Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

[RELEASED] Black Tiger

 
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 Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> [RELEASED] Black Tiger Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
[RELEASED] Black Tiger - 6/9/2015 8:12:46 PM   
jmarso

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
United States VS Iran*, 2015

This is a 5 scenario set which takes place in a highly fictionalized 2015. The scenarios are story driven, and based somewhat loosely on a novel which I've been on-again/off-again working on for the past several years.

The first 3 scenarios are relatively short and not that difficult, but do a lot to set the mood and story for the 4th and 5th scenarios. You play the 4th scenario as Iran, and then you are back to being the good guys for the 5th scenario, which is high on difficulty and complexity. The 5th scenario is really what this whole mission set is all about: re-opening a closed up and fortified Strait of Hormuz against an Iran which has been bolstered with significant military hardware and volunteers from the Russians. You have to deal with a complex problem involving enemy control of a chokepoint, mine countermeasures, ASW, heavy coastal defenses, and an air force much larger (though not necessarily better) than the two carrier air wings at your disposal.

Gameplay note: When you try Black Tiger V, you will initially think I've given the player way too much in the way of assets. (Assets include some fictional Tomcat 21's and F-35B's- it's all part of the storyline) By the time you are ready to actually move into and through the strait, you may be wondering if I've given you enough. I'm interested in the feedback from some of you more experienced Command and Harpoon junkies- I tried to make this challenging for the player while keeping it fun and entertaining at the same time. Lemme know. ;)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 8/13/2015 8:48:27 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Black Tiger - 6/9/2015 9:13:14 PM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 1188
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline
Trying it now, and finished the first scenario. I like how you took good care to keep it nonviolent.

(in reply to jmarso)
Post #: 2
RE: Black Tiger - 6/9/2015 10:55:09 PM   
ckfinite

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 7/20/2013
Status: offline
I'm playing the last scene (jumping ahead, I know), but I would suggest switching the F-35Bs to their AIM-120D internal only loadout for signature mitigation. The reduced RCS, in my experience, more than makes up for the reduced loadout.

(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 3
RE: Black Tiger - 6/9/2015 11:00:54 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3100
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
Having fun thus far. But boy they're pokey. I would recommend skinning out a lot of unused units in the first couple scenarios.

(in reply to ckfinite)
Post #: 4
RE: Black Tiger - 6/11/2015 9:51:57 AM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
Pokey?

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 5
RE: Black Tiger - 6/11/2015 10:05:49 AM   
AlexGGGG

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 9/25/2014
Status: offline
I ALMOST HAVE THEM SURROUNDED!!!111ONE




Attachment (1)

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 6
RE: Black Tiger - 6/11/2015 11:18:37 AM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3100
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: p1t1o

Pokey?


Slow.

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 7
RE: Black Tiger - 6/11/2015 3:30:16 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6324
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
That is a big-assed scenario. Almost 2000 units...It does concern me that is is trying to do too much. The first scenario really only directly involved less than 100 units. While it looks cool to have all of them, they really only contribute atmosphere and act as a CPU sink.

btw, I really like the concept and execution of these scenarios.

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 8
RE: Black Tiger - 6/12/2015 2:01:13 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5424
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Just played through BT-1, nice set up.  May wish to mention the USAF forces in Bahrain and what they are doing.  Not sure about the scoring, I like the scoring log now and I guess I let the Migs in too close.  Ah well on to #2

B

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 9
RE: Black Tiger - 6/12/2015 3:19:39 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5424
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
OK  BT-2 another nice little scenario.  Well set up and good context.  A couple of points:

-Both scenarios you may wish to reset the clock after you have got all your ships pointing in the right direction.  Looks a tad odd having 58 min 30 seconds left to play
-CAP outer 2 has two AC each in a single AC formation.  You can avoid this by clicking on the bottom check box in the mission ~AC numbers below flight size....
-The SE group of FACs were stopped, not sure why, they may have run out of plot and not been assigned to a mission
-You use a couple abbreviations which are not intuitive, can't recall what they are but they didn't make sense to me anyway
-The scenario is very slow for its size. Went back in the editor and checked.  You have used the full Airbases for everything.  I.E USAF Bahrain has 6 bases (213 units) and 35 AC.  None are used except for one E-3 as far as I can tell. As a minimum if you use single unit airfields etc, you can reduce this to 6+the AC.  Arab states has 2 bases with 300 units to support 7 AC.  The Iranian bases are full up to over 400 units which are not used.  So with an AU count of 1900, you could reduce it to half by switching out the current set up for Single unit airfields with no effect on the game.  Your probably using the same set up for all scenarios in the set for consistency, but that is expensive in performance.  There are some other tips for speeding up performance but I cannot recall them at the moment.  Perhaps someone out there has a good link to the tips?

