Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

COMPLETE/UPLOADED scenario - "Set Defence Condition One"

 
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 >> COMPLETE/UPLOADED scenario - "Set Defence Condition One" Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
COMPLETE/UPLOADED scenario - "Set Defence Conditio... - 11/22/2020 10:22:49 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
Edit: Final tweaks added and the scenario is complete, and uploaded to the release thread. The input below helped me to improve the scenario greatly, many thanks!

**************
Hi All,

See attached scenario for testing. Would appreciate any suggestions or if you spot any mistakes ;)

I have played it from start to finish, so its definitely at least workable.
Especially appreciate comments, if any, on balance, or on designing enemy behavior.


Set Defence Condition One

Current Description:

**********************************************

Significantly inspired by the "Wargasm" and related scenarios, this mission in no way claims to be as detailed, nor as realistic as those, but in its own way to be authentic, interesting and fun.

I wanted to investigate the same thing "Wargasm" did, using a more modern selection of units - a cold war turned hot, 3 days to the River Rhine, WWIII, global nuclear war, seen from the aspect of long range bombers penetrating Soviet airspace to strike high-value targets.

Set in an alternate history, equivalent to ours up to around the end of WW2. Probabilities, politics and human society being as fickle as they are, only a few key events - falling another way - can change the shape of future history considerably. These things could be something as profound as a key figure suddenly dying of stroke whereas they could have lived a long life, or as innocuous as a weather change.

Thus, in this interpretation, most things are in parallel except that the cold war's worst years extended into the 1980s, with some combination of crises and political environment contributing to the breakout of war in 1986 as the Soviets launched something akin to their famous "3 days to the River Rhine" plans to seize control of Western Europe.

Immense columns of armour, backed by wave after wave of tactical aircraft and rolling air-defences, have penetrated West Germany through the Fulda Gap...



Designers Notes:

On nuclear weapons:

I regard nuclear weapons as no different, conceptually, from any other type, only in magnitude and type of effects. In my opinion, not investigating their use or effects, or regarding them as more abhorrent than other weapons, goes counter to any principle that promotes peace. Indeed, many of my personally owned sources on nuclear war have been obtained from CND libraries.

On realism:

I would grade the realism of this scenario as "B". All units used are within their service date parameters, and I have tried my best to station them at appropriate locations. For example, the number of Su-27 and MiG-31 fighters available to the USSR defence is very broadly reflective of the numbers in service in the area at the time, and their major bases properly located - but I have no idea of actual base histories or unit identities. Defences and tactics of the USSR are broadly based on sourced information. It is a pretty amazing time to be alive, when you can google "soviet air defences 1985" and 5 seconds later be reading a declassified CIA report on exactly that.

The units represent a "slice" of what would be in action during a real-world crisis of this type, a 1:1 simulation being impractical if not impossible. However, many units would not interact in any way, so realism does not take too huge a hit, and the scenario must remain playable - to be fair, more than one person would have been involved in coordinating a maximum-effort bomber surge!

SAM numbers are at about 5-10% of real numbers for most things. CIA reports 72 sa10 sites deployed in the region in 1985. Sa5 sites were about twice as common, with upgraded Sa1/2/3's having around ten times the number of Sa10 sites. So, for example, I have placed about 6 Sa10 sites, and this seems to fit the simulation.

Real numbers do not have to be simulated for an authentic simulation. Many items would be posted outside of our simulated theatre, many would be out of service as part of their natural service cycle, others would be out of service (or ammunition) due to military action. Remember there is a non-simuilated war going on in the rest of the world, outside of the scope of the scenario. The rest can be accounted for in the general proportional-scale-down of a simulation that represents only a portion of a full theatre engagement. We are controlling the strategic bomber force. The hundreds of tactical strikes conventional and nuclear, diversionary raids, fighter sweeps, SEAD sweeps etc that would be taking place simultaneously, naturally go unsimulated, so that proportion of the air defence network that would be taken up by their missions do not need to be simulated for our theatre. Thus realism is not too badly damaged by scaling down to managable numbers.

