New Scenario: Amphibious Assault on Kharg Island (2026)

[Knightpawn]

You didn't encounter any MANPADS?

There where 9 after all. They were probably obliterated by the storm-breakers while they were generic detections (flower shaped icons)

Screenshot 2026-07-03 015556.png (95.37 KiB) Viewed 196 times

[DWReese]

One more question: Did you use "missions" for your aircraft, or did you manually direct them from target to target? I just replayed my scenario. I always use missions, but this time I micromanaged my planes. With me doing it it was much more efficient, and few missiles were wasted. This may explain why I occasionally experience defeat because the missions are being controlled by the computer, and not me. I've always believed in missions, that's why I use them.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[Knightpawn]

One more question: Did you use "missions" for your aircraft, or did you manually direct them from target to target? I just replayed my scenario. I always use missions, but this time I micromanaged my planes. With me doing it it was much more efficient, and few missiles were wasted. This may explain why I occasionally experience defeat because the missions are being controlled by the computer, and not me. I've always believed in missions, that's why I use them.

Thanks again for the feedback.

I managed it manually. I had groups of 4-8 F35 with stormbreakers and set the doctrine so that each plane that has delivered its payload leaves group and RTB, and was just allocating 2 weapons on each target until there was nothing to kill anymore. Then i sent the Ospreys with A10 cluster bombs support.
For simpler theaters it is faster to micromanage, otherwise one needs to invest some time in WRA and target priorities. The latter pays for larger coordinated attacks, where you want to establish for example a sequence of, sweep - SEAD & OECM - Strikes / ASuW. But clearly the latter is more satisfying when you lay back and see it actually work.

[DWReese]

Knightpawn,

Thanks for your response.

Did you wait for the units to be identified as the "enemy" or did you just fire away at everything, regardless of identification?

I'm thinