Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Shortage of Vietnam scenarios

 
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 >> Shortage of Vietnam scenarios Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/13/2019 8:46:10 PM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2372
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
Seems to be a shortage depicting this 10-year conflict, considering many of the authors are in that generation I would guess. Don't look at me, as I am just mastering HPS Conflict Over Vietnam.

I understand that USAF/NAVY forces had a lot of variety, and NVPA had MIG 17-21F, so not so exciting
Post #: 1
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/13/2019 9:06:09 PM   
HellcatOne


Posts: 80
Joined: 7/25/2017
From: Italy
Status: offline
I have also noticed this, despite the lack of variety of equipment, there have been many operations and battles, especially aerial areas during the conflict

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 2
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/13/2019 10:35:50 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1089
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rosseau
I understand that USAF/NAVY forces had a lot of variety, and NVPA had MIG 17-21F, so not so exciting


Vietnam scenarios are fun. The Vietnam War is really where the rubber hits the road in terms of modern tactics. You have all the basic pieces from airborne early warning (EC-121) to stand off jamming platforms (RB-66) to SAMs (SA-2) to jamming pods to precision guided weapons by the Linebacker era. It's also interesting because the technologically sophisticated USAF never really got a handle on the MiG and SAM threat of the time. The Navy, on the other hand, which didn't emphasize technological solutions so much, and instead focused on improved tactics, did fairly well.

I think one of the interesting things about this game, is that people start off very focused on individual platforms and technologies. By the end of it, as they become more advanced, it becomes less and less about the specifics of the platforms and more and more about employing them together in innovative combinations, timing, spacing, numbers, distances, and what not. Vietnam era games are laser focused on the later, because in the end, it's MiG-17/19/21s and SA-2s versus a slightly wider variety of US platforms. The thing that makes the difference is not the gizmos but the tactics that are employed.

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 3
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/14/2019 6:00:04 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7028
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel/Bulgaria
Status: offline
I like to fiddle with Downtown scenario. I even added Robin Olds as ace into it

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 4
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/14/2019 8:46:21 PM   
HalfLifeExpert


Posts: 604
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline
I did notice the other day the relative few scenarios set during the Indochina Wars. Interesting.

Along with the obvious wealth of historical missions that can be depicted, there could also be room for what if scenarios as well.

Aside from the obvious 'what if' of a US invasion of North Vietnam, I have thought of a possibly interesting larger scenario idea that I've had in my mind for some time.

I call this 'The Great Red Offensive of 1968'. I thought of this after learning about the events in Korea in 1968, chiefly the Blue House Raid and the seizure of the USS Pueblo.

The whole concept of my idea is "What if the Tet Offensive coincided with a larger surprise attack by other Communist forces in Asia and possibly the world?" This could include Chinese intervention in the Vietnam War and a second North Korean attack across the 38th Parallel. As for the Soviets, they could ether be thrown off guard and stay neutral, or (if more hardline elements are in power), they could take advantage of the massive flareup in Asia to attack Western Europe, in hopes of stretching the US military thin.

In terms of a CMANO scenario, a potential battle that could be depicted, I think, would be a surprise, multi-sided air and sea attack against the US Carriers on Yankee Station, with the Vietnam People's air force and navy launching everything it has along with PLAAF aircraft from southern China and Hainan island.

Thoughts?

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 5
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/15/2019 9:50:44 PM   
apache85

 

Posts: 1434
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

I did notice the other day the relative few scenarios set during the Indochina Wars. Interesting.

Along with the obvious wealth of historical missions that can be depicted, there could also be room for what if scenarios as well.

Aside from the obvious 'what if' of a US invasion of North Vietnam, I have thought of a possibly interesting larger scenario idea that I've had in my mind for some time.

I call this 'The Great Red Offensive of 1968'. I thought of this after learning about the events in Korea in 1968, chiefly the Blue House Raid and the seizure of the USS Pueblo.

The whole concept of my idea is "What if the Tet Offensive coincided with a larger surprise attack by other Communist forces in Asia and possibly the world?" This could include Chinese intervention in the Vietnam War and a second North Korean attack across the 38th Parallel. As for the Soviets, they could ether be thrown off guard and stay neutral, or (if more hardline elements are in power), they could take advantage of the massive flareup in Asia to attack Western Europe, in hopes of stretching the US military thin.

