Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-28-2021 (Submitted)

 
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 >> Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-28-2021 (Submitted) Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-28-2021 (Submitted) - 3/14/2021 8:10:20 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2228
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Updated 28 March 2021 below...

Fulda Gap, 1989

The Time Is: 1 May, 1989, 04:00 Zulu/5:00 Fulda Time

Fulda Gap, Federal German Republic

Playable as NATO Only

8 Hours Duration


Background: The “Cold War” and Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of “Perestroika” (actually first proposed by Leonid Brezhnev in 1979) have become a dead end for the Soviet system. By early April, with a failing economy and unrest in the satellite/Warsaw Pact (WP) countries, Gorbachev, and his supporters, are quietly, but firmly, retired to their dachas. With hardliners in place the question became what to do about the mess the liberal policies have engendered. After a week of fierce debate the solution was to, “…lance the capitalistic boil beaming propaganda into the satellite nations causing the unrest,” It wasn’t lost on Soviet planners that over the past eight years of the Reagan Administration the correlation of forces in Europe had swung against the WP and (especially) a “Bolt out of the Blue” attack was doomed to fail. Therefore, there would have to be some build up and category II divisions were mobilized tipping off NATO.

NATO Ministers, on the other hand, took a more cautionary stance with some units being moved to their wartime positions and reserves being put on “Stand By” but Operation REturn of FORces to GERmany (REFORGER) was not yet instituted. A few squadrons were dispatched to Germany from the UK but otherwise NATO attempted to present as non-threatening a posture as possible.

On the evening of the 30th an urgent message was received from an intelligence asset, high in the Soviet leadership, that WP units would cross the Inter-German frontier between 05:00-05:30 local time/04:00-04:30 UTC the next morning…

Mission: You have command of the NATO air and ground forces in the Fulda Gap area. The Soviet 8th Guards Army is about to cross the frontier in your sector with the 79th Guards Armored Division leading the attack through Fulda. The first echelon’s orders are to take the hills behind FULDA by Noon, local time. Your orders are to stop, or at least slow, them to give 8th Mechanized and the remainder of the 1st Armored Divisions to move up to their defensive positions...

Please read the notes in the scenario if you decide to play test it...

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 4/11/2021 10:51:54 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!
Post #: 1
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/21/2021 11:21:10 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2228
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Anyone take a look at this one?

_____________________________

"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 #: 2
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/21/2021 5:42:07 PM   
edsw


Posts: 59
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
Greetings. I ran this script of yours, I like how you made the gradual intensity of the passions, and the general scale of the script, but so far I finished playing just before the beginning of the conflict, I saw what kind of "meat" starts and turned off)) I hope to continue in the near future, then I will unsubscribe.

_____________________________


(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 3
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/24/2021 8:53:04 AM   
Fido81

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 7/14/2019
Status: offline
I tried it, got about an hour in, and then CMO crashed, so I had to restart. I should probably mention that this was my first experience with AirLand battle at significant scale.

The first time, I was surprised that the CAS loadouts had quick turnaround disabled (and by the fantastic A-10 availability rate). As a result, I was curious to see whether the default WRA had been modified at all (I like to only shoot 1 ARM at a time, among other quirks), but it didn't look like they were. It might be nice to have either quick turnaround enabled, to generate more sorties within 8 hours.

The DDR SAMs started shooting before hostilities kicked off, so I responded in kind.

Once invasion started, I had a hard time identifying ground targets with any precision, but it didn't look like the WP forces had the same issue. I was using my RF-4 close to the front, but that didn't really resolve anything for me more closely than a Mobile Unit marker. I'm sure I was doing something wrong here, but I'm not sure what.

The beginning of the shooting war also led to a massive slowdown in simulation speed. I had intended to do a sort of dynamic defense, but I lost situational awareness through attempted micromanagement, so things were going badly at both the micromanagement and at the operational levels before the game crashed. Two easy things that I think might improve play speed would be to set the default range rings to not visible, and remove units not usable in the scenario (or set them to blind allied sides).

When I started the second attempt, I immediately turned off all the Game Options speed settings that I thought might keep the game from crashing. I also realized I was essentially playing Capture-The-Flag, and reoriented my defense to account for that. I pulled up artillery closer to the watchtowers - the idea is that they'll identify the targets, and everything else will engage them, but something has to cover the line units' withdrawing when that becomes inevitable. At this point, I noticed I had very little artillery on my right flank. I decided to keep the MRLS as a reserve just in case, but was already worried about how to handle the lack of in-range indirect fire support. My initial CAP was 2x F-16, and I also put an AWACS, a Compass Call, and an RF-4 on station.

The DDR SAMs fired early again this time too, and I responded as well. This time only 10 were fired (6 DDR, 4 NATO - 2 of these still in flight) before a kill. When the no-fly zone was removed, I moved the CAP forward and added a prosecution zone, and sent the RF-4 forward. Things were going reasonably well for the start but I stopped taking such meticulous notes to focus on keeping my units alive. Trying to use the cameras on the RF-4 to see what kinds of units were approaching the border got it killed, and it took time for its replacement to arrive, by which point NATO was in contact.

Ground losses in the first few minutes of combat have been surprisingly light - a couple AAA units, a platoon of Abrams tanks, and all the watchtowers. I'm noting the missile strikes on my radars, but my main objectives are holding back WP armor and force preservation, so that's not something I'm ready to defend against. I did let the MRLS take a nice bite out of the tip of the WP wedge, which helped a lot.

