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 NF #41 Tour de Force

 
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 NF #41 Tour de Force Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force - 6/28/2020 12:03:20 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1997
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Hello. I looked around some more, and only noticed a few more items, some of which have been mentioned already, I think.


More Assorted stuff

The Side Briefing indicates that the patrol zone points are all intended to fire at 12 hour intervals, but the four triggers for PZ Delta are all set for 24 hours.

Two CVN detection triggers, one “CVN Target Detected’ with a zone, other ‘CVN detected’ without a zone. I don’t think the second one gets used at all, so it may not make a difference.

There are two triggers for NATO aircraft losses: ‘NATO Aircraft Loss’ and ‘NATO AC Destroyed’. Not sure if it matters here either.

My shot-down pilots all stayed until the end of the game. I’m not sure if they’re supposed to eventually expire after a time?

Action ‘Lua – Ryk window closed’ has a typo “have not made the widndow”

Action ‘Lua - USNS Northern Lights at Faslane’ has a typo “unloading supplies to the dockyart”

There are two actions which generate minefield RPs: ‘Lua – Minefield coords’ (which has the duplicate RPs) and ‘Lua – Target Minefield’ (which does not)

The ‘Rft 86 Msl Bde’ event, which adds extra SAMs around Bardufoss, happens at 8:30 on the first day of the scenario. Was this supposed to happen later in the game? The INTREP on Mar 21 at 1800Z indicates that the 86th Msl Bde “has or is moving” from Kola three days later. Having the SAMs present from the beginning does make things tougher, but it might also be interesting to catch the player unawares, here or elsewhere, with pop-up SAM replacements (or repairs) after they think they’ve cleared things out.

Pop-up runway repair might be fun too, although it would take a lot of Lua-ing, I expect. Currently the game takes forever to fix a runway, and in a game of this length they should be able to make some measurable progress. Maybe if runway = disabled, start timer. Four hours later, Lua in some trucks named ‘construction equipment’. If they’re in the zone for 2 days, then Lua the runway and a couple of access points to operational. Perhaps only at some of the bigger mainland bases (Bodo, Banak, Bardufoss)? Might make for an interesting surprise. (Although the problem might be that this could ignore the effect of restrikes.)


SAM reloads

I have to admit, I mostly forgot that the TLAM freighters at Reykjavik and Faslane had also brought SAMs, and I certainly made no effort to send any of my escorts there for restocking. I guess once I had decided that trips to Rota or Norfolk were out of the question, I put SAMs out of my mind. I wonder if a “Undertake SAM resupply” order from HQ, maybe a day before the ships are scheduled to arrive, and a minor points event for major SAM ships (Ticos, other CGs, Burkes) arriving at those bases would help make the player more attentive to this replenishing task?


Finding CVs?

I think the biggest difficulty for the Soviets is finding the American carriers, and, having found them, keeping the contact until the bombers can arrive. Submarine detection is a very unreliable method of finding the enemy, especially if they have slowed down to creep speed to do some ASW hunting of their own. You're only likely to get direct-path contacts, which means detection ranges will be ~ 15 miles at most.

I wonder if a dedicated armed reconnaissance mission would be the way to go, rather than hoping for sub detections? Perhaps the Tu-22MR recce planes, on independent support missions with lanes ~ 100 miles apart, with heavy fighter cover (a MiG-23 surge from Bardufoss /Tromso/Andoya, backed up by Su-27s/MiG-31s) against a background of jammers could do it? It would be costly, but if done on day 2-ish, before major reinforcements arrive, it might work to catch a carrier. And the cost may be justified - even spending 50 to 60 to fighters to kill a carrier group with 80+ aircraft and multiple ships is probably a net win.

It might also be worth a dedicated mission to hunt the Arc Royal and Clemenceau, coming in from over Svalbard to do it. (That assumes the Soviets actually know they're in the area. Would they have any indication of that in the scenario setting?)

(Of course, this is all spoken like a micro-managing human. Convincing the AI to do this might be completely impractical.)


Thanks again for the great scenario.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 91
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force - 6/28/2020 8:31:55 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
quote:

Pop-up runway repair might be fun too, although it would take a lot of Lua-ing, I expect.

