Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce

 
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 >> RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/6/2017 12:33:25 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1966
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Say, that's an unusual set of radar emissions for cargo ships... What are you up to Gunner?

Unless I bring in Intruders all the way from the Sara I've got nothing heavy to hit them with, except a few iron bombs on local fighters. Hmmm...

(in reply to AlexTheLlama)
Post #: 31
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/6/2017 1:37:44 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Glad its still keeping you on your toes!

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 32
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/6/2017 2:44:00 AM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 1097
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline
Found a typo:

Patrol the Straights of Hurmuz for mines and any other obstructions to navigation

Should be Hormuz.

(in reply to AlexTheLlama)
Post #: 33
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/6/2017 2:49:59 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1966
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
So how many MANPADs can you put on a freighter? Lots! That's how many...

(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 34
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/6/2017 9:36:04 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
They come in 'bunches'

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 35
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/9/2017 6:59:58 PM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1966
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Playthrough

Initially my forces in the Gulf region put up a number of observation aircraft to assess the situation, and a limited number of small CAPs took off but generally stayed over the friendly coast, hoping (hah!) that the region might remain calm. The biggest change was that the Sara group was ordered to turn west and sail towards Masirah, to bring her aircraft closer to the potential trouble zone.

It didn't take long before multiple attack aircraft were detected flying south across Iran, on courses which often aimed them directly for my patrolling warships. Orders were given for a general scramble, and my land-based fighters launched to make afterburner dashes towards the incoming planes. My ships turned to run for the friendly shore (and SAM cover where possible) at flank speed, while their helicopters fled before them. First blood went to the Russians, who smashed the little Cassiopea in the Straits of Hormuz with very high speed missiles. Belatedly recognizing them as ARMs, the order went out for ships under high-speed missile attack to turn off their own radars and rely on AWACS, and this saved several of my warships (particularly the little Drogou) from a similar fate. It did nothing to help the Floreal, which was destroyed by optically guided Kazoos.

Fortunately, my own fighters were able to intercept the majority of the attackers (which turned out to be Fencers) before they could launch missiles, and in the cases where they did launch the relatively slow-moving Kazoos could be intercepted before they reached my ships. Of course the Iranians spotted the heavy fighting just off their coast and immediately went hostile, since they observed me firing at their allies. Once that happened the gloves were off, and my ships started firing ASMs at the larger vessels of the Iranian fleet, sinking most of them (including some minelayers) in relatively short order. Ships from allied members of the Gulf States did the same, but were often a little less careful about their targeting choices, flinging Exocets at anything that moved.

With the initial Russian attack defeated, I had a moment to operate over Iran with little opposition, venturing as far inland as Shiraz to cut off returning Fencers, and pick off some of the Russian ELINT/ECM planes. This worked well for a few minutes, until the Iranians responded with a heavy surge of fighter activity including, well, everything: F-4s, Mig-29s, Mirages, and F-14s. Fortunately the latter weren't equipped with Phoenixes, but I had to flee the area in the face of the heavy attack. The determined offensive chased my retreating ships vigorously, particularly in the western end of the Gulf, and my Patriots and ship-mounted SAMs came into play and accounted for several valuable kills. By the time I had mustered my fighters and those of my allies to defeat the attack I had lost several more minor naval vessels (including some Kuwaiti vessels lost to ancient Mig-19/21 clones out of Omidyeh), and had been reminded that Iranian Mirages do carry Exocets... The Cataluna barely survived the Exocet hit which blew a nasty hole in her side, and left her flooding badly as she struggled to make it to dock in Oman. Rumours that she is actually resting on the bottom at low tide are completely unfounded.

With all of this going on I was still able to mount two quick offensive actions. First was an air strike on Abu Musa by my air forces in Al Dhafra. I wanted the SAM site destroyed and the airfield shut, which was accomplished, but I should have concentrated on the docks instead. Those were only slightly damaged , which would come back to bite me later. The second offensive was a strike on the Bushehr area from Kuwait, intended primarily as a SEAD mission to get rid of the SAM sites there which were interfering with my freedom of operation in that region, and secondarily to damage the runways if possible. This worked too, and let me fly in the area without dodging missiles in the future.