The way the terrain works seems to favor NATO aircraft over WP SAMs - I baited over 30 SAM launches and ducked down behind hills to evade them, and I imagine SA-5 missiles weren't cheap. I only lost 2 aircraft in flight so far - the first RF-4 I think to an SA-11, and an F-16 to something I didn't see. The helicopters were destroyed on the ground by what I think was an artillery strike.

About 40 minutes into the scenario, I started identifying WP artillery, so I put a premium on attacking them with aircraft. Around this time, I also noticed that the MRLS is essentially a one-salvo unit in the scenario. In light of the quantitative imbalance of artillery forces, it might be worth providing reloads for it - even somewhat farther back (so it executes its initial fire mission, withdraws, reloads, and executes additional fire missions).

That's as far as I've gotten. I've saved the scenario this time and plan to pick up from here later.
---
WIP Score 494
SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x 20mm/85 Vulcan M163A2 [1100 rnds] [Cargo]
2x 35mm Twin Gepard [Cargo]
2x AH-1F Cobra
6x AH-64A Apache
22x Building (Watch Tower)
1x F-16C Blk 25 Falcon
1x M192 I-HAWK [Cargo]
4x M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank [Cargo]
1x Radar (AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder)
1x RF-4C Phantom II
4x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-50 PAR) [Cargo]
2x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-51 ROR) [Cargo]
1x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-53) [Cargo]
2x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR) [Cargo]
1x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-57 HPI [TAS Camera]) [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
90x 12.7mm/50 MG Burst [10 rnds]
80x 120mm M256 APFSDS-T
72x 120mm M256 HE
80x 120mm M256 HEAT
170x 155mm/23 HE
1x 20mm/85 M61A1 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
24x 25mm/75 Bushmaster Mod 1 Burst [12 rnds]
9x 30mm M230 Burst [40 rnds]
44x AGM-114A Hellfire
2x AGM-65D Maverick IR
4x AGM-88A HARM
2x AIM-7M Sparrow III
44x BGM-71C Improved TOW
8x BGM-71E TOW 2A
1x CBU-89/B GATOR [45 x BLU-91/B Bomblets + 15 x BLU-92/B Mines]
12x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
88x HYDRA 70mm Rocket
36x M26 MLRS [644 x M77 DPICM Dual Purpose]
41x MIM-104A Patriot



SIDE: Warsaw Pact
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
18x 122mm/36 2S1 M1974 Gvozdika [Cargo]
7x 122mm/38 D-30 2A18 Towed Howitzer [Cargo]
10x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka [Cargo]
12x BMP-2 [AT-5 Spandrel A] IFV [Cargo]
2x MiG-23M Flogger B
1x MiG-23ML Flogger G
1x MiG-25RB Foxbat B
2x MiG-25RBS Foxbat D
66x PT-76B Amphibious Tank [Cargo]
1x Radar (Snow Drift [9S18M1])
5x SA-11 Gadfly [9A38] TELAR [Cargo]
3x SA-11 Gadfly [9A39] LLV [Cargo]
3x SA-13 Gopher [9A35M2] TELAR 2 [Cargo]
1x SA-8b Gecko Mod-1 [9A33BM3] TELAR [Cargo]
3x SA-9b Gaskin [BRDM-2] TEL 2 [Cargo]
10x Su-27S Flanker B
38x T-80 Main Battle Tank [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
599x 122mm/36 HE
108x 152mm/25 HE
1062x 152mm/48 HE
144x 203mm 2A44 RAP
2x 5280 liter Drop Tank
4x 820 liter Drop Tank
336x 9M27F 220 mm Rocket
1x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27ER, LR TSARH]
5x AA-10 Alamo D [R-27ET, LR IR]
40x AS-11 Kilter [Kh-58U, ARM, Semi-Ballistic]
27x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
2x SA-11 Gadfly [9M38]
35x SA-5c Gammon [5V28M5]
13x SA-8b Gecko Mod-1 [9M33M3]

(in reply to edsw)
Post #: 4
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/27/2021 1:26:25 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2228
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fido81

I tried it, got about an hour in, and then CMO crashed, so I had to restart. I should probably mention that this was my first experience with AirLand battle at significant scale.

The first time, I was surprised that the CAS loadouts had quick turnaround disabled (and by the fantastic A-10 availability rate). As a result, I was curious to see whether the default WRA had been modified at all (I like to only shoot 1 ARM at a time, among other quirks), but it didn't look like they were. It might be nice to have either quick turnaround enabled, to generate more sorties within 8 hours.

The DDR SAMs started shooting before hostilities kicked off, so I responded in kind.

Once invasion started, I had a hard time identifying ground targets with any precision, but it didn't look like the WP forces had the same issue. I was using my RF-4 close to the front, but that didn't really resolve anything for me more closely than a Mobile Unit marker. I'm sure I was doing something wrong here, but I'm not sure what.

The beginning of the shooting war also led to a massive slowdown in simulation speed. I had intended to do a sort of dynamic defense, but I lost situational awareness through attempted micromanagement, so things were going badly at both the micromanagement and at the operational levels before the game crashed. Two easy things that I think might improve play speed would be to set the default range rings to not visible, and remove units not usable in the scenario (or set them to blind allied sides).

When I started the second attempt, I immediately turned off all the Game Options speed settings that I thought might keep the game from crashing. I also realized I was essentially playing Capture-The-Flag, and reoriented my defense to account for that. I pulled up artillery closer to the watchtowers - the idea is that they'll identify the targets, and everything else will engage them, but something has to cover the line units' withdrawing when that becomes inevitable. At this point, I noticed I had very little artillery on my right flank. I decided to keep the MRLS as a reserve just in case, but was already worried about how to handle the lack of in-range indirect fire support. My initial CAP was 2x F-16, and I also put an AWACS, a Compass Call, and an RF-4 on station.

