New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message


.Sirius -> New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/9/2020 12:20:04 PM)

NATO vs. Soviet Union

Date/Time: 1st March, 1985/ 08:00:00 Zulu
Location: North Atlantic - Barents Sea
Duration: 1 Day
Playable Sides: NATO



USS Bedford is on patrol near the Svalbard Islands and has been repeatedly over flown by Soviet Aircraft including low level passes at main deck level.

Bedford has also had fleeting contacts on sonar which is believed to be an unknown SSK in territorial waters.

Even though Hostilities have not broken out her Captain is hell bent on bringing it to the surface!

Paul Bridge

Author and Scenario Designer


OVERVIEW

The increase in tensions between NATO and the Soviet Union has intensified over the last 2 weeks , this has been more so in the Barents Sea region with various intermittent contacts of submarines along the Norwegian coast.

USS Bedford and a detachment of Orion's based in Banak have been conducting round the clock patrols in the vicinity of Svalbard Islands.

ORDERS & CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS

1. USS Bedford and associated air assets are to conduct aggressive ASW Patrols in their allocated areas.

2. Any Submarine contact is to be forced to the surface if detected in the Svalbard Islands TTW.

3. Units are to only fire in self defense.

4. Soviet MRR Aircraft have been deployed to Greem Bell, Intelligence suggests the SSK is on route to RV with a Submarine Support Ship.

ORDER OF BATTLE

Surface Forces

USS Bedford - DLG
HNoMS Narvik - FFG

Banak Air Base

333 Sqn Det P-3 Orion

THREAT

Surface Forces

Unknown Submarine Support Ship

Sub-Surface

Unknown Submarine

Air

Be-12 Mail MRR


COMMAND & CONTROL

Flagship - USS Bedford

EMCON

Limited Transmission on all sensors





Randomizer -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/9/2020 3:11:27 PM)

Running it now, I like ASW situations. One small point as the scenario description gives the length as one-day but the game clock says one-month to go.

EDIT
The duration is set correctly to 1-day but the scenario start time is 1985-04-01 rather than 1985-03-01. Easy fix and if I had a dollar for every time I've committed a similar error in scenario set up, I would have more dollars than I have now.

No issues so far, still hunting.

-C




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/9/2020 3:38:44 PM)

Hi Chris

All fixed and uploaded [:)]




HalfLifeExpert -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/9/2020 7:07:20 PM)

Sweet! I'll download right now!

UPDATE: I just realized i need the Public beta DB. I think it should be stated as such in the OP.


UPDATE 2: Okay so I've just started things. I do have one comment. I think the NATO ASW Patrol zone should be extended a little bit further southward, just beyond Hopen Island (the long thin one south of Svalbard proper) as it seems a little wonky for the ASW Zone to so ridgedly run along one of the southern bits of Svalbard.




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/9/2020 8:28:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

Sweet! I'll download right now!

UPDATE: I just realized i need the Public beta DB. I think it should be stated as such in the OP.


UPDATE 2: Okay so I've just started things. I do have one comment. I think the NATO ASW Patrol zone should be extended a little bit further southward, just beyond Hopen Island (the long thin one south of Svalbard proper) as it seems a little wonky for the ASW Zone to so ridgedly run along one of the southern bits of Svalbard.

Noted [:)]




Randomizer -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/9/2020 11:53:10 PM)

Am well into the scenario now with no issues noted. However I entirely disagree about adding to the Player's patrol zone. Right now the Player has over 110,000 square nautical miles of open ocean for an area of responsibility (AOR) and this after subtracting the land area of the Svalbard Archipelago*. To do this you have two surface ships and effectively one LRMP. It's already a big haystack and adding more hay has to be counter-productive.

There are countless reasons why the patrol zone ends arbitrarily and only a comparatively small area of Norwegian territorial waters is outside of the Player's mandate. Consider that there may be a USN SSBN patrol zone south of Svalbard, the commander on the scene would not necessarily be advised of this but conducting ASW ops near friendly missile boats cannot possibly be a good thing except under particular situations not apparent in the briefings.

So I will loudly vote and often against expanding the Player AOR as it is quite large and complex enough as is.

