Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Updated: RevT for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022

 
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 >> Updated: RevT for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Updated: RevT for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/7/2020 1:27:58 PM   
caohailiang

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline
Jun.27 new revision T:
main update for the US/Japan side:
1, several airbases in Japan home islands, lots of additional aircraft including JASDF
2, reduced number of B-1
3, all previously airborne reinforcements are landed instead
4, 3 separate carrier groups in distance instead of all ships massed together, positioned in southeast Philippine sea instead of near Iwo Jima
4, one less SSGN, an additional JMSDF SAG
main update for China side:
1, all satellites removed but enhanced recon missions
2, extended flank towards east china sea as well as south china sea (in response to change in US deployment)
3, sharpened naval strike mission with better escorts.


Havent got enough time to polish all the details, but all the big things are there. very thankful for all your advice.


--------------------------------------------
latest K version
Major update for US side:
1, extra 2*SSGN for US with 300 multi-mission tomahawk
2, upgrade all f/a-18 to latest version to carry agm-158c
3, additional airbase and aircrafts in Japan
Major update for China side:
1, additional airbase and aircrafts in east china
2, change some of the naval strike missiles to long range version (total number remains)
3, some optimization in tactics
another notice: there is some s/w bug with the ASBM weapon in CMO 1147.1 version, sometimes it will shoot but in the wrong direction. so USN cvbg will get detected but the ASBM wont hit (according to tech support, the fix is already underway)
//Jun.14
----------------------
stupid mistake, change a name in the game but not in the lua function. i think it should work now//Jun.8th
-----------------------
sorry i have to take it down for now because i found an error with the code//Jun.7th
------------------------
inspired by recent military situation in west pacific such as B-1 exercising long range strike directly from continental USA.
i have tried to use some lua scripts to make the AI more resilient to strikes, also maybe better at conducting it
----------------------------

Situation:
The PLA started military action against Taiwan about 24 hours ago. Massive ballistic missile attack and air raid destroyed majority of Taiwanese navy and airforce. US/Japan airbases in the region were also heavily bombarded, resulted in substantial loss of both airplanes and facilities. Kanena AB, Andersson AB and Iwo Jima AB are still operational but at a seriously reduced capacity. PLA has established air superiority in the theatre.
Our CVBG(with all the currently available flat-tops in west pacific) has adopted a defensive posture in the Philippine Sea. A sizeable reinforcement of B-1b and F35 is expected to arrive at the theatre in several hours.
Although our situation awareness capability is blocked towards the strait, intelligence indicated PLAN amphibious forces have left their ports in 3 large formations and landing operations off Taiwan west coast are expected to start in 8 hours.
Own Forces:
1, USS Ronald Regan, USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS America and their escorts.
2, Inbound B-1b units with anti-ship payload and some addtional F-35 units.
3, Land based tactical aircrafts including F-35 & F-22.
4, Several SSNs.
5, We also have operational control over the remains of Taiwanese air force.
Enemy Forces
1, PLAN CVBG is expected to enter the Philippine Sea through Bashi Channel soon if not already; There are also several SAGs in the vicinity of Taiwan.
2, Land based aircrast including J20, J11, J10 and H6, concerntrating in frontline airbases along south east coast of China.
3, Several DF-21 ASBM brigade are deployed in firing position.
4, Unknown submarine forces.
Mission:
Destroy PLA amphibious fleet before the cargo is unloaded.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by caohailiang -- 6/27/2020 2:32:39 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/7/2020 1:43:40 PM   
Parel803

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/10/2019
From: Netherlands
Status: offline
Nice

(in reply to caohailiang)
Post #: 2
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/11/2020 9:11:47 PM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
Sounds like a nice challenge to check out, glad you re-upped it.


(in reply to Parel803)
Post #: 3
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/14/2020 8:33:51 AM   
Selchu

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 5/7/2017
Status: offline
quote:

PLA has established air superiority in the theatre.


I started this scenario last night. Alot of work ahead but what I will say so far is that the statement above should not be taken lightly.

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 4
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/14/2020 12:27:50 PM   
caohailiang

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline
thanks for playing. i have uploaded the new version in case you want to try out. i think it should be more fun, and reasonable

< Message edited by caohailiang -- 6/14/2020 12:28:06 PM >

(in reply to Selchu)
Post #: 5
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/14/2020 8:05:09 PM   
Selchu

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 5/7/2017
Status: offline
Cool. I'll download it and give it a shot. I found the opening very hard so far with so few aircraft available and the carrier so far away. Was wishing I had some Tomcats and long range missiles. But you have what you have. Thanks man

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 6
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/14/2020 8:07:13 PM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
Oh a new version, my delay may have paid off.

(in reply to Selchu)
Post #: 7
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/15/2020 1:04:28 AM   
caohailiang

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Selchu

Cool. I'll download it and give it a shot. I found the opening very hard so far with so few aircraft available and the carrier so far away. Was wishing I had some Tomcats and long range missiles. But you have what you have. Thanks man


yes, the west pacific makes all the current fighters look short legged, you will have to make good use of the 40+ tankers. on the other hand, the long range strike missiles in a way compensate the problem.
wrt to the number of fighters, without giving away the other side, i will say only gen-5 a/c matters in the scenario, the others, no matter its gen-4 or gen-4.5, dont make much difference really
about the position of the carrier, that is really on purpose to avoid excessive exposure to missile strike threat. i am surprised in the end how much damage it still can do 1000 nm away

anyway, enjoy and let me know if you think the scenario makes sense - the goal of the design is to reflect reality in case such conflict breaks out

< Message edited by caohailiang -- 6/15/2020 1:27:53 AM >

(in reply to Selchu)
Post #: 8
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/19/2020 12:56:52 AM   
Selchu

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 5/7/2017
Status: offline
Ok, currently working my way through this. The Chinese airfields are all single unit. This means I can't use my 2 Ohios/Tomahawks to take out the airfields.

It's a good scenario so far. I'm taking quite a few losses due to J-20s. I'll stick more up as I see it.

(in reply to caohailiang)
Post #: 9
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/19/2020 2:07:25 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
@selchu,
You can semi-cheat that, you can bearing-only launch lrasm's and 109-i's (ctrl-f1) and re-target (select all then f1) them after launch toward those single-unit airfields, the downside is you can't chose what targets they pick inside the airfield. Personally I see it as something that should be allowed (targeting single unit airfields) without this trick, but say cheat cause certain airfields aren't setup with defenses atm to counter it. Figured I'd mention it just in case you wanted to play around with it as a strategy. You'll need like 100 or something to fully take out a large single unit base using that method though (unless you get lucky) in my experience. The wisdom of spending the munitions that way I leave to the player.


< Message edited by KnightHawk75 -- 6/19/2020 2:11:41 AM >

(in reply to Selchu)
Post #: 10
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/19/2020 2:45:10 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
Minor issue for those not playing inside editor.
us side doctrine - Land isn't checked to be able to be changed by player, I assume this remains from the bug that existed a couple versions back, so might want to check the box is checked for next revision.

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 11
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/19/2020 3:49:17 AM   
caohailiang

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline
in reality PLA will probably deploy the aircrafts across some 40 airports in the theatre instead of just the 5 as in the scenario, plus heavy air defense units as a counter measure to tomahawk strike. but i didnt design it that way for 2 reasons:
1, having dozens of non-single-unit airport in the scenario will drag it slow
2, For AI side, arranging so many AAR mission for a/c taking off from inland airports will further complicate things.
so what i did is to concentrate all a/c in a couple of single unit ab instead.
Does it give china side extra advantage? maybe, but similar thing is done with US side, you can see there are no long range land attack weapon at all with china side, and all US airfields are single unit.
but i definitely would love to hear more about whether this is reflecting the balance of power in reality.
thank you

(in reply to Selchu)
Post #: 12
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/19/2020 3:55:30 AM   
caohailiang

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline
thanks!