The DDR SAMs fired early again this time too, and I responded as well. This time only 10 were fired (6 DDR, 4 NATO - 2 of these still in flight) before a kill. When the no-fly zone was removed, I moved the CAP forward and added a prosecution zone, and sent the RF-4 forward. Things were going reasonably well for the start but I stopped taking such meticulous notes to focus on keeping my units alive. Trying to use the cameras on the RF-4 to see what kinds of units were approaching the border got it killed, and it took time for its replacement to arrive, by which point NATO was in contact.

Ground losses in the first few minutes of combat have been surprisingly light - a couple AAA units, a platoon of Abrams tanks, and all the watchtowers. I'm noting the missile strikes on my radars, but my main objectives are holding back WP armor and force preservation, so that's not something I'm ready to defend against. I did let the MRLS take a nice bite out of the tip of the WP wedge, which helped a lot.

The way the terrain works seems to favor NATO aircraft over WP SAMs - I baited over 30 SAM launches and ducked down behind hills to evade them, and I imagine SA-5 missiles weren't cheap. I only lost 2 aircraft in flight so far - the first RF-4 I think to an SA-11, and an F-16 to something I didn't see. The helicopters were destroyed on the ground by what I think was an artillery strike.

About 40 minutes into the scenario, I started identifying WP artillery, so I put a premium on attacking them with aircraft. Around this time, I also noticed that the MRLS is essentially a one-salvo unit in the scenario. In light of the quantitative imbalance of artillery forces, it might be worth providing reloads for it - even somewhat farther back (so it executes its initial fire mission, withdraws, reloads, and executes additional fire missions).

That's as far as I've gotten. I've saved the scenario this time and plan to pick up from here later.
---
WIP Score 494
SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x 20mm/85 Vulcan M163A2 [1100 rnds] [Cargo]
2x 35mm Twin Gepard [Cargo]
2x AH-1F Cobra
6x AH-64A Apache
22x Building (Watch Tower)
1x F-16C Blk 25 Falcon
1x M192 I-HAWK [Cargo]
4x M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank [Cargo]
1x Radar (AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder)
1x RF-4C Phantom II
4x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-50 PAR) [Cargo]
2x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-51 ROR) [Cargo]
1x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-53) [Cargo]
2x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR) [Cargo]
1x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-57 HPI [TAS Camera]) [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
90x 12.7mm/50 MG Burst [10 rnds]
80x 120mm M256 APFSDS-T
72x 120mm M256 HE
80x 120mm M256 HEAT
170x 155mm/23 HE
1x 20mm/85 M61A1 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
24x 25mm/75 Bushmaster Mod 1 Burst [12 rnds]
9x 30mm M230 Burst [40 rnds]
44x AGM-114A Hellfire
2x AGM-65D Maverick IR
4x AGM-88A HARM
2x AIM-7M Sparrow III
44x BGM-71C Improved TOW
8x BGM-71E TOW 2A
1x CBU-89/B GATOR [45 x BLU-91/B Bomblets + 15 x BLU-92/B Mines]
12x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
88x HYDRA 70mm Rocket
36x M26 MLRS [644 x M77 DPICM Dual Purpose]
41x MIM-104A Patriot



SIDE: Warsaw Pact
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
18x 122mm/36 2S1 M1974 Gvozdika [Cargo]
7x 122mm/38 D-30 2A18 Towed Howitzer [Cargo]
10x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka [Cargo]
12x BMP-2 [AT-5 Spandrel A] IFV [Cargo]
2x MiG-23M Flogger B
1x MiG-23ML Flogger G
1x MiG-25RB Foxbat B
2x MiG-25RBS Foxbat D
66x PT-76B Amphibious Tank [Cargo]
1x Radar (Snow Drift [9S18M1])
5x SA-11 Gadfly [9A38] TELAR [Cargo]
3x SA-11 Gadfly [9A39] LLV [Cargo]
3x SA-13 Gopher [9A35M2] TELAR 2 [Cargo]
1x SA-8b Gecko Mod-1 [9A33BM3] TELAR [Cargo]
3x SA-9b Gaskin [BRDM-2] TEL 2 [Cargo]
10x Su-27S Flanker B
38x T-80 Main Battle Tank [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
599x 122mm/36 HE
108x 152mm/25 HE
1062x 152mm/48 HE
144x 203mm 2A44 RAP
2x 5280 liter Drop Tank
4x 820 liter Drop Tank
336x 9M27F 220 mm Rocket
1x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27ER, LR TSARH]
5x AA-10 Alamo D [R-27ET, LR IR]
40x AS-11 Kilter [Kh-58U, ARM, Semi-Ballistic]
27x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
2x SA-11 Gadfly [9M38]
35x SA-5c Gammon [5V28M5]
13x SA-8b Gecko Mod-1 [9M33M3]



Thank you.

I generally don't change WRA settings for the player, just the AI. A setting you like the next person hates. The WRA has been adjusted for the Pact units.

I might add more Allied artillery units, but as you noted this scenario is big. My computer is a beast so I don't always realize how big things are getting. I will say I save often and am a great believer in the autosave option!!!!!

Both sides are set to normal for awareness levels.

Will allow quick turn arounds on the A-10s.

The DDR SAMs firing has been a vexing issue. Short of keeping NATO aircraft grounded they fire. I've tried about everything from no fly zones to setting the Postures to neutral and they still fire, so I think "it is what it is!"

Thanks for playing it and providing feedback!


< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 3/27/2021 1:38:59 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 Fido81)
Post #: 5
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/27/2021 5:21:43 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1291
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
Overall very cool scenario. Lost horribly, for lots of good reasons.

