Sea of Japan Crisis - Standing Fast, 1985 -- new beta for testing

[Mgellis]

It's been a while since I've written any scenarios. Here's a new one...

The scenario assumes a limited, regional war between Japan and China in 1985. The short version is that Japan and China are mad at each other, Japan tries to punish China for some bad behavior by restricting its use of the Sea of Japan, and China says "Oh, yeah? Make me." It's very much a conflict rooted in economic and political issues rather than a simple invasion.

This scenario takes place a week after the war has started. Japan needs to keep Chinese ships and submarines out of the Sea of Japan. In other words, a barrier mission.

I've got the larger situation outlined pretty well, so if there is interest, I may write other scenarios for this conflict.

As always, please let me know what you think. How well does gameplay work, do the units selected make sense, do the missions and events and scoring work properly, are the orders clearly written, etc.? Is it too challenging? Too easy? What can I do to make this a better scenario?

Thanks in advance.

Version 4 uploaded 10:15 PM CST Feb 4 2026

Screenshot 2026-01-09 203418.png (2.37 MiB) Viewed 838 times

[HalfLifeExpert]

Sweet! Downloading now!

EDIT:

First impressions look pretty good. We haven't had a lot of opportunities to make use of Japanese assets.

One thing to consider about the larger picture is the significant domestic controversy that would ensue within Japan. Since at least the 1950s, the Japanese political culture has treated military matters with great suspicion until relatively recently. Afterall, there was significant controversy over the JMSDF sending minesweepers to help with the post Gulf War cleanup in 1991/92. That's possibly one of the most benign overseas missions a nation's military can do, and yet there were alot of people very upset about it.

I think this can be reflected in scenarios by increasing the penalty for not only neutral casualties, but own-side losses when playing as Japan.

[Nikel]

Thanks for the new scenario

Minor victory with 250 points, losing all my surface naval assets. I agree with HalfLifeExpert, more penalization for own loses.


SPOILER ALERT.

Do not read if you plan to play the scenario.


Some stuff noticed:

There are some Japanese radars active while others are not, do not know if this intencional.

COMINT stations in the North have no comms/sensors. The location of all of them is distant to the area of operations, do they have any role?

The Area of Operations explained in the briefing is not indicated in the map with RPs, is it a job for the player?

I thought this 80s stuff would be better, to identify/classify the ships you need to fly at low altitude.

The Chinese ACs do not seem very active.

The PS-1 has a dipping sonar but is unable to deploy it, bug? Screenshot at loiter speed and minimum altitude. Perhaps this amphibian AC should not have a dipping sonar.

DS.png (29.01 KiB) Viewed 791 times

The key to the triumph seems to be to preserve your naval forces and do the job with the ACs and subs, the ships are quite vulnerable and the F-1A armed with ASM-1 are lethal for the Chinese warships.

In the scoring log I do not understand this one:

01-10-1985 17:04: Score changed from -200 to -260. Reason: Event Action: '-60 points' has been fired (part of Event: 'Reduced points for missile boat')

[tylerblakebrandon]

The PS-1 has a dipping sonar but is unable to deploy it, bug? Screenshot at loiter speed and minimum altitude. Perhaps this amphibian AC should not have a dipping sonar.

[/quote]

So I think this is a sim limitation at present due to how amphibious aircraft work. The PS-1 did have the dipping sonar. As indicated in the below article from Proceedings the active mode only operates when the aircraft was waterborne. Passive mode could be used in flight but was hampered by engine noise and the need to fly carefully to ensure the transducer was properly situated relative to the aircraft.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... -seaplanes

[Nikel]

So I think this is a sim limitation at present due to how amphibious aircraft work. The PS-1 did have the dipping sonar. As indicated in the below article from Proceedings the active mode code only operates when the aircraft was waterborne. Passive node could be used in flight but was hampered by engine noise and the need to fly carefully to ensure the transducer was properly situated relative to the aircraft.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... -seaplanes

Understood. Thanks for the detailed explanation

[Mgellis]

Quick question...

