Mediterranean Tsunami 05-01-2019 Version 6.0

[BeirutDude]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

1) I may have just not read carefully enough, but it seems odd to me that the Typhoons would be based under the SA-21 bubble. In real life, even if they were initially based in Cyprus, my guess is that most likely be pulled back to Greece or Italy (safely out of SAM range) before hostilities began unless the presence of the SA-21 caught everyone totally off their guard. Effectively where they're at, they're grounded since they'd within the SA-21's range just after taking off. Pulling them back would make the scenario more interesting because it'd force you to rely more USAF or NATO tanking so keeping your CAPs filled would be more challenging. More USAF or NATO tanking would also help keep my fighters up longer. Similarly the CVN was very close to the edge of the bubble. The first thing I did playing was pull the CVN back so that I was within strike range but well outside the SAM bubble. Then I rebuilt the defensive combat air patrols with plenty of space and no SAM threat. Not a single Russian strike aircraft got within weapons range of the CVN. The strike that popped up was kinda weak. Where I moved to they were barely able to hurt me.

The Typhoons were a late addition, however try keeping them behind the high terrain in Cyprus and then when a SA-400 launches hit the dirt and run west. You can soak off a good number of SA-400 Growler loads using them. I might just delete them as they seem superfluous.

As to boundaries, you have to stop a scenario somewhere. That is why Turkey is neutral to keep Incirlik out of the fight, otherwise we'd just hit Khmeinem AB from there. Of course if I added Incirlik then the Russians would hit it from the Crimea or southwest Russia, so then someone will want them added in. So yes I chose a boundary just west of Cyprus, gotta stop somewhere!

BTW maybe I spent too much time with Marines, but I closed with the CSG and after the carrier killing threats were neutralized I set up a gun line with the escorts and pounded both the AB and Port. So there are many ways to win. I guess I was nostalgic for my old Beirut days. [X(] [:D]

2) No MPA? There's submarines in the scenario but the only ASW platform in there is helos and CRUDES.

Big picture, this is part of a larger war and Yes NATO was caught napping trying to keep the conflict confined to the Baltics. The MPA from Sig are busy elsewhere. Other MPA are busy in the North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea (Arctic Tsunami 2019).

3) I spent most of the game trying to fix the air defenses using my Growlers and waiting for my fighters to be available, it really wasn't until the last few hours of the game that I lit up the jammers in preparation for a decisive, coordinated strike I'd been honing on my spreadsheet of death. You could speed up the game by putting at least the SA-21 on auto-detect and assume away the ISR problem.

Well this is where you can't win with this community. Above someone indicates they went into the editor to change things around with loads and such, so in reaction to that I moved the time to contact back to give players time to change out loads as they see fit. Now you say there is too much time. Can't win... [8|]

I made a few goof ups. My TLAM strikes didn't launch at the right times. I accidentally shot the first one off early because I set a mission option wrong. The other had to be launched manually after it didn't go off at all. I'm not sure why that happened there. I suspect I'd have lost fewer aircraft if it'd have gone off correctly, and hit more targets. I'll have to play it through again on the US side and then the Russian side. I couldn't quite get my SSN in position to torpedo the ships I wanted to get. Oh well... Here's my results:

Just added some teleporting in the post to Ginner above that might adjust this some. There is actually a surprise package for the SSN to take care of but it is set to only trigger about 25% of the time. Added the Syria Radars and some other aspects for some of Gunner's concerns (not all but a good number).

spreadsheet of death

Now that I would like to see! [:D] [:D]

[BeirutDude]

One other point,

Only fools choose to fight fair fights. Defense is learning how to fight back against unfair fights. Offense, on the other hand, is about massing a sufficiently large force and concentrating a sufficient volume of firepower to overwhelm the defending adversary. Very few real battles are fought with one side or the other not possessing a substantial material advantage. "Fair" fights tend to be accidental meeting engagements with no decisive outcome.

