Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 (Submitted: 10-03-2021)

 
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 >> Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 (Submitted: 10-03-2021) Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 (Submitted: 10-03-2021) - 9/13/2021 2:14:13 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2446
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
09-20-2021 version below


So, as much as possible in C:MO and without getting into miles and miles of Lua Coding, I tried to get the spirit of the Urgent Fury Operation and action. There is only so much that can be done in C:MO, for example it is not a ground war game, thus the Grenada People's Revolutionary Army (PRA) and Cubans can't take advantage of the terrain and buildings to combat the Americans/Caribbean Peace Forces. Then Cargo Ops make realistically moving 82nd airborne units and 160th SOAR Bn helicopter units to the island and civilians off difficult. I could have used Lua coding to generate 82nd Airborne forces at the airport when a C-141 and C-130 land there but there isn't much difference in game play between paradropping them and generating them. Also paradropping them gives the player more flexibility.

So bottom line: it isn't an exact recreation of Urgent Fury, please read the notes!!!!!! but I think it catches the spirit of the operation.

So give me some constructive criticism, but there is a lot I know people are going to say that I already tried. For example at one time I had 720 "Civilians" in 10/unit "Sticks" for the helios to pick up. That turned into a lot of clicking on Special Actions to add C/SAR capabilities again for little gain, so I added more VPs for "liberating" their locations.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 10/13/2021 9:30:57 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: PT: Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 09-12-2021 - 9/17/2021 5:10:06 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2446
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Any thoughts on this one?

Anyone give it a try?

_____________________________

"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: PT: Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 09-12-2021 - 9/18/2021 8:03:27 PM   
Fido81

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 7/14/2019
Status: offline
I set up all the airborne forces from CONUS to take the Point Salines airport as they came online. The Combat Talons were a nice touch. I did notice that the drop zone was at the very ragged edge of all the C-130s' range - I had to cancel a number of RTB orders as they passed by the CVBG.

My first immediate action was to send the airborne S-3 on what was intended to be a low-altitude over water reconnaissance mission, where it strayed over land and was promptly shot down. The issue was either that the ignore plotted course setting was enabled, or the plotted course was too close to land. Notwithstanding my poor tactical decision-making, I was impressed by the effectiveness of its FLIR - I'd read about it, but not really had an occasion to try it out before this. It spotted the presence of probably 60% of the forces on the coasts of the island.

The Night Stalkers didn't have any ground units to carry, so I ferried them over to the USS Guam to accelerate its airborne deployments. These forces from the sea were overwhelming (giving artillery a fire mission on all hostile identified targets took a significant load off of all the CAS forces), and probably the reason my ground losses weren't even higher.

The 3 simultaneous SEAL deployments were executed as directed - or at least I tried to. I think the wrong airframe picked up the Governor, and also I may have pressed the special action button too early. Either way, I don't think I got those VPs, and I think it might've been my fault. Was that button supposed to be pressed before the mission began or after the aircraft was on-site?

As hostilities began, the southern SEAL detachment engaged the enemy, which had not been my intention, and was annihilated. I did notice the SEAL deployment aircraft made several trips out, and it wasn't clear whether or not that was your intention. Should those missions be configured for one-time only?

At this point, I noticed that some aircraft in the ARG weren't outfitted optimally - a couple of Sea Stallions on the Guam were ready to carry 14-ton payloads, but the vessel had only infantry aboard. I chalked it up to the inter-service coordination problems it sounds like plagued the operation and used it to ferry a couple of TOW teams ashore. Incidentally, is there a reason you didn't want the transport helicopters executing the USMC deployment to be able to execute a quick turnaround?

The airdrop happened as planned. There was some significant friendly fire as the US forces engaged hostiles at the airfield. Most of the ground forces maneuvered as required, though one C-130 chalk wound up immobilized, apparently because it landed partially in the ocean, and another pair of ground units became stuck in wetlands. If I might make a suggestion, it could be worth implementing via Lua the addition of aircraft storage facilities for the airport once it is captured, to allow follow-on force deployments via ferry mission as opposed to cargo mission. This might also mitigate the risk of landing in the ocean.

ASuW patrol missions from the CVBG with two-plane elements on station took out most of the targets fairly quickly thanks to conservative WRA from airborne weapons, and the landed artillery prioritizing AAA. The star of the show the A-6 Intruder, which I hadn't had a chance to play around with before in such an uncontested environment. Aside from the AC-130, the USAF air support never deployed because it was never needed.

I called it and ended the scenario with about 1 day to go and a score of 2330 (average) when I couldn't figure out what else to try to accomplish - I didn't see any more hostile units, and all the locked RP zones seemed to be captured. I do think it might be worth locking the landing/drop zone RPs - I accidentally moved one inland for the Marines and had a hard time straightening it out again. This was my first game in a bit, so it was something of a comedy of errors.