What I thought was great:

Flash messages were great. Tension definitely created.
Artillery strikes pretty awesome.
Lots to think about, and screw up!
Mig-25R's!

Suggestions:

Short-range ballistic missile attacks on SAM sites and airbases. Scuds, Spiders, etc.

Add US Army air recon assets. Kiowa's with the Apache's. RV-1D mohawks recce and EH-60A jammers. These would be important during build-up and initial attacks.Divert bases and forward operating bases for helo's.

Soviet Recce and electronic warfare. Need Hip jammers etc. SU-17R and Hind Scouts. They'd be up.

Airforce: High-level recce assets. Namely J-Stars. Not sure on the information flow on this one in 89 but they'd be up and should be defended. I think most of those were in Netherlands but could just add some generic off game-board assets.

Patriots accounted for many kills. I haven't checked but may want specific low level attacks or modify the mission altitudes in the mission editor to lower level. Should helps.

Hope this helps. Much appreciated as always man!

Mike

The dirt

quote:

SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
17x 155mm/23 M109A3 Howitzer [Cargo]
3x 203mm/25 M110 Self-Propelled Howitzer [Cargo]
6x 20mm/85 Vulcan M163A2 [1100 rnds] [Cargo]
2x 20mm/85 Vulcan M167 [500 rnds] [Cargo]
6x 35mm Twin Gepard [Cargo]
1x 7.62mm MG [Cargo]
8x A-10A Thunderbolt II
4x AH-1F Cobra
10x AH-64A Apache
22x Building (Watch Tower)
10x F-16C Blk 25 Falcon
8x F-16C Blk 30 Falcon
3x F-4G Phantom II [Wild Weasel V]
16x Infantry Section [7.62mm MG/Unguided Infantry Anti Tank Weapon] [Cargo]
4x Leopard 1A3 Main Battle Tank [Cargo]
12x M192 I-HAWK [Cargo]
16x M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank [Cargo]
3x M270 MLRS [Cargo]
18x M3A1 Bradley IFV [Cargo]
2x M48 Chaparral Quad [M730A1] [Cargo]
20x M901 ITV [Cargo]
3x Marder 1A2 IFV [Cargo]
6x Patriot M901 [Cargo]
3x Radar (AN/MPQ-49 FAAR)
1x Radar (AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder)
1x Radar (AN/TPS-43E)
1x RF-4C Phantom II
18x Stinger MANPADS [Cargo]
2x Stinger MANPADS [Cargo]
12x TPz Fuchs APC [Cargo]
8x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-50 PAR) [Cargo]
6x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-51 ROR) [Cargo]
4x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-53) [Cargo]
4x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR) [Cargo]
19x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-57 HPI [TAS Camera]) [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
21x 105mm L7A3 APFSDS-T
22x 12.7mm/50 MG Burst [10 rnds]
148x 155mm/23 HE
1x 20mm M197 Burst [25 rnds]
2x 20mm/85 M61A1 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
112x 20mm/85 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
56x 25mm/75 Bushmaster Mod 1 Burst [12 rnds]
1x 30mm GAU-8A/B Burst [195 rnds]
52x 35mm Twin Gepard Burst [20 rnds]
140x 7.62mm MG Burst [20 rnds]
61x AGM-114A Hellfire
1x AGM-65D Maverick IR
12x AGM-88A HARM
8x AIM-7F Sparrow III
5x AIM-9L Sidewinder
19x AIM-9M Sidewinder
8x BGM-71E TOW 2A
2x CBU-87/B CEM [202 x BLU-97/B Dual-Purpose Bomblets]
8x CBU-89/B GATOR [45 x BLU-91/B Bomblets + 15 x BLU-92/B Mines]
5x FIM-92A Stinger
189x FIM-92B Stinger POST
54x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
24x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
20x Generic Unguided Anti Tank Weapon
190x HYDRA 70mm Rocket
36x M26 MLRS [644 x M77 DPICM Dual Purpose]
134x MIM-104A Patriot
159x MIM-23C I-HAWK
62x MIM-72G Chaparral



SIDE: Warsaw Pact
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
25x 122mm/36 2S1 M1974 Gvozdika [Cargo]
17x 122mm/38 D-30 2A18 Towed Howitzer [Cargo]
6x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka [Cargo]
6x BM-27 Uragan MLRS [Cargo]
2x BMP-2 [AT-5 Spandrel A] IFV [Cargo]
2x MiG-23M Flogger B
8x MiG-23ML Flogger G
2x MiG-25RB Foxbat B
2x MiG-25RBS Foxbat D
6x MiG-29S Fulcrum C
33x PT-76B Amphibious Tank [Cargo]
1x Radar (Dog Ear [9S80])
2x Radar (Snow Drift [9S18M1])
2x SA-9b Gaskin [BRDM-2] TEL 2 [Cargo]
2x Su-17M-3R Fitter H
32x Su-27S Flanker B
32x T-80 Main Battle Tank [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
1176x 122mm/36 HE
396x 122mm/38 HE
1120x 125mm APFSDS-T
32x 125mm HE
4x 1500 liter Drop Tank
108x 152mm/25 HE
1500x 152mm/48 HE
258x 203mm 2A44 RAP
84x 30mm 2A42 Burst [20 rnds]
2x 30mm Gsh-30-1 Burst [30 rnds]
2x 5280 liter Drop Tank
76x 76.2 mm/42 OF-350 HE
4x 820 liter Drop Tank
336x 9M27F 220 mm Rocket
88x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR TSARH]
22x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27ER, LR TSARH]
3x AA-10 Alamo D [R-27ET, LR IR]
36x AA-11 Archer [R-73]
72x AS-11 Kilter [Kh-58U, ARM, Semi-Ballistic]
3x AT-5 Spandrel A [9M113 Konkurs]
18x FAB-250M-54 GPB
28x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
4x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
2x Generic Flare Salvo [2x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
20x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
163x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
90x OFAB-100-120 Frag
20x RBK-250-PTAB CB [30 x PTAB-2.5 Anti-Tank Bomblets]
8x RBK-500-PTAB CB [268 x PTAB-1M Anti-Tank Bomblets]
16x RBK-500-ZAB [117 x ZAB-2.5SM Incendiary]
115x SA-11 Gadfly [9M38]
9x SA-13 Gopher [9M35]
36x SA-5c Gammon [5V28M5]
19x SA-8b Gecko Mod-1 [9M33M3]
10x SA-9b Gaskin [9M31M]