Su27 and MiG31 numbers are about accurate, but the vast number of MiG 15/17/23/29s that would supplement the force have gone unsimulated (unless I decide to put some in after writing this... ...but you get the picture). MiG 15s and 17s would be largely outclassed, and not much is lost from leaving them out.

B-1s will feature virtually the entire actual inventory available at the time.

Any major discrepancies in realism, I put down to this beinng set in a parallel universe where the political environment has led to a different history, meaning almost anything is feasible ;)



*********************************************

Thanks!
Pete





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by p1t1o -- 12/24/2020 1:03:10 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: New scenario for testing - "Set Defence Condit... - 11/23/2020 2:39:31 AM   
Fido81

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 7/14/2019
Status: offline
I played through your scenario, and wrote down notes as things happened.

On startup, I wondered what the Polaris mission was for? I never found out.

In terms of realism, if you're interested in nuclear weapons effects, it might be interesting to replace the single unit airfields and ports with more detailed representations, at least for the ones you expect will be targeted by nuclear forces (either player or USSR). Particularly in the case of the Soviet airfields, this has massive repercussions in terms of the player's ability to suppress air defenses (I couldn't get aircraft to attack the airfields).

In terms of practicality, I found the Compass Calls too slow to keep up with the B-52s, let alone the B-1s. What role do you see them as playing in the scenario? It also might be helpful to have some weapons placed at each divert airfield for follow-on strikes. Right now, the player can send out most (not all) of their aircraft once, and that's it.

There are no additional loadouts for the units whose ready status is 'reserve' at Fairchild AFB, so I set them to Ferry loadouts and intended to scramble them when the attack came and preserve them for simulated follow-on strikes. That didn't happen because I forgot. At Grand Forks, there are sufficient munitions to arm all the 'reserve' B-1s. Unfortunately, they were destroyed, along with the airbase, in the first strike.

There were a number of pleasant surprises as the Soviet ICBM strike approached. I withheld my LGM-30 so as to damage AD units unstruck by the first NATO wave closer to when my bombers were in attack range, and fully expected it to be destroyed by the USSR first wave. It wasn't. Additionally, Moscow isn't defended by the historical SAM ring - only the ABM one. That would have been a real pain to get through. Finally, Fairchild, Elmendorf, and Thule AFBs made it through the first wave (only wave?) unscathed.

I sent in my forces using AI missions to hit Moscow and other countervalue targets (not population centers per se, but the industrial centers, etc). I couldn't do a complete counterforce strike, because the airfields were off-limits, and even if I could, I didn't see much point in attacking empty ICBM silos without touching the bomber force.

As the scenario progressed, it became apparent to me that the primary target would be incredibly expensive to hit (in terms of losses) unless I could hit the airfields, which was impossible. As a result, my forces suffered absolutely massive attrition. By the time I'd destroyed Moscow, I'd lost 14x B-52, 46x B-1, and 5x KC-10 (though these numbers also include losses from the destruction of Grand Forks AFB). At this point, I called it - I'd met the primary objective, and secondary objectives appeared unrealistic in the face of intense air opposition.

Have you considered implementing scoring when the player destroys a target (perhaps including damaging a radar) or loses an aircraft?

While this wasn't as historically accurate as Wargasm, that wasn't your goal (and I think that made it a bit less...intense, in a good way). I enjoyed playing this scenario, and will do so again. I hope you submit it to the community scenario pack when you're happy with it.

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 2
RE: New scenario for testing - "Set Defence Condit... - 11/23/2020 11:58:31 AM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
@Fido82

Thanks for the detailed feedback :)

Responses below:


On startup, I wondered what the Polaris mission was for? I never found out.

Yup, thats not supposed to be there anymore. I tried to have a little sideshow that the AI would perform in the first few hours where HMS Resolution would attempt to bomb Moscow with a full salvo, only for it to be stopped by the ABM ring (this is close to actual tactics & predictions) which would illustrate the need for Manned Bombers, but the ICBMs kept getting through! (It was predicted that a full salvo of 16*2 warheads with chevaline penetration aids, would get 1 warhead through at most, with treaty-limited capacity of 64 Galosh ABMs. In simulation (which only includes the 3xRV [no chevaline penaids] US version of Polaris), the Galosh is much less effective than this, even with many more than 64 rounds. In the end I decided to leave it out, especially as multiple ABM intercept calculations appear to slow the game down severely.