I was confused about how the amphibious landing was meant to happen - was the ARG supposed to transit around the island to execute it? What ARG forces were meant to be inserted by helicopter as opposed to by landing craft? Clarity on this would be helpful. Also, it might be worth adding a special message after the three sets of forces come ashore to identify what exactly their objectives are. It looked like there were some neutral buildings without RPs surrounding them, and I wasn't sure what to do about them.

When I play the scenario again, I intend to detach some of the escorts from the CVBG and use them for shore bombardment. I have a feeling they might do a better job of target identification and SEAD for the airfield than the S-3, and have more loiter time than the F-14 with a TARPS loadout.

SIDE: Infrastructure
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------



SIDE: PRA
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
14x 23mm ZU-23-2 [Cargo]
2x BRDM-2 [Cargo]
8x BTR-60PB APC [Cargo]
277x Infantry Section [7.62mm MG/Unguided Infantry Anti Tank Weapon] [Cargo]
10x Sniper Section [12.7mm Anti-Materiel Rifle] [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
407x 23mm ZU-23-2 Burst [20 rnds]
69x 12.7mm Anti-Materiel Rifle Volley [5 rnds]
15x 14.5mm MG Burst [20 rnds]
13x 7.62mm MG Burst [20 rnds]



SIDE: Cuba
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
3x Infantry Section [7.62mm MG/Unguided Infantry Anti Tank Weapon] [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------



SIDE: United States
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x S-3A Viking
15x 7.62mm MG [Cargo]
11x 81mm Mortar [Cargo]
11x 9mm Sidearm [Cargo]
13x Infantry Section [7.62mm MG/Unguided Infantry Anti Tank Weapon] [Cargo]
5x Sniper Section [12.7mm Anti-Materiel Rifle] [Cargo]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
102x AN/SSQ-53A DIFAR
73x AN/SSQ-62A DICASS
231x 7.62mm MG Burst [20 rnds]
206x 155mm/39 HE
8x CBU-59/B APAM [717 x BLU-77/B Dual-Purpose Bomblets]
10x BGM-71A TOW
1169x 81mm HE Mortar
67x 12.7mm Anti-Materiel Rifle Volley [5 rnds]
144x Generic Unguided Anti Tank Weapon
60x 155mm/39 HE Base Bleed
84x HYDRA 70mm Rocket
25x BGM-71C Improved TOW
28x 20mm M197 Burst [25 rnds]
92x Mk82 500lb LDGP
5x 20mm/85 M61A1 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
2x AGM-62B Walleye II ER/DL



SIDE: Civilian
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 3
RE: PT: Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 09-12-2021 - 9/20/2021 12:32:14 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2446
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
So before going over everything, I'm seriously thinking of scrapping this one as a failed attempt. C:MO just can't handle the nuances of a campaign like Grenada, thus it's no surprise I haven't seen anyone attempt it before. Not a waste of time as I learned a few things and honestly I was working on another NEO scenario that I think would be better than this when I diverted to Grenada.

quote:

I set up all the airborne forces from CONUS to take the Point Salines airport as they came online. The Combat Talons were a nice touch. I did notice that the drop zone was at the very ragged edge of all the C-130s' range - I had to cancel a number of RTB orders as they passed by the CVBG.


So a trick there is to rebase the C-130H's to San Juan or Roosevelt Roads as they are in transit to the drop points. I did place tankers at Roosevelt Roads but they can only refuel the Combat Talons. Canceling the RTB would work but might be dangerous.

EDIT: mentioned rebasing and refueling in Notes.

quote:

My first immediate action was to send the airborne S-3 on what was intended to be a low-altitude over water reconnaissance mission, where it strayed over land and was promptly shot down. The issue was either that the ignore plotted course setting was enabled, or the plotted course was too close to land. Notwithstanding my poor tactical decision-making, I was impressed by the effectiveness of its FLIR - I'd read about it, but not really had an occasion to try it out before this. It spotted the presence of probably 60% of the forces on the coasts of the island.


I was impressed with their FLIR in the 1980s when I was doing ASW at Cecil Field! You should have seen the imagery for Soviet snorkels and periscopes (not to mention drug runners). I almost always leave Doctrine/WRA to the players, except certain things like surge and Nukes.

Edit: no action on my part. Player option here.

quote:

The Night Stalkers didn't have any ground units to carry, so I ferried them over to the USS Guam to accelerate its airborne deployments. These forces from the sea were overwhelming (giving artillery a fire mission on all hostile identified targets took a significant load off of all the CAS forces), and probably the reason my ground losses weren't even higher.


