The Lost Province, 2017 Updated 1.1

[wild_Willie2]

If you use penetrators and fire about 4-5 of them at a runway (and hit) you CAN damage one but only slowly and knocking out a runway for more than a few hours is impossible under these builds. You will also need to destroy ALL the runways and runway grade taxiways in order to knock out an airfield. This is generally not worth the costs in ordinance so it is easier to just go after the AC on the ground themselves by hitting the hangars and shelters.

During my next run, I'll just fire 50 missiles at the hangars to deplete the Patriots and then follow through with a strike against the AC shelters themselves to cause maximum damage with minimum expenditure.

[AlexGGGG]

Actually, Kadena is mostly F-15s

Kadena may have mostly F-15s, but important part on it is tankers. F-15s on their own are not really a factor, because they never wander over Taiwan territory. With Anderson about 1300 NM away, Raptors (and maybe even heavier stuff, not sure) cannot be practically effective without tanker support. So once I ambush and kill tankers in flight (which is quite easy), US involvement becomes much more tolerable.

I suspect carrier-based F/A-18s with what was that, JASSM-ER, also do not have range to reach me without tanker support.

[AlexGGGG]

I scored 1025 Triumph;the scenario is good and quite enjoyable. I finished it with 7 hours to go. However, I never get to actually killing the carrier, and my bombers will not be ready in time anyway.



SIDE: US PACOM
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
8x F/A-18F Super Hornet
8x F/A-18E Super Hornet
19x F-15C Eagle
1x DDG 81 Winston S. Churchill [Arleigh Burke Flight IIA]
2x DDG 51 Arleigh Burke [Arleigh Burke Flight I]
1x CG 59 Princeton [Ticonderoga Baseline 3, VLS]
2x B-2A Spirit Blk 30 <--- I actually shot that down
19x F/A-18D Hornet
5x F-22A Raptor <--- 2 shot down + 3 out of fuel hehe
9x KC-135R Stratotanker
2x E-3B Sentry
2x RQ-4B Global Hawk Blk 40 UAV

SIDE: PRC
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
12x Su-30MKK2 Flanker G
3x JH-7A Flounder
1x H-6G Badger [H-6M]
21x J-10B Vigorous Dragon
9x SA-20b Gargoyle [5P85SE] TEL
3x Vehicle (Cheese Board [96L6E])
8x SA-16 Gimlet [9K310 Igla-1] MANPADS
7x J-11B Flanker B [Su-27SK Copy]
1x Z-19 Black Whirlwind
1x Vehicle (Tombstone [30N6E])
2x J-20 Mighty Dragon
1x Type 052D Luyang III [173 Changsha]
4x HQ-17 TELAR
4x ZBD-08 [AT-10 Stabber] IFV
1x ZTD 05 Amphibious Tank


SIDE: ROC
===========================================================

LOSSES (grouped):
-------------------------------
aircraft
59x IDF Ching-Kuo [F-CK-1A] MLU
29x Mirage 2000-5EI
80x F-16A Blk 20 Falcon
10x P-3C Orion Update III
2x IDF Ching-Kuo [F-CK-1A] MLU
4x E-2K Hawkeye 2000E
15x AH-64E Apache [Longbow, Guardian] <--- all in air by CAP fighters

ships
2x 1801 Keelung [Kidd]
3x 1101 Cheng Kung [Perry, Kuang Hua I]
2x 1202 Kang Ding [La Fayette, Kuang Hua II]

airbase structures
29x A/C Hangar (2x Medium Aircraft)
20x A/C Hangar (2x Large Aircraft)
2x A/C Hangar (2x Very Large Aircraft)
2x A/C Hardened Aircraft Shelter (1x Large Aircraft)