As night approached there were two developments. First was an enormous stream of Russian fighters flying into the heavily defended Bandar Abbas airport, and it became clear that I needed to trap them that night before they could ready for action. The second was the enormous stream of hundreds of Boghammar speedboats and other patrol boats which came pouring out of every dockyard and coastal inlet in the Straits area. (Remember that set of docks I didn't bomb?) Strafing runs and cluster bomb attacks by my aircraft damaged some of them, but there was no way to stop them all, and tankers in the area were quickly swarmed and often brought to a halt by the speedboat scourge. Allied patrol boats fought back, but they too succumbed to the fast-moving swarm. The little Drogou did what she could, but had to withdraw with her magazines empty and the swarm only somewhat reduced. It wasn't until the Leftwich and the Aliseo arrived later that night, and engaged in 5" gunnery practice by radar, making systematic use of their large magazine capacity, that I started making significant inroads against the speedboats.

The speedboats were very good at swarming and stopping tankers, but not so good at sinking them. However, the arrival of several Iranian container ships with a battery of 5" guns lined up on deck changed the situation significantly. Fortunately their radar emissions had given them away early, and Mirages out of Al Dhafra managed to sink one and cripple another with iron bombs (at the cost of one of their own) before they could make it to combat. However the two survivors pressed on and in true 'yo-ho-ho' style they lined up to trade broadsides, and began sinking the damaged tankers. It took the arrival of Intruders from the Sara to LGB them from altitudes their MANPADs couldn't reach.

As the speedboat fight got underway plans were made to deal with the Bandar Abbas problem. The sole objective of the airfield attack was to shut the two runways, with all else being secondary to that end. Prior to the attack fighter sweeps were made to clear the vicinity, along with a long-range F-14 attack which targeted the Iranians' only AWACs. Then a cruise missile strike was timed to arrive with heavy ARM support from all airbases in the theatre. An initial wave of TLAMs was targeted on various aimpoints across the airfield, to draw SAM fire and act as decoys. Any damage they did would be a bonus. The second wave, following roughly a minute behind, was a focused strike on the two runways only. There was no thought of going in with planes - there were simply too many SAMs in the area. The attack hit shortly after midnight, and not only shut down the runways, but also managed to cripple two of the nearby SA-10s. With the large Russian fighter force trapped on the ground a passage of the straits became a lot more practical.

This was not the only set of attacks that night, and aircraft attacks on Omidiyeh, Busheher, and Char Bahar managed to shut down runways there using large LGBs. My B-1s made an appearance over the Busheher nuclear facility, wrecking the reactors and other structures. The Iranian coast and coastal islands also got some attention, as there turned out to be a variety of SAMs emplaced there, which kept popping up to interfere (claiming a plane or two during the previous day's fighting). During the night my ASW forces managed to sink three SSKs, by flying low and radar off to avoid Iranian attention, which made the situation somewhat safer for my support ships. The Montgomery and Crommelin were sent to escort the T-AK out of the west end of the Gulf, joining up with the Tripoli and other logistical vessels in Bahrain, while the minesweepers were sent ahead to be ready to clear the straits.

Morning saw the ships approaching the Straits of Hormuz, with passage probably late afternoon. I wanted to clear out any SSM batteries lurking in the area, but that wouldn't be possible so long as the surviving SAM defences still dominated the Bandar Abbas area. Therefore another strike was made, this time for SEAD purposes, with my remaining TLAMs shot at the airbase to draw SAM fire, and my remaining ARMs and SLAMs used to tackle the diminished SAMs in the area. This went relatively smoothly, with a few exciting moments when unidentified SAM sites turned on their radar. Fortunately these were less capable models (SA-2s), and they were dealt with without further casualties. Sweeps of the area revealed several SSM sites which were then bombed and destroyed, and attacks continued on remaining airfields (Shiraz, etc.).

With the SAMs down I can place a very heavy CAP over the retiring Tripoli and support ships, and join them up with the 6 ships (3 Spruance, Belknap, Aussie Perry, Aliseo) waiting just the other side of the straits for a well-escorted trip out of the Gulf.