Here you are perfectly correct and I submit it would be very difficult for the Russians to hold out in Syria against a determined NATO/USN strike. Once the SA-22/Sa-400 loadouts are gone and aircraft destroyed, they are pretty much in the position the Japanese in WWII, isolated and primed for destruction. So Syria in 2019 isn't a "fair Fight" but it is the fight that "could happen"

[SeaQueen]

I played it a second time from the US side. This time I timed my TLAM strike better, and was a little less conservative, although my opening move was still to pull the carrier back. This time quite not as far. I took out the SA-21 much earlier. This time the SSN lucked out and was able to get in close to the ships I wanted to torpedo, albeit not as early as I'd have preferred.

I flew two sets of sorties, and two waves of TLAMs to achieve a "Triumph," and I was getting ready for a third. The Naval Facilities at Tartus were totally destroyed and I was preparing to strike the airbase. At this point even the Growlers were getting into the air to air action, and knocked down a couple Su-30s as they took off. I lost one EA-18 early on because he ran out of gas on final (lack of sufficient tanking). By the end I basically had air superiority over the entire Eastern Mediterranean, though.

If the timer hadn't run out, my SEAD missions would have been reconfigured with Mavericks instead of HARMS to go after those last few ZSU-23 guns, since the rest was gone. My offensive air sweep missions were being reconfigured for strike since I was able to advance far enough up the Med that the defensive counter air patrols I'd set up were overflying the Russian airbase.

The scenario is fun, but I think it could use some beefing up, particularly on the Russian side. I need to play it through a couple times from that perspective. I'll probably have some better suggestions then. My general feeling is that they're too conservative. They could make more of their defensive capabilities to push me back further in the Med. Just compare SAM ranges and strike ranges. I shouldn't be able to blow through the Eastern Med in less than 24 hours without once encountering an enemy submarine. I also can't help but think that if your your heart is set on basing the RAF in Cyprus you should add in some kind of coordinated attack against Cyprus including short range ballistic missiles. Maybe you could also add in some sort of ballistic missile defense component too.

For my second go around, I did hit a civilian ship with an errant Harpoon (he didn't sink). I didn't really care, though. Overall, it was a big victory. I think the Israelis shot at my TLAMs or something along the way too. \/\/hatever. I didn't really pay attention to it. I'm not really sure that the emphasis on civilian traffic (beautiful as though it is) adds much besides run time to the game, though. I'd rather have to fight through a more robust set of defenses starting further out.


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

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


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



SIDE: Biologics
===========================================================

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


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



SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x EA-18G Growler
5x F/A-18E Super Hornet
1x F/A-18C Hornet


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
34x AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR
25x AN/SSQ-62E DICASS
30x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
13x Meteor
8x RGM-109C Tomahawk Blk III TLAM-C
120x RGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
16x AGM-88E AARGM
17x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
4x Mk48 Mod 7 ADCAP CBASS
3x AN/ALE-55 FOTD
6x AGM-84G Harpoon ICR
14x AGM-88C HARM
22x GBU-31(V)4/B JDAM [BLU-109A/B]
4x AIM-9X Sidewinder
3x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Dual Spectral]
2x GEN-X [RT-1489/ALE] Active Expendable Decoy
12x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
10x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM



SIDE: Russia
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
3x Su-34 Fullback
8x Su-24M2 Fencer D
5x Su-25SM Frogfoot A
7x Su-30SM Flanker G
1x SKR Krivak I [Pr.1135 Burevestnik]
1x Ka-27M Helix A
1x RKR Moskva [Pr.1164 Atlant, Ex-Slava]
1x Vehicle (Grave Stone [92N2])
1x Vehicle (Cheese Board [96L6])
8x SA-21a/b Growler TEL
3x SA-16 Gimlet [9K310 Igla-1] MANPADS
1x MRK Nanuchka III [Pr.1234.1 Ovod]
2x RK Tarantul III Mod [Pr.1242.1 Molniya]
4x Structure (Naval Dock)
6x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka
2x SA-22 Greyhound [96K6 Pantsir-S1, KAMAZ-6560 8x8] TELAR
1x Structure (Power Station - Gas)
2x Building (Barracks)
9x Diesel (750k Liter Tank)
1x Structure (Railway Yard)
1x Building (Large)
1x Radar (Generic Surface Search Radar)
1x Structure (Mast)
1x Structure (Military Base)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
18x RGB-16MK [Search, Passive Omni]
4x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
36x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
100x SA-21b Growler [40N6]
64x SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM]
23x SA-22 Greyhound [57E6]
20x SA-21a Growler [48N6DM]
2x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27RE, LR SARH]
10x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH]
3x AA-10 Alamo B [R-27T, MR IR]
4x AA-11 Archer [R-73M]
1x 30mm Gsh-30-1 Burst [30 rnds]
14x 30mm 2A38M Burst [50 rnds]
187x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka Burst [50 rnds]
3x AK-630M 30mm/65 Gatling Burst [400 rnds]
4x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]