When I was testing this, I noticed that the Japanese air-to-surface anti-ship missiles had a very low hit rate. (One time I fired eight and they all missed. Not "shot down by the Chinese"...they all just missed.) Anyone else experience this? Were they just terrible missiles or was I somehow using them incorrectly?

Actually, this seems to be a possible issue for the Japanese. Not an error, but something that would affect tactics. If you look through the database, they've got good fighters for the 1980s--e.g., Phantoms--but they're heavily focused on air superiority. They don't have a lot of weapons designed to be launched from the air against ground targets or ships, except for basic ones like iron bombs and rockets. I guess it makes sense. At the time, they were probably thinking in terms of defending against Soviet air power but they were not planning to attack Soviet territory, so they didn't spend as much on anti-surface and anti-land weapons.

Thoughts on all this?

[Nikel]

SPOILER ALERT.




Pretty effective in my test as commented above. The AS-1 sunk 6 of the 8 chinese ships.

The Osa have no defense. The Destroyers/frigates group have decoys.

From the log file.

10-Jan-85 17:04:12 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3186 HIT: Has impacted Type 021 Huangfeng [Pr.205 Osa I Copy], No other units affected by explosion.

10-Jan-85 17:04:41 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3187 HIT: Has impacted Type 021 Huangfeng [Pr.205 Osa I Copy], No other units affected by explosion.

10-Jan-85 17:06:49 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3191 HIT: Has impacted Type 021 Huangfeng [Pr.205 Osa I Copy], No other units affected by explosion.

10-Jan-85 17:09:05 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3192 MISS: Has run out of energy... self-destructing.


10-Jan-85 23:24:46 - Decoy (Mk171 RBOC Chaffstar Chaff; Tech: N/A) from 514 Zhenjiang is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 1980S)(Guiding weapon: ASM-1 [Type 80] #3216). Final probability: 15%. Result: 56 - FAILURE

10-Jan-85 23:24:48 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3216 HIT: Has impacted 514 Zhenjiang, No other units affected by explosion.

10-Jan-85 23:24:49 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3215 HIT: Has impacted 514 Zhenjiang, No other units affected by explosion.

10-Jan-85 23:24:57 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3217 HIT: Has impacted 107 Yinchuan, No other units affected by explosion.

10-Jan-85 23:27:38 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3221 HIT: Has impacted 107 Yinchuan, No other units affected by explosion.

10-Jan-85 23:46:09 - Decoy (Mk171 RBOC Chaffstar Chaff; Tech: N/A) from 509 Changde is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 1980S)(Guiding weapon: ASM-1 [Type 80] #3226). Final probability: 15%. Result: 40 - FAILURE

10-Jan-85 23:46:09 - Decoy (Mk171 RBOC Chaffstar Chaff; Tech: N/A) from 509 Changde is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 1980S)(Guiding weapon: ASM-1 [Type 80] #3225). Final probability: 15%. Result: 14 - SUCCESS

10-Jan-85 23:46:09 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3226 MISS: Has malfunctioned.

10-Jan-85 23:46:09 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3225 MISS: All seekers were spoofed - missed target.

10-Jan-85 23:46:09 - Decoy (Mk171 RBOC Chaffstar Chaff; Tech: N/A) from 509 Changde is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 1980S)(Guiding weapon: ASM-1 [Type 80] #3227). Final probability: 15%. Result: 12 - SUCCESS

10-Jan-85 23:46:09 - Decoy (Mk171 RBOC Chaffstar Chaff; Tech: N/A) from 509 Changde is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 1980S)(Guiding weapon: ASM-1 [Type 80] #3228). Final probability: 15%. Result: 47 - FAILURE

10-Jan-85 23:46:09 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3227 MISS: All seekers were spoofed - missed target.