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 13
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/19/2020 5:12:34 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
Speaking of balance, is there a reason China has like 40 satellites but the US has zero? Is this just to help compensate the AI (give them targeting advantage)?

(in reply to caohailiang)
Post #: 14
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/19/2020 5:40:47 AM   
caohailiang

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline
no no no, this is my bad, just working my way towards that, should have done it already. for the time being, you may find the taiwanese aircrafts very handy if you need targeting info for pla fleets in the strait.

what about the number of 5th gen a/c? do you think that make sense in 2022 time frame

and also the number of carriers. i wonder if an action of such scale is about to break out, how early a warning can US get so she can start to maneuver navy fleets to the region.


< Message edited by caohailiang -- 6/19/2020 5:49:58 AM >

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 15
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/19/2020 7:58:19 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
I don't get into nit picking realism too much, unless an author is specifically striving for it.

But since you asked my opinion if certain things make sense aircraft # wise I'll give it. Nothing on the 5th gen aircraft side struck me as unreasonable. You didn't ask, but on the 36 b-1b's that's nearly every b-1b flyable\task-able at any given moment worldwide (and just over 1/2 the amount total in service), but again given the situation, and some presumed forewarning on the US side, not 'impossible', but on actual short notice though you'd probably be really lucky to have 24 coming from state side direction. On the other hand there would probably be 6-8 b-2's involved at some point so maybe it about evens out. On 3 carriers, well it's really 2 and 1/2, LHA is actually homeported in japan, as is the Reagan so no problem there. Another being in theater happens sometimes, so either lucky timing or that again the US had some warning ahead of time things might kick off and moved an extra one in theater. How long? Well depends where the other asset\carrier was, Pearl is a 5'ish day sail and the west coast a week (at flank the whole way). As for the kc-10's, about half the fleet are in this scenario, don't know how doable that is or not on short notice vs more 135r's (who sadly have smaller tanks). I'd leave it alone though, the kc-10s help keep unit count and tanker mgmt down. Again though none of the above bothers me, I'm enjoying the scenario pretty much as is, just observations since you asked.




(in reply to caohailiang)
Post #: 16
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/19/2020 8:12:37 AM   
caohailiang

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline
hahaha, thanks for the input, seems not a too horrible job keeping it realistic on my part

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 17
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/20/2020 7:56:11 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 1803
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
I have found it is usually the Major-huge airports that slow things down. Keeping them at 10-20 units is OK, 200 to 300 ouch!

One trick I use is I use the Single Units Airport to be the runways (especially if there are multiple runways) and then add some bunkers and Tarmacs, etc that can be attacked. Most people are going after the runway access points and tarmac/ammo bunkers anyway.

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to caohailiang)
Post #: 18
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/21/2020 4:11:12 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

I have found it is usually the Major-huge airports that slow things down. Keeping them at 10-20 units is OK, 200 to 300 ouch!

One trick I use is I use the Single Units Airport to be the runways (especially if there are multiple runways) and then add some bunkers and Tarmacs, etc that can be attacked. Most people are going after the runway access points and tarmac/ammo bunkers anyway.

Seen the same.
Though with that the player still can't usually target the runways in the Single unit one.

Another way is use the single unit, but if you want the opposition to be able to disable it, throw in x number of additional runways and access points, ammo like you said, and then in a script that runs like every 5 minutes you can check those for damage level on those marker units, if damaged\destroyed you can then script the disabling\damaging of the single unit's entities to effectively "shut it down" as well - or remove the thing entirely lol.

Equally if you don't want the airbase to have basically double the runways to start, you could just pre-disable the runways inside the single unit as destroyed, such that it can now only use the external ones you add into the 'Group'. You get the benefit of a huge airbase (when using say the 4x4k one) but only take up extra 10-20 'units' you want to actually represent the base as targets, but you also have allowed the player a way to target \ take-out the base from operating with normal munitions and without having to resort to my re-target trick (which only works for a couple of munitions in the game). I find the pre-disabling works well in most case and avoids having to add complexity with scripting the damage.