SIDE: Israel
===========================================================

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


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
6x Barak 8
1x MIM-104E Patriot PAC-2 GEM+



SIDE: Turkey
===========================================================

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


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



SIDE: Cyprus
===========================================================

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


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



The results:
Triumph
Your final score is: 10840

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

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


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



SIDE: Biologics
===========================================================

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


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



SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x EA-18G Growler
5x F/A-18E Super Hornet
1x F/A-18C Hornet


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
34x AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR
25x AN/SSQ-62E DICASS
30x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
13x Meteor
8x RGM-109C Tomahawk Blk III TLAM-C
120x RGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
16x AGM-88E AARGM
17x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
4x Mk48 Mod 7 ADCAP CBASS
3x AN/ALE-55 FOTD
6x AGM-84G Harpoon ICR
14x AGM-88C HARM
22x GBU-31(V)4/B JDAM [BLU-109A/B]
4x AIM-9X Sidewinder
3x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Dual Spectral]
2x GEN-X [RT-1489/ALE] Active Expendable Decoy
12x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
10x UGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM



SIDE: Russia
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
3x Su-34 Fullback
8x Su-24M2 Fencer D
5x Su-25SM Frogfoot A
7x Su-30SM Flanker G
1x SKR Krivak I [Pr.1135 Burevestnik]
1x Ka-27M Helix A
1x RKR Moskva [Pr.1164 Atlant, Ex-Slava]
1x Vehicle (Grave Stone [92N2])
1x Vehicle (Cheese Board [96L6])
8x SA-21a/b Growler TEL
3x SA-16 Gimlet [9K310 Igla-1] MANPADS
1x MRK Nanuchka III [Pr.1234.1 Ovod]
2x RK Tarantul III Mod [Pr.1242.1 Molniya]
4x Structure (Naval Dock)
6x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka
2x SA-22 Greyhound [96K6 Pantsir-S1, KAMAZ-6560 8x8] TELAR
1x Structure (Power Station - Gas)
2x Building (Barracks)
9x Diesel (750k Liter Tank)
1x Structure (Railway Yard)
1x Building (Large)
1x Radar (Generic Surface Search Radar)
1x Structure (Mast)
1x Structure (Military Base)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
18x RGB-16MK [Search, Passive Omni]
4x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
36x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
100x SA-21b Growler [40N6]
64x SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM]
23x SA-22 Greyhound [57E6]
20x SA-21a Growler [48N6DM]
2x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27RE, LR SARH]
10x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH]
3x AA-10 Alamo B [R-27T, MR IR]
4x AA-11 Archer [R-73M]
1x 30mm Gsh-30-1 Burst [30 rnds]
14x 30mm 2A38M Burst [50 rnds]
187x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka Burst [50 rnds]
3x AK-630M 30mm/65 Gatling Burst [400 rnds]
4x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]



SIDE: Israel
===========================================================

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


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
6x Barak 8
1x MIM-104E Patriot PAC-2 GEM+



SIDE: Turkey
===========================================================

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


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



SIDE: Cyprus
===========================================================

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


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

[BeirutDude]

but I think it could use some beefing up, particularly on the Russian side.

So the thing is that is what is currently deployed there! That is, at least the open source, OOB for the Russians in Syria. So I'm thinking scale back the Americans. Maybe disable some launchers on the ships. Also might try the tweak above (reply to Gunner) which gives the Russians some "allied" help and teleports some units.

I shouldn't be able to blow through the Eastern Med in less than 24 hours without once encountering an enemy submarine.

Did some teleportation here but you might be pulling he carrier too far west. Even the Russians can't be everywhere! [:D]

[Gunner98]

OK this is a bit trickier.

