Kearsarge Comes to Pemba Island, 1967 -- new beta for testing

[Mgellis]

It's been a while, but here is a new beta for people to test.

It's a slightly alternate version of the Cold War--the big change is that the Soviet Union invested more heavily in their African allies during the 1960s and 1970s. When global tensions increase in 1967, a carrier group centered around Kearsarge is sent to investigate Soviet forces based at Tanzania.

As always, I am interested in any feedback people can provide. How well does this play? Is it sufficiently challenging? Too hard? Too easy? Are the orders clear? Do the events function properly? Is the whole thing plausible enough that people can suspend any disbelief and enjoy the scenario? (Kearsarge is an ASW carrier at this point, but since CINCPAC is initially not expecting hostilities and only wants to gather intelligence, and let the Soviets know we're watching them in East Africa, sending her with a few escorts, and letting her borrow a couple of squadrons from Forrestal seems reasonable.) Anything else I can do to make the scenario better, more challenging, more fun, more interesting, etc.?

Thanks in advance!

Version 4 submitted 10:25 CST September 17, 2024

Pemba 1.JPG (321.67 KiB) Viewed 1338 times

[HalfLifeExpert]

A most excellent first impression!

Will report back after completing a playthrough, though I had a look at the scenario platform list and there doesn't seem to be any biologics/false contacts.

Given that there are Soviet subs in the scenario, I feel that there should be at least a few bits of underwater nature so as to not make ASW unrealistically straightforward.


Also, perhaps the scenario description should also mention an alternate and early expansion of the Soviet Navy, due to the presence of ****REDACTED********

Maybe Khrushchev agreed to Gorshkov's proposals in the 50s instead of his hand being forced by the 1962 Quarantine of Cuba

[HalfLifeExpert]

I've completed my first playthrough. I will give most details in a PM to Mark so as to not spoil certain aspects of the scenario.

Overall I think this is good, but some work on the events and Soviet behavior may be in order, in addition to my prior comments.

[Mgellis]

I've completed my first playthrough. I will give most details in a PM to Mark so as to not spoil certain aspects of the scenario.

Overall I think this is good, but some work on the events and Soviet behavior may be in order, in addition to my prior comments.

Excellent comments. Thank you. I've implemented most of the changes you've suggested and added a few more minor ones that should make things a little more challenging. I'll post a revised version in a couple of days.

Thanks again.

[Mgellis]

Just posted version 2. Some minor changes implemented, including a change in Soviet bombers. For some reason, the Tu-22s would not attack and I could not figure out what I was doing wrong with them, so I have replaced them with Bisons, which do not seem to have this problem. I don't think it was a database error as much as a difference between the sensors on the two aircraft (or their missiles) that was causing the problem. (Of course, now there is the issue that a lot more missiles will be flying towards the American ships, but that's the kind of issue we want in Command, isn't it? )

Again, I hope people will post feedback on the scenario. Is it ready for the Community Scenario Pack at this point or are there other changes, corrections, etc. that should be made? Thanks in advance.

[Nikel]

Thanks for the new scenario!

I am learning a lot and find it fascinating because the timing is the transition from classic ADs to missile ships.



SPOILERS, SO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED IT YET.

OK, some comments, stuff I learned, etc.


I would like more details in the scenario description on why are the russians in Tanzania.

The main problem I found was a discrepancy on the timing between the CINCPAC messages and what is going on in the Indian Ocean.

They arrive too late, I have been engaging the Soviets for a while and the message tell me weapons hold or tight.

The scenario ending (winning) is only by time? I mean I get a triumph by points, the soviet armada is sunk and still no end yet.

If your carrier is sunk and this means the end of the scenario I would expect a bit more of drama in the message text.

The contrary of drama if "the soviet monster" is sunk

When my fleet is located in the waters East of Penga, the Soviet reconnaissance ACs still follow the same route and are easy targets, the MiGs are not very good protecting them. Perhaps this is related with the AI, not the scenario.

The AD of Tanga remained passive when I was already hostile and sent several ACs. For comparison they were active on Penga.

There is a town marker south of Tanga without name and in the water, south of it it is said Pangani in a pier.


What I learned:

Get ready your carrier ACs, you do not know when you will need them and if the carrier is hit perhaps they will not take off.

What may be very powerful in a long range, may be useless in the short range

To identify units is better a low altitude flight, at least in 1967. Or where are my reconnaissance drones?!

The subs are very slow



Not related directly with your scenario but with the engine:

The cruiser Worden was hit but did not sink for a long time, remained out of comms. Sent ACs but did not provide more info on the situation of the ship and could not rescue it.