(I have 1 day 3 hours to go, and very few forces left to oppose me, so I think it's safe to call it here. Miscellaneous comments to follow in next post.)

< Message edited by AndrewJ -- 7/9/2017 7:02:52 PM >

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 36
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/10/2017 2:21:45 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1966
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
(As promised, some more observations after a look under the hood.)

Well, this was another very interesting scenario, with plenty of things happening. The political disorganization on both sides is very well done, and the gradual assignment of coalition units is very immersive. Forces are strung out due to peace-time patrol requirements, and it takes time to assemble into useful wartime formations. Aircraft aren't all ready with loadouts, and an early decision may result in having the wrong munitions at hand when the time comes. All these things are well worth simulating, and definitely add to the real-world feel of the situation. Thanks for writing these interesting and involved scenarios.

Looking at things behind the scenes, I can see my course change with the carrier group saved me from a close encounter with the Victor, and therefore possibly with the entire bomber force. The Victor is manually set to 0 speed at 'as deep as possible'. While this makes it difficult for the player to detect it, it also means the sub is in its worst position for hearing the NATO carrier group (on the wrong side of the layer), and it cannot move to attack. As an experiment I deliberately ran the carrier group directly over the Victor at cruise speed, and it only detected the carrier by direct path at a range of 4 nautical miles. Being above the layer or in the surface duct would extend this range considerably, allowing use of CZs.

The bombers currently have the land attack version of the AS-4, so can not attack the carrier even if it is detected.

If the CVBG is detected the bombers currently give an "unable to plot a multi-leg strike course because of No-Navigation Zones" error message, and do not launch. If you disable the allow off-axis attack option then they will launch their attack. However this generated massive pulse times (as much as 14978 ms!), presumably as the game tries to plot paths along the long no-nav zone edge. Although this goes back down to normal after a while it may spook the players into thinking there's been a crash. It may be necessary to do a form-up zone away from the no-nav edge, and then re-assign to the strike mission from there once the bombers have a clear path that doesn't involve skirting the zone edge.

The Iranian land based SSMs don't have a mission, and did not attack known hostile units which were in their range. (I'm not sure if you want to set their WRA so they only engage bigger targets, rather than beating up on patrol boats?)

There is a Lua script execution error in the 'Reassign WP AC' event, so the aircraft do not get assigned to the new attack missions after ferrying in to Bandar Abbas.

There also seems to be a Lua error when the Quatar Changes Posture' event happens.

The airfield at Shiraz, where the Russian Fencers land, does not have sufficient advanced weapons to re-arm them, so they go into reserve. They either need more munitions, or if you don't want them to make a second PGM strike I think they would need an event to change their loadout to iron bombs or whatever you prefer.

The SSKs have their radars set active, which immediately broadcasts their position if they raise their mast to snorkel.

The planes on the two Fencer Support missions are performing an ESM role, but they have their short range radars turned on, which highlights their position and identifies them to the enemy. The same is true of the Badgers on the 945 Regt ELINT mission, which are operating over land and have no need of their radar.

The Iranian ships of the line converted freighters somewhat give away their nature with their radar emissions. That's the only reason I was able to ID them as something dangerous in advance. Perhaps their initial approach could be with the radars off, until they are in the expected hunting area? Their names are also a bit of a give-away, once NATO gets close enough for an individual ship ID. (Although, come to think of it, if you're close enough for that you're probably also close enough to notice that there's an artillery battery parked on the boat and a forest of extra sensors, so the names may actually be fair warning that something's not quite right.)

Two of the minelaying Delvars have no mines on board.

Many of the Boghammers and patrol boats have no assigned home base, so will not withdraw to re-arm in the event of damage or having used their ammunition or fuel. (Although I'm not sure if you want them to?) Bases with munitions for the lesser naval vessels of the allied states might also be useful for reloading, even if they only have cannon ammunition, to help deal with the speedboat horde. Many of my allied patrol vessels could have used a place to run and hide when they got damaged or low on shots. I also found I couldn't dock my units at allied facilities, so I had to make friendly docks to send my damaged frigate to.

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 37
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/10/2017 2:34:47 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Thanks Andrew, great report as usual

I'll make those fixes and am glad your still enjoying them.