I saw the Syrian radars so thought I'd try a completely different approach. Tried to send 6x SEAD Hornets with a Growler and a couple escorts up along that back ridge. Had to thread the needle a bit in Lebanon to avoid some stuff there. Tasked another Growler to sit on top of Beirut because of some of the things I found around there. Unfortunately this approach was costly and ineffective, 5 of the 8 aircraft and no hits with the AARGMs.

Like the new setup better. Still think Turkey should have a bigger role in hemming the attack in on the northern approach. The southern sneak is more risky now which is good.

A couple mostly cosmetic bits:
-I would set merg range circles for the player sides - just a bit cleaner when you first open up.
-You should adjust the orientation of the ports. They are all pointing directly north which is the default setup but adjusting them helps your sea traffic look better and largely stop driving over land to leave port. Looks more refined as well (Select, Rt clk, Scenario editor, set orientation)

BTW, I'm with SeaQueen - there is no reason to move the carrier anywhere east of 31 Eastings. Using the Kyrenia range to shadow your AC a bit.

OK, gotta get working on something else.

Cheers, enjoyed this quite a bit.

B

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
So the thing is that is what is currently deployed there! That is, at least the open source, OOB for the Russians in Syria. So I'm thinking scale back the Americans. Maybe disable some launchers on the ships. Also might try the tweak above (reply to Gunner) which gives the Russians some "allied" help and teleports some units.

For a near-future scenario, you probably shouldn't hold yourself too closely to what's there. What's there today is probably intended to deter US aggression, support the Syrian government and attack Syrian rebels. That's a different challenge from repelling a US strike force. Also, keep in mind that the un-refueled strike radius of an F/A-18 according to the database is 450-550NM. With tanking you can go even further out. With TLAMs you've got even further out. The defense of that airbase (and Syria in general) ought to begin that far off the coast. Also, if you put up navigation areas around the declared neutral nations, you could impose some geographic constraints. I also suspect you could probably use the existing Russian forces better. I need to look at it more closely, though.

I wouldn't scale back the NATO side, though. No need to disable the launchers, although you might want to play around with different mixes of SAMs versus TLAMs. I never fired a single standard missile in either play through. Nothing got that close.

[BeirutDude]

Changes...

1. Typhoons and Akroteri AB removed
2. NAS Sigonella and P-8A Aircraft added
3. Russian Submarines all can teleport and will be closer to the CSG/CVBG
4. Moskva SAG moved to off of Latika
5. IDF and NATO are now Friendly to avoid the excessive NATO - Israeli run ins.
6. Syria now has both Radars and ADA/SAMs.
7. Russia, Hezbollah and Syria are all friendly
8. Israel and Syria/Hezbollah are unfriendly
9. Point for damage to Latika have been reduced.
10. Cost for shooting down an airliner have been substantially increased.
11. Russian SSV/AGI off Lebanon.

[BeirutDude]

A couple mostly cosmetic bits:
-I would set merg range circles for the player sides - just a bit cleaner when you first open up.

Yeah, I've tried to set this and have it only so range circles for the select unit like 30 times! Won't take.

[BeirutDude]

Adjusted the port orientation. With the above changes, at this point, I'm done!

[AlexGGGG]

By the way, one does not need a scenario editor to move anti-air units around. They can drive themselves wherever they are needed, and there is plenty of time to get into any practically useful position. All of Shilka, Pantsir, and S-400 are self-propelled.

[BeirutDude]

Thanks! [&o] I did not know that! I assumed (in the game) that they were fixed facilities like the airbases and such. [8|] I'll have to test it out.

[AlexGGGG]

Oh, once you mentioned a few times somebody is using scenedit to move units, I figured out that's me

See, in-game, what's fixed is fixed (silo-based units are unmovable), and what's movable is movable (road-mobile units) depending on the terrain (depending on terrain slope - more sloping means less speed). Terrain properties of the point where cursor is are available in the data block (confuigured in options to be either under cursor, or in the bottom-left corner, or hidden).

Also of note, least you decide to use roaming SAM patrols, that most of the movable units are not able to shoot while moving. They need to be at full stop 0 kts for OODA loop to start and to be able to fire.