A great scenario and set up but the performance bit scares off a lot of folks with older machines (as many of my earlier scenarios did ) and really slows down game play.

B

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 10
RE: Black Tiger - 6/12/2015 6:47:46 AM   
jmarso

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
Typo

< Message edited by jmarso -- 6/12/2015 8:10:34 AM >

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 11
RE: Black Tiger - 6/12/2015 7:15:37 AM   
jmarso

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

-The scenario is very slow for its size. Went back in the editor and checked.  You have used the full Airbases for everything.  I.E USAF Bahrain has 6 bases (213 units) and 35 AC.  None are used except for one E-3 as far as I can tell. As a minimum if you use single unit airfields etc, you can reduce this to 6+the AC.  Arab states has 2 bases with 300 units to support 7 AC.  The Iranian bases are full up to over 400 units which are not used.  So with an AU count of 1900, you could reduce it to half by switching out the current set up for Single unit airfields with no effect on the game. 


A great scenario and set up but the performance bit scares off a lot of folks with older machines (as many of my earlier scenarios did ) and really slows down game play.

B


I'll take a look at this. I started building the template for these scenarios before I had a full grasp of what it meant to import units from the database- in that a single 'base' could be composed of over a hundred individual units when you 'de-grouped' them, so to speak. You are right about me building them template and using it for all the scenarios- even the ones that don't require it to be are unit heavy at this point. My machine runs them all okay but I understand that's not the case for everyone- I'll revisit the scenarios and see what I can do to knock down the unit count to somethng more manageable. In the meantime I recommend that only folks with more powerful rigs try to run these scenarios, or they'll probably get really frustrated.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 12
RE: Black Tiger - 6/12/2015 11:47:52 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5424
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Just finished BT-3, it was a bit of a non-event with a score of '0'

I may have mucked up the plot when I detected some underwater explosions at about 1000M, I altered course South a couple of miles and tasked the mine sweeping Helo's.  Was able to ID a bunch of 'unfriendly' ships but because none of my ships were struck directly by mines, several of the events (checked in editor after game) did not trigger.  I know the Straits are very restricted waters, perhaps a 'No Nav Zone' on each side would help keep the player on the track your looking for. Another option perhaps is to make a geographic trigger for Iranian action and/or a warning about mines.

A couple minor points:
-Very minor but a tidy up point, you should de-select RPs before your final save and upload
-There is no PZ for CAP2 mission, makes it difficult to find as the actual mission loop is a 2xRP line
-The acronyms mentioned earlier are here as well - it's the use of Call signs - Alpha Sierra in this case.  Nice touch, may be useful to list a couple in the initial brief: i.e. AWACS - Call sign, Comd - Alpha Sierra etc (I did like the Molson reference in BT-1 'Eh') 

I like the set up, just needs a little more Event refinement I think.

B

(in reply to jmarso)
Post #: 13
RE: Black Tiger - 6/12/2015 5:25:21 PM   
jmarso

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
Yeah, you'll see those callsigns pop up in lots of my scenarios. They're just generic callsigns for the various component warfare commanders. AB = strike group commander, Strike = Strike warfare commander (usually CAG), AW = AAW warfare commander, AS = ASUW warfare commander, AX = USUW warfare commander. When you hear someone answer as 'actual' it means you are speaking to the actual commander rather than a watch officer or a rating manning the radio. For example, if someone calls you and says "this is Strike actual," it means you are talking directly to the air wing commander, not one of his staffers or watch standers.

Here's a link to more info on the CWC concept if you are interested. It's been knocking around the USN for a long time now.

< Message edited by jmarso -- 6/12/2015 6:34:39 PM >

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 14
RE: Black Tiger - 6/12/2015 8:51:07 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5424
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
BT-4  OK, I botched this one up.  Sank the carrier and its escorts but at the cost of the Iranian Air force.  Minor Victory but a pyric one.  Miss-judged range of the US SAMS so when I started the shooting, the escorts fired so many SAMs which eliminated 75 aircraft that when the missiles came in SAMs took out the first 75% but it wasn't enough. The 2xDDG's went down first, then a CG and a single missile hit the CV - must have started a fire because it went down, unfortunately taking 18 more missiles before it went down.  One missile hit the last CG as the first F-5s came in and at the cost of 4 F-5s it took 2x750lb bombs.  The TLAM strikes came in fast and furious, taking out a handful of Tigers on the runway  but many were taken out with my SAMs.  The flock of F-15's were mixing it up with my F-14's and Su=33s when I called it quits.