The downside to pre-disabling method is I've not found a way to script the 'destroyed' setting on the runways during (I can do heavy damage but not 'destroyed') the setup\creation script of a single unit airbase. So I've had to have those airbases as part of the scene itself instead of dynamically generated. There is probably a trick to get around that, just haven't found it yet.





< Message edited by KnightHawk75 -- 6/21/2020 4:12:40 AM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 19
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/21/2020 11:12:56 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
line ~160 initparameters threw an error while playing, basically it tried to reference and nil entry, in this case it was called with thirdreserve being nil and bombed on

elseif (#ScenEdit_GetMission('China', thirdreserve).unitlist >=2)

Consider changing it to
--the first part is checked first, and if nil second part will not be evaluated
elseif ((thirdreserve ~=nil) and #ScenEdit_GetMission('China', thirdreserve).unitlist >=2)

The two if's before it should probably get the same treatment.

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 20
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/21/2020 3:43:27 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 1803
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Yeah I look at it this way, I usually go after the runway access points as I hate going after the runways, seems like a lot of ordinance. That's why is see the Single Unit Airfield as a nice compromise. if you only have a few airfields regular bases are OK but with a large number of airfields its a good compromise to provide a large number of airfields, without tying up too many game resources! I guess you could build a table with the GUID for certain number of tarmac spaces then when they are destroyed disable the Single Unit Airfield. I kind of like that approach.

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 21
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/21/2020 8:50:16 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 1803
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
caohailiang, Impressive work. I know how hard these big scenarios are to work on.

Just starting the scenario, one thing I see in the set up is you have two Ohio Class SSGNs available which is highly unlikely in a short fuse (or any situation). The USN only has 4, two in Bremerton, WA and Two at Kings Bay, GA which can operate out of Guam. Normally one is refitting and in port while the other is deployed. It is highly unlikely the USS Georgia or USS Florida would make an appearance here from Kings Bay, GA (again especially if short fused).

So if the intention is just to design a "Scenario" then they are fine but if you're looking at a "simulation" then I would suggest removing one Ohio. Maybe replace her with JMSDF Vessels????

I also agree with Knighthawk that 36 B-1Bs in one theater would be an incredible deployment! I am hard pressed to use more than 4 to 8 in any scenario I design which is not in the Western Hemisphere. Based on open source Intel the USAF has nowhere near this many LRSAMs as you postulate (BTW I made the same mistake in a scenario I designed in this region giving the U.S. way too many PGMs). At best by 2022 the USAF would likely have some 200 AGM-158C LRASMs I would, suggest only outfitting one flight of B-1Bs with LRASMs and the rest with AGM-158B JASSMs.

Given the DF-21F and DF-26 Threat I doubt COMSEVENTHFLT would put two carriers in one group. The risk on loosing two carriers to one ASBM strike would be just too great and there is little benefit from that kind of concentration of vessels in this situation. Given the Burkes have no defense against the ASBMs just not worth it.

My thoughts are why would I bring a Carrier into DF-21D range let alone DF-26 range (although IF it works as advertised then there is little choice) let alone two carriers when I have Allies and Allied air bases to use?. Also Would the Philippines grant the USAF basing rights? I think that could go either way. If so I would ferry aircraft from a USN Carrier to Philippine bases to attack PLAN units without risking a carrier.



< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 6/22/2020 12:32:53 AM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to caohailiang)
Post #: 22
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/21/2020 11:39:28 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 1803
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
So no Japanese Self Defense Forces? Bases on the Home Islands have been struck, I could see they maybe sitting it out if only bases on the Ryukyu Islands were hit, but suspect they wouldn't be quite as forgiving with a strike on the Home Islands (maybe the PRC threatened a nuclear strike if they joined? Now that I would find plausible.). Otherwise I would suggest ditching one USN Carrier and adding Naha air force base, Okinawa with Japanese Air Self-Defense Force Squadrons from North and Central Japan reinforcing it. Also To me NAS Atsugi is a bit far from the area of battle, but maybe add Nyutabaru Air Base with it's housed JASDF Squadrons. Just some ideas.

