Havana Daydreamin (2017) v1.5 -- testing now!

[Gunner98]

Feltan

One observation. The heading of the runway normally doesn’t matter in most scenarios but in this one it does. According to the 'All knowing' Wikipedia the Key West runways are:

Runways
Direction Length Surface
ft m
7/25 10,001 3,048 PEM
3/21 7,002 2,134 PEM
13/31 7,001 2,134 PEM

Currently in game they are all oriented directly North/South (default) which puts the landing pattern in a vulnerable position. My read of the runway angles above is the landing patterns would be at 70@, 30@ and 130@ so generally from the NE quadrant (or opposite but I don't think that is modeled). I could have this wrong and defer to anyone who knows how this works. Orienting the runways would put the landing pattern in a slightly less vulnerable position and, since it’s critical in the early min of the scenario it would give the player a better feel for how things are working. I also had a bit of a traffic jam which delayed the launch of 4x F-18s due to A/C in the landing pattern (who were doing defensive maneuvers and taking forever to get home!), having the runways at different angles as they are at the actual base may alleviate this a bit - not sure.

OK, going back in..

B


B

[NumberOneBSUFan]

Smart idea with the F-22s. I'm holding mine in reserve for now. They'll probably end up being escorts for my Lancers. I've also had the same problem at Key West. Hopefully they'll be thinned out fairly soon. I also like how you only lose 10 points for losing friendly aircraft. Although it adds up the American public would be much more forgiving in times of war.

[Gunner98]

Well you have a good point on the bombers as well, with a 20 hrs turn around on the loadout, about a 3 hr flight time to JASSM release, a second is doable, possibly a 3rd strike (unlikely) if you move quickly. I'm launching now, the SEAD program will have to adapt.

B

[Lawdog1700]

Feltan,

Amazing scenario. It could be the best scenario I've played in Command. Good tension, and even when it was running slowly there was plenty of action for my taste. I think I will play it again today and see if I can do any better than a "Minor Victory." Great background as well. I think this one will get my vote for scenario of the year.

As a side note, I am not a fan of the "F-15 Event" either. This is a pretty horrible situation, I would not be effected by the loss of a few F-15s, I am much more worried about a Cuban missile strike on Key West.

Lawdog1700

[Gunner98]

Feltan

An anomaly with the 'Frank Paris International airport', it seems that there is a 'Single unit Airfield' at its core instead of a runway. Not sure if this is an intentional TLAM magnet or an issue.

B

[NumberOneBSUFan]

As it turns out, I should have launched those F-22s earlier. Two Coast Guard Cutters now lie at the bottom of the ocean because I didn't launch earlier. They're now en-route and will hopefully send 3 SU-24s to their graves. As far as the F-15 message goes, I really don't care if you leave it in or you don't. I found it a tad bit silly but it has had a very impressive performance record.

[Kitchens Sink]

Fun Scenario. I'm at a score of 548 with 1d 20h left to go. Havana Pact does not have much left to offer as I have taken out all runways and most aircraft revetments and SAM sites with JASSM and TLAM, and survived the Ballistic Missile attack. The enemy ships were a problem initially because of the weather, and the very few Harpoon equipped aircraft....I had to use Poseidon SLAM's on them to finish the job.

Of course, I did lose my job by the downing of several F-15's [:(]

I'm sending out some Poseidon ASW patrols now to find those secret subs.

[Maromak]

Also enjoying this scenario at the moment. With 1163 AU, I am getting pulse times between 3 to 7 seconds. Restarting Command periodically seems to help.

[Gunner98]

Wow - this scenario has some surprises![X(]
 
I suggest that you cross load the ammo bunkers at Key West. Luckily the one that was taken out was empty, but that was a 1 in 5 chance, I would rather lose 20% of my ammo than to risk it all in one shot.
 
This was a bad day for the USCG!  I was wondering why you put them in there, now I know - Targets![:D]
 
B

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Wow - this scenario has some surprises![X(]

I suggest that you cross load the ammo bunkers at Key West. Luckily the one that was taken out was empty, but that was a 1 in 5 chance, I would rather lose 20% of my ammo than to risk it all in one shot.

This was a bad day for the USCG!  I was wondering why you put them in there, now I know - Targets![:D]

B

Gunner98,

It one of my test runs, I drew the short straw and lost all the F/A-18 munitions.

It prompted me to write the blurb on "logistics SNAFU's" in the scenario description.

Normally, as the U.S., you never see this problem during a scenario -- but it isn't beyond the realm of belief that your ammo dump can get blown up!

Regards,
Feltan

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Also enjoying this scenario at the moment. With 1163 AU, I am getting pulse times between 3 to 7 seconds. Restarting Command periodically seems to help.

Maromak,

I experienced something similar, which I noted in the Designer Notes section.

I still suspect that CMANO has some memory leaks that cause things to lag. The workaround solution is to save and reload.

That usually occurs about once every four hours for me.

Regards,
Feltan

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Feltan

An anomaly with the 'Frank Paris International airport', it seems that there is a 'Single unit Airfield' at its core instead of a runway. Not sure if this is an intentional TLAM magnet or an issue.

B

Gunner98,

It isn't an anomaly really. When I put the airport together, I was having intermittent problems getting aircraft to actually take off -- they would prep and sit on the tarmac and not move.

