Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

New scenario for testing "Thunderclap"

 
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 >> New scenario for testing "Thunderclap" Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New scenario for testing "Thunderclap" - 6/17/2019 3:27:30 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3501
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
I am writing some scenarios based on Larry Bond's book "Cauldron". In it a new order has arisen in Europe post-Cold War with a GermanFranco led structure called EurCon replacing the EU. French intelligence operatives attempt to destabilize the Hungarian government thus forcing it deeper into EurCon's hold. The plan backfires and Hungarian loyalists seize control of Bucharest and most of the armed forces. EurCon responds by invading Hungary in the name of returning the "legitimate" government to power. The Poles, Czechs and Slovaks respond by withdrawing from EurCon and aiding Hungary in what limited way they can. The US, UK, and Norway attempt to find a diplomatic solution while reinforcing the Eastern European states. With the failure of diplomacy the US President has issued an ultimatum for EurCon to pull out of Hungary. That ultimatum is about to expire

The scenario depicts EurCon trying to eliminate the few remaining US and Polish units caught in the Baltic when the ultimatum was issued.

There are some things a player needs to do to avoid being slaughtered but I won't spill the beans as that is part of the fun, right? I need to know if there are sufficient forces available to accomplish the mission more than anything else


Edit: changed the Polish Cap mission so it will not cross the border prior to hostilities being initiated. Enhanced the SAM defenses in Poland.

Edit 2: fixed the scoring error. Fixed the Polish MiGs wandering out of the patrol zone prior to onset of hostilities. Improved some ship movement issues. Fixed an error in one of the events. New files attached

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by vettim89 -- 6/21/2019 11:46:34 PM >


_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
Post #: 1
RE: New scenario for testing "Thunderclap" - 6/17/2019 4:27:05 AM   
Whicker

 

Posts: 621
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline
I had some planes staged over Germany before hostilities, the polish AC came and hung out with them - over Germany. What should the ROE be if this happens? I didn't shoot, then the war broke out and they shot first and I lost quite a bit.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 2
RE: New scenario for testing "Thunderclap" - 6/17/2019 4:00:14 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3501
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
You went too far with your pre-positioned a/c. The Polish a/c have a fairly limited prosecution zone. Just pull back a bit

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Whicker)
Post #: 3
RE: New scenario for testing "Thunderclap" - 6/20/2019 8:23:56 PM   
i224747

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 11/6/2015
Status: offline
An easy pick. I am at chapter 4. I will take some more time to reach chapter 18 where the Thunderclap scenario is supposed to be performed.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 4
RE: New scenario for testing "Thunderclap" - 6/21/2019 2:35:35 AM   
Whicker

 

Posts: 621
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline
The scoring for the CG getting killed won't work as you don't have the exact name:

unit.name == "USS Leyte Gulf" then points = 500
should be:
unit.name == "USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55)" then points = 500

I usually click on the unit, click R and then copy the name to the clipboard so it is correct. That or rename it to just what you want.

I think I killed everything, but lost a lot of planes... my score was -1050 or so - but should have been 500 points more for the cg so maybe -550?
The Migs still came up and took out a bunch of my AC that were forming up, I think this is the bug with prosecution areas not being respected. Even though I knew it was going to happen I still couldn't stop them for some reason.

I'm not clear on the reason to have my AC in the air already - or if I am just mis-reading that. Plenty of time to have them launch when needed, and it is sort of messing with my timing/fuel.
I think I would prefer it if hostilities initiated right off the bat - maybe at the beginning or a few minutes after.

Nice work.

(in reply to i224747)
Post #: 5
RE: New scenario for testing "Thunderclap" - 6/21/2019 7:32:13 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3501
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whicker

The scoring for the CG getting killed won't work as you don't have the exact name:

unit.name == "USS Leyte Gulf" then points = 500
should be:
unit.name == "USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55)" then points = 500

I usually click on the unit, click R and then copy the name to the clipboard so it is correct. That or rename it to just what you want.

I think I killed everything, but lost a lot of planes... my score was -1050 or so - but should have been 500 points more for the cg so maybe -550?
The Migs still came up and took out a bunch of my AC that were forming up, I think this is the bug with prosecution areas not being respected. Even though I knew it was going to happen I still couldn't stop them for some reason.

I'm not clear on the reason to have my AC in the air already - or if I am just mis-reading that. Plenty of time to have them launch when needed, and it is sort of messing with my timing/fuel.
I think I would prefer it if hostilities initiated right off the bat - maybe at the beginning or a few minutes after.

Nice work.


Technically you can do anything with the aircraft that you wish. There is more than ample time to accomplish the mission goals within the scenario time limit. The added "Be ready the moment the order comes through" is just to mimic the action in the book. The delay is again to mimic the book where both sides were surprised due to the unforeseen and therefore uncontrollable actions by a U-boat captain. I originally had a Type 206 sub in the scenario but removed it because I wanted to add the uncertainty of not knowing exactly when things were kicking off. Perhaps I will go back and rewrite the Mission Briefing saying EurCon will initiate hostilities at 22:00 hour and then have the sub attack pop up. Just trying to add some friction to the command structure.

BTW, scenario one is about done but it is a very basic one. They will get harder as I move on - A LOT HARDER!!!!

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Whicker)
Post #: 6
RE: New scenario for testing "Thunderclap" - 6/21/2019 10:28:57 PM   
Whicker

 

Posts: 621
Joined: 6/20/2018
Status: offline
Maybe just keep it as is but move the start up so it is just a few minutes after? or even have the sub in it, on an invisible side, but just about to launch torpedoes... then the ships could be evading it and trying to kill it while you kill them. If the sub was on a non allied side you wouldn't be distracted by it and couldn't control it (allied units you can sort of control).

The other thing I forgot to mention is that you have most of the ships evading by going into that little cove where they just sit and wait for me to come get them on the second try. Why not have them just head up to the northeast farther away, with maybe something up there to protect them.

This one wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the migs - they gave me a lot of trouble if they found me.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 7
RE: New scenario for testing "Thunderclap" - 6/21/2019 11:53:08 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3501
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whicker

Maybe just keep it as is but move the start up so it is just a few minutes after? or even have the sub in it, on an invisible side, but just about to launch torpedoes... then the ships could be evading it and trying to kill it while you kill them. If the sub was on a non allied side you wouldn't be distracted by it and couldn't control it (allied units you can sort of control).

The other thing I forgot to mention is that you have most of the ships evading by going into that little cove where they just sit and wait for me to come get them on the second try. Why not have them just head up to the northeast farther away, with maybe something up there to protect them.

This one wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the migs - they gave me a lot of trouble if they found me.


I wanted to keep the scenario as clean as possible and also as close to the book as I could manage within CMANO. I changed the initial briefing that now says hostilities will commence at 2200 GMT (event remains in place so that won't happen) This way there will still be a bit of surprise to the player when the balloon pops early. Yes, the MiGs are supposed to be a pain. They are there to force the player into choosing which formation to hit first. The longer you wait to hit the Polish and less so the small US TF they more it is going to hurt. Also that applies so impetus to have units in place as soon as hostilities commence.

New file uploaded

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Whicker)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> New scenario for testing "Thunderclap" 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

0.125