Why the tankers at Hickam? They are hopelessly behind the aircraft in flight over the mid-Pacific and nothing is coming from the U.S. for them to refuel? Moving them to Anderson or Iwo Jima (a small airport) makes them more useful and you can eliminate Hickam. That saves one airfield (even if it is single unit).

Also, if 36 B-1Bs are coming from the Continental United States (CONUS) If I were a commander in this conflict I would use about 4 to 8 B-2s to try to hit the DF-21D and DF-26 sites. Which brings up another point, there is a constellation of PRC satellites but NASA, the USAF, the Defense Satellite Program and now the Space Force have lost all of theirs? Japanese satellites? My suggestion loose about 18 to 24 B-1Bs, add 4 to 8 B-2A with JASSMs then add U.S. Satellites Now the USN has a chance to move those carriers into effective range, IF the USAF can take out the ASBM TELs (which is the only non-nuclear option I see right now).

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 6/22/2020 12:32:28 AM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to caohailiang)
Post #: 23
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/22/2020 12:47:09 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 1803
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Took a quick look at the PRC side, in relation to the points made above. You would likely know better than I but I think the DF-26s are too far east. My understanding is they are positioned in the Central PRC and given their range and as a fall back to attack on the DF_21Ds they would be a Trump Card if positioned there. A Stealth bomber attack might get a DF-21D brigade closer to the coast, but the Central PRC that's a lot harder.

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2019/05/pla-rocket-force-trajectory

"There are some potential candidates for new IRBM brigades too. The 621 Brigade, previously an MRBM brigade based at Jianshui, Yunnan province, near the Vietnamese border, has relocated several hundred kilometres deeper into China, to Yibin, Sichuan province, suggesting that it has traded-up for a longer-range missile, most likely the DF-26 IRBM." Now I understand these are likely land attack versions but again with a 3-4,000 KM/1,800-2,400 SM range, the Yibin is a very safe place to keep them, especially if they have a nuclear role.

So please don't take this all as criticism of your hard work, I've created two Western vs. PRC scenarios and I'll bet you look over my PRC OOB and roll your eyes in complete disgust! I think you have the makings of a great simulation here, rather than a game scenario here.

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 24
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/22/2020 1:53:49 AM   
caohailiang

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline
KnightHawk75, got it and thanks, will tidy up the code before i make next release
another thing, the AssignH6toStike code seems not quite working, i am still trying to find out why

< Message edited by caohailiang -- 6/22/2020 1:54:57 AM >

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 25
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/22/2020 4:25:51 AM   
caohailiang

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline
BeirutDude, thank you for bringing up many great points, some of which i have been pondering but without good answers. Here are my responses/thoughts:
1, ohio class, noted, will remove one

2, B1 and LRASM. I understand the limitation mentioned by Knighthawk and you, at the meantime i am wondering, in reality how would USN and USAAF conduct naval strike in such high end war-fighting? Would F/A-18+SLAMER be a viable option? from the scenario we see it is extremely risky for f/a-18 getting into 150nm range of Taiwan strait. Or maybe throwing sea-based Tomahawk from remote? i doubt what that can achieve. or maybe they are waiting for a hypersonic ansi-ship weapon to be available?

3, wrt the carriers, an interesting news is USS Nimitz joined the party lately in west pacific so at the moment there are 3*CV+1*LHA. How would these asset be deployed? currently i am deploying them 1000nm away of Chinese coast, so it is out of df-21d range but not df-26d, this will reduce the exposure to some degree, and its up the player whether to move closer or not. wrt the risks of being caught together in a single ASBM raid, i wonder wouldn't the concentration of Ticonderoga provide better anti-ballistic capability? (i thought the Burkes has such capability as well) In reality, if the USN really needs 3 carriers in one theatre, what would be the formation?