I put in a single unit airfield as a "belts and suspenders" solution -- it doesn't detract from game play, and the problem of a/c never taking off never creeps up.

Perhaps a bit inelegant, but it has the sole advantage that it works.

Regards,
Feltan

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

... This was a bad day for the USCG!  I was wondering why you put them in there, now I know - Targets![:D]

B

Gunner 98,

Funny observation. To be truthful, when I first put this together the plan was to have the USCG in a far more active anti-drug/border patrol role. Terrorists were going to be involved, and lead to the start of the shooting war.

It didn't work out that way. Too many AU and overly-tricky events were needed -- I ended up not liking it.

The terrorists got cut. However, in reading up and doing research, the USCG does have a very active role to play in national defense. I kept the cutters in because I thought it added the correct flavor and atmospherics of the scenario.

I suspect they are targets because they all start with radar's pinging away -- pretty much what they would be doing as part of their patrol duties with a hurricane headed in. They'd be radiating, and trying to shepherd smaller vessels into port, conducting rescues, etc.

Regards,
Feltan

[Gunner98]

While I take the point that the Ammo dump is a juicy target and is likely to take a hit, the reason that bases have multiple ammo bunkers is to spread the risk of losing all ammo in one strike. Key West has 5 - 4 of which are empty and one of which is stacked to the gunnels. My thought is that it would be quite reasonable and normal procedure to have the ammo spread out a bit - logistic SNAFU's or not.

When I examined the strike in more detail, it was quite effective: 4 of the 5 ammo bunkers are burning, one severely and that is registered as damaged on the Magazine sub menu. So if worst came to worst and the ammo was evenly distributed between the 5 of them (unlikely) 80% of the ammo stores on the base would be destroyed or at least threatened. That alone is enough to move some AC to different bases, but doesn’t shut down all operations.

In addition to the ammo, and a radar (earlier); 4 of 5 Avgas tanks were destroyed[X(] (unfortunately CMANO doesn’t model fuel storage) and 1 parking area with three Hornets was destroyed, three others damaged with another 2 Hornets gone. 2 Tiger II's and 5 more Hornets are in parking areas still on fire! 10% losses and another 15% still threatened.[:@]

In the next 24 hrs as base Comd, you would have to move out all non-essential AC, probably move the Hornets and Growlers to Holmstead and keep the Tiger II’s

It was a good strike on a vulnerable base and it hurt, my request is just to distribute the ammo around more realistically.

My Raptors are now in clearing the skies, TLAM strike just turned the naval base into a smoking ruin. Have tried to avoid hitting the hospital there but it is damaged. Another TLAM strike is going in on the bases to the East. I notice that there are some single unit airfields embedded in several bases – I assume that is deliberate?[;)]

So far, I haven’t been served my retirement papers.[8D]

Good game.

B

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Feltan

One observation. The heading of the runway normally doesn’t matter in most scenarios but in this one it does. According to the 'All knowing' Wikipedia the Key West runways are:

Runways
Direction Length Surface
ft m
7/25 10,001 3,048 PEM
3/21 7,002 2,134 PEM
13/31 7,001 2,134 PEM

Currently in game they are all oriented directly North/South (default) which puts the landing pattern in a vulnerable position. My read of the runway angles above is the landing patterns would be at 70@, 30@ and 130@ so generally from the NE quadrant (or opposite but I don't think that is modeled). I could have this wrong and defer to anyone who knows how this works. Orienting the runways would put the landing pattern in a slightly less vulnerable position and, since it’s critical in the early min of the scenario it would give the player a better feel for how things are working. I also had a bit of a traffic jam which delayed the launch of 4x F-18s due to A/C in the landing pattern (who were doing defensive maneuvers and taking forever to get home!), having the runways at different angles as they are at the actual base may alleviate this a bit - not sure.

OK, going back in..

B


B

Gunner98,

I noticed this vulnerability too during testing. It never occurred to me to change the orientation of the landing strips until you pointed it out.

They have been changed now. Don't have the time to test at the moment, but I'll have a look see during my next run through.

Regards,
Feltan

[Gunner98]

a single unit airfield as a "belts and suspenders" solution

The only issue with this solution is that the base can never really be effectively attacked. The player can destroy all components around it but the single unit airfield has everything needed to operate independent of the rest (parking, ammo, fuel, access point and runway). And with 15000 damage points it’s nearly impossible to destroy.

I can see why you may wish to design an undefeatable base for balance, and that's essentially what they are at the moment. I suspect that they'll run out of AC fairly soon anyway.

B

[Gunner98]

I kept the cutters in because I thought it added the correct flavor and atmospherics of the scenario.

Agree, it does add a good feel to the start up. I also lost an LCS in that firestorm! I wish they weren’t so fragile!

B

[NumberOneBSUFan]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

This was a bad day for the USCG!  I was wondering why you put them in there, now I know - Targets![:D]

B

I couldn't agree with this statement anymore.

[Tomcat84]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Also you may want to state which nation the F-16's came from, Danish, Dutch (sorry Tomcat [;)]) or Norwegian perhaps

Ha!!

You forgot the Belgians as an option.

p.s. Dutch really arent an option [:D][:'(]

[Gunner98]

Ah yes the friendly neighbors to the south [:D]