Found it odd that the CVW remained fairly idle during the whole event. Other than that - this is a re-do for me, not familiar enough taking out CSGs but a good scenario.  But on to #5 first

(in reply to jmarso)
Post #: 15
RE: Black Tiger - 6/18/2015 5:50:15 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5424
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
On the road playing on a laptop so a bit slower. Big scenario, well set up - whomever had the job of peeling back the defenses as stated in the briefing should be sacked! Wow, I have not yet experienced an IADS in this depth or strength. Barely making a dent in it but making him spend a lot of missiles and fighters so far. 62 Ftrs, 2 Mainstay, 2 radars and a handful of SAMs down in 9 hrs, no losses but a few close shaves.

Going back in....

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 16
RE: Black Tiger - 6/19/2015 1:47:44 AM   
jmarso

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
You won't need 6 days, probably only about half that, but remember you have all that time to get it done. Don't forget about mines and subs! ;)

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 17
RE: Black Tiger - 6/27/2015 10:23:55 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5424
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Ok, 2 Days in. 1 sub sunk, lead elements have encountered mines and are proceeding north. I CV and escorts detached to follow while 2nd CV holds in the Gulf of Aden. Strat response conducted.

All land targets South of Shirez are destroyed and no Iranian AC have flown in the last several hours. Am starting to launch on a comprehensive strike on Shirez.

Lost about 6 AC and some minor damage from mines on one FF

Sitting at over 1000 pts.

Very good and comprehensive scenario so far. the last few hours have been a bit of a sweep up but breaking in through the IADS was difficult.

A couple minor points:

-I think you need to adjust the score higher - I think Triumph occurred at 700. Am at 1063 now and CV is still outside the straights
-You may wish to comment on the three non-IADs targets in the brief. I destroyed one of them early with a swarm of JDAMs then was told to include it as target later. Some clarity on the status of these targets in the brief would be helpful
-some of the events fire fairly often. I.e. 'Black Tiger Intercept'. However, when the Kish Island runway was destroyed the 'Iranian Helo Intercept active. fired repeatedly. See Clip. I'll go into the editor and turn it off but something wrong here so will take a look.

B






Attachment (1)

(in reply to jmarso)
Post #: 18
RE: Black Tiger - 6/27/2015 3:47:04 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5424
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
OK the issue with that event was that it was activating every time it checked for ships in the Hormuze so it was firing repeatedly. Unchecked the 'Is Repeatable' box on the Event editor and it was fixed.

Got the one CV through and scenario ended after 3.5 days. Shiraz was a smoking hole in the ground and final points were 1281. Good scenario, a bit of a forgone conclusion after the first day but nicely put together.

Did note that there were a couple spots where there was AAA that indicated protection for EW or Jammer but never did find those guys, even though the AAA was destroyed.

Thanks for that one

B

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 19
RE: Black Tiger - 6/28/2015 4:50:40 PM   
jmarso

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
Here is a REV 1 version of the Black Tiger scenarios. In the first few I was able to sweep through and knock out several hundred units; in the latter two scenarios not so much, so if IV and V didn't run well for you before, they probably still won't.

Based on recommendations above, changed the initial AAW loadouts of the F-35's to internal only.

Also fixed the bug Gunner mentioned about the Iranian helo intercept event firing ad infinitum; fixed the spelling in the event editor as well. :p

It's doubtful I'll do another rev of these scenarios, so these will stand pretty much as-is unless I make some sort of major change later on.

-JM

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jmarso -- 6/28/2015 5:56:38 PM >

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 20
RE: Black Tiger - 7/8/2015 3:25:31 AM   
JK07

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 12/24/2013
Status: offline
BT5- Wow probably the most extensive IADS I have ever been up against in a scenario. Trying to tackle it bit by bit though.
The MIG-35s of the RVG are insane. One MIG-35 literally dodged 10+ missiles and took out 3 F-18s in one sortie. Frustrating.