Yes that was an issue, cargo missions. You should have been able to use them to ferry the landed forces on Grenada around the island (as they were actually used). That said, there really is no reason to as the U.S. forces just roll over the PRA/Cubans. This is a problem with doing historical scenarios, the balance of doing things the way they happened vs. conducting other options.

Edit: Suggested basing them at Point Salinas Airport and using for ferrying troops in notes.

quote:

The 3 simultaneous SEAL deployments were executed as directed - or at least I tried to. I think the wrong airframe picked up the Governor, and also I may have pressed the special action button too early. Either way, I don't think I got those VPs, and I think it might've been my fault. Was that button supposed to be pressed before the mission began or after the aircraft was on-site?


Not sure myself about the points, my first attempt at using Special Actions. When play testing I always hit the just button before extraction and I got the points.

quote:

As hostilities began, the southern SEAL detachment engaged the enemy, which had not been my intention, and was annihilated.


That sort of happened. They were not annihilated but took major losses. In the real event they destroyed the radio transmitter and took a boat offshore to be picked up by a destroyer. They were combat ineffective after that.

quote:

I did notice the SEAL deployment aircraft made several trips out, and it wasn't clear whether or not that was your intention. Should those missions be configured for one-time only?


I'll look at that. I just assumed once the SEAL missions were done the player would repurpose the airframes. That's an issue with scenario design, my assumptions are not always what a player will do!

EDIT: The SEAL Team Cargo Missions do not have a One Time Only option. The C/CAR "Snatch and Grab" mission does so I set that to "One Time Only." Will mention repurposing them in the notes.

quote:

At this point, I noticed that some aircraft in the ARG weren't outfitted optimally - a couple of Sea Stallions on the Guam were ready to carry 14-ton payloads, but the vessel had only infantry aboard. I chalked it up to the inter-service coordination problems it sounds like plagued the operation and used it to ferry a couple of TOW teams ashore. Incidentally, is there a reason you didn't want the transport helicopters executing the USMC deployment to be able to execute a quick turnaround?


So in real life, we used to keep the CH-53s on the LPH and use them for large teams like TOWs and Mortars. More importantly they would fly over to the LPDs and LSDs and pick up cargo to ferry ashore. Just those platforms didn't have the deck space to carry them routinely. We would keep the alert AH-1's on USS Austin so they could utilize that deck space and not have to contend with normal ops on the LPH when taking off on an alert mission.

EDIT: Adjusted the CH-53s to 24x Marines

I think I tried to set them for quick turn around and it wasn't an option. I will look again.

Edit: I checked and they don't have a quick turn around option for cargo ops. THEY SHOULD, I might make that suggestion to the Developers.

quote:

The airdrop happened as planned. There was some significant friendly fire as the US forces engaged hostiles at the airfield. Most of the ground forces maneuvered as required, though one C-130 chalk wound up immobilized, apparently because it landed partially in the ocean, and another pair of ground units became stuck in wetlands. If I might make a suggestion, it could be worth implementing via Lua the addition of aircraft storage facilities for the airport once it is captured, to allow follow-on force deployments via ferry mission as opposed to cargo mission. This might also mitigate the risk of landing in the ocean.


So I wanted to do something like that, have the C-141s land and drop off troops, but In cargo missions I am not sure can you generate a ground unit from "Cargo" ferried to the base? I thought about generating the units via Lua when a 141 landed but again seemed like a LOT of work for very little impact on the scenario. I can tweak the landing area a bit to help mitigate stuck units. BTW, friendly fire happened in the actual operations (one of my friend was injured in a friendly fire incident). Some Rangers were killed by friendly fire.

EDIT: Adjusted drop zone a bit more inland.

quote:

ASuW patrol missions from the CVBG with two-plane elements on station took out most of the targets fairly quickly thanks to conservative WRA from airborne weapons, and the landed artillery prioritizing AAA. The star of the show the A-6 Intruder, which I hadn't had a chance to play around with before in such an uncontested environment. Aside from the AC-130, the USAF air support never deployed because it was never needed.


Yes this is my biggest issue with the scenario. The ground units are what they are meant to be TARGETS. So any other use of them is ancillary for the game engine and this is where this scenario really breaks down CAS is much more effective than in real life and artillery dominates. This is why I may scrap it

quote:

I called it and ended the scenario with about 1 day to go and a score of 2330 (average) when I couldn't figure out what else to try to accomplish - I didn't see any more hostile units, and all the locked RP zones seemed to be captured. I do think it might be worth locking the landing/drop zone RPs - I accidentally moved one inland for the Marines and had a hard time straightening it out again. This was my first game in a bit, so it was something of a comedy of errors.