In terms of a CMANO scenario, a potential battle that could be depicted, I think, would be a surprise, multi-sided air and sea attack against the US Carriers on Yankee Station, with the Vietnam People's air force and navy launching everything it has along with PLAAF aircraft from southern China and Hainan island.

Thoughts?

Sounds like a ton of fun!

_____________________________


(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)
Post #: 6
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/16/2019 3:01:35 AM   
tjhkkr


Posts: 2345
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline
Okay, I have been working on Vietnam Scenarios.

Here are my observations...

1. The North Vietnamese seldom used their aircraft in offensive operations, so not much joy there.
2. Rules of engagement are very strict, so it takes lots of nav zones to simulate.
3. If you are going to do campaigns, the big problem is that the political apparatus picked the targets, and the attack routes... and I have read that they would uses the same route over and over, and the NVA/VC would quickly move Antiaircraft and SAMS to the route.
4. Adding to number 3, the targets would often be destroyed and they still had to fly the missions.
5. The terrain part of CMANO does not appear to be overly robust... IE: U.S. reconnaissance had a hard time seeing NVA/VC going down the Ho Chi Minh trail. When I send out recon birds, they have no trouble seeing units going down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. [And I do turn off auto detect.]
6. Both sides, particularly the U.S. had a LOT of radar coverage, but I have found all sorts of radars used by the Chinese -- but I am unsure of how much coordination there was between Chinese Radar and NVA air defense.
7. Getting VC units to follow a path needs a lot of NAV zones/missions/LUA code to simulate.
8. To accurately simulate trying to figure out what targets to bomb/strafe/attack [Fog of War]... I usually require an NVA side, a Communist side -- feeding the NVA/VC, a Neutral that is truly neutral, and a neutral that is pro-NVA/VC.
====
Result: it is difficult to simulate accurate conditions in Vietnam. It is doable, but it takes work

I have written two scenarios and want to write a campaign... but... it really is difficult.

< Message edited by tjhkkr -- 1/16/2019 3:12:18 AM >


_____________________________

Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.

(in reply to apache85)
Post #: 7
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/16/2019 3:51:50 AM   
RedBunny

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/8/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

Okay, I have been working on Vietnam Scenarios.

Here are my observations...

1. The North Vietnamese seldom used their aircraft in offensive operations, so not much joy there.
2. Rules of engagement are very strict, so it takes lots of nav zones to simulate.
3. If you are going to do campaigns, the big problem is that the political apparatus picked the targets, and the attack routes... and I have read that they would uses the same route over and over, and the NVA/VC would quickly move Antiaircraft and SAMS to the route.
4. Adding to number 3, the targets would often be destroyed and they still had to fly the missions.
5. The terrain part of CMANO does not appear to be overly robust... IE: U.S. reconnaissance had a hard time seeing NVA/VC going down the Ho Chi Minh trail. When I send out recon birds, they have no trouble seeing units going down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. [And I do turn off auto detect.]
6. Both sides, particularly the U.S. had a LOT of radar coverage, but I have found all sorts of radars used by the Chinese -- but I am unsure of how much coordination there was between Chinese Radar and NVA air defense.
7. Getting VC units to follow a path needs a lot of NAV zones/missions/LUA code to simulate.
8. To accurately simulate trying to figure out what targets to bomb/strafe/attack [Fog of War]... I usually require an NVA side, a Communist side -- feeding the NVA/VC, a Neutral that is truly neutral, and a neutral that is pro-NVA/VC.
====
Result: it is difficult to simulate accurate conditions in Vietnam. It is doable, but it takes work

I have written two scenarios and want to write a campaign... but... it really is difficult.


I'd like to see a Vietnam DLC too. I don't know much about the air war but if such a DLC can accurately reflect the historical conditions of the campaign all the better. You seem to have great ideas, I'd love to see any scenarios you come up with.

I've been tempted to try the 'Yankee Team, 1966' scenario in the Steam Workshop, which features randomly assigned objectives. Anyone try that one? I saw a YouTube Let's Play for it and it looked good.


(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 8
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/16/2019 2:50:57 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1089
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
The problem of the targets already being destroyed is sort of an operational/strategic level concern. Yes, dropping bombs on nothing doesn't help you win the war and might even be counter productive, but within the context of a Command scenario, that's an "above my pay grade" consideration. Some of that wasn't even necessarily a political constraint but a technogical one too. LORAN bombing, for example, rarely if ever struck its intended target. It was accurate enough for nuclear war but for conventional bombing at high altitude it resulted in needless destruction. That isn't in the scope of a Command scenario, though. Command is best when it isn't about winning the war, it's about winning the battle.