Where it was located there was a constant "New surface contact..." messages.

Is this what is supposed to happen when a ship comms system is destroyed but the ship is not sunk?

[HalfLifeExpert]

Just posted version 2. Some minor changes implemented, including a change in Soviet bombers. For some reason, the Tu-22s would not attack and I could not figure out what I was doing wrong with them, so I have replaced them with Bisons, which do not seem to have this problem. I don't think it was a database error as much as a difference between the sensors on the two aircraft (or their missiles) that was causing the problem. (Of course, now there is the issue that a lot more missiles will be flying towards the American ships, but that's the kind of issue we want in Command, isn't it? )

Again, I hope people will post feedback on the scenario. Is it ready for the Community Scenario Pack at this point or are there other changes, corrections, etc. that should be made? Thanks in advance.

Sweet! I'll give it a go after work today!

[HalfLifeExpert]

I've played Version 2.

It's definitely more of a challenge now that the Soviet Surface force isn't so close to the Galveston from the start.

A few things I noticed though:

-The Soviet surface force is a little messed up in terms of speed, because the flagship sprinted far ahead of the other 3 vessels at 33kts for no apparent reason, making it VERY vulnerable to air attack.

-Upon hostilities commencing, it seems that some Soviet bombers were already airborne or had just taken off, and well, they inexplicably fired their cruise missiles in apparently random directions northward. Maybe my jamming was doing too good of a job? But those missiles were so off the mark one was headed roughly to Mt. Kilimanjaro!

- The opening distance between the Galveston and the Kearsarge makes defending against the inevitable Shaddock attacks challenging, perhaps a bit TOO challenging? My Phantoms were not able to down any, and the Galveston was only able to bag a couple of them, probably due to range.

-I did spot what I can assume to be a Tanzanian patrol boat approx. to the SW of the Galveston, but after some time it simply came to a full stop and never moved again, probably not intentional, right?

I'll give it another go and report back, but with the Soviet surface force repositioned, perhaps the Galveston and Kearsarge should start somewhat closer together?

[Mgellis]

Thanks for the feedback.

I had not really thought about why the Soviets were in Tanzania beyond wanting more allies, access to critical minerals like cobalt, etc. But I am starting to work on version 3 of the scenario (probably the final version...you can tweak a scenario forever, but eventually it's going to be as good as you can make it and you just have to let it go and stand on its own merits) and will add a sentence or two of further explanation.

The timing issue for messages from CINCPAC is simply that I assume it takes a while for the President to be consulted, etc. Hold already means you are allowed to shoot back if someone is shooting at you. Tight means you are allowed to shoot first, but you have to make sure what you're aiming at is actually hostile. There is another level called Weapons Free, but I usually don't use that in orders because it basically means you can shoot at anything that isn't known to be friendly, even when you don't know what it is, so I figure you only get a weapons release like that in the most dire of circumstances. (If anyone out there is an actual military officer and I'm using this wrong, please let me know.)

I agree that the Cold War is a fascinating period. For me one thing that is intriguing is the large number of different platforms that never got tested in actual combat.

I left the end of the scenario mostly open-ended so that people could choose how they would pursue their mission goals. I'm assuming the US does not know much about what the Soviets currently have in Tanzania...that's why the Kearsarge was initially sent to take a look. But I will clarify that in the messages (i.e., CINCPAC will let the player know there is a time limit, etc.)

Issues with the SAMs and the aircraft may be due to the AI, but I will check to see if there are any mission settings I can use that will improve things.

You're not supposed to attack the towns, so they are mostly markers so player knows where they are/groups of infrastructure civilians need/etc. There may be Soviet mobile ground units nearby that you can attack, though.

Again, thanks for the feedback. I will probably post version 3 sometime next week.

Thanks for the new scenario!

I am learning a lot and find it fascinating because the timing is the transition from classic ADs to missile ships.



SPOILERS, SO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED IT YET.

OK, some comments, stuff I learned, etc.


I would like more details in the scenario description on why are the russians in Tanzania.


The main problem I found was a discrepancy on the timing between the CINCPAC messages and what is going on in the Indian Ocean.

They arrive too late, I have been engaging the Soviets for a while and the message tell me weapons hold or tight.

The scenario ending (winning) is only by time? I mean I get a triumph by points, the soviet armada is sunk and still no end yet.

If your carrier is sunk and this means the end of the scenario I would expect a bit more of drama in the message text.

The contrary of drama if "the soviet monster" is sunk

When my fleet is located in the waters East of Penga, the Soviet reconnaissance ACs still follow the same route and are easy targets, the MiGs are not very good protecting them. Perhaps this is related with the AI, not the scenario.