Just my $0.02 CAD.

-C

* I actually crunched the numbers using the bearing and range tool, trig functions and a calculator. Thanks to Wikipedia for the land area of Svalbard, 61,022 km^2 converted to nm^2 and subtracted from the area of the patrol zone.




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/10/2020 10:17:35 AM)

Hi Chris
I will be leaving the areas as they are




Tom Konczal -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/11/2020 3:22:35 PM)

Very disappointed. I really wanted to try this scenario but am not using the Beta updates and it will not load with the [PC] Update v1.01.11474 Jun 24, 2020 version.
Is there any way you can upload it with the current official database?
Thanks




HalfLifeExpert -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/12/2020 8:58:36 PM)

So I played through this a couple times.

I was attacked by Soviet aircraft with no warning, and discovered that the Pharris is basically helpless against air attack.

I never found the sub or the sub support ship, so I presume that the attack was not based on aggressively shadowing ether. Was this intentional?

I'm suspect of scenarios that have sudden hostilities break out like this, as it seems unplanned to me.

I'll try it again.


Also, are the Allied satellites completely necessary? The ELINT contacts of Soviet radars end up cluttering the map space.



UPDATE: I took another look at this scenario, and wanted to make sure I was reading the coordinates right with the two special messages. Sure enough, the sub and support ship are where they say they are (I used god's eye view in editor mode), and I realized that the sub never seems to actually enter the ASW patrol zone.

Why? Why is the sub so far away when the briefing suggests that the commander of Pharris is much closer to the sub an prepared to force her to surface?

It seems to me that the two vessels are too far apart from the player's vessels.




Randomizer -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/13/2020 3:34:04 AM)

I must concur with HalfLifeExpert regarding the target sub location and satellites. There is no reason for the Player to leave Norwegian territorial waters since the briefing clearly state that only subs in the TTW are to be tracked and forced to the surface. Sailing Pharris 200+ nm to the north of Soviet Franz Josef Land would take much of the 24-hours allotted and clearly exceed orders.

I found the sub-depot ship using an Orion but it was also too far away to engage within the scenario time limit without a high speed run from Narvik that is the antithesis of ASW operations. I had actually thought that the periscope sighted message was a Red Herring and so plotted it and determined that, as per orders, it could not be the offending Soviet sub.

The satellites and all of those mainland radars are unnecessary distractions which merely add clutter to the map.

No losses and just ammunition expended with three MiGs and a MAIL splashed.

I take the briefings seriously and when they state operate with the TTW, that is precisely what I will do until new orders arrive. Suggest change the briefing and or the locations of the sub and tender. Variable start locations might enhance re-playability.

Nice shout out to The Bedford Incident with Novosibersk as the Soviet sub-tender.

-C




HalfLifeExpert -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/13/2020 4:16:29 AM)

Thanks for the supporting words. I too take briefings very seriously and don't violate them lightly.

Even in this case with the attack aircraft that strike the Pharris and the Narvik, they come in very low, but the briefing states that the Pharris has been buzzed by Soviet aircraft, so I can't take that alone to open fire until it's too late.

I was honestly expecting the sub to appear somewhere east-southeast of Svalbard in the ASW zone, which was why I repeatedly checked and confirmed the two sighting reports, as I was starting to think that the coordinates were written down wrong.




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/13/2020 6:37:14 AM)

Hi guys all points noted and will update as required




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/14/2020 11:51:58 AM)

Hi Guys

Scenario updated and new file uploaded with Submarine and support ship moved, replaced USS Pharris with USS Bedford!, expect a surprise if you detect the Boomer !




Tom Konczal -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/14/2020 7:06:24 PM)

Does this update also require the Beta database?




Randomizer -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/14/2020 8:07:50 PM)

Couple of small glitches with the newest version:

- USS Bedford has no missiles or ASROC loaded and her magazines are empty; and

- Banak Air Base also has empty magazines. Is this intentional?

-C




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/14/2020 8:24:00 PM)

Ok this is weird all platforms have zero in mags and weapons mounts stby for update




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/14/2020 8:34:11 PM)

Uploaded and updated




HalfLifeExpert -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/14/2020 9:15:17 PM)

Thanks Paul, I've downloaded it and loaded it up. I'm a big fan of The Bedford Incident, so it's awesome to see the vessel in CMO!