I agree with the rest of what you're saying, though, especially the problems associated with bombing stuff on the Ho Chi Minh trail. The solution would be to focus on strategic bombing in the vicinity of Hanoi, and mostly avoid missions in the South where it was more focused on CAS and air interdiction. That being said, certain fixed targets on the Ho Chi Mihn trail might lend themselves to Command, in spite of its limitations. Bridges come to mind. Once the Linebacker raids started and precision guided weapons became more common, that sort of raid became a lot more effective but managing the supporting aircraft became the challenge. By that period one raid had become huge with chaff bombers, SEAD packages, multiple waves of CAPs, standoff jamming, jamming pods, AEW aircraft, and then finally the strike package itself which might be only 8 or fewer aircraft out of dozens. I would avoid scenarios in the South involving the Viet Cong. I'd purposefully neglect the air bases in South Vietnam and focus more on the Navy and the Air Force bases in Thailand.

Even within those constraints there's some really cool ideas for scenarios, though. Attacking an airbase (e.g. Kep) in both the Rolling Thunder and Linebacker eras had unique challenges. B-52 raids against POL storage in the north could be exciting. Mining Haiphong harbor (Operation Pocket Money) would be a good one. Attacking bridges in Laos would work. Son Tay (Operation Ivory Coast) would be a good historical scenario which is interesting in part because of its similarity to the Iranian hostage rescue attempt just a few years later. Son Tay was successful, Iran was not, and that illustrated the decline in US military capability that characterized the post-Vietnam era. You could also do an AC-130 escort sort of scenario where the focus would really be less on the AC-130 striking Vietnamese trucks on the Ho Chi Mihn trail and more on defending the AC-130 from incoming MiGs and SAMs with your F-4s and F-105s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

Okay, I have been working on Vietnam Scenarios.

Here are my observations...

1. The North Vietnamese seldom used their aircraft in offensive operations, so not much joy there.
2. Rules of engagement are very strict, so it takes lots of nav zones to simulate.
3. If you are going to do campaigns, the big problem is that the political apparatus picked the targets, and the attack routes... and I have read that they would uses the same route over and over, and the NVA/VC would quickly move Antiaircraft and SAMS to the route.
4. Adding to number 3, the targets would often be destroyed and they still had to fly the missions.
5. The terrain part of CMANO does not appear to be overly robust... IE: U.S. reconnaissance had a hard time seeing NVA/VC going down the Ho Chi Minh trail. When I send out recon birds, they have no trouble seeing units going down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. [And I do turn off auto detect.]
6. Both sides, particularly the U.S. had a LOT of radar coverage, but I have found all sorts of radars used by the Chinese -- but I am unsure of how much coordination there was between Chinese Radar and NVA air defense.
7. Getting VC units to follow a path needs a lot of NAV zones/missions/LUA code to simulate.
8. To accurately simulate trying to figure out what targets to bomb/strafe/attack [Fog of War]... I usually require an NVA side, a Communist side -- feeding the NVA/VC, a Neutral that is truly neutral, and a neutral that is pro-NVA/VC.
====
Result: it is difficult to simulate accurate conditions in Vietnam. It is doable, but it takes work

I have written two scenarios and want to write a campaign... but... it really is difficult.


(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 9
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/16/2019 5:06:00 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1089
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RedBunny
I've been tempted to try the 'Yankee Team, 1966' scenario in the Steam Workshop, which features randomly assigned objectives. Anyone try that one? I saw a YouTube Let's Play for it and it looked good.


I like looking under the hood of that scenario.

(in reply to RedBunny)
Post #: 10
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/16/2019 8:45:29 PM   
mikkey


Posts: 2572
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
yes, Yankee Team is excellent scenario

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 11
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/17/2019 3:42:43 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 828
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikkey

yes, Yankee Team is excellent scenario


Quite possibly my favorite. Every time you play it is a new challenge.