The AD of Tanga remained passive when I was already hostile and sent several ACs. For comparison they were active on Penga.

There is a town marker south of Tanga without name and in the water, south of it it is said Pangani in a pier.


What I learned:

Get ready your carrier ACs, you do not know when you will need them and if the carrier is hit perhaps they will not take off.

What may be very powerful in a long range, may be useless in the short range

To identify units is better a low altitude flight, at least in 1967. Or where are my reconnaissance drones?!

The subs are very slow



Not related directly with your scenario but with the engine:

The cruiser Worden was hit but did not sink for a long time, remained out of comms. Sent ACs but did not provide more info on the situation of the ship and could not rescue it.

Where it was located there was a constant "New surface contact..." messages.

Is this what is supposed to happen when a ship comms system is destroyed but the ship is not sunk?

[Nikel]

Thanks for the detailed explanations.


The timing reminded me to Napoleon when he wanted to manage the Peninsular War seated from Paris, he sent dispatches from outdated info and when they arrived to Spain or Portugal they were outdated because the situation has already changed, repeat.

I did not attack the towns, but the soviet forces in the port and at land.

This is the pic displaying the no name town marker in the water, and Pangani in a Pier.

T.png (7.01 KiB) Viewed 909 times

The game does not display any pic for the S-2E tracker aircraft, even though there is one for Aircraft 259, is it also happening to you?


Found this CIA document detailing the situation of Russia and China Navies and Air forces in 1967. It is difficult to read and in your scenario the russian forces are already deployed, so not sure you may extract useful data. Just a curiosity.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CI ... 0054-7.pdf


Strangely, a similar document for the second half of the year is empty.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CI ... 0011-6.pdf

[Nikel]

-Upon hostilities commencing, it seems that some Soviet bombers were already airborne or had just taken off, and well, they inexplicably fired their cruise missiles in apparently random directions northward. Maybe my jamming was doing too good of a job? But those missiles were so off the mark one was headed roughly to Mt. Kilimanjaro!

I have seen russian missiles heading to American naval forces that turned course, but with the scenario far more advanced, also thought that there was the jamming effect of the Vigilantes, but not sure because other times they were not so effective.

A page dedicated to the Vigilantes ACs.

https://www.airvectors.net/ava5.html

[Mgellis]

Just uploaded version 3. I made a few changes, put the Galveston group a little closer to the carrier, changed the briefing format (I've been told the DIMS (daily intent messages) format is preferable...and it does seem like it will be easier for players without military experience to understand), etc.

Please take a look. I'm assuming this version is pretty much ready to go and unless there are errors, issues, etc. that still have to be dealt with, I will probably send it to the Community Scenario Pack in a week or so.

Thanks for all your help!

[HalfLifeExpert]

Just uploaded version 3. I made a few changes, put the Galveston group a little closer to the carrier, changed the briefing format (I've been told the DIMS (daily intent messages) format is preferable...and it does seem like it will be easier for players without military experience to understand), etc.

Please take a look. I'm assuming this version is pretty much ready to go and unless there are errors, issues, etc. that still have to be dealt with, I will probably send it to the Community Scenario Pack in a week or so.

Thanks for all your help!

Will give it a go in a couple hours when I'm off work.

FYI I was just fine with the previous briefing format you were using (and I've never served in any military force), but I'll see how the new format is.

[HalfLifeExpert]

I've completed a playthrough on Version 3.

It was a hard fight, but I lost practically my entire force save for my two subs.

These are the standout issues:

1) Is the Soviet surface force supposed to break up and all 4 ships operate independently? That seems to happen every time. While the two larger Soviet ships can withstand some punishment, I'd think they'd still want SAM cover from the destroyers right?

2) I don't know if this is a Scenario issue or an issue with Command itself (I'm not running any beta), but ZERO of my ship's SAMs, (Galveston, Barney, or Carrier escorts) were able to hit any Shaddocks fired at them or the carrier. One Phantom was able to blast one Shaddock with a Sparrow, and several of the Shaddocks were apparently spoofed by Jamming, but I lost Barney to a Shaddock, as well as Galveston taking a serious hit and my AOE being crippled and immobile.

3) For the Soviet's Air-Launched ASCMs, I don't think any of my assets were able to engage them, since they are VERY supersonic (1980kts), and I lost one of my carrier's escorts to them. Additionally, the first salvos of them, as before, strangely fired northward along the African coast, far from any of my assets at nothing in particular.