10-Jan-85 23:46:11 - ASM-1 [Type 80] #3228 HIT: Has impacted 509 Changde, No other units affected by explosion.

[HalfLifeExpert]

I've not completed the scenario yet (as it was getting late for me and I needed to go to bed). I left off my save having already had a couple of one-sided aerial skirmishes with J-8s. Didn't lose any Phantoms and splashed all four J-8s. One of my floatplanes also detected, and has been shadowing, what has to be the PRC surface force steaming toward the Tsushima Strait.

In light of Nikel's comments, I've decided that when I resume my playthrough after work today, I'm going to implement a sort of "house rule" to increase the challenge somewhat and to try to further reflect Japanese domestic considerations:

Even though hostilities have nominally already started between Japan and China at scenario start, I feel like there would be a strong faction in the Diet (Japanese Parliament), and possibly the PM's cabinet, trying to bring the fighting to an end out of a belief in Pacifism and trying to save lives.

The PRC will be expected to engage at some point, so this is a sort of self-imposed limitation.

With that in mind, I will refrain from engaging the PRC ships and submarines until they reach a certain point when en-route to the Sea of Japan. I'll put a couple of reference lines.

-The first Line will be connecting Kyushu and the S. Korean Jeju island. This is the "warning" line, as in when PRC ships cross this point, there will be strong diplomatic and radio rhetoric warning the Chinese to turn back or they will be fired upon. A sort of "last chance to end this" zone.

- The 2nd and final line will be just east of Tsushima island (and arguably IN the Sea of Japan). This is the red line where the Japanese forces will be weapons free against any vessel that has crossed the line (i.e. a submarine that has crossed can be engaged, but the surface ships that have not crossed cannot).

Of course my forces are free to return fire if the PRC vessels fire first, but it will be self-defense engagement only. Meaning, they can of course shoot down missiles launched against them, but cannot fire back if they receive no damage. Submarines will be an exception, as a sub that fires will be prosecuted to destruction. Surface gun engagements would be normal, as expected.

As for the air combat, I think that PRC aircraft overflying North Korean territory demonstrates a sort of hostile intent, that the JASDF can get away with shooting down small numbers of Chinese aircraft provided it's a clear victory (no Chinese aircraft make it back) where they can plausibly try to arrange things to make it look like the Chinese fired first in the engagement.

I'll report back on how this "house rule" works out later. I think it might be a worthwhile change to give a sort of interesting and immersive flavor to this Sino-Japanese war scenario.

One other note, given S. Korea's declared neutrality (and the intent of both sides to respect it), I think there should be a No-Nav zone covering that nation's territory out to around 12 NM for both sides.

[HalfLifeExpert]

I've finished my first playthrough. Got a Triumph of 800 Points.

My only casualty was a single F-4EJ Phantom lost to the tail guns of a Badger. Ended up splashing 4x J-8s and 4x Badgers, as well as all 8 Chinese ships and one submarine that one of my own SSKs stumbled into.

I destroyed all the Chinese surface ships, save one, with the ASM-1s launched from F-1s. Not all of them scored hits, but a majority did, since I made low-level attacks from well within maximum range. The one ship I didn't sink with ASM-1s was one surviving Osa-copy that evaded the missile fired at it. I ended up dispatching a rocket-armed floatplane to make a run on that missile boat, and attacking at 500ft, 5 of the 6 rockets hit, which was enough for eventual sinking.

I elected to not engage any PRC flights out to the west flying from Eastern China, due to range and fuel concerns about my Phantoms. All my air kills were aircraft flying into the Sea of Japan by using DPRK airspace. With that, I also elected to keep my 3x surface vessels no farther westward than Tsushima island, due to concerns about reliable air cover.

The only time any of my surface ships were in danger was when one Badger got close enough to a DDE to be engaged by it's AA guns. The bomber didn't drop bombs, but it took a flak hit that eventually brought it down.