(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 6
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/27/2021 10:18:39 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2228
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Suggestions:

Short-range ballistic missile attacks on SAM sites and airbases. Scuds, Spiders, etc.


This is a great suggestion but one where computer resources need to be considered. I wanted to do this as well as base attacks, but then each base would have to be a full airfield rather than a Single Unit airfield. So I had to scrap this and airfield attacks for the tactical CAS and FEBA action. But maybe in another scenario concentrating on the Airbases is possible for the future. An "Air Battle Central Front, 1989" scenario?

quote:

Add US Army air recon assets. Kiowa's with the Apache's. RV-1D mohawks recce and EH-60A jammers. These would be important during build-up and initial attacks. Divert bases and forward operating bases for helo's.


That's all doable. The AAFs don't have to be big bases like the USAF Bases would be, but just a few as this one is big already!

quote:

Soviet Recce and electronic warfare. Need Hip jammers etc. SU-17R and Hind Scouts. They'd be up.


I can add a few, remember this is just one small segment of a larger battle but yes a few would enhance it.

quote:

Airforce: High-level recce assets. Namely J-Stars. Not sure on the information flow on this one in 89 but they'd be up and should be defended. I think most of those were in Netherlands but could just add some generic off game-board assets.


So in 1989 my ex-Father-in-Law (now deceased) was a project manager on JSTARS in Melbourne, Florida and he kind of couldn't help himself telling about the project and, based on my personal knowledge, while they might have deployed in a pinch I don't think the system integration was mature enough to be of use in 1989, by 1991 it was a much more refined system. When my ex and I first started going out he had no idea I was ex military and what I understood, he was quite the braggart. Was harmless because anything he told me then was safe, I was still a reservist then anyway, but I used that personal info in not deploying JSTARS to this scenario..

quote:

Patriots accounted for many kills. I haven't checked but may want specific low level attacks or modify the mission altitudes in the mission editor to lower level. Should helps.


I will look at the WRA for them. Like I said in the previous post I usually don't modify WRA for the player's side and let the player set them to their liking, but this sounds like a reasonable exception.

quote:

Hope this helps. Much appreciated as always man!


And as always I appreciate your feedback.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 3/28/2021 12:16:07 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 BDukes)
Post #: 7
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/27/2021 10:46:47 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1291
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
quote:

So in 1989 my ex-Father-in-Law was a project manager on JSTARS in Melbourne, Florida (now deceased) and he kind of couldn't help himself telling about the project and, based on my personal knowledge, while they might have deployed in a pinch I don't think the system integration was mature enough to be of use in 1989, by 1991 it was a much more refined system. When my ex and I first started going out he had no idea I was ex military and what I understood, he was quite the braggart. Was harmless because anything he told me then was safe, I was still a reservist then anyway, but I used that personal info in not deploying JSTARS to this scenario..


Good info to know Dave. Thank you!

Mike

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 8
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/27/2021 10:48:37 PM   
boogabooga

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 7/18/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

quote:

Suggestions:

Short-range ballistic missile attacks on SAM sites and airbases. Scuds, Spiders, etc.


This is a great suggestion but one where computer resources need to be considered. I wanted to do this as well as base attacks, but then each base would have to be a full airfield rather than a Single Unit airfield. So I had to scrap this and airfield attacks for the tactical CAS and FEBA action. But maybe in another scenario concentrating on the Airbases is possible for the future. An "Air Battle Central Front, 1989" scenario?



Are the attacks with nukes? If so, you can co-locate a hanger or some other destructible thing with the Single Unit Airfield. Use that as the target, and the splash damage will take out the airfield as well.

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 9
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/27/2021 11:00:13 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2228
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boogabooga


quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

quote:

Suggestions:

Short-range ballistic missile attacks on SAM sites and airbases. Scuds, Spiders, etc.


This is a great suggestion but one where computer resources need to be considered. I wanted to do this as well as base attacks, but then each base would have to be a full airfield rather than a Single Unit airfield. So I had to scrap this and airfield attacks for the tactical CAS and FEBA action. But maybe in another scenario concentrating on the Airbases is possible for the future. An "Air Battle Central Front, 1989" scenario?



Are the attacks with nukes? If so, you can co-locate a hanger or some other destructible thing with the Single Unit Airfield. Use that as the target, and the splash damage will take out the airfield as well.


No, no nukes. While the "Seven days to the Rhine" plan liberally used them this is the Red Storm Rising / Team Yankee version where the Pact goes it conventionally.

I have wondered what a true Seven Days to the Rhine, scenario would be like!


_____________________________

"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 boogabooga)
Post #: 10
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/28/2021 12:14:03 AM   
boogabooga

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 7/18/2018
Status: offline
I'm guessing, the end of European civilization, soon to be followed by everyone else?