_____________________________


(in reply to mikkey)
Post #: 12
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/18/2019 8:01:14 PM   
tjhkkr


Posts: 2345
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline
[The problem of the targets already being destroyed is sort of an operational/strategic level concern. Yes, dropping bombs on nothing doesn't help you win the war and might even be counter productive, but within the context of a Command scenario, that's an "above my pay grade" consideration.]
Well, I agree with that, but what I am getting at is that the vast majority of CMANO users have brains. They are smart enough to vary their approaches; and they are certainly smart enough to stop sending planes over a SAM/flak rich environment to drop bombs on a target destroyed. So whereas in real life, a couple of days might be lost making rubble into smaller rubble... your average CMANO player is going to say: it is destroyed... maybe I should divert my strength else where. [Scary that some folks in the real war were not using their brains.]
Some other folks mentioned an Invasion of Hanoi... which would be fun to do (and I am giving a lot of thought to that for a campaign)... but that would lead to Chinese intervention... so that would be a monster scenario.

On the Ho Chi Minh trail, yes whoever said hit the logistics like fuel bunkers and bridges... that can be gamed WELL, though I think the impact of the terrain (jungle) would hinder REALISM here too.

Fun discussion.

_____________________________

Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 13
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/18/2019 8:04:17 PM   
tjhkkr


Posts: 2345
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline
To the developers, I know it sounds like I am bashing the game over the terrain issue, but really, I have had more fun with this game than any other -- including harpoon... almost as much as my ASL board game.

_____________________________

Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 14
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/18/2019 8:13:27 PM   
tjhkkr


Posts: 2345
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline
[illustrated the decline in US military capability that characterized the post-Vietnam era. You could also do an AC-130 escort sort of scenario where the focus would really be less on the AC-130 striking Vietnamese trucks on the Ho Chi Mihn trail and more on defending the AC-130 from incoming MiGs and SAMs with your F-4s and F-105s.]
That is an excellent idea.

Question: and not shooting down the idea at all... did NV MiGs cross into Laos? I have not read anything about that. Most of the scenarios I write have not had them cross simply because your average MiG-19 and MiG-21 did not have long legs and I wanted to make sure the critical targets are protected.

_____________________________

Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 15
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/19/2019 7:53:53 AM   
HellcatOne


Posts: 80
Joined: 7/25/2017
From: Italy
Status: offline
Another interesting Vietnam scenario are "Sandy" missions.
With Skyriders and Jolly Green Giant do CSAR missions

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 16
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/19/2019 1:25:55 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1089
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr
Question: and not shooting down the idea at all... did NV MiGs cross into Laos?


While I can find nothing which says that they did directly, in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/388th-Tactical-Fighter-Korat-Royal/dp/0887407986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1547907447&sr=8-1&keywords=388+tactical+fighter+wing+korat

He describes flying AC-130 escort missions in the Linebacker campaign era and the various supporting aircraft involved, including C-130 airborne command posts. He also describes people being shot down over Laos. I'll need to re-read that section to go into more detail. I do remember he was quite specific about the missions, though. I wonder if it was almost a swing-role sort of light air-to-air/SEAD mission.

I suspect that the publicly available information on exactly what happened over Laos is spotty. It is clear that the CIA and US special operations forces (mostly SF but also Navy SEALs in riverine areas) were engaged in supporting anti-Communist forces in Laos. I know the CIA had their own aircraft involved in providing logistics and close air support to anti-Communist forces. That suggests that any historical documentation is likely to be classified and sparse. Maybe it's worth a FOIA request?


< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 1/19/2019 4:02:07 PM >

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 17
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/19/2019 2:24:12 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1089
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

Well, I agree with that, but what I am getting at is that the vast majority of CMANO users have brains. They are smart enough to vary their approaches; and they are certainly smart enough to stop sending planes over a SAM/flak rich environment to drop bombs on a target destroyed. So whereas in real life, a couple of days might be lost making rubble into smaller rubble... your average CMANO player is going to say: it is destroyed... maybe I should divert my strength else where.


This is why the scope of the scenario is important. Command is a relatively tactical level simulation. It reaches up into the operational level, mostly because of the distance scale of modern warfare, but if you're making a lot of operational level decisions (e.g. which strategic targets should be struck and in what order) then the scenario is probably scoped poorly.