4, i think you are totally right with df-26d's position. the problem i have is just that in build 1147.1 whenever the shooting range is longer than 1000nm, the missile will go to the wrong direction. this is a registered bug to be fixed in next release. so for now i have to stick them to the coast line just to test how it works.
and about using B-2 to hunt down those tel: in reality according to some analysis, total df-21 number is around 100~400, df-26d number is around 100~150 (not sure the number of the D variant). so my number in the game (48*df-21d and 24*df-26d) can be considered as those that survive the B-2 strike, reasonable?

5, or maybe just leave the carriers out of the fight and use the airbases only? then the question is how do we evacuate those carrier-based a/c to land-based airbases
first of all, given the distance, i am assuming PLA has the capability to more or less paralyze those airbases in Okinawa, with SLBM salvo first and then cruise missiles.
secondly, operating majority of the assets from airbases in Ryukyu or Honshu, towards the Taiwan theatre in the south, would mean there is a huge flank exposed to the PLAAF, hence i dont feel it is a very good idea. They can be used in a limited way
Iwo Jima and Guam are relatively safe as they are out of the range of SLBM. It is hard to assess how much damage PLA can do to these places. But i think their capacity will be limited too, because US side wound not want to concentrate too many a/c in one place just to avoid the risk, which is why we see the B-1 super long range exercise in the first place.
Then the Philippines. If Clark AB is considered, I think those islets in the south china sea will have to be considered too, which will make thing too complicated. And as you said in reality things could go either way, so if the situation becomes clearer in the future i will add them (which i think is literally a game changer)
But during the simulation i do realize safeguarding the carrier group is such a burden, in the end what it can do is, for example maintaining aaw to protect the forward tanker tracks, so the land based a/c can safely refuel and set out to offensive actions. the carrier group sometimes can be too busy protecting itself to conduct any offensive with its own a/c. i guess it would be an interesting thing for people to explore in their own process of playing

6, about Hickam KC-10, noted and i will move them to iwo jima and guam, and delete the kc-135 there.

7, as to satellite, tried to add all the US satellite last week but the game kept crashing. do you think it is a good idea to simply remove all satellites from both sides, the reason being in reality there are many ways to counter satellite recon but it is difficult to simulate any in the game. In terms of impact to the balance of game, China side cannot use sat to locate US carrier, US side cannot use sat to locate ships in the taiwan strait, nor to locate ASBM brigades (i didnt know that can be done!). seems not hurting the balance too much?

8, JSDF of course should be considered, i doubt if there will be any effective nuclear blackmail from China, for many reasons. In terms of air force, it really boils down to the number of a/c especially 5th gen a/c, no matter who is operating it. In terms of navy, i am imagining JMSDF mainly operating in east of Japan, either conducting ASW or providing ballistic missile defense to home islands, so they sort of canceled out each other with Chinese long-range land attack towards Japan.

love to hear comments from you, thanks




< Message edited by caohailiang -- 6/22/2020 6:07:45 AM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 26
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/22/2020 4:21:39 PM   
Fido81

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 7/14/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caohailiang
7, as to satellite, tried to add all the US satellite last week but the game kept crashing. do you think it is a good idea to simply remove all satellites from both sides, the reason being in reality there are many ways to counter satellite recon but it is difficult to simulate any in the game. In terms of impact to the balance of game, China side cannot use sat to locate US carrier, US side cannot use sat to locate ships in the taiwan strait, nor to locate ASBM brigades (i didnt know that can be done!). seems not hurting the balance too much?


An alternative approach would be to pick as many relevant satellites as you like for each side, decide that the player/AI has been given tasking authority over them (and only them) and justify their inclusion on that basis. I tried the scenario (admittedly a couple revisions ago) and got clobbered trying to do ISR as the US. I feel like having some satellites would take some pressure off of that (allowing me to worry more about planning and executing strikes on the targets they find).