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 11
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/28/2021 1:13:15 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 2187
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boogabooga

I'm guessing, the end of European civilization, soon to be followed by everyone else?


As a young wargamer, I used to think it would be fascinating to simulate a fully nuclear battlefield, with everything from Davy Crockets up to ICBMS. These days, I find those scenarios to be fundamentally depressing.

I guess I'm getting old!


(in reply to boogabooga)
Post #: 12
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/28/2021 9:15:19 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2228
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewJ


quote:

ORIGINAL: boogabooga

I'm guessing, the end of European civilization, soon to be followed by everyone else?


As a young wargamer, I used to think it would be fascinating to simulate a fully nuclear battlefield, with everything from Davy Crockets up to ICBMS. These days, I find those scenarios to be fundamentally depressing.

I guess I'm getting old!




So my thoughts were more game wise than real world

I’m with AndrewJ the older I get the less nuke happy I get. At one time, as a young teen, I used the ICBM Counters from SPI World War III with AH’s Blitzkreig for a interesting hypothetical 1960s conventional to nuke war, was so depressing I decided nukes were no fun and the only thing to be learned is blowing lots of stuff up just grinds everything to a halt in the game anyways. As I recall all that was left were some infantry units fighting WWI in a wasteland with the cities gone and no POL for the armor/artillery. Jump to The Third World War Series and VGs NATO and I just never used nukes.

I liked the designers notes in SPI’s NATO in the 1970s, went something like if you want to simulate nuke war set up the counters, douse the map in lighter fluid and drop a match.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 3/28/2021 7:16:15 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 AndrewJ)
Post #: 13
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/28/2021 10:38:25 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5164
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

I liked the designers notes in SPI’s NATO in the 1970s, went something like if you want to simulate nuke war set up the counters, douse the map in lighter fluid and drop a match.


Appropriate!

_____________________________

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 BeirutDude)
Post #: 14
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/28/2021 1:46:23 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1291
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
Oh, no I don't nuke stuff in my games, that's horrible... Now back to simulating Verdun.

Strange beast the wargamer is.

Mike


(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 15
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/28/2021 10:11:22 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2228
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Update 28 March 2021...

Many (most) of Mike's suggestions and many of Fido981's points have been addressed. The Su-17Rs were already in there, I suspect most were splashed before being seen.

1. Added U.S. Army Air Fields (AAF) and more Helio units/Mohawks/OH-58s
2. Limited range (WRA) of Patriots
3. Limited Warsaw Pact SAMs WRA Distance further.
4. Added Mi-8 Hip Jammers
5. Added Mi-24K Scouts
6. Quick Turn Around for more attack aircraft (A-10s)

I don't think can add much more without it coming to a screeching halt! Save early/save often!!!!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"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 BDukes)
Post #: 16
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/28/2021 11:04:30 PM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 2187
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes

Oh, no I don't nuke stuff in my games, that's horrible... Now back to simulating Verdun.

Strange beast the wargamer is.

Mike





Guilty as charged, m'lud!




(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 17
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/29/2021 1:49:45 AM   
boogabooga

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 7/18/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Short-range ballistic missile attacks on SAM sites and airbases. Scuds, Spiders, etc.


On a more serious note, the 1989 timeframe of this scenario would be well after the INF Treaty, so their absence is justifiable on historical grounds.

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 18
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/29/2021 7:32:39 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1291
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boogabooga


quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Short-range ballistic missile attacks on SAM sites and airbases. Scuds, Spiders, etc.


On a more serious note, the 1989 timeframe of this scenario would be well after the INF Treaty, so their absence is justifiable on historical grounds.


Good point!

Thanks!

Mike

(in reply to boogabooga)
Post #: 19
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/29/2021 7:37:16 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1291
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

Update 28 March 2021...

Many (most) of Mike's suggestions and many of Fido981's points have been addressed. The Su-17Rs were already in there, I suspect most were splashed before being seen.

1. Added U.S. Army Air Fields (AAF) and more Helio units/Mohawks/OH-58s
2. Limited range (WRA) of Patriots
3. Limited Warsaw Pact SAMs WRA Distance further.
4. Added Mi-8 Hip Jammers
5. Added Mi-24K Scouts
6. Quick Turn Around for more attack aircraft (A-10s)

I don't think can add much more without it coming to a screeching halt! Save early/save often!!!!


Thanks BD will give this a shot when I've got some time!

BTW anybody else have a good time watching the Sidewinder armed F-16's do their thing! Kept them low while the F-15's did all the high altitude work.

Mike

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 20
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/29/2021 8:27:25 PM   
PN79

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes


quote:

ORIGINAL: boogabooga


quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Short-range ballistic missile attacks on SAM sites and airbases. Scuds, Spiders, etc.


On a more serious note, the 1989 timeframe of this scenario would be well after the INF Treaty, so their absence is justifiable on historical grounds.


Good point!

Thanks!

Mike


INF Treaty was binding only to the USSR. Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact SS-23 were untouched though their number was limited.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/vci/rls/prsrl/57238.htm


< Message edited by PN79 -- 3/29/2021 8:32:44 PM >

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 21
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 3/29/2021 10:25:07 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1291
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PN79

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes


quote:

ORIGINAL: boogabooga


quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Short-range ballistic missile attacks on SAM sites and airbases. Scuds, Spiders, etc.


On a more serious note, the 1989 timeframe of this scenario would be well after the INF Treaty, so their absence is justifiable on historical grounds.


Good point!

Thanks!