As described in my previous post, I used my "Warning/Red Lines" house rule for this scenario, though I ended up moving the final "red" line to just to the WEST of Tsushima Island, rather than East. I also declared the original warning line to be a Red line after the first PRC ships crossed it, so I waited until that second group crossed the warning line before engaging.

I think one change that should be considered is deploying the two JMSDF SSKs further forward, perhaps one on each side of Tsushima island or nearby

[Mgellis]

Okay, thanks. It may just be I had an unusual test run with more failures than normal.

SPOILER ALERT.




Pretty effective in my test as commented above. The AS-1 sunk 6 of the 8 chinese ships.

The Osa have no defense. The Destroyers/frigates group have decoys.

[Mgellis]

Thanks for the feedback.

Radars...yes, I'm assuming Japan has some of them on. The COMINT stations are simply part of the .inst file for the Japanese radars, so I didn't bother deleting them; they may have a role in later scenarios.

RPs..Command already lets you add or remove latitude and longitude lines, so I figure there is no need to add RPs. The map can end up being a bit cluttered, so I usually let players decide if they want to draw an extra zone or not.

Identification of ships...it may just be that it's cloudy. But one thing I do need to fix is that the Chinese surface group has all its radars off and I should probably set up one ship using radar intermittently. The missile boats, of course, are just waiting quietly until their strike mission is triggered.

Chinese AC...they're doing their best. Most of them don't have a lot of range. And the Chinese don't seem to have any tankers in 1985. (Or, at least, they're not in the database.) I tried to figure out ways to get around this, but I think it's simply one of the constraints they would have had to deal with if they had gone to war in 1985.

PS-1's sonar...HalfLifeExpert already covered that. Thank you!

More penalization...yes. That makes sense. That's another change I'll be making. Thanks.

Thanks again. I appreciate the help.

Thanks for the new scenario

Minor victory with 250 points, losing all my surface naval assets. I agree with HalfLifeExpert, more penalization for own loses.


SPOILER ALERT.

Do not read if you plan to play the scenario.


Some stuff noticed:

There are some Japanese radars active while others are not, do not know if this intencional.

COMINT stations in the North have no comms/sensors. The location of all of them is distant to the area of operations, do they have any role?

The Area of Operations explained in the briefing is not indicated in the map with RPs, is it a job for the player?

I thought this 80s stuff would be better, to identify/classify the ships you need to fly at low altitude.

The Chinese ACs do not seem very active.

The PS-1 has a dipping sonar but is unable to deploy it, bug? Screenshot at loiter speed and minimum altitude. Perhaps this amphibian AC should not have a dipping sonar.


DS.png



The key to the triumph seems to be to preserve your naval forces and do the job with the ACs and subs, the ships are quite vulnerable and the F-1A armed with ASM-1 are lethal for the Chinese warships.

In the scoring log I do not understand this one:

01-10-1985 17:04: Score changed from -200 to -260. Reason: Event Action: '-60 points' has been fired (part of Event: 'Reduced points for missile boat')

[schweggy]

The PRC will be expected to engage at some point, so this is a sort of self-imposed limitation.

With that in mind, I will refrain from engaging the PRC ships and submarines until they reach a certain point when en-route to the Sea of Japan. I'll put a couple of reference lines.

-The first Line will be connecting Kyushu and the S. Korean Jeju island. This is the "warning" line, as in when PRC ships cross this point, there will be strong diplomatic and radio rhetoric warning the Chinese to turn back or they will be fired upon. A sort of "last chance to end this" zone.

- The 2nd and final line will be just east of Tsushima island (and arguably IN the Sea of Japan). This is the red line where the Japanese forces will be weapons free against any vessel that has crossed the line (i.e. a submarine that has crossed can be engaged, but the surface ships that have not crossed cannot).

