New Scenario for Testing: The GIUK Gap with SANDMAN

[vettim89]

The second in a series of scenarios set in 1989. This one cover the NATO defense of the GIUK Gap against surging Soviet submarines. This a very low intensity scenario but I think the players will find some of the micromanaging to be a challenge. In case you haven't played an ASW scenario: your MPA will need some baby sitting as they can go off and do their own thing sometimes. Thanks to Knighthawk for debugging the maintenance function and, of course, to musurca for the

The GIUK Gap with SANDMAN.zip

(111.01 KiB) Downloaded 54 times

SANDMAN mod

[HalfLifeExpert]

Just fired it up and I've got a few things to bring up.

1) There's no scenario description?

2) The Friendly Subs in Clyde don't have proper vessel names (Neither do the Soviet subs so far, but I'll forgive that due to the uncertainty of war)

3) The No-Nav Zone. I get that you are trying to enforce protection for surface assets, but I think the zone applies to Aircraft too, thus leaving gaps in the GUIK Gap that I can't really cover. Perhaps you should remove the No-Nav Zone but leave the reference points as the indicators of Air Cover range for Surface forces. This would freely allow me to dispatch reserve MPAs to a wider area.

4) The threat of Soviet Long Range Aviation is mentioned, but there's no actual Soviet aircraft in the Scenario?

[vettim89]

Just fired it up and I've got a few things to bring up.

1) There's no scenario description?

Yes, I realized that after I posted. I will fix it before publishing

2) The Friendly Subs in Clyde don't have proper vessel names (Neither do the Soviet subs so far, but I'll forgive that due to the uncertainty of war)

There are unnamed because the side is computer only. Figured it was not necessary if the player does not control the units. Not a problem to change that for immersion sake

3) The No-Nav Zone. I get that you are trying to enforce protection for surface assets, but I think the zone applies to Aircraft too, thus leaving gaps in the GUIK Gap that I can't really cover. Perhaps you should remove the No-Nav Zone but leave the reference points as the indicators of Air Cover range for Surface forces. This would freely allow me to dispatch reserve MPAs to a wider area.

That is odd. During my playtest I had no problem with my P-3s flying all the way to the coast of Greenland which would involve them crossing the No-Nav Zone which is set for surface ships only. Odd that you saw that and I didn't. Don't have an explanation for that and wonder if anyone else is seeing this behavior

4) The threat of Soviet Long Range Aviation is mentioned, but there's no actual Soviet aircraft in the Scenario?

I decided that this scenario should be a one threat scenario only to make it more playable. That is the purpose of the No-Nav Zone which is to simulate the limits of land based air cover. This is mentioned in the scenario briefing. As the scenario is a week long I decided it would be best to just model the Long Range Aviation threat this way as adding all the missions, aircraft and strikes would likely bog down the CPU. I still think this is correct

Thanks for your response and comments

Top

[vettim89]

I went back in and played the scenario in game mode (vice editor mode) and all aircraft are able to cross teh No-Nav Zone boundary. So WAD