various targets, mostly SAMs
1x Building (Large Government Building)
5x Vehicle (Long White 2, Hardened Casemate)
8x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-50 PAR)
8x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR)
38x M192 I-HAWK
16x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-57 HPI [TAS Camera])
10x Vehicle (CS/MPG-25 [Tien Kung 1, Mobile])
4x Vehicle (CS/MPG-25 [Tien Kung 1, Hardened])
8x Vehicle (UAR-1021 Skyguard)
9x 35mm Twin Oerlikon [UAR-1021 Skyguard FCR]
8x Sky Bow I [Tien Kung 1, Fixed VLS, 16 Cells]
12x Sky Bow II [Tien Kung 2, Fixed VLS, 16 Cells]
8x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-51 ROR)
1x 932 Chi Yang [Knox, Wu Chin III AAW]
7x Sky Bow III [Tien Kung 3, Mobile]
2x Vehicle (Long White 2, Mobile)
11x Skyguard MIM-7M Quad
2x Vehicle (AN/MPQ-53)
14x Patriot M901
6x Hsiung Feng II Quad
20x CM-11 Brave Tiger Main Battle Tank
2x Radar (AN/TPS-43F)
6x RT-2000 AMLRS
1x Radar (AN/TPS-77)
6x FACG 61 Kuang Hua VI <---- dont' know what's that, aircraft or what

SIDE: PLAAF Drones
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
32x J-6A Farmer [MiG-19P Copy]

[wild_Willie2]

Cudos [X(]

[AlexGGGG]

On the question of subs by the way.... either Chinese torpedoes are crappy, or don't really know what else, but I damaged both subs to the point they stopped moving, but never sunk them; having spent like at least 10 torpedoes on one, and maybe 6+ on the other. Subs are a handful though; in contested air with minimal ASW assets, losing even one ASW helo is a concern. So I had to wait till I have SEAD done (so no SAMs) and some semblance of air superiority before starting ASW sweeps.

[AlexGGGG]

Do you believe force ratios match up to make a balanced scenario? The ROC/US have more aircraft, but I believe distance and ballistic missile strikes balance them out.

Not sure how it matches real life, but nicely balanced to play - always keeps me looking at aircraft ready times.

Are the US SSNs necessary, or are they too tough? I had trouble detecting them in testing.

You should probably remove them. The scenario is fun enough already, having to manage one more set of events with one more dimension and one more range scale looks like pushing it too far, at least for my comfort.

Are the Anderson-based aircraft a worthy addition? They take a long time to arrive and don't have a whole lot of impact (which is somewhat realistic and a point against actual US intervention).

B2s are not stealth enough and have no standoff. In air as it is, they are just sitting ducks.
B-1Bs with standoff JASSM-ERs are nice, and do not seem to depend on Kadena's tankers.
I would swap 2x B2s for 2x B-1Bs and have a strike mission with 6x B-1Bs. That would be 144x JASSM-ER evenly spread against SAM installations; this will at least force player to expend SAMs and probably/likely, with 144 missiles in salvo, should kind of worry S-300s. As it is now, Anderson heavies are arriving piecemeal; I would have sent a whole pack and fired from max standoff range.

What do you think of the fight against the CSG? I had the most success with ALCMs soaking up SM-6s and then DF-21s punching through the SM-3s to sink most everything.

I decided I don't care about it. I had some leftover ASMs in bombers once I finished cleaning up ships in the strait, so I sent bombers towards US CVBG from... North-West-West, just hugging the exclusion zone, and that went unchallenged. Once ASMs were in flight, I timed ASBMs to arrive simultaneously, and fired all of them; that failed to sink the carrier, but turned out the effect of carrier-based aircraft is not that significant.

What do you think of the post-landing ground combat?

No anomaly.


Also I did not quite like the way enemy contacts are grouped, especially SAM and SSM missile groups and radar groups on Taiwan. I would like to see where enemy units are at all times, even if my side displays groups. With the arrangement of enemy SAMs in groups, I have found the targeting cumbersome, because if I want to figure which ones are closer and which ones are far, I have to switch back and forth between unit and group view.

Having said all that, I really liked the scenario. Thank you for the fun.

[wild_Willie2]

Have to agree with Alex, the grouping on Taiwan is very annoying as you have to switch between group and single view to see and target individual installations.

But overal a VERY nice scenario to play, good job.