To put it in concrete terms, it's a really bad idea to give a Command player the free choice of asking "Do I attack the XXXth Motor Rifle Brigade HQ first? or do I attack the oil refinery at Y? or maybe I should go after the presidential palace? or the air base at Z?" That kind of targeting decision has a lot to do with considerations that aren't really modeled in Command, and would be decided by a higher level decision maker than would be making the kinds of decisions that are made in Command (e.g. weapons loads, routing, shot doctrine, timing, spacing, formations, etc.). The person picking the targets is looking at the targeting guidelines at a given phase in the war. Are we waging economic warfare or is this the goal to undermine the political leadership? How well are we achieving those goals based on BDA, but also other sources of intelligence, like press clippings, economic and demographic data as well as people on the ground? These are all things that feed the process, and Command doesn't even hope to take that information in. Does Command measure the number of barrels of oil that are pumped out of pipelines to China and the price of oil futures? What about how that affects political opinions towards the Vietnamese communist party? No. It doesn't, and while you can fake it a little in LUA, it really is asking a lot of the software. That sort of stuff feeds a separate OODA loop for a different set of decision makers than Command deals with.

Instead, a better approach is to say, "Tomorrow we're striking the oil refinery at Y. It has 18 aim points, consisting of 3 pump houses, 10 POL storage tanks, 2 administrative buildings, a generator, a transformer, and a control building. We want to destroy 20% of the POL storage tanks, the pump houses, the transformer and the generator. It's protected by the NNNth fighter air regiment at A, and the MMMth air defense brigade. You have the XXXth tactical fighter wing (or maybe TF ZZZ?) to do it with along with some elements from the YYYth bomb squadron and WWWth air refueling squadron. We can afford to lose no more than P% of our tactical aircraft." Then have the player figure out how to do it. Now they can focus on the kinds of things that Command does do well. Do I lead with the Wild Weasels or I do I lead with fighters? How many of them do I need? Am I carving out a lane or setting up barriers? What kinds of weapons do I have them carry? Do I want them spaced 15 minutes apart or 5? Where do I put my jamming aircraft? Where do I put my AEW aircraft? How big an area can my fighters protect? Do I use close escorts or do I use offensive fighter sweeps? Do I keep my DDGs close to the carrier or do I sail them up close to the coast and box in the enemy aircraft with their SAMs? What do I do with this extra submarine floating around anyhow? Command handles all that kind of stuff SUPER well.

When you take that approach to scenario construction, it doesn't matter that the oil refinery at Y was already struck a month ago in the hypothetical past. If it was struck, then clearly they missed some stuff, because there's still targets there to hit. If the operational level commander made a mistake and re-targeted something which had already been vaporized by a flight of B-52s then its a hypothetical someone else's problem. Even if you did something like, you get to the target area and there's no targets to hit, what is the tactical impact? You still have to fly in and fly out with all the risk and problems that entails. It's a serious leadership problem, but its the same situation whether there's a target there to hit or not. When you scope a Command scenario too broadly, you're right, you get wonky results, because that's not the right use case. That's better handled by some other wargame, maybe not even a computer game. Maybe the kind of stuff you're interested in is better looked at with a matrix-style narrative building exercise?

All simulations have their limitations. In effect, all models are wrong in the most strict sense. Different games look at different aspects of a conflict. Command would handle a Vietnam era strike on Kep airbase really well. I wouldn't expect it to tell me anything about how the peace negotiations in Paris turned out, or what might happen if I offered de-mining Haiphong harbor in exchange for POW releases. Both were aspects of the Vietnam war. Only one of them makes sense to model in Command.



< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 1/19/2019 3:29:39 PM >

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 18
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/19/2019 5:32:33 PM   
Whicker

 

Posts: 601
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline
quote:

if you're making a lot of operational level decisions (e.g. which strategic targets should be struck and in what order) then the scenario is probably scoped poorly.

quote:

it's a really bad idea to give a Command player the free choice of asking "Do I attack the XXXth Motor Rifle Brigade HQ first? or do I attack the oil refinery at Y? or maybe I should go after the presidential palace? or the air base at Z?


While I understand what SQ is saying, I personally like free choice, and having to make those choices and see different outcomes is what makes it interesting. When I see a scen that has a list of targets and times and what not I sort of get turned off by it, I would rather see what I have and what they may have and go about taking out whatever I think needs taking out. That said I still need to know that taking out non military things like an oil refinery means something in the game.

Course I like large scens that are more or less the opposite of what I think SQ likes. To each their own, I don't think either one of are alone in what we each enjoy - the game can be many things to many people.

