High or low density scenarios?

[BeirutDude]

My point is...

1. Most of us aren't professional military officers! Personally, I left active duty in 1988 and split my six years between working with the Grunts and air ASW. None of the ships, aircraft or the last base I was stationed at (NAS Cecil Filed) exist as active components any longer.

2. We're doing this for free, in our spare time with skills that may be 20-30 years out of date.

3. Respectful suggestions for the improvement of scenarios is appreciated. So honestly, I'd love a collaborative process with you to improve scenarios I design. You have a vast knowledge base that can really help designers out, especially old farts like myself.

[SeaQueen]

I'm not an officer. I've never served. I'm just the nerd at the back of the room.

I'd be happy to collaborate. I'd love to talk about ideas. Is there a specific area you're interested in?

[thewood1]

I think just a scenario that shows how you think some of these missions should be built. Maybe take one you think has a problem and show how it's missions should be configured.

[c3k]

As a newb, I appreciate pre-built missions in the scenarios.

Obviously, missions can be deleted and newer ones created. Being at the beginning of the learning curve, it really helps me to be able to dive right into the battle and learn from the pre-built missions that are already there.

FWIW.

[SeaQueen]

Try this one:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4529957&mpage=1&key=tactical%2Cair%2Cbase%2Cpoland&#4529957

It needs to be updated and a little bit redone, but I still like it.

I just identified a really difficult DCA problem and invited the players to play through it. It should be extremely challenging, but I have, occasionally, managed to eek out a minor victory.

[SeaQueen]

My only concern about that is that in light of BeirutDude's observations, one has to ask, "What are you learning?" If the whole scenario is premised on broken assumptions, you might be learning how to fight the scenario but not really anything about how the weapons systems portrayed in the game fight. Also, in a real sense, CMO is a game about planning. So if you're just jumping in using some default plan, you're missing out on learning the real depth of the game.

ORIGINAL: c3k

As a newb, I appreciate pre-built missions in the scenarios.

Obviously, missions can be deleted and newer ones created. Being at the beginning of the learning curve, it really helps me to be able to dive right into the battle and learn from the pre-built missions that are already there.

FWIW.

[tylerblakebrandon]

I personally have a little sandbox scenario set in Cuba to try out different units and weapons. That way I can get a sense of how things perform as a baseline and try out different tactics and such. I get a baseline idea across various units and I find that useful when going into other scenarios and developing my plan of action.

[LORDPrometheus]

I look at it this way, if the USAF decided to launch operations of 70 aircraft or less after Package Q during the gulf war it is irresponsible to expect a player of command to effectively coordinate more than that on a single mission without a lot of help and automation

[thewood1]

The USAF didn't have a pause button.

[LORDPrometheus]

True but I also want my scenarios to run reasonably well so more than 150ish weapons in the air at once is to be avoided if I can.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: LORDPrometheus
True but I also want my scenarios to run reasonably well so more than 150ish weapons in the air at once is to be avoided if I can.

It depends on what you mean by "running well." The software can handle it on a decent computer. The software gets quicker almost every release, so bogging it down with weapon and sensor adjudications isn't the issue.

The problem is that at some point, the person in charge of making the decisions that Command is focused on, isn't the person that would command a force that large. They would, by necessity, manage a force that large more abstractly for the most part. In that sense, if you wanted to do a huge scenario (e.g. 100 days of war, the entire Western Pacific Theatre) then Command is probably the wrong tool for that. The person controlling that campaign, isn't weaponeering individual DMPIs. They aren't plotting ingress routes, or worrying about intercept geometry. It's an entirely different mindset.

There's a common mistake out there (both in professional wargames and in the hobby community) that operational level wargaming is just lots and lots of tactical going on simultaneously, and it's just not. I suspect it's driven by the fact that even most very experienced military officers spend most of their careers operating at the purely tactical level. If they do spend time at an operational level command then they typically don't do it for very long. It's kind of a cult that really gets how the purely operational level works. At that point, though, it's less about how to get a given strike package through, and more about broader questions, like, how do I apportion between defensive and offensive operations? How do I protect the APODs so that my forces can build up in theater over the next XX-days? Do I prioritize strikes on airbases, time sensitive targets, or logistics hubs? How does my target list correspond to the political objectives I'm trying to compel?

Once you set that kind of broad guidance, the staff plans and develops the ATO and the SPINs/DIMs etc. That in turn is subject to further modification when the wing commander calls back to the CAOC and says, "It says you need X sorties from us but we only have Y tails today because they're broken after yesterday's sorties, what's the plan?" It's a whole different dance from what's going on in CMO and I don't think does it very well. CMO comes in and says, "Here's the target for today, we need to blow up this bridge, it's defended by this, you've got these aircraft, ships and submarines, and a little bit of SOF support, go get 'em!"