W.

[Viper81]

Thanks all. I like your suggestions, and I'll see about implementing some/all of them in an updated scenario.

[wild_Willie2]

Another issue: Your drones fly at an altitude below that of the minimum deployment altitude of their bombs, they thus never use them. Also, delete the subs. I just had my entire TF sunk without even detecting them.

[magi]

i want to play this from the other side.....

[magi]

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

Another issue: Your drones fly at an altitude below that of the minimum deployment altitude of their bombs, they thus never use them. Also, delete the subs. I just had my entire TF sunk without even detecting them.

thats really funny.... thats what they are supposed to do....

[Viper81]

ORIGINAL: magi

i want to play this from the other side.....

I originally was thinking about making it dual-sided, but with how it is now that isn't possible. I may build a sister scenario to allow players to play as ROC or US.

[magi]

ORIGINAL: Viper81

ORIGINAL: magi

i want to play this from the other side.....

I originally was thinking about making it dual-sided, but with how it is now that isn't possible. I may build a sister scenario to allow players to play as ROC or US.

Thank you please do..... It is currently my greatest interest.....

[AlexGGGG]

With a second edition, I tried doing SEAD with ballistic missiles, and anti-airbase with cruise missiles. Results look kind of acceptable so far (about three hours into the scenario), but doing anti-airbase with everything was better.

Also looks like tankers are not compatible with most fighters.

[AlexGGGG]

By the way, if I were Chinese, I would have had MOAR RUNWAYS. Taking off 60 aircraft takes an hour. Landing them back actually takes more like three hours. And most bases are single-runway.

NOTE: this is not a request to change scenario.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: AlexGGGG

By the way, if I were Chinese, I would have had MOAR RUNWAYS.

Most of the airports at eastern side of China are duel-proposes. PLAAF can immediately co-opt them for surface refuel, if not too soon for ammunition supply. If scenario allows, you can firstly put some Winchesters to airports first, wait for the next wave of take off from military airbase to return.

[Viper81]

ORIGINAL: AlexGGGG

By the way, if I were Chinese, I would have had MOAR RUNWAYS. Taking off 60 aircraft takes an hour. Landing them back actually takes more like three hours. And most bases are single-runway.

NOTE: this is not a request to change scenario.

I know, right? It annoyed me too, but I found each of the airbases on Google Earth and confirmed that they are, in fact, all single-runway. I also chose those airbases based on types based there. The best alternative would be as Dysta said, adding other military or civil bases with no aircraft as refuel/rearm points. Regarding the H-6s, just imagine you're in England in 1943 watching the Heavies going off one by one and forming up. [:)]

[AlexGGGG]

Yeah, I figured timink is everythink. I took a liberty to adjust initial loadouts in ScenEdit though. I sort of thought if, Heaven forbid, I'm going to invade Taiwan, at least I will have aircraft loaded-out as I see fit This resulted in swapping all LACMs for ARMs. I tried both options and I felt it was better with all-ARM loadout. This got me thinking by the way, if I had some way to adjust initial loadouts as option for the scenario... like, you as a scenario designer determine that I have available such and such runways, this and that aircraft with one-tenth broken down, and some specific number of missiles. And I as the commander may have to decide which loadouts to have before the start. This has to be a setting in the design, for example if it is a scramble-defend scenario, player has to go with what he has, and if it is some kind of planned offense, probably we can have the loadouts changed without any delay, like ScenEdit does, for, say, first minute of the scenario duration. To simulate me knowing intel data on the opponent and equipping my aircraft according to the invasion plan well in advance.

[nogravity]

Hi Viper81,

I tried to play this scenario with build 775.17. However, when trying to load this scenario, it is complaining cannot find the database in the DB folder. I am curious about what is the version of the database this scenario was build from?

Thanks

Edit 5/7/2016: - I got it working, need to apply RC 1.11 patch to get it working. It won't be an issue when 1.11 is officially released.

[Jake9]

Hi Viper,
really nice and interesting scenario.
Count me in the list of players that would like the play the RoC side.