Playtesting on revised version 4.2 (7/30/18) of Arctic Tsunami 2019

[AlexGGGG]

Short spolier-infested AAR for you over in AAR forum - tm.asp?m=4510957

[AlexGGGG]

In version 3.1, on the Russian side, I would rather have missions start not immediately, but like ten minutes or so after the scenario starts.

As I start the scenario, some aircraft at Monchegosk are already taking off for a strike mission. But I do not want this mission to commence and there is no chance to abort the mission clean.

ADDED:

And also Russians seems to be as poor as a church mouse in the missile supply department.

Kusnetsov comes with very limited loadouts, ARM/AAW. Is it intended to be so? Seems to be stupid to go to war and not to stock up on Adder missiles?

[BeirutDude]

In version 3.1, on the Russian side, I would rather have missions start not immediately, but like ten minutes or so after the scenario starts.

I can do that

As I start the scenario, some aircraft at Monchegosk are already taking off for a strike mission. But I do not want this mission to commence and there is no chance to abort the mission clean.

More work but I can fix that as well

And also Russians seems to be as poor as a church mouse in the missile supply department.

Kusnetsov comes with very limited loadouts, ARM/AAW. Is it intended to be so? Seems to be stupid to go to war and not to stock up on Adder missiles?

No that's why I'm cleaning this one up. It was my first big attempt at a scenario and I've learned a lot since then.

[BeirutDude]

Shoot all the ship aviation magazines need to be looked at! And I'm bringing the task groups closer together.

[AlexGGGG]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

As I start the scenario, some aircraft at Monchegosk are already taking off for a strike mission. But I do not want this mission to commence and there is no chance to abort the mission clean.

More work but I can fix that as well

Actually belay that part. I mean, it can still be done for the purposes of nitpicking, but I found you can abort aircraft already in "Taking off" status with a penalty of just a couple of minutes. I thought that's not possible after they start taking off, but apparently it is. May be that's developers great work I did not notice earlier.

[BeirutDude]

Actually belay that part. I mean, it can still be done for the purposes of nitpicking, but I found you can abort aircraft already in "Taking off" status with a penalty of just a couple of minutes. I thought that's not possible after they start taking off, but apparently it is. May be that's developers great work I did not notice earlier.

I think the thought has merit and I'll look at it. Right now adjusting the NATO SAG/CVBG positions and checking on the shipboard aviation magazines.

[BeirutDude]

Totally reworked NATO!

1. Queen Elizabeth Carrier Group and Anzio Surface Action Group both moved forward. NATO Standing Forces are removed (committed to Baltic)
2. The Norwegians now have an F-35B Lightning II Squadron at Orland Fighter base and that is reflected in the scenario. The UK Typhoon squadron is gone (Central/Baltic Front along with two U.S. Squadrons).
3. UK Tornado Squadron now forward deployed to Andoya AFB, Norway for Naval Strikes (They still have their UK RAF Lossiemouth (EGQS) base in case someone needs to redeploy to UK for Naval missions and it is used for P-8 and P-3 aircraft.
4. Diversionary Field loadouts now set for LIMITED NATO support. You can support DETs but not whole Squadrons. Initial Dets are there for you.
5. NATO Submarines now Teleport for some randomness in the submarine war (will do the same for the Russians as well)
6. CAP missions will activate 15 minutes into the scenario with other missions beginning 30 minutes into the scenario. That will give people time to adjust things.
7. E-2 Sentry and KC-135 aircraft halved (other half to (Central/Baltic Front). Their bases are now Single Unit airfields for performance.

Some adjustments to Russia will be made but not as great...

[AlexGGGG]

Whoa, sounds great.

[BeirutDude]

Didn’t want the Diversionary Fields to be too powerful so wanted to limit the load outs. Still At least 24 load outs of all combos so still potent. Also you can ferry the F-35s from the QE to northern Norway. One nasty idea I had was to ferry to northern Norway, Strike the Russian CVBG and then land back on the carrier.

[AlexGGGG]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
One nasty idea I had was to ferry to northern Norway, Strike the Russian CVBG and the land back on the carrier.

Well, many different uses for F-35s. In 3.0 I sent them to augment A/A patrols, refueling on the way. I suppose if the carrier is closer now, they can do without refuelling. F-35s should be useful against Foxgloves and/or in cleaning up Russian carrier-based fighters (no carrier CAP gets more efficient anti-radar and anti-ship missile strikes).

[BeirutDude]

Version 4.0 25 July 2018 attached below.

Major rework! See thread above and the AAR on version 3.1 for details. Personally, I think this is a lot more fun now!

[BeirutDude]

Set long range air-to-air to 40nm or 50nm.

[BeirutDude]

Version 4.1 26 July 2018 0827 EDT, east coast USA in attachment

Remembered last night I forgot to check the Russian vessel aviation magazines. It always something! [:D] [8D] [X(] [8|]

[AlexGGGG]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

Set long range air-to-air to 40nm or 50nm.

Sorry man you got it wrong.

Look

You are configuring Russian missile for distance. It has max physical range of X NM.
And you have longest range NATO missile with a range of Y NM.

You need to set the Russian missile range to a MINIMUM of X and Y+20.

For this scenario, it computes to
X = 160 NM (Arrow missile database id 915) on Foxglove
Y = 60 NM (AMRAAM-C-5, database id 897) on F-35

Therefore, correct setting for Russians is 80 NM.

You set Russian max range to 40 NM, which allows me (playing NATO) to fire AMRAAMs at 60 NM, immediately turn back, and hope for some hits while never risking return fire.

The goal is to fire at the closest possible range while still out of reach of enemy missiles. The closer you are, the better chance of hitting the enemy. At some point, they will fire back though, you do not want that.

[BeirutDude]

Makes sense. In game terms but I wonder though what would Russian doctrine actually be in this situation? They would have no idea they were going up against Lightning’s or what their loadouts would be. I guess intel would tell them there were Lightings in the inventory and they could be there. So thanks for showing me the calculations and will adjust. Just trying to think of how to use this for future scenarios. Admittedly, Some times I run into problems with the game vs. simulation aspect.

[BeirutDude]

BTW in 4.0 the Foxgloves have been removed.

[AlexGGGG]

Version 4.1 NATO side AAR for you - tm.asp?m=4514025

Will play Russian side eventually, maybe in a couple of days.

[AlexGGGG]

Makes sense. In game terms but I wonder though what would Russian doctrine actually be in this situation? They would have no idea they were going up against Lightning’s or what their loadouts would be.

My understanding is that if the game says you identified aircraft as F-35 then you know it is.
The game models identification of units, aircraft, ships, or other. For aircraft, there are several levels
At level 0 you get BOGEY - some aircraft in the air but you have no idea who he is
At level 1 you get generic classification between Fighter, Attack, Bomber, Cargo, Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and whatnot.
At level 2 you get the specifc aircraft type, F-35, F-16, B-52, whatever.

There are similar levels for ships and cars.

You can actually look into database, and there are signature entries, including Visual Detection, and Visual Classification ranges, as well as radar cross-section, infrared, and sonar data (when applicable). These are used in modeling identification of units.

[BeirutDude]

Thanks! That helps.

Attached are the adjustments you suggested (Version 4.2). Also went in and cut some of the Russian SSM-naval/ASM ranges so the units are coming closer to vessels before launching.

[BeirutDude]

From my POV I think it is a lot better than the original version and unless I hear some differing opinion I'm going to call Version 4.2 finished and post it. Thanks for everyone's help.