(in reply to caohailiang)
Post #: 27
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/22/2020 7:49:35 PM   
Selchu

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 5/7/2017
Status: offline
1 point I would raise would be time. You have about 8 hours to find the prc ships and the scenario is 18 hours long if I'm right. Should the timings be extended slightly if all these changes area being made?

(in reply to Fido81)
Post #: 28
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/22/2020 11:00:27 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 1803
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

B1 and LRASM. I understand the limitation mentioned by Knighthawk and you, at the meantime i am wondering, in reality how would USN and USAAF conduct naval strike in such high end war-fighting? Would F/A-18+SLAMER be a viable option? from the scenario we see it is extremely risky for f/a-18 getting into 150nm range of Taiwan strait. Or maybe throwing sea-based Tomahawk from remote? i doubt what that can achieve. or maybe they are waiting for a hypersonic ansi-ship weapon to be available?


Right now, unless there is something out there that is not open source, it is a problem and major U.S. deficiency! That is why I suggested that carrier aircraft might deploy to Philippine or Naha Air Force Base. Unsinkable carriers! Just like the PRC South China Sea Islands. Two can play at that game.

quote:

3, wrt the carriers, an interesting news is USS Nimitz joined the party lately in west pacific so at the moment there are 3*CV+1*LHA. How would these asset be deployed? currently i am deploying them 1000nm away of Chinese coast, so it is out of df-21d range but not df-26d, this will reduce the exposure to some degree, and its up the player whether to move closer or not. wrt the risks of being caught together in a single ASBM raid, i wonder wouldn't the concentration of Ticonderoga provide better anti-ballistic capability? (i thought the Burkes has such capability as well) In reality, if the USN really needs 3 carriers in one theatre, what would be the formation?


So someone with better knowledge than I can correct me, but I think even the newest SAMs aren't that capable against a ballistic warhead on terminal flight. Worst the DF-21D warhead is reported to be maneuverable to it the target. I suspect the USN's best chances against a DF-21D IF it really is as capable as reported (a big if IMHO, but works that way in the game) would be radical maneuvering (like against the Kamikazes) and electronic warfare to get inside the comms links for the maneuvers

quote:

4, i think you are totally right with df-26d's position. the problem i have is just that in build 1147.1 whenever the shooting range is longer than 1000nm, the missile will go to the wrong direction. this is a registered bug to be fixed in next release. so for now i have to stick them to the coast line just to test how it works.
and about using B-2 to hunt down those tel: in reality according to some analysis, total df-21 number is around 100~400, df-26d number is around 100~150 (not sure the number of the D variant). so my number in the game (48*df-21d and 24*df-26d) can be considered as those that survive the B-2 strike, reasonable?


Yeah sounds reasonable to me. Remember some of those DF-21D Brigades are watching teh South China Sea and Sea of Japan so not really oriented for this theater but could stil be used here.

quote:

5, or maybe just leave the carriers out of the fight and use the airbases only? then the question is how do we evacuate those carrier-based a/c to land-based airbases first of all, given the distance, i am assuming PLA has the capability to more or less paralyze those airbases in Okinawa, with SLBM salvo first and then cruise missiles.


I'm not sure about that. PRC Missiles are hitting the Home Islands, Guam, The Ryukyus, Taiwan and I assume some are deployed watching India and Russia. I have to wonder just how many missiles the PRC has. Then conventional strikes can only do so much damage. In Okinawa three bases have to be hit, plus the USMC Brigade stationed there. I'm interested, I might do an experiment see what kind of damage a missile brigade could actually do. Then even with the damage, at east in my day, there were airfield reconstruction teams to bring the air field back into operation. Quickcrete can fill crater damage very quickly. I'd be careful overestimating PRC missile numbers and the damage they can actually do.

quote:

secondly, operating majority of the assets from airbases in Ryukyu or Honshu, towards the Taiwan theatre in the south, would mean there is a huge flank exposed to the PLAAF, hence i dont feel it is a very good idea. They can be used in a limited way Iwo Jima and Guam are relatively safe as they are out of the range of SLBM. It is hard to assess how much damage PLA can do to these places. But i think their capacity will be limited too, because US side wound not want to concentrate too many a/c in one place just to avoid the risk, which is why we see the B-1 super long range exercise in the first place.