Maybe use those reference lines or zones that when crossed or entered by the Chinese side a message to the player or an event is triggered to make the sides unfriendly, then hostile to one another? Something along the lines of a "news break" type message indicating government meeting to discuss options, etc. Then another one about Japan's posture and ROE? It might emulate Japan's political considerations.

[Mgellis]

Just uploaded version two. Tweaked a few things like the position of the submarines, making the Koreas a no-navy zone for the Japanese, updating the orders, increased the penalty for Japanese losses, and added a coast guard OPV with a helicopter. Might be useful for tracking the Chinese ships, but also vulnerable to missile fire.

As always, please let me know what you think. How good is this scenario and how can I make it better?

Thanks in advance.

[SunlitZelkova]

Quick question...

When I was testing this, I noticed that the Japanese air-to-surface anti-ship missiles had a very low hit rate. (One time I fired eight and they all missed. Not "shot down by the Chinese"...they all just missed.) Anyone else experience this? Were they just terrible missiles or was I somehow using them incorrectly?

Actually, this seems to be a possible issue for the Japanese. Not an error, but something that would affect tactics. If you look through the database, they've got good fighters for the 1980s--e.g., Phantoms--but they're heavily focused on air superiority. They don't have a lot of weapons designed to be launched from the air against ground targets or ships, except for basic ones like iron bombs and rockets. I guess it makes sense. At the time, they were probably thinking in terms of defending against Soviet air power but they were not planning to attack Soviet territory, so they didn't spend as much on anti-surface and anti-land weapons.

Thoughts on all this?

Yes, in addition to weighing extremely heavily toward pure defensive action, JSDF doctrine was developed by each service branch independently at the time. From a blurb I wrote in a JMSDF order of battle document I created for another user here (coincidentally, for 1985!):

The JMSDF and the JASDF had “discussed” joint operations, but by 1985 there was little framework in place for such operations. The JMSDF was “on its own”- it would focus entirely on defending Japan’s territorial waters. Air defence assets were intended for the protection of the fleet, while maintaining control of Japan’s airspace was the job of the JASDF. Thus, the JASDF did not plan to protect any JMSDF formations by flying combat air patrols over them. At the same time, the JASDF had extremely limited strike capabilities, mainly intended for CAS in the event of an invasion of Hokkaido, and maritime strikes would likely only be conducted against an enemy amphibious fleet, not in support of standard ASuW operations.

So the JASDF, being an air warfare branch, did not give much thought to attacking ships. The JMSDF did give thought to air defense, as it actually wanted to buy AV-8 Harriers and operate them from Shirane-class DDHs—the "VTOL aircraft being operated from helicopter carriers" concept dates to this time, with the advent of the Backfire being the impetus for it. But many in the US government and military were of the generation that had vivid memories of the Attack on Pearl Harbor, so the proposal never saw the light of day. It was thus left as a heavily ASW-oriented navy, which is probably why Nikel noted that the surface vessels were so vulnerable.

Of course, for the purposes of your scenario, the JSDF can improvise, and there is historical evidence to reason they could have done this in the 1980s. In recent years, Japan's acquisition of Tomahawks and NSMs to attack missile bases in North Korea has been talked about a lot. But what is not well known is that the discussions about attacking enemy bases began in the late 1990s and early 2000s, after North Korea's nuclear effort became serious. Because it would have been politically unacceptable to buy cruise missiles, the government actually considered using F-1s with iron bombs to carry out that mission! By one account, the need to refuel strike aircraft to reach North Korea was part of the motivation for the purchase of the KC-767s later in the 2000s.

So a JASDF suddenly tasked with closing the Sea of Japan to Chinese shipping could easily try to adapt to a strike role, despite mainly training for air defense.

I've downloaded V2 and will be eager to try it out tomorrow. If you'd like, I can also share that 1985 OOB document.

[SunlitZelkova]

As it turns out I won't be able to contribute to testing this scenario as it is built in a more recent version of the DB and I don't use the beta updates. I'll look forward to having a go at it when the next official update is released though!