Have just put out IO Fury #3 which is completely different and am testing IO Fury #2 which is another different ball game.

Am kind of liking this theater

B

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 38
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/10/2017 8:58:33 AM   
killjoy73au


Posts: 26
Joined: 7/10/2017
Status: offline
So where would I find a list of all your completed/released scenarios? The community pack is missing quite a few from the Northern Fury series. Would you consider uploading them to steam workshop?

Fantastic work by the way mate, Been chipping away slowly at the NF campaign for the last few months. Currently up to 9.7 "Sub Surge". "Dagger to the Heart" is so far the favorite for me.

< Message edited by killjoy73au -- 7/10/2017 9:04:53 AM >

(in reply to AlexTheLlama)
Post #: 39
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/10/2017 10:04:40 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
killjoy73au

Glad you're enjoying them. 9.7 is very tough, and I haven't been back to check on it for quite a while. The updates to the sonar model several releases ago may have made it too much to handle. Would be interested in your feedback.

Dagger to the Heart was a lot of work to build, but it is one of my favorites as well - it was done at the birth of Lua and I am not a strong scripter so there was a lot of trial and error. If I were to redo it (which is unlikely) a lot more Lua code would be used now.

The word doc attached has the latest status on the Northern Fury series.

There are 3 NF still testing here:

12.6 is a monster and still needs more testing
13.2 has had quite a bit of re-jigging and needs more testing
13.5 has had one report on it and an update, waiting for more testing

For the other series:

Caribbean Fury 1 is in the pack
Mediterranean Fury 3 has been added recently and is on the forum
IO Fury 1 & 3 are testing here and 2 is in the works

Steam workshop - I don't think so

As your going through them if anything doesn't work or if you have any suggestions please feel free to PM me. I have a running track of updates and occasionally do a bunch of fixes - there should be some updates in the next release, or perhaps they're in there now.

B


Attachment (1)

(in reply to killjoy73au)
Post #: 40
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/10/2017 11:04:55 AM   
killjoy73au


Posts: 26
Joined: 7/10/2017
Status: offline
I should've said "Where can I download the completed missions" as well. It's a bit of a nightmare trying to locate them all in the forums...

I've tried Caribbean Fury also, it's a marathon but plays really well.

NF 9.7 is tough but playable, so it doesn't seem to have been affected too bad I guess. Most of the way through and haven't lost a sub or been detected as far as I know.

I went back and played NF 3 after updates and CPU/game speed optimizations and it plays much much better now.

< Message edited by killjoy73au -- 7/10/2017 11:06:20 AM >

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 41
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/10/2017 11:06:09 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
All of the scenarios not mentioned are in the community pack

12.6 is here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4086126&mpage=5&key= Ver 1.5 is the latest
13.2 is here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4243252
13.5 is here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4270359

Med Fury is here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4259135&mpage=3&key=

You've played Carib Fury and the two from the IO are in the last couple weeks.

At some point I'll have them on a web page all together

B


(in reply to killjoy73au)
Post #: 42
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/11/2017 2:00:27 PM   
killjoy73au


Posts: 26
Joined: 7/10/2017
Status: offline
Rog, cheers for all that. After having a read of the Word doc. I'm glad to see the gap between 11.1 and 11.6 are being filled and I wasn't just missing those scenarios.

Keep up the good work mate, and keep on with those immersive briefings. Good writing, on par with the likes of Tom Clancy and Harold Coyle.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 43
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/11/2017 2:23:01 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Thanks for the kind words - the briefings take probably 30-50% of the build time, but its a story I'm trying to tell so its worth it.

The missing scenarios are essentially the amphibious onslaught of Iceland, and I was waiting for the cargo module of CoW. Now that its out, I will get to them - just keep getting distracted building other stuff.

B

(in reply to killjoy73au)
Post #: 44
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/11/2017 2:26:13 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
If you like a good read - check out Airborne Rifles AARs - the link to the Groganrd site is here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3912799

(in reply to killjoy73au)
Post #: 45
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 7/15/2017 2:33:40 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Updated to V1.1

Change Log:
• Added an additional task which will come to play later in the scenario.
• Fixed some loadouts and ammo on the Saratoga
• Fixed some typos
• Put the E2Cs on the AEW msn
• Changed up the French Aircraft
• Changed out the Floreal for the new FS La Fayette
• Fixed the Lua for the Quatari ships
• Fixed a couple issues with some surprises and generally adopted some of Andrew’s suggestions


Any further comments appreciated.