< Message edited by JK07 -- 7/8/2015 4:44:37 AM >

(in reply to jmarso)
Post #: 21
RE: Black Tiger - 7/8/2015 11:55:28 AM   
jmarso

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
Yeah, there is one 'command' element of the RVG that is Ace proficiency and flying the very best stuff. They are supposed to give those Tomcat 21's and F-35's a run for their money.

(in reply to JK07)
Post #: 22
RE: Black Tiger - 7/8/2015 12:18:11 PM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
Yes, that is why you only engage the MIG-35's with your Tomcats from extreme range, I just finished this scenario again and only lost a total of two AC. I got unlucky and two of my Tomcats took long range missiles during their first engagement with 8 MIG-35's. Your Tomcats will do about 95% of the killing during this scenario, I only use the F35's to take out the two Mainstays at the eastern AF and then load them with JASSM-B variants to kill SAM's (under escort of 2 growlers) with their cluster warhead.

W.

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to jmarso)
Post #: 23
RE: Black Tiger - 7/10/2015 7:30:45 AM   
jmarso

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
Glad you guys are enjoying the scenarios. Gunner98 must be one helluva player- every scenario I put up he just seems to chew up and spit out- dude should have been a real-life admiral. His scenario builds are f***-all cool as well. I don't claim any particular strategic-mindedness but I am a former U.S. Navy officer (1990's P-3 bubba) and they leave me scratchin' my head and scrambling. (I punched out as an O-3 after about 9 years of service, and only one tour in VP)

If they aren't using this game (or something like it) at the Naval War College, they really need to be. Some of the stuff players come up with here (and I don't mean my fictional BS) is totally worthy of professional study. All they would need to do is load a classified version of the DB and run with it.

< Message edited by jmarso -- 7/10/2015 8:38:41 AM >

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 24
RE: Black Tiger - 7/10/2015 9:55:43 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5424
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

dude should have been a real-life admiral.


Army, and only a Lt-Colonel, but 32 years and some time in the reserves, and good jobs, you pick stuff up.

Thanks for the kind words

B

(in reply to jmarso)
Post #: 25
RE: Black Tiger - 7/11/2015 1:27:20 PM   
xavierv


Posts: 517
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
This is not compatible with the latest build ? (678.17)

I get an error when I try to load it (your latest edit)

_____________________________


(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 26
RE: Black Tiger - 7/11/2015 3:23:42 PM   
jmarso

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: navyrecognition

This is not compatible with the latest build ? (678.17)

I get an error when I try to load it (your latest edit)


Which scenario? There are five of them in the pack. Or do none of them load? (I haven't upgraded my build yet- I'm still on an older one.)

EDIT: I updated by build to 678.17 and the entire scenario pack opened and ran for me without any issues. One thing you might want to look at: Black Tiger uses Build 429 of DB3000. If you've deleted older DB files and are missing that one, that might be the cause of the issue. Other than that I'm not sure why it wouldn't be working for you. If it's not the DB version, you might want to hit up the devs in the tech support forum- I'm not a programmer and not familiar at all with the 'guts' of the game engine.

< Message edited by jmarso -- 7/11/2015 4:41:36 PM >

(in reply to xavierv)
Post #: 27
RE: Black Tiger - 8/18/2015 12:55:02 AM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
I would request that a few squadrons of F-18s start the scenario armed with JSOW or Slam-er. There seem to be truckloads armed with HARMS or AGM-84 AARGM. Fine for radar but I would think that the JSOWS would be the weapon of choice to take out all those launchers and such. I rearmed about a dozen super hornets but it takes 6 hours. Just not sure that if i was in command of the mission, going in, i would arm 20-30 some-odd f-18s with anti-radiation missiles.

I am not to knowledgeable on current naval tactics and such so this is just kind of an idea/request and not a claim about accuracy

(in reply to jmarso)
Post #: 28
RE: Black Tiger - 8/18/2015 10:50:26 PM   
jmarso

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
If you want to change the starting conditions, play in editor mode and rearm what you want with the hot keys that let you do it immediately.

You can also save a version of the scenario to play this way every time if you makes the changes you want and save before you start the scenario running time-wise. It's all fairly easy to do.

< Message edited by jmarso -- 8/18/2015 11:51:08 PM >

(in reply to mikeCK)
Post #: 29
RE: Black Tiger - 8/19/2015 8:09:16 PM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
Great, thank you. Really enjoying it (and losing it)

(in reply to jmarso)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> [RELEASED] Black Tiger 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

0.525