Here is a PDF of the JMSDF 1985 OOB document I created. It details the organization of JMSDF units relevant to CMO (i.e. ships, submarines, and aircraft) circa January 1st, 1985, and includes notes for changes to the OOB that occurred throughout the year, including a multi-month training cruise of a trio of surface vessels in American waters in the middle of the year. It also includes a guide to which exact entry in the DB best represents each unit at the time (the Uzushio-class subs in particular are represented by multiple entries in the DB due to it having different sub-modifications). Lastly, I also wrote a brief blurb about JMSDF strategy.

Good luck with further development of this scenario and any future ones in this series!

[HalfLifeExpert]

I've completed a turn a Version 2. Got a triumph of 840 with no losses to the Japanese.

Ended up sinking all the PLAN warships and submarines, and brought down 4x Badgers.

Honestly, the J-8s in Manchuria and Eastern China based aircraft are really a non-threat. The J-8s don't seem to have the range to get too far, and the mainland-based ones don't really go any further east than Jejo island.

The one change I would suggest is to increase the threat from the Badgers based in Manchuria, by having more than two launch at a given time. that will give more challenge to the JASDF Phantoms.

[Nikel]

v2 Tested.

This file is different from the first one, however it is also dated (modified) the 15 of January, is it the v2 you wanted to upload?

The history of Chinese tankers. Perhaps you may do a, what if they already have one AC operational in 1985.


https://sinodefence.wordpress.com/2017/ ... ker-fleet/

https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Tan ... grams.html


Table according to chatGPT.

ChTT.png (38.44 KiB) Viewed 485 times

SPOILERS ALERTS.


Triumph with 700 points.



As I commented in the first version, the Japanese surface ships are very vulnerable (like the Chinese), I roleplayed it and assumed that superior orders were given, retreat to port (Added Maizuru Naval base), and they spent the scenario time RTB. I would add Maizuru and Sasebo naval bases to the scenario. Only 2 Badgers attacked them and were shot down by the Chikugo guns.








The scenario can be won by the Japanese using the ACs and subs and in v2 it was not different.

Chinese naval groups were identified and classified by a P-3C Orion at low altitude, they however do not engage the Japanese AC, they should be more active in this role.

This message still appears in the scoring log and I think it is wrong, why -60 points for the Japanese side?

01-10-1985 09:23: Score changed from 40 to -20. Reason: Event Action: '-60 points' has been fired (part of Event: 'Reduced points for missile boat')

This time the ASM-1 sunk the 4 Osas and 1 of the destroyers, the rest were dispatched by torpedos from both subs.

The rest of the scenario was spent trying to locate and sink the red subs, only 1 was by a Mk46 Torpedo from a P-3C Orion AC.

I would remove the PS-1 ACs from the scenario, with their annoying problem with the dipping sonar, they are a pain. Or perhaps remove the DS from their sensors.

Also consider adding an end of scenario with a victory message when both naval groups are sunk, I understand from the briefing that this is the objective of the scenario, the subs are optional?

Or alternatively, when you sink all the surface ships, add a message stating that the subs are still a menace and they must be sunk. End of scenario with victory message if this is done, or play till the end if not.



Some pics to illustrate.

1.png (76.69 KiB) Viewed 513 times

2.png (116.16 KiB) Viewed 513 times

3.png (93.51 KiB) Viewed 512 times

AS OF: 10-Jan-85 19:36:49

SIDE: Japan
===========================================================

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


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
54x 40mm/70 Twin Bofors DP Burst [8 rnds]
82x 76mm/50 Twin Frag Burst [2 rnds]
8x ASM-1 [Type 80]
2x Generic Active Directional Sonobuoy
10x J/HQS-32B CASS [AN/SSQ-50]
1x J/HQS-6 Jezebel LOFAR [AN/SSQ-41B]
2x Mk46 LWT Mod 2
12x Type 72
1x Type 73