B

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gunner98 -- 7/15/2017 2:34:10 PM >

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 46
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/7/2017 4:02:21 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Bump

Anyone had a chance to go through this latest version?

B

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 47
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/8/2017 12:13:20 AM   
trebor6669

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 1/11/2014
Status: online
Gunner
I'm running through it now. Some surprises for sure.

Won't spoil them.

Nice work

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 48
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/9/2017 10:06:17 PM   
JPFisher55

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 11/22/2014
Status: offline
Gunner98, I thought that you might want to know that using 936.21, this scenario plays very slowly. I started it using 936.18 and it played much faster. Unfortunately, I can't reinstall 936.18 and the zip file is too large to upload. I posted the issue in the tech support forum.

(in reply to AlexTheLlama)
Post #: 49
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/9/2017 10:15:54 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Thanks, will see what the Dev's say.

It is rather large, ~3200 AU

B

(in reply to JPFisher55)
Post #: 50
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/9/2017 10:24:37 PM   
JPFisher55

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 11/22/2014
Status: offline
I played much larger scenarios. I just completed sinking the Iranian navy. I should note that all the messages about neutral ships being attacked or sunk
were kind of annoying because I couldn't really do much about it.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 51
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/9/2017 11:22:15 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
OK I can make that non-repeating

(in reply to JPFisher55)
Post #: 52
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/10/2017 10:21:58 PM   
JPFisher55

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 11/22/2014
Status: offline
Gunner98, I solved the slow play issue by deleting all the fish in the scenario. This reduced the file size from about 20K kilo bytes to 2.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 53
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/10/2017 10:47:35 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Strange - didn't think there were that many fish - might have been the missions they were on. Thanks for the investigative work.

B

(in reply to JPFisher55)
Post #: 54
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/11/2017 6:15:09 PM   
JPFisher55

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 11/22/2014
Status: offline
Gunner, I thought that deleting the fish had sped up the scenario, but it bogged down again. Unfortunately, the zip file of the saved game is 12K kilo bytes which exceeds the upload limit for posters.
It will bog down and then after a long wait speed up and then bog down after some play. I have no idea why, but I think it is something in the scenario.

< Message edited by JPFisher55 -- 8/11/2017 6:17:02 PM >

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 55
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/25/2017 4:46:25 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
OK
Have gone through this one, not sure what was causing the slowdown. changed the WPs No Nav zone which will not make Pakistan happy but might ease the problem. There was also one extinct loadout for the UAE that has been fixed. That might do it.

Any other points on this one?



Attachment (1)

(in reply to JPFisher55)
Post #: 56
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 8/25/2017 10:35:16 PM   
JPFisher55

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 11/22/2014
Status: offline
Gunner98, after finishing off the Iranian Navy, it went faster. However, I'm currently playing a scenario called "Operation Apocalypse." It is bigger than this Indian Fury 1, but runs much faster, even in its early stages with hundreds of A/C in the air.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 57
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 9/25/2017 5:57:54 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Anything else on this one guys? Is the slowdown still there?

Thanks

B

(in reply to JPFisher55)
Post #: 58
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 3/4/2018 1:09:58 PM   
Vulcan607

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 2/8/2018
Status: offline
Was going well for me right up until a PT boat belonging to Oman opened up on a tomahawk and now they are considered hostile! Assuming its the AI firing on an unidentified vampire.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 59
RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce - 3/4/2018 9:23:55 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
You can reset them to Neutral by selecting one and hitting the 'N' key. As long as you don't keep sending missiles over their heads that should work.

Its you're forces that think they are hostile because they fired on your weapon and you detected it. Chances are the Omani side does not know whose weapon they shot at so will consider your side the same as they always did.

B

(in reply to Vulcan607)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: New Scenario for testing Indian Fury 1: Persian Pounce Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.203