Some, but maybe less than you think, if you just want to deem it repaired at a particular time. The effort there will be more in managing which one\ones to repair and less the actual 'repair' - unless you want it staggered in increments, which yeah get more involved. The other challenge there is if the ammo depots are actually destroyed they're gone, so you only have what's on planes that are there and aren't blown up right or what lands. Course you can re-generate them but that seems unfair, and adding mags via scripts (without involving delta's) can't be done atm anyway. Though come to think of it this is the second request I've seen for faster repairs options, and while I don't mind the game is slow in repairing runways etc (I think it's rather a good default) I've always wished there was a setting per unit or per side to speed it up even if only slightly like (10-15%), I've always thought it should be maybe tied to proficiency. Maybe I'll work on something in the future that can address that in a reusable way, at least for airbases if not units in general.

quote:

Of course, this is all spoken like a micro-managing human

It's the only way to play this game most of the time frankly if you want to make the most of whatever advantages you have in a scene.
quote:

Convincing the AI to do this might be completely impractical.

Indeed it might.

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 92
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force - 6/28/2020 10:37:14 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4757
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Thanks AndrewJ great stuff to work on.

Your mention of Runway repair reminded me of a interesting discussion I had late one beer soaked evening many years ago.

I had an acquaintance who commanded the Rapid Runway Repair unit (cannot remember its actual title) before we scrapped it. About 150 folks. He told me (beer involved so veracity uncertain) that his unit could repair holes in about 4 hours and have any runway damage fixed and the runway operational within 72hrs.

Interesting - so I googled it and found this: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a467547.pdf

I cannot claim to have read the whole thing in detail (it looks like Engineer porn to me) but it seems that RRR is a 'thing'

Assuming you have a team (Canada had one- we have a lot of runways), the equipment and the supplies on hand there should indeed be a way of fixing runways quicker. Norway in March - I'm thinking within 48-72 hrs.

This capability shouldn't be universal and would depend on how many bombs of what type actually did the dirty work. I think this is where CBs vs Penetraters makes an interesting study - hundreds of small holes vs 1 really big crater.

Hmmm...

A simplistic fix would be on a 12hr repeating trigger - have a random chance and poof the runway is fixed (At my level of Lua skill - I like this)

A more complex fix would be for something on a shorter trigger (4hr?) where it dropped the damage on the runway by a certain percentage (10-15%) allowing smaller AC to operate quicker (this is better I think)

The next question is - how do you figure out how many teams and where they are?

If they are at the Air Base in question with the equipment - no problem. I do see another target at the base though - an undetected vehicle park or something within 20nm- which eliminates the option if its destroyed.

If they are not at the base - do they drive in (Target!)? They presumably cannot fly in unless there is a nearby runway... then why bother. Do they paradrop in - special kit, special training, transports available etc - yes but limited. Do you paradrop the people and use local equipment, doable but slower I think.

So how many? - One team per Wing or only one per numbered Air Force? For the Soviets one per Division or Corps? Smaller Air Forces get one or two maybe? Does that sound right?

So how? - For the player side assigning a RRR team to a base could be a Special Acton or maybe it needs to be flow in before or pre-positioned close or para-dropped. For the AI side it's easier I think.

This is more of a general discussion, but for this Scenario there is no real threat to the player and the Soviets would have one (at Air Corps) or three (at Air Div) and Bardufoss and Bodo are the obvious choices. A delay for driving to the other mainland bases but the island bases would be a non starter I think. The bases on the Kola would have an inherent capacity to do think I think.

Any thoughts on this? Gentlemen! I present you a 'can of worms'!









_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 93
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force - 6/28/2020 11:49:01 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1997
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Interesting - so I googled it and found this: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a467547.pdf


Looking through that document, it makes a lot of references to AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 10-219, VOLUME 4 1 APRIL 1997 RAPID RUNWAY REPAIR OPERATIONS. Fortunately, there is a pdf of it on-line HERE

This is a full-on 227 pages of how to assess damages and make repairs.






< Message edited by AndrewJ -- 6/28/2020 2:18:56 PM >

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 94
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force - 9/4/2020 4:07:41 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4757
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

I figure this saves a boat load of time if you want to rework it


KnightHawk75

Finally getting at this scenario and your script saved a bunch of time - worked like a charm and after I figured out a couple bits it was great.

Thanks again.

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 95
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force - 9/5/2020 5:17:28 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
@Gunner98
Cool. Glad it helped.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 96
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force - 9/5/2020 5:24:42 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4757
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

Murmansk Strike


AndrewJ

You were about 26hrs ahead of where I thought things would be. ....Fixed

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 97
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force - 9/5/2020 6:08:20 PM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1997
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Good thing I played the Beta!

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 98
RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force - 9/5/2020 9:22:04 PM   
stww2

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 5/23/2017
Status: offline
Pretty sure Eisenhower Moves North (don't remember which NF scenario number that is) involved an UNREP of a CVBG-that's a much smaller and more manageable scenario.

(in reply to VileBeggar)
Post #: 99
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: New Scenario for Testing NF #41 Tour de Force Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

0.141