Overall your points are well taken but I still think you overestimate the SRBM/SLBM capability. There are so many instances of a "game changing" weapons system that didn't prove to be as decisive as everyone through when actually used. "The Bomber will always get through," was the phrase from the 1930s but the Germans still fought to May, 1945! And once again there are only so many B-1Bs, they aren't supermen. Also have you factored in the Patriot and THAAD batteries? Maybe I need to take a closer look at PRC SRBM/IRBM numbers. Can they hit all of these targets and multiple times?


quote:

Then the Philippines. If Clark AB is considered, I think those islets in the south china sea will have to be considered too, which will make thing too complicated. And as you said in reality things could go either way, so if the situation becomes clearer in the future i will add them (which i think is literally a game changer)


Agreed on all points. I used the Philippines for my South China Sea scenario which is why I thought of them.

quote:

But during the simulation i do realize safeguarding the carrier group is such a burden, in the end what it can do is, for example maintaining aaw to protect the forward tanker tracks, so the land based a/c can safely refuel and set out to offensive actions. the carrier group sometimes can be too busy protecting itself to conduct any offensive with its own a/c. i guess it would be an interesting thing for people to explore in their own process of playing


That was a question during the cold war as well. Would CVBGs spend so much time just trying to stay alive from the Soviet threat. Fortunately we never found out. One thing that always fascinated me was how were the Soviet Backfires and Badgers from the Crimea getting into the Med without major attrition from NATO land based aircraft in Turkey, Greece and Italy before they ever got to the Carriers? Nobody ever answered that one for me!

quote:

6, about Hickam KC-10, noted and i will move them to iwo jima and guam, and delete the kc-135 there.


I think you will find them more useful there.

quote:

7, as to satellite, tried to add all the US satellite last week but the game kept crashing. do you think it is a good idea to simply remove all satellites from both sides, the reason being in reality there are many ways to counter satellite recon but it is difficult to simulate any in the game. In terms of impact to the balance of game, China side cannot use sat to locate US carrier, US side cannot use sat to locate ships in the taiwan strait, nor to locate ASBM brigades (i didn't know that can be done!). seems not hurting the balance too much?


yeah, I've really wondered at the use of satellites in the game. I had one scenario against Russia were I eliminated them all because the weather was too bad. I did some sensitivity tests and some birds are better than others, but I can't remember which ones now.

quote:

8, JSDF of course should be considered, i doubt if there will be any effective nuclear blackmail from China, for many reasons. In terms of air force, it really boils down to the number of a/c especially 5th gen a/c, no matter who is operating it. In terms of navy, i am imagining JMSDF mainly operating in east of Japan, either conducting ASW or providing ballistic missile defense to home islands, so they sort of canceled out each other with Chinese long-range land attack towards Japan.


Well its your scenario and anything I said was just a suggestion, right. Personally I would at least give them some interesting units, like Kaga and integrate with the U.S. since we operate so closely.

quote:

love to hear comments from you, thanks


Good work on your scenario, a lot of work went into it. You've given me some ideas as well!

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to caohailiang)
Post #: 29
RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 - 6/22/2020 11:16:06 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 1803
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
For what it is worth, you may have better data...

https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/02/2002127082/-1/-1/1/2019_CHINA_MILITARY_POWER_REPORT.pdf

...but while these numbers sound impressive think about all the targets you are hitting in your background scenario, Holding some back for future us/targets of Opportunity and keeping watch over India and Russia at the same time! PGMs get used up really quickly.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 6/22/2020 11:17:16 PM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to caohailiang)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Updated: RevT for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 Page: [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

0.164