In terms of realism, if you're interested in nuclear weapons effects, it might be interesting to replace the single unit airfields and ports with more detailed representations, at least for the ones you expect will be targeted by nuclear forces (either player or USSR). Particularly in the case of the Soviet airfields, this has massive repercussions in terms of the player's ability to suppress air defenses (I couldn't get aircraft to attack the airfields).

Yup, I probably should have known, but only realised the airfields were untargettable quite late on. I intended to use cruise missiles and SRAMS to target the ground BOL-style, but this was not possible with ALCMs and ineffective with SRAMs. Will very likely add multi-unit bases.

In terms of practicality, I found the Compass Calls too slow to keep up with the B-52s, let alone the B-1s. What role do you see them as playing in the scenario? It also might be helpful to have some weapons placed at each divert airfield for follow-on strikes. Right now, the player can send out most (not all) of their aircraft once, and that's it.

I was able to use the Compass Calls by launching them early and pushing them far forward. They have a very impressive range, they have enough to have a usable patrol time even over Norway. It may be a bit of a tedious if the patrol lasted more than 15 or 20 hours, but as it happens, you dont need to wait that long for something to happen. In the end, all units at your disposal are there to see if you can use them.

Re-arming and follow-on strike were not really in scope. Concept is one Maximum Effort surge amongst intense nuclear destruction. Divert airfields are intended to represent last-resort airfields capable of accepting your aircraft if your base is destroyed or if you have fuel/damage issues. The idea being that there might not be much left to return to. With so many megatons delivered in the first 30mins, I do not see the exchange lasting several days, which is what it would take to re-arm and re-attack. See more on armament below.


There are no additional loadouts for the units whose ready status is 'reserve' at Fairchild AFB, so I set them to Ferry loadouts and intended to scramble them when the attack came and preserve them for simulated follow-on strikes. That didn't happen because I forgot. At Grand Forks, there are sufficient munitions to arm all the 'reserve' B-1s. Unfortunately, they were destroyed, along with the airbase, in the first strike.

Similar to answer above, follow-on strikes were not intended to be in-scope.
Reserve aircraft are included as the aircraft roster represents all of the warheads available.
This was out of my own head and may not be fully realistic, its one way to limit the numbers of units in the scenario I suppose, as in reality there would be too many aircraft to make the player control them all and have it still be playable, IMO.



There were a number of pleasant surprises as the Soviet ICBM strike approached. I withheld my LGM-30 so as to damage AD units unstruck by the first NATO wave closer to when my bombers were in attack range, and fully expected it to be destroyed by the USSR first wave. It wasn't. Additionally, Moscow isn't defended by the historical SAM ring - only the ABM one. That would have been a real pain to get through. Finally, Fairchild, Elmendorf, and Thule AFBs made it through the first wave (only wave?) unscathed.

SAM numbers have been limited against reality, as 1000-plus individual sites is just not on the cards.
Might be interesting to represent the Moscow defences a bit better though, yes.
It seems that ICBMs can be a little finnicky, its hard when making the scenario, to guarantee targets get destroyed, mainly due to "malfunction".
I may increase ICBM numbers.
I only forsee one ICBM wave. Intended to represent a full-scale global nuclear exchange, its a "use 'em or lose 'em" scenario. ICBMs are not likely to have been held in reserve except in a limited exchange, as your ICBM silos are assumed to be high-priority targets.


I sent in my forces using AI missions to hit Moscow and other countervalue targets (not population centers per se, but the industrial centers, etc). I couldn't do a complete counterforce strike, because the airfields were off-limits, and even if I could, I didn't see much point in attacking empty ICBM silos without touching the bomber force.