[BeirutDude]

Oh, once you mentioned a few times somebody is using scenedit to move units, I figured out that's me

Actually, A few people did and I also noted it from Arctic Tsunami 2019 as well.

See, in-game, what's fixed is fixed (silo-based units are unmovable), and what's movable is movable (road-mobile units) depending on the terrain (depending on terrain slope - more sloping means less speed). Terrain properties of the point where cursor is are available in the data block (confuigured in options to be either under cursor, or in the bottom-left corner, or hidden).

Yeah, I just thought of it as an Air and Naval game and in most ground units are fixed, so I made that assumption. Could make for a neat Golan 6 October 1973 Scenario!

Also of note, least you decide to use roaming SAM patrols, that most of the movable units are not able to shoot while moving. They need to be at full stop 0 kts for OODA loop to start and to be able to fire.

Sounds good. Thanks for the help. I'm not sure if I'm going to continue to design more scenarios. Seems to be a ton of what I would design and I seem to be out of step with the community. Thinking I'm going to, at least, take a break.

[Gunner98]

I seem to be out of step with the community.

I wouldn't think that. These are good scenarios.

B

[AlexGGGG]

I seem to be out of step with the community

I can't tell for the community, but I liked your scenarios. These are fun. There are details, you know, but the details is what the forum is for, different people do things differently and so on, but by the end of the day your scenarios are fun.

[blkholsun]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
Seems to be a ton of what I would design and I seem to be out of step with the community. Thinking I'm going to, at least, take a break.

I get where you're coming from, but I think you're doing very good work. The community can be... prickly (well, only a couple of very vocal individuals are prickly but they can give the whole enterprise an unwelcoming feel), and a lot of folks seem to prefer a level of hardcore difficulty on every single scenario, even when that difficulty is contrived or unrealistic, that is outputting to less hardcore players. I have been working on a couple of very casual scenarios (e.g. US vs Venezuela) that are just simply for fun or for beginners, but am not sure that I'll ever have the courage to release them to the lions.

(very interesting what the forum software screens out. P--R--I--C--K--L--Y was the word)

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
Yeah, I just thought of it as an Air and Naval game and in most ground units are fixed, so I made that assumption. Could make for a neat Golan 6 October 1973 Scenario!

I'm always surprised people don't make more scenarios where you have to engage moving armored columns before they reach some objective area. It's a great way to play with attack helicopters. I think part of that is driven by the fact that the ground combat model is still pretty basic, but you can still have some fun tank battles with it.

...I seem to be out of step with the community...

Please don't feel that way. I liked your scenario. If I hurt your feelings with my critiques I'm very sorry, that was not my intention.

I often feel out of step with the community too, but I don't let it bother me. Don't sweat other people too much. The community is strongest when there's lots of people with lots of different ideas about how things should be done and are using Command creatively. I know I have a lot of opinions about what makes a good scenario (e.g. the player should have maximum flexibility regarding how to execute the task at hand, there should be no "correct" answer). Not everyone agrees with me. Some people like very different styles of scenario. I'm okay with that. I just don't play their scenarios, and they don't play mine (because I don't, and sometimes can't share them).

[BDukes]

Early community bosnia scenario and Chains of War:Korean Ground Game have moving armor. You should check these out.

[BeirutDude]

If I hurt your feelings with my critiques I'm very sorry, that was not my intention.

No hardly, appreciate the feedback. It is a matter of my time and the biggest bang for it. If a scenario takes my a month of free time to design and tweak and it isn't what the community is looking for, then why waste my time? That's what I'm saying.

If I can put my energy into another community and that is what they are into then all the better.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
It is a matter of my time and the biggest bang for it. If a scenario takes my a month of free time to design and tweak and it isn't what the community is looking for, then why waste my time? That's what I'm saying.

If I can put my energy into another community and that is what they are into then all the better.

I guess it depends on what you're looking for. Personally, I design scenarios because they are interesting, challenging and exciting to me, and maybe address a problem I've been thinking about, or reflect something I'd been reading about. I rarely think of a scenario as "done," and usually end up tweaking it many times. I often end up with multiple versions reflecting different tactics or orders of battle. The joy to me comes from asking questions and perhaps gaining a little insight into a problem.