Mike


INF Treaty was binding only to the USSR. Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact SS-23 were untouched though their number was limited.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/vci/rls/prsrl/57238.htm



Ah that explains why the Soviets/Russians and former WP retained the Tochka. Always amazing how the story takes a turn.

Thanks!

Mike

(in reply to PN79)
Post #: 22
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 4/1/2021 8:07:28 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1291
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
Ok. Next playthrough, I'm average. Which given I knew a lot after play one probably isn't. If you look at my expenditures my fixed air raids sucked! Very few got through! Attack helicopters did great though.

First, thanks for the units they helped a great deal. Second, thanks for the entertaining scenario. It was a great time.

More suggestions, take them as such. I think the scenario is great regardless.

1)SU-17M3 and M4, Mig-27, Mig-23BN did were the most numerous Soviet ground pounders.
2)I killed a ton of SU-27's. 41! That might be a sizable chunk of what was available in 1989.
3)Perhaps move NATO Mobile Artillery a little forward. They'd surely be in range of the border.

The damage:

quote:


SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
8x A-10A Thunderbolt II
12x AH-1F Cobra
4x AH-64A Apache
2x EH-60A Quick Fix II
12x F-16C Blk 25 Falcon
12x F-16C Blk 30 Falcon
5x F-4G Phantom II [Wild Weasel V]
3x OH-58D Kiowa
2x OV-1D Mohawk
1x RV-1D Mohawk [Quick Look II]
22x Building (Watch Tower)
3x Radar (AN/MPQ-49 FAAR)
1x Radar (AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder)
1x Radar (AN/TPS-43E)
3x 155mm/23 M109A3 Howitzer [Cargo]
4x 203mm/25 M110 Self-Propelled Howitzer [Cargo]
16x 20mm/85 Vulcan M163A2 [1100 rnds] [Cargo]
2x 20mm/85 Vulcan M167 [500 rnds] [Cargo]
4x 35mm Twin Gepard [Cargo]
2x 7.62mm MG [Cargo]
16x Infantry Section [7.62mm MG/Unguided Infantry Anti Tank Weapon] [Cargo]
8x Leopard 1A3 Main Battle Tank [Cargo]
3x M113A3 APC [Cargo]
10x M192 I-HAWK [Cargo]
22x M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank [Cargo]
3x M3 Bradley IFV [Cargo]
26x M3A1 Bradley IFV [Cargo]
4x M48 Chaparral Quad [M730A1] [Cargo]
30x M901 ITV [Cargo]
6x Marder 1A2 IFV [Cargo]
4x Patriot M901 [Cargo]
2x Stinger MANPADS [Cargo]
48x Stinger MANPADS [Cargo]
12x TPz Fuchs APC [Cargo]
10x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-50 PAR) [Cargo]
9x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-51 ROR) [Cargo]
4x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-53) [Cargo]
6x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR) [Cargo]
20x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-57 HPI [TAS Camera]) [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
36x M26 MLRS [644 x M77 DPICM Dual Purpose]
114x MIM-104A Patriot
39x 12.7mm/50 MG Burst [10 rnds]
189x MIM-23C I-HAWK
361x FIM-92B Stinger POST
141x MIM-72G Chaparral
42x BGM-71E TOW 2A
28x HYDRA 70mm Rocket
72x 120mm M256 APFSDS-T
20x 120mm M256 HEAT
20x 120mm M256 HE
75x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
35x AIM-9M Sidewinder
12x AGM-88A HARM
1652x 155mm/23 HE
58x BGM-71C Improved TOW
39x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
234x 7.62mm MG Burst [20 rnds]
12x AIM-7F Sparrow III
132x 35mm Twin Gepard Burst [20 rnds]
4x FIM-92A Stinger
212x 20mm/85 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
5x AGM-65D Maverick IR
12x AIM-7M Sparrow III
2x CBU-87/B CEM [202 x BLU-97/B Dual-Purpose Bomblets]
20x Generic Unguided Anti Tank Weapon
1x 20mm M197 Burst [25 rnds]
60x 25mm/75 Bushmaster Mod 1 Burst [12 rnds]
8x 370 USG Drop Tank
1x 20mm/85 M61A1 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
14x CBU-89/B GATOR [45 x BLU-91/B Bomblets + 15 x BLU-92/B Mines]
4x AIM-9L Sidewinder