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 19
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 1/19/2019 10:06:51 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1089
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whicker
While I understand what SQ is saying, I personally like free choice, and having to make those choices and see different outcomes is what makes it interesting. When I see a scen that has a list of targets and times and what not I sort of get turned off by it, I would rather see what I have and what they may have and go about taking out whatever I think needs taking out. That said I still need to know that taking out non military things like an oil refinery means something in the game.


It's not that you don't have free choice. You have tons of free choice, but there's a point to the choices you're making. Very often more free choice. I don't ever put a pop-up text box in front of someone and say, "Okay now do this!" If there's a pop-up threat you identified, go for it. It's that you're working towards a well defined goal. There's certain targets that are strategically important, and then there's lots of other stuff that isn't. An air base might be important, but the SAM site protecting it isn't "important" at a higher level. You can destroy it (or not) as you see fit. It's your plan. Maybe jamming is enough to strike the thing you really want to be hitting. Maybe using a different weapon will let you range the SAM site. There isn't one answer necessarily. Within that one airfield there might be many possible goals, depending on what the operational level effect that the strike is intended to achieve. It might be to destroy the runway, temporarily trapping the aircraft there. It might be to NOT destroy the runway because they want to use it later. You might want to destroy the aircraft there. Maybe certain strategic munitions are kept there (e.g. chemical weapons), in which case you want to destroy the munitions storage. You might just care about the few munitions storage bunkers that have chemical weapons in them. You might want to destroy the POL storage. Maybe you'll want to destroy some combination of them. It all depends.

I think there's a richness in Command, which gets neglected when the scenario is scoped to be overly broad. Why use a MOP versus a JDAM with a BLU-109? What is the kill chain I'm trying to build?

quote:

Course I like large scens that are more or less the opposite of what I think SQ likes. To each their own, I don't think either one of are alone in what we each enjoy - the game can be many things to many people.


I wouldn't say that my scenarios are not large. I usually have >100 aircraft plus submarines, land units and multiple carrier strike groups in my scenarios. I always think it's interesting to see how people avoid multiple carriers. I might have 4 or 5 of them. Striking just one airbase (to continue my example) is a major investment of effort. There's well over 100 aimpoints, so if each aircraft carries 2 bombs, that's 50 airplanes right there. A single carrier air wing can't provide enough strike aircraft to attack them all. Then there's supporting assets like AEW, jamming, and ELINT. What about SEAD? What about DCA? What about OCA? There might be ground units involved or drones providing BDA and laser designation. Then there's bombers. It takes a lot of aircraft to support a B-2 raid or a cruise missile raid. They are also usually geographically scoped over a fairly large area. In a modern aircraft, flying 240 miles is a half hour flight.

Striking one target isn't necessarily a small scenario. It's just that the objectives are scoped differently. They are not overly broad or inappropriate for the sim. The focus is on the battle, and not the war. Command doesn't do the whole war well. It does the battle excellently.



< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 1/19/2019 10:30:22 PM >

(in reply to Whicker)
Post #: 20
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 2/14/2019 5:19:54 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1089
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
In this month's Modern War magazine there was an excellent article on the Linebacker raids with maps and orders of battle. The Linebacker II map was particularly detailed, with 36 B-52s coming in from the West and 27 B-52s coming in from the East. That's a LOT of bombs!

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 21
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 2/17/2019 3:29:47 AM   
tjhkkr


Posts: 2345
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
In this month's Modern War magazine there was an excellent article on the Linebacker raids with maps and orders of battle. The Linebacker II map was particularly detailed, with 36 B-52s coming in from the West and 27 B-52s coming in from the East. That's a LOT of bombs!

Where would you find this magazine; I would really like to get it.


_____________________________

Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 22
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 2/17/2019 12:02:51 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1089
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
https://shop.strategyandtacticspress.com/searchresults.asp?cat=35

There's two versions, one comes with a table top wargame and the other is just the magazine. I just get the magazine. You can order the games separately.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 2/18/2019 9:08:07 AM >

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 23
RE: Shortage of Vietnam scenarios - 2/17/2019 5:05:53 PM   
Para87

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 7/28/2017
Status: offline
quote:


I have written two scenarios and want to write a campaign... but... it really is difficult.


Well I can only offer my monies and my soul, just please make it happen

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Shortage of Vietnam scenarios Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.145