I wasn't really able to go after any of the land/anchorage targets because I had my hands full trying to knock out the Soviet Flagship (and the other ships), and damned she really withstood ALOT of hits, including 4x Bullpup Bs, and MANY Mk82s. Was ultimately not able to destroy her before I lost Kearsarge to a follow-up bomber missile attack.

Never got into any proper Air-to-Air engagements against MiG-21s save for one 2v2 battle in which I did win.

While the failure against Shaddocks COULD be a current Command issue rather than this scenario, I feel that the Soviet bombers kind of break the scenario. Perhaps swap them for fighter-bombers or shorter range sub-sonic missiles?

I'm afraid this could use some more time in the oven.

[Nikel]

Was badly defeated even though I thought I knew the scenario

The last battle, the carrier alone that has survived, vs the Monster (hit several times but still alive) and the surviving Bisons...

The sub Plunger is always too far away and too slow. The sub Sculpin at least this time managed to hit one of the escort ships of the Monster.

But the question is, who sent the Kearsarge, an ASW carrier, to fight these battles!

The Soviet subs, supposedly so dangerous, are toys compared with the long range missiles of the Monster and the Bisons.


Congrats Mr Mgellis for this very intriguing and exciting scenario.

Will fight again when I recover of the long battle

[Nikel]

2) I don't know if this is a Scenario issue or an issue with Command itself (I'm not running any beta), but ZERO of my ship's SAMs, (Galveston, Barney, or Carrier escorts) were able to hit any Shaddocks fired at them or the carrier. One Phantom was able to blast one Shaddock with a Sparrow, and several of the Shaddocks were apparently spoofed by Jamming, but I lost Barney to a Shaddock, as well as Galveston taking a serious hit and my AOE being crippled and immobile.

3) For the Soviet's Air-Launched ASCMs, I don't think any of my assets were able to engage them, since they are VERY supersonic (1980kts), and I lost one of my carrier's escorts to them. Additionally, the first salvos of them, as before, strangely fired northward along the African coast, far from any of my assets at nothing in particular.

While the failure against Shaddocks COULD be a current Command issue rather than this scenario, I feel that the Soviet bombers kind of break the scenario. Perhaps swap them for fighter-bombers or shorter range sub-sonic missiles?

Running 1328.18.

Here is one Shaddock hit by the Galveston in my last game:

18/08/1967 2:12:46 - Weapon: RIM-8E Talos #340 is attacking SS-N-3a Shaddock [P-6, ASM] #313 with a base PH of 50%. Target speed modifier: -5%. Target signature modifier: -25% (Director [AN/SPG-49] has tech-gen: Early 1970s). Intercept angle is 358 deg - hit probability adjusted to 20%.Final PH: 20%. Result: 2 - HIT

And by the Destroyer Barney:

18/08/1967 2:17:00 - Weapon: RIM-24C Tartar #346 is attacking SS-N-3a Shaddock [P-6, ASM] #316 with a base PH of 45%. Target speed modifier: -5%. Target signature modifier: -25% (Director [AN/SPG-51 [Mk74 FCS]] has tech-gen: Late 1960s). Intercept angle is 357 deg - hit probability adjusted to 15%.Final PH: 15%. Result: 9 - HIT

But it is difficult with many more misses than hits.


Regarding the anti-ship missiles, they are indeed deadly. But they also have a lot of failures, I even saw one impacting a Soviet ship:

18/08/1967 5:41:02 - Weapon: AS-6 Kingfish A Mod 1 [KSR-5, ASM] #571 has impacted SSV Okean.

[Mgellis]

Thanks for the feedback.

I'll see what I can do with the Soviet SAG. I noticed that problem, too. Maybe I need to make a slower ship the lead...the game may be set up that the lead sets the speed and everyone else keeps up with it. Or gets left behind.

I think the problem with the Shadrocks is that it's 1967 and the early generation of SAMs may have been designed to deal with aircraft, not missiles. I think they're also sea skimmers, flying so low that it may be hard to get a lock on them. So it may not be an error...it may just be really hard for the American SAMs to deal with them and the only way to knock them down is with aircraft.

I'll move Plunger a little closer to the path of the SAG.

As for why Kearsarge got sent...basically, the US got caught with its pants down. No one was expecting the Soviet attack in the South China Sea and Kearsarge had been initially sent to gather intelligence and show the flag. America was busy with the war in Vietnam and did not want to send a CVA, especially with one of them damaged by a serious fire. Kearsarge and its group was what we had available and was viewed as sufficient to handle what the Soviets had in Tanzania. Again, the scenario is partly about politicians miscalculating and the military having to do the best it can with what it has.