SIDE: Warsaw Pact
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
8x Mi-24D Hind D
1x Mi-24K Hind
2x MiG-23M Flogger B
8x MiG-23ML Flogger G
2x MiG-25RB Foxbat B
1x MiG-25RBS Foxbat D
16x MiG-29S Fulcrum C
4x Su-17M-3R Fitter H
41x Su-27S Flanker B
1x Radar (Snow Drift [9S18M1])
29x 122mm/36 2S1 M1974 Gvozdika [Cargo]
13x 122mm/38 D-30 2A18 Towed Howitzer [Cargo]
7x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka [Cargo]
6x BM-27 Uragan MLRS [Cargo]
15x BMP-2 [AT-5 Spandrel A] IFV [Cargo]
60x PT-76B Amphibious Tank [Cargo]
2x SA-11 Gadfly [9A38] TELAR [Cargo]
1x SA-11 Gadfly [9A39] LLV [Cargo]
3x SA-9b Gaskin [BRDM-2] TEL 2 [Cargo]
53x T-80 Main Battle Tank [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
336x 9M27F 220 mm Rocket
366x 203mm 2A44 RAP
977x 122mm/36 HE
1500x 152mm/48 HE
388x 122mm/38 HE
1116x 125mm APFSDS-T
16x 12.7mm/50 MG Burst [10 rnds]
3x AT-5 Spandrel A [9M113 Konkurs]
73x 30mm 2A42 Burst [20 rnds]
88x 76.2 mm/42 OF-350 HE
108x 152mm/25 HE
31x 125mm HE
26x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27ER, LR TSARH]
94x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR TSARH]
18x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
4x AA-7 Apex B [R-23T, IR]
72x AS-11 Kilter [Kh-58U, ARM, Semi-Ballistic]
27x SA-8b Gecko Mod-1 [9M33M3]
10x SA-9b Gaskin [9M31M]
31x SA-11 Gadfly [9M38]
2x 5280 liter Drop Tank
272x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
8x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka Burst [50 rnds]
8x 820 liter Drop Tank
4x Generic Flare Salvo [2x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
9x AA-10 Alamo D [R-27ET, LR IR]
48x AA-11 Archer [R-73]
7x 1500 liter Drop Tank
12x RBK-500-PTAB CB [268 x PTAB-1M Anti-Tank Bomblets]
5x SA-13 Gopher [9M35]
81x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
2x 30mm Gsh-30-1 Burst [30 rnds]
26x RBK-250-PTAB CB [30 x PTAB-2.5 Anti-Tank Bomblets]
1x AA-7 Apex D [R-24T, IR]
32x AT-2 Swatter B [9M17M Skorpion-M]
20x RBK-500-ZAB [117 x ZAB-2.5SM Incendiary]
42x OFAB-100-120 Frag
86x FAB-250M-54 GPB
1024x S-5K 57mm Rocket
24x Trooper
64x OFAB-250-270 Frag
1x AA-8 Aphid [R-60]

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 23
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 4/1/2021 9:50:10 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5164
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

NATO Mobile Artillery a little forward. They'd surely be in range of the border


Maybe not, being close enough to the border means being hammered by the much more numerous Army and Front level Soviet stuff and much more easily detected. Most of ours were back a little further so they could hit the advancing forces while they were more vulnerable and we had a better chance of surviving.

Have not opened the scenarios so may be talking out my butt.

_____________________________

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 BDukes)
Post #: 24
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 4/2/2021 10:44:54 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2228
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98


quote:

NATO Mobile Artillery a little forward. They'd surely be in range of the border


Maybe not, being close enough to the border means being hammered by the much more numerous Army and Front level Soviet stuff and much more easily detected. Most of ours were back a little further so they could hit the advancing forces while they were more vulnerable and we had a better chance of surviving.

Have not opened the scenarios so may be talking out my butt.


Gunner expressed what I was thinking, too far forward and they would be killed by massive *GA counterbattery. I had too MASSIVELY remove 8GA Artillery as it totally dominated (as ground units can't dig in so that was the balance removing them).

_____________________________

"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 Gunner98)
Post #: 25
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 4/2/2021 10:48:13 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2228
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Ok. Next playthrough, I'm average. Which given I knew a lot after play one probably isn't. If you look at my expenditures my fixed air raids sucked! Very few got through! Attack helicopters did great though.

First, thanks for the units they helped a great deal. Second, thanks for the entertaining scenario. It was a great time.

More suggestions, take them as such. I think the scenario is great regardless.

1)SU-17M3 and M4, Mig-27, Mig-23BN did were the most numerous Soviet ground pounders.
2)I killed a ton of SU-27's. 41! That might be a sizable chunk of what was available in 1989.
3)Perhaps move NATO Mobile Artillery a little forward. They'd surely be in range of the border.


Mike thanks. The Su-27s were from the Johnson(?) 1989 Pact Database. So I guess the Pact put a premium on hitting the Fulda Gap but their base was right there.

_____________________________

"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 BDukes)
Post #: 26
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 4/2/2021 12:33:00 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5164
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

The Su-27s


From what I understand the 145th Fighter Division in the 26th Air Army stationed in Belorussia and supporting GSFG were among the first to receive the the Su-27. Their main job was to counter NATOs F-15s and other 4th Gen fighters while the other AC mentioned did the ground pounding.

26th Air Army had 5 Regiments ~200 AC, they all existed in 89 but whether they would all be effective by is a question perhaps, but 40 would not be out of the question

_____________________________

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 BeirutDude)
Post #: 27
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 4/2/2021 5:54:54 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1291
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98


quote:

NATO Mobile Artillery a little forward. They'd surely be in range of the border


Maybe not, being close enough to the border means being hammered by the much more numerous Army and Front level Soviet stuff and much more easily detected. Most of ours were back a little further so they could hit the advancing forces while they were more vulnerable and we had a better chance of surviving.

Have not opened the scenarios so may be talking out my butt.


Gunner expressed what I was thinking, too far forward and they would be killed by massive *GA counterbattery. I had too MASSIVELY remove 8GA Artillery as it totally dominated (as ground units can't dig in so that was the balance removing them).


It's totally fine. I think this scenario is great!

Mike

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 28
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 4/2/2021 5:55:47 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1291
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

quote:

The Su-27s


From what I understand the 145th Fighter Division in the 26th Air Army stationed in Belorussia and supporting GSFG were among the first to receive the the Su-27. Their main job was to counter NATOs F-15s and other 4th Gen fighters while the other AC mentioned did the ground pounding.

26th Air Army had 5 Regiments ~200 AC, they all existed in 89 but whether they would all be effective by is a question perhaps, but 40 would not be out of the question


Ok.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 29
RE: Play Test: Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-14-2021 - 4/5/2021 10:43:45 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2228
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
So think I will submit this one tomorrow, if no one has any other suggestions or points.

_____________________________

"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 BDukes)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Fulda Gap, 1989 Version 03-28-2021 (Submitted) Page: [1] 2   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

0.258