They are supposed to be locked. I will look at that.

EDIT: I didn't find any that weren't locked. Did you play in Scenario Editor?

also mentioned it will probably only go one day, unlike the historical event.

quote:

I was confused about how the amphibious landing was meant to happen - was the ARG supposed to transit around the island to execute it?


Historically, Phibron4 back loaded some units and yes they entered the Caribbean to execute the landing (where they landed their M-60s).

quote:

What ARG forces were meant to be inserted by helicopter as opposed to by landing craft? Clarity on this would be helpful.


I thought there was a portion of the notes where I mention that SEAL Team 4 had determined the beaches near Pearls Airport was suitable for helicopter insertion only? As to the actual landing beaches on the Caribbean side, you can land whatever you want there. C:MO will actually allow you to land LCUs/LCM's, etc. near Pearls to be honest, but historically only helio insertions occurred near Peals and Grenville. Incidentally, Pearls Airport was briefly named MCAS Douglas to honor Sgt Major Fredrick Douglas, who I served with in Beirut, and was killed in the BLT Bombing two days earlier. Great man and a great leader. The look he gave me one day when I was screwing up is forever etched in my mind and all he had to do was give you the look and you knew you needed to get your act together!!! SF Sgt Major!


quote:

Also, it might be worth adding a special message after the three sets of forces come ashore to identify what exactly their objectives are.


Crap in real life they didn't know what their objectives were! Seriously they didn't know until Rangers arrived at "True Blue Campus" that there were students at Grand Anse Campus and the Hospital!!!! They were using tourist maps. Same with the Marines they called a LOT of audibles during the operation, and especially the amphibious landing which was NOT in the original plan. So I don't want to totally script it. I thought scripting the SEAL missions and initial landing was enough. Honestly I'm not sure the Amphibious landing is necessary for the scenario, but is historically accurate for those who like to replay history.

quote:

It looked like there were some neutral buildings without RPs surrounding them, and I wasn't sure what to do about them.


Just there for historical accuracy. 18 patients were killed at the Mental Hospital in a USN air strike and the other fort was used for refence by forward observers but didn't play a role. If I keep it I will mention that in the notes.

quote:

When I play the scenario again, I intend to detach some of the escorts from the CVBG and use them for shore bombardment. I have a feeling they might do a better job of target identification and SEAD for the airfield than the S-3, and have more loiter time than the F-14 with a TARPS loadout.


This is historically accurate. In the Beirut Scenario and Hammana, Lebanon airstrike scenario I removed the escorts so this could not be done, BUT here it would be historically accurate to do so.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 9/20/2021 1:23:58 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 #: 4
RE: PT: Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 09-12-2021 - 9/20/2021 1:26:40 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2446
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Adjusted version with some of the issues noted above, Thanks Fido81 for your help!!!!

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 Fido81)
Post #: 5
RE: PT: Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 revised 09-20-2021 - 9/26/2021 8:08:54 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2446
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
Any more thoughts on this one? Should I submit it? To be honest I'm a bit ambivalent on it myself.

_____________________________

"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 #: 6
RE: PT: Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 revised 09-20-2021 - 9/27/2021 2:30:55 AM   
Fido81

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 7/14/2019
Status: offline
I have not played the second release, but on the basis of the first release, I want to encourage you not to trash this work.

It might be a bit rough around the edges, but
1) it's a historical scenario nobody else has shared with the community yet - it's the best that's out there
2) in being so difficult for such a prolific scenario creator to balance, it functions as a demonstration of the limitations of C:MO in modelling both historical engagements and land-oriented engagements
3) it has what I think are all the basic elements of a fun historical scenario - a CONOPS for the player, a set of historical tools that somebody else had to achieve the CONOPS that gives the player choices in how to achieve it, opposing forces, a compelling narrative, and scoring mechanics - and they all make sense

As long as you're up-front about how the scenario touches on Command's limits, and tries to model an operation that the simulation engine isn't really designed for, I think it's of sufficient quality to submit to the Community Scenario Pack when you think it's no longer effective to continue working on it.

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 7
RE: PT: Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 revised 09-20-2021 - 9/27/2021 3:24:08 AM   
Kushan04


Posts: 626
Joined: 6/29/2005
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fido81
I have not played the second release, but on the basis of the first release, I want to encourage you not to trash this work.


I haven't played it yet but I agree with Fido. Just because it touches the edges of what CMO models doesn't necessarily mean it should be trashed. Long as your up front in the scenario description/briefing about the limitations I think you should keep at it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Fido81)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Grenada (Urgent Fury), 1983 (Submitted: 10-03-2021) 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

0.456