Not sure what to do about the Soviet bombers...the first group didn't work at all and now this one is working too well. I'll try to find something in the middle.

I'll get to work on Version 4. Thanks again.

[Nikel]

I'll see what I can do with the Soviet SAG. I noticed that problem, too. Maybe I need to make a slower ship the lead...the game may be set up that the lead sets the speed and everyone else keeps up with it. Or gets left behind.

I think the problem with the Shadrocks is that it's 1967 and the early generation of SAMs may have been designed to deal with aircraft, not missiles. I think they're also sea skimmers, flying so low that it may be hard to get a lock on them. So it may not be an error...it may just be really hard for the American SAMs to deal with them and the only way to knock them down is with aircraft.

I'll move Plunger a little closer to the path of the SAG.

As for why Kearsarge got sent...basically, the US got caught with its pants down. No one was expecting the Soviet attack in the South China Sea and Kearsarge had been initially sent to gather intelligence and show the flag. America was busy with the war in Vietnam and did not want to send a CVA, especially with one of them damaged by a serious fire. Kearsarge and its group was what we had available and was viewed as sufficient to handle what the Soviets had in Tanzania. Again, the scenario is partly about politicians miscalculating and the military having to do the best it can with what it has.

Not sure what to do about the Soviet bombers...the first group didn't work at all and now this one is working too well. I'll try to find something in the middle.

I'll get to work on Version 4. Thanks again.

The Soviet Monster is indeed a very fast ship.

Hitting the Shaddocks is difficult but possible, posted a pair of examples above.

Thanks for the Plunger position change.

Regarding the pants and the politicians, mission accomplished

Better solution to send the Nimitz, 1975 version, in a time travel. And perfect moment to watch The Final Countdown, 1980 movie

[Mgellis]

I just uploaded version 4. Thanks again to everyone for the feedback. Is there anything else that needs to be done (corrections, issues with the events, etc.) or is it ready for the Community Scenario Pack?

Thanks again.

[HalfLifeExpert]

I've completed a playthrough of version 4.

Found it more manageable, though it's still kind of a dice toss with those Shaddocks. You really NEED your Jammers to have a hope of surviving them, though I always seem to loose my AOE to them (3x Shaddock hits this time). That being said, the Shaddocks are NOT sea skimmers, as their cruising altitude is 20k ft, and cruising speed is 670kts. My ships and Phantoms were able to fire plenty of missiles at them, but I don't think ANY SAMs scored a hit, and only a couple Sparrows found targets.

I was able just barely thwart all of the bomber attacks, now apparently only armed with iron bombs. I was able to win all F-4 vs MiG21 encounters.

As for the soviet surface ships. I ended up sinking all but one destroyer, but that flagship withstood ALOT of punishment, I put at least 3x Bullpup Bs, several Mk82s, some Mk81s and at least 4 Mk14 torpedoes (all over a period of over 24 hours in-game), before she finally came to a halt and sank. I lost Barney, and several Skyhawks in an effort to bring her down along with the two Gun cruisers. Galveston was also crippled and out of comms in a surface engagement with it. Perhaps I should have concentrated all of my Skyhawks against it instead of also hitting the gun cruisers, but it still was a bastard to take down.

I decided to call it when the soviet flagship went down, as that got my points up to "Major Victory" at 780.

I suppose the tech of the time just makes intercepting Shaddocks a dice toss for the USN, though I was able to blast a couple with Sparrows, and several were evaded with jamming.

I had my hands full and was ground down so much with the air and sea battle that I was left with an exhausted force that would be bonkers to try and strike any of the land or anchored soviet assets, though I was also able to sink both a Foxtrot and a November.

I did attempt to sink the surfaced Juliett SSG at the outset of hostilities, as I decided to have a Zuni and Torpedo armed Tracker nearby where it was on the surface. it dived down, stationary, when I got close, so I DID at least significantly delay it firing. The Tracker, after dropping both torpedoes and firing it's rockets at the sub tender, was miraculously able to survive 4x MiG-21s by flying low. It did make it back to Kearsarge with Minor Damage.

Having 2x Phantoms and 2x Skyhawks effectively out of the fight (needing 24 hours to be ready) was a headache, though It is realistic i suppose.

As for that flagship, I really don't want to see it go as it's possibly a first appearance for it in a scenario, so PERHAPS you could put in a code where if it's damage gets at or above, say, 85-90% the system neutralizes it with a special message that the soviet crew elected to abandon/scuttle the ship? Otherwise, I feel that players will just exhaust their assets JUST against that one ship.

That's honestly the only improvement I can think of, save for the inherent roll of the dice over defending against the Shaddocks.