/SSGNs


Not sure about giving the Soviets more units, they have already deployed a pretty big chunk of ships, and in the scenario narrative they have alredy fought the NATO out of the North Atlantic, they are bound to have taken casualities on the way.

About the subs, I'm not sure it can work even if it was my idea to start.

I made some test runs after the last post and I found that they CAN be returned to base and redeployed with time for a second strike within a three day scope IF you use a pair of Lua scripts to put them at flank speed when they declare RTB and to take them out of it when they return to the combat zone.

But after that I found the rearming time proper for an Oscar it's almost a whole day and adding that to the transit times push the timetable well within the fourth day, when the scenario has probably ended, and that it's if you don't cut last day like I suggested, if you do then they run out of time before redeploying.

Perhaps with the Charlie or the Echoes would be doable, since they carry much less missiles, I haven't tested with those ones.


Ancalagon


(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 26
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/20/2018 9:21:46 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 3752
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

Yes and no. The Northern Wedding and Ocean Safari exercises had the amphibs bring at least a MAU to two MAUs to Norway in the late 70s and early 80s. As I recall toward the end of the cold war '87-'91 some USMC equipment was stockpiled in the caves for the Marines to marry up with but I don't think that was ever completed. Interestingly we are currently returning to stockpiling prepositioned forces in Norway.



From my research for Northern Fury, there was some (not sure how much) USMC winter equipment BV-206 etc and some standard kit (Tanks, LAVs) pre positioned up near Bardufoss. I think that the plan was for the MEU to arrive with its kit on the ESG and a flyover element (Bn+, Bde- size?) to meet it in Norway. I read about it a couple years ago and it was apparently practiced at least once.


B

_____________________________

Check out our upcoming novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!

http://northernfury.bhgdesigns.com/index.php

And our blog:

http://northernfury.bhgdesigns.com/blog

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 27
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/20/2018 11:00:52 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Yes I think about a MAU/MEU (in my days they were MAUs, I was attached to the 24th MAU Hq) of equipment by about 1985-7 time frame. But for Northern Wedding 82 I recall ARGs with USS Nassau and USS Guadalcanal involved in the exercise and not much prepositioned. By 1987 I was doing ASW at Cecil Field, Fl so I lost touch with how much was prepositioned but I'm pretty sure it never was a full MAB/MEB.

Northern Wedding...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Wedding

Ocean Safari 85...
https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/archpdf/ah198601.pdf

quote:

Prestocking for a U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Brigade.

In 1981 American and Norwegian authorities signed an agreement to store the heavy equipment of a U.S. air-landed Marine expeditionary brigade (known as the NALMEB) in the central Norwegian county of Trøndelag. The original plan was to store the equipment in northern Norway, which was where the brigade would operate if it were deployed. This was hindered by strong political opposition in Norway, and a compromise solution had to be found farther south. As compensation, the heavy equipment for South Norwegian Brigade 6 was stored in the north. Also, the Marine brigade’s air element was allowed to fly directly to its designated airfields in the north. The net result was thus a considerable strengthening of the defense of northern Norway.

What was the opposition to prestocking for the Marines in northern Norway all about? First, there were those who opposed any prestocking in Norway for the U.S. Marine Corps. Second, there were those who supported it in principle but not in northern Norway. The general opposition to prestocking must, I believe, be seen as a repercussion of the broad and general political opposition in Norway to the war in Vietnam. The war, which had ended in 1975, was still fresh in memory. Also, the Marine Corps was seen as the epitome of American expeditionary capability; Norwegian politicians feared that prestocking its equipment would pull the country into American global strategy. There were also those who
felt that storing equipment for foreign troops could undermine the Norwegian base policy, while others pointed to the fact that because the brigade was nuclear capable, the presence of its equipment would represent a challenge to the nation’s nuclear policy.

Those who supported prestocking in principle but opposed it in northern
Norway feared that a storage site there would provoke the Soviets and thus be contrary to the long-standing Norwegian policy of low tension in the north. This, by the way, was a general problem with the Maritime Strategy, as many Norwegians saw it. For the Norwegian government, which wanted to tie the United States to the defense of Norway, on the one hand, and on the other to minimize internal debate and political division over defense and security policy, handling the strategy was a difficult balancing act.24


https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1534&context=nwc-review

also found this that confirms what we're both saying cold weather equipment and some MAU support equipment by 1987.

quote:

The United States12 has a bilateral treaty with
Norway to participate in the defense of Norway
with a brigade size unit from the United States
Marine Corps.13 This unit will have some of its
equipment and supplies prestocked in Norway
(finished in 1989). The size of the unit is
determined, but no unit has been earmarked. A
standing headquarters (4th MAB) is responsible for
all planning for Norway. Participating units in
exercises in Norway come all from FMF Atlantic.
FMF Atlantic also sends units to the Mediterranean
and Okinawa (MAU) on a permanent basis and also
units to other parts in Europe, the Middle East,
Central America/Carribbean Ocean. FMF Atlantic is
also responsible for planning of a MPS
configurate MAB (6th MAB).
All these deployments mean the unit (MAB) which is
going to Norway is task-organized prior to the
deployment from available ready forces and sent to
winter training at training bases in CONUS for 4-6
weeks before they leave for Norway


https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/KK.htm

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/20/2018 11:29:22 PM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 28
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/20/2018 11:04:03 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 988
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Well I never thought they would be able to rearm and return to battle, but I did like your idea of the base giving them a direction to sail in when their primary weapons were expended. So that was why I did it.

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 29
RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" - 12/20/2018 11:28:01 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: online
You have a point here, it gives a more elegant behavior to the enemy AND denies the player some points unless he aggresively hunts for the retreating subs.
Witch is better than leaving them trying to (almost always unsuccesfully) torpedo some ship and pointlessly dying in the process.

Ancalagon

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Mods and Scenarios >> Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" Updated V1.2 12-8-18 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.166