Would you be sure every silo was empty? ;)

Yup, deffo gonna fix the airfields.
Countervalue and counterforce targets are both included and neither are off limits.
This is so the player can decide their own targetting priority. It is also intended to represent that many military or industrial targets cannot be seperated from their closest urban centre and that even a fully counterforce strategy will result in megadeaths.


As the scenario progressed, it became apparent to me that the primary target would be incredibly expensive to hit (in terms of losses) unless I could hit the airfields, which was impossible. As a result, my forces suffered absolutely massive attrition. By the time I'd destroyed Moscow, I'd lost 14x B-52, 46x B-1, and 5x KC-10 (though these numbers also include losses from the destruction of Grand Forks AFB). At this point, I called it - I'd met the primary objective, and secondary objectives appeared unrealistic in the face of intense air opposition.

It may not have been possible for bombers to get to Moscow in reality. It was never attempted ;)
If anything, in reality the bombers would have had a much harder time.



Have you considered implementing scoring when the player destroys a target (perhaps including damaging a radar) or loses an aircraft?

I hadnt intended to - Usually I like it more when you are left to judge whether or not you have completed your objectives, no points in reality - but if people think it would add to the satisfaction or fun of the scenario, I'd try and put something in.

While this wasn't as historically accurate as Wargasm, that wasn't your goal (and I think that made it a bit less...intense, in a good way). I enjoyed playing this scenario, and will do so again. I hope you submit it to the community scenario pack when you're happy with it.

Thanks!



SO:
Yup, I really need to fix the Soviet airfields.
Need to make the ICBM strikes more reliable, probably add more silos to both sides.
Will add more detail to SAMs.
Also remove that "Polaris" mission.

I probably wont add re-armament at US airfields, they are intended to be destroyed in the ICBM salvo.
Unless people feel the scenario suffers for it, or if it would add a lot to the players options.

Are there enough active/armed B-1s and B-52s for the player?



Cheers,
Pete



(in reply to Fido81)
Post #: 3
RE: New scenario for testing - "Set Defence Condit... - 11/23/2020 4:54:46 PM   
Schr75


Posts: 765
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline
As a big fan of Randomizers nuclear armagedon series, this sounds like a scenario right down my alley

I´m diving in.

Søren

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 4
RE: New scenario for testing - "Set Defence Condit... - 11/25/2020 6:09:09 PM   
Schr75


Posts: 765
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Hi p1t1o

Just finished my play through.

I think Fido have already mentioned most of my observations, so I´ll spare you the repeat.
I definitely think you should make the soviet airfields multi unit so they can be targeted.

I added a target pointer at every airbase as a quick workaround so I could attack them, and then launched my attack.
I flooded the airbases and SAM/radar sites with ALCM´s and then followed the missiles in towards the rest of targets.
It worked as a charm and neutralized every airbase before I got close, so penetrating the airspace was a lot easier.

I lost Grand Forks AB so I had to divert some A/C to Ramstein and Tyrkey, but Fairchild AFB survived.
If you want to ensure destruction of both bases I think you need more ICBM´s targeted at the bases because, as you mentioned, it´s a bit of a crap shoot if the missiles malfunction or not.
I really like the detail of the divert bases which I also used to extend the range of some of my bombers, so they wouldn´t RTB halfway to their target.

You have a target on the north coast of the Kola peninsula named SOSUS hub.
SOSUS is an American system, so I doubt they would build a hub on Soviet territory
Recommend you rename it to something Soviet.

Ramstein airbase is spelled with only one m. Rammstein (with two m´s) is a fantastic German industrial metal band

In the launch message, it should be Minuteman, not Minutemen silos. The missile doesn´t change name in plural. Sorry for being a grammar nazi

You start with radars set to active. I would recommend setting them to passive, so your planes don´t radiate unless the player want them to, and just set the radar stations to active.

Speaking of radars. I love that you added the Duga-3 radar at Tjernobyl.
I have actually been there. That thing is enormous.

Last thing.
When I read the line:
Proceed with WING ATTACK PLAN ROMEO
in the EAM, I really wanted to put on my stetson before continuing, but alas, I don´t have one
Very nice detail, I loved it.

In all, I liked the scen a lot.
I think with a few tweaks you have great scen.