.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/15/2020 9:34:21 AM)

It's a great movie with great Actors, used to watch it alot when I was in the RN doing ASW Ops in the GIUK Gap




Randomizer -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/15/2020 10:41:48 AM)

But there are no nukes in the ASROC launcher!

-C




BeirutDude -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/15/2020 11:01:43 AM)

Great Movie!




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/15/2020 11:38:44 AM)

I'll amend when I get back on my lappy




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/15/2020 5:18:01 PM)

If you want I do this scenario setin the 1960's using the Cold War DB [8D]




HalfLifeExpert -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/16/2020 3:53:55 AM)

So I just finished the new version. I very much found the submarine, and the Bedford had solid contact on her most of the entire time since, banging away with Active sonar, sometimes with help from Active Sonar Bouys from an Orion. That's the only way I could think of to do anything to 'force the sub to surface'.

And nothing happened. I ran out the clock and nothing really happened. No messages, no threatening gestures from the Soviets, nothing.

Ended up scoring nothing.

Surely there's an issue here right?




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/16/2020 11:33:06 AM)

Scenario updated and uploaded




HalfLifeExpert -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/17/2020 4:10:52 AM)

I played through the new version. I found both the Sub and Support Vessel.

Since the Narvik started near southern Svalbard, I dispatched her to stay close to the Novosibirsk. I had Bedford Aggressively stay on top of the submarine, and with P-3 Support, buzzed and pinged the submarine for many hours, with constant maneuvering and counter maneuvering by both vessels. Between the Bedford and the P-3s, I certainly fired off enough Active Sonar to make the sub's crew hearing it for months, but nothing happened until the scenario was almost over.

With about 45-50 minutes left in the clock, I detected a pair of Fitters inbound toward Bedford at 300 ft. Sticking to my ROE, I waited until the lead Fitter launched its AShMs before firing. Bedford took a minor hit (6.2% Damage, with all systems and mounts operational), and quickly blasted both Fitters with SAMs. Once within a good firing arc, I fired two Mk-46s at the sub, which sank her.

I also sank the Novosibirsk with Narvik's 4 Penguin missiles and a pair of Harpoons from an Orion, and used the latter's other two Harpoons to sink a Soviet AGI.

I still let the clock run out as there was no event triggering the end of the scenario until then.

I got a Triumph score with 180 points, but it still seems to me that something isn't right. Perhaps something with the Sub's behavior or orders because I had that Golf firmly locked down for at least 9 consecutive hours. She never went above two knots, so maybe 'avoid cavitation' is on, if the intent is to force the sub to drain batteries?




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/17/2020 8:31:47 PM)

Thanks for the test Ill make afew amendments




jeff.flinchum -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/22/2020 5:25:37 PM)

I am new to this so I hope I don't offend anyone or embarrass myself by asking a question here and if this is the wrong place please point me in the right direction. I downloaded this scenario when I try to play I get the following error message "ERROR: You have (explicitly or implicitly) attempted to load a database that does not exist on the DB folder." I have been playing this game for a while and can't figure this out. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.




stilesw -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/22/2020 5:43:27 PM)

Hi Jeff and welcome to the WarfareSims and CMO world.

The current Hide and Seek scenario was released on 16Sep20 and uses the 30Aug20 database file "DB3K_487.db3". If you are using an earlier version of the database you will need to upgrade to 487.

First look in the CMO/DB folder and make sure you have the DB3K_487.db3 file. If you do not you will need to download the latest version of CMO which is Build 1147.10. You can get it at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1m1JBmt8Y8iKTuBpKnBLqFxVAKmxOYIkE. When you have installed this version you should no longer get the ERROR: You have (explicitly or implicitly) attempted to load a database that does not exist on the DB folder error message.

Please let me know if this does not work for you.

-Wayne Stiles
Moderator




.Sirius -> RE: New Scenario for Testing "Hide and Seek" (9/22/2020 5:45:44 PM)

Beat me to it




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.515625E-02