SIDE: China
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x H-6C Badger
4x Type 021 Huangfeng [Pr.205 Osa I Copy]
1x Type 033 Romeo
2x Type 051 Luda I [106 Xian]
2x Type 053H Jianghu I [516 Jiujiang]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
2x A.244
3x FQF-2500 Anti-Torpedo Depth Charge Salvo [12 rnds]
8x Mk171 RBOC Chaffstar Chaff



SIDE: Neutrals
===========================================================

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


EXPENDITURES:

[Mgellis]

Sorry for the confusion...I wanted the Japanese to get 100 points for the larger ships but only 40 points for the missile boats. Killing a missile boat automatically triggers TWO events (a Chinese ship (all types) is sunk AND a Chinese missile boat is sunk) so it seemed like the easiest way to set it up was to knock the points down if the second event was triggered. I suppose I could go back and create separate events for all of the different ships types, though.

This message still appears in the scoring log and I think it is wrong, why -60 points for the Japanese side?

01-10-1985 09:23: Score changed from 40 to -20. Reason: Event Action: '-60 points' has been fired (part of Event: 'Reduced points for missile boat')

[Nikel]

Understood, so it is WAD.

100-60=40 for the Osas.

[Mgellis]

Thanks for all the feedback. This is very helpful.

I wonder if the Japanese surface ships would be ordered to remain on station for political reasons. It is risky, but the Japanese government does not want to look like they're afraid of the Chinese. However, I could certain modify the orders to explain that the surface vessels should not take unnecessary risks and should leave the hunting to the aircraft and the submarines. Maybe that's the solution--the ships have to remain on station, or it's considered a political loss. Meanwhile, if the Chinese get too close, the Japanese submarines and aircraft will engage them. Of course, if they fail to stop the surface group, the Japanese ships will have to defend themselves. And the Chinese have a LOT of anti-ship missiles.

I was torn about having more bombers in each flight. The bombers are the only planes that can reach the ships, but they're very vulnerable to the F-4s. And the bombers are not making a big strike as much as just going on patrol, probing Japanese defenses, and looking for targets of opportunity. I did not think there would be huge numbers of them at this stage of the conflict and I didn't want there to be an unrealistically big slaughter of them. But maybe I'll increase the flight to four ships, instead of two?

I like the idea that the Chinese might have had a couple of tankers...not sure who they would have bought them from since I think they were still feuding with the Soviets. Maybe France? Of course, I'm not sure any of their fighters in 1985 could actually do in-flight refueling. I'll look into it, though.

I'll also see what I can do about making the Chinese ships respond more aggressively to aircraft. One problem is I don't think any of the ships in the surface group have SAMs. I'll have to see what other ships, etc. were available at the time and/or give one of the destroyers a hypothetical/experimental SAM system. Maybe give them some HQ-61s a few years early?

I think the right file got uploaded, but I will double check.

Again, thanks for the feedback. Any other thoughts on this version?

v2 Tested.

This file is different from the first one, however it is also dated (modified) the 15 of January, is it the v2 you wanted to upload?

The history of Chinese tankers. Perhaps you may do a, what if they already have one AC operational in 1985.

https://sinodefence.wordpress.com/2017/ ... ker-fleet/

https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Tan ... grams.html


SPOILERS ALERTS.

Triumph with 700 points.

As I commented in the first version, the Japanese surface ships are very vulnerable (like the Chinese), I roleplayed it and assumed that superior orders were given, retreat to port (Added Maizuru Naval base), and they spent the scenario time RTB. I would add Maizuru and Sasebo naval bases to the scenario. Only 2 Badgers attacked them and were shot down by the Chikugo guns.

The scenario can be won by the Japanese using the ACs and subs and in v2 it was not different.

Chinese naval groups were identified and classified by a P-3C Orion at low altitude, they however do not engage the Japanese AC, they should be more active in this role.