Hope this helped.

Søren




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 5
RE: New scenario for testing - "Set Defence Condit... - 12/10/2020 12:56:28 AM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Schr75

You have a target on the north coast of the Kola peninsula named SOSUS hub.

SOSUS is an American system, so I doubt they would build a hub on Soviet territory
Recommend you rename it to something Soviet.

I had it in my head that SOSUS was a generic term for underwater sonar facilities. Couldnt find anything definite for Russia for the time period (just a weird story about them selling the tech today) so gave it a generic name.

Ramstein airbase is spelled with only one m. Rammstein (with two m´s) is a fantastic German industrial metal band

Foiled by my own google-spell-check! Fixed :)

In the launch message, it should be Minuteman, not Minutemen silos. The missile doesn´t change name in plural. Sorry for being a grammar nazi

I was wondering about that, fixed.

You start with radars set to active. I would recommend setting them to passive, so your planes don´t radiate unless the player want them to, and just set the radar stations to active.

Done


Last thing.
When I read the line:
Proceed with WING ATTACK PLAN ROMEO
in the EAM, I really wanted to put on my stetson before continuing, but alas, I don´t have one

;)



Thanks for the feedback, see comments above.

*******

Hi All,

See attached updated scenario below.

I have taken most comments into account, and also revised almost all aspects of the scenario.

All airbases now multi-unit.
SAMs have been reworked, slightly tougher now. Includes Moscow SAM ring based on CIA report.
ICBM strikes and escalation of conflict revised.
Some naval action in the Arctic Ocean.
Magazines and available aircraft revised.
Recon aircraft added.
"Black Projects" special action added for replayability. Just a bit of fun.

I think I have the scenario how I want it, barring any foul-ups with the event system or ICBM strikes. I have given it a full playthrough and was pretty happy, was more fun than previous run. Malfunctioning ICBMs now just add variability. Which silos get destroyed, and when, can now affect what happens (a bit).

Please let me know if you spot an event that has not fired, I have included a txt file in the ZIP with a list of events that should occur. Dont read it if you dont want spoilers.


I welcome any suggestions or criticism, I'll give it a while and if nothing reported, I'll upload to release!

Thanks for your help!
Pete

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by p1t1o -- 12/10/2020 1:04:46 AM >

(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 6
RE: New scenario for testing - "Set Defence Condit... - 12/12/2020 6:27:26 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
Minor Update:

Just noticed that the "Black Projects" Special Action is already fired in the above attached scenario.

I have reverted this and the action is now available.

See attached updated scenario.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 7
RE: New scenario for testing - "Set Defence Condit... - 12/12/2020 8:50:06 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1417
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline
I suppose that I am honoured that Wargasm '62 acted as something of an inspiration for your Set Defence Condition One. Have not played it as yet but looked at the situation and am starting to work out an attack plan using SAC style methodology, that is to say every target gets a weapon allotted to it but there are many targets and even more weapons so this process is slow. You have explained the Player OOB in your notes so I will not comment on this but do have a suggestion regarding the Positive Control Points, which make up the two missions provided for the Player.

You use only two reference points and if the goal is for the aircraft to loiter in their orbits you really should use three. The reason for this is that the aircraft will fly to the start point at cruise and then slow to loiter once it joins the pattern. However, when it gets to the end point it will accelerate back to cruise to return to the start point and this wastes fuel. Of course one can reconfigure the speeds in the Mission Editor or manually slow the aircraft and rely on the override to keep the plane at loiter speed. However when dealing with almost 100-strike aircraft there is an increasing probability for undesirable behaviour when the strike missions are run.

A better holding pattern is created by adding a third RP as the end point almost right on top of the Start Point RP. This ensures that the plane will continue at loiter during all of its orbits without Player intervention and when it is assigned to its strike mission, there is no manually set speed or altitude to override the strike mission logic. It's a minor point but one that helps the Player manage the two bomber wings that you have provided. The same technique is valid for loiter boxes, just make the end point almost on top of the start point.

Anyway, well done on the scenario with the nice shout-out to Dr Strangelove with Plan R.

-C

PS I do not agree that nuclear weapons are just conventional weapons only bigger. Have a read of Whole World on Fire: Organisations, Knowledge and Nuclear Weapons Devastation by Lynn Eden. It's scary how the players in America's nuclear community continually and deliberately downplayed the destructive power of their weapons in a bid to acquire ever more of them and to increase the overkill potential of their arsenals so much by 1989.

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 8
RE: New scenario for testing - "Set Defence Condit... - 12/12/2020 11:16:42 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
Hi Randomizer, thanks very much for your comments, I will explore your advice. I hadnt noticed the effect on loitering aircraft before but I'll check it out. I actually dont tend to use strike missions much, maybe thats why.

Quality/accuracy/detail of the OOB is largely limited by my knowledge and skill as a scenario designer, although as explained, some compromises have been made for practical/gameplay reasons. My aim was for it to at least be "reasonably plausible" whilst being an interesting scenario.

I have a suspicion that if it was a 1:1 simulation, that it would be extremely difficult to succeed, and indeed the B1 did not keep its nuclear role for long.

I would be interested in hearing any criticism or comments on the OOB if you think it would improve the scenario.


Thanks again,
Pete


PS-On nuclear weapons, my position is stated in a somewhat rudimentary manner, perhaps it was overly-so, not meant as a complete thesis, and certainly not meant to downplay destructiveness (that'd be my poor communication skills). From your brief comment - and somewhat from your scenarios - I doubt we'd disagree on all points. For one thing, I dont just say bigger, but also with different effects, effects not limited to blast radius, but which can also include societal-level or economic effects, amongst many other things. But thats a long debate for a different time&place.
Thanks for the book suggestion as well, I'll look it up.

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 9
RE: New scenario for testing - "Set Defence Condit... - 12/13/2020 12:14:04 AM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1417
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline
Pete, if you have not yet tuned in, you may wish to check out the podcast "A Most Terrible Weapon" over at War on the Rocks. They uploaded Episode-3 "Building Stalin's Bomb" last week but all are still available and no special registration is required to listen.

It's not my place to comment on your selected OOB as you made it clear that the scenario exists in an alternate reality so anything goes. Although I prefer my assets assigned to squadrons, there is nothing wrong with deploying them all with the same call-signs as you did. I can always rename them and doing it as you did is much easier from a scenario author's point of view. The huge fleet of KC-10 Extenders is handy and provides more capability than a similar number of KC-135 Stratotankers that I might have used so there's that to like from a Player point of view. I'm a bit pedantic when it comes to these things and so may be disregarded.

I virtually never play in the Editor mode except when testing or dissecting scenarios so a list of the Minuteman targets would have been handy for planning purposes but that is a lot of additional work for potentially little Player impact. I doubt that a lot of CMO Players bother to utilize the detailed planning capabilities that the program allows when nuclear weapons are involved. I do like the way CMO allows detailed targeting and (mostly) hands off execution and ICBM targets should not be primary targets for manned bombers but could be secondary targets in case of missile/reentry vehicle failures.

-C

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 10
RE: New scenario for testing - "Set Defence Condit... - 12/13/2020 2:34:07 AM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
Couple of nice points, things to consider for my next scenario :)

Not a bad shout for an ICBM target list. As it goes, the targets that are viable for you to strike pretty much get decided for you, but you are in the dark a little bit as it stands now. Might add some realism/authenticity at least. Some specific secondary targets might be a good idea.

The ICBM exchange started as a sideshow - something to be interesting while your bombers make hours-long crossings - but I ended up making it a multiply-triggered series of events. In theory, depending on what targets survive the ICBMs by chance can affect the outcome slightly, and the player could intervene by prioritising surviving Soviet silos, but those arent your orders and wasnt the original intent. A target list would give the player a much better idea of what was happening though perhaps.

Now Im thinking it might be interesting to do something like an inverse of this scenario - where the major player forces are ICBMs and the bombers are AI....

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated
Pete



(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> COMPLETE/UPLOADED scenario - "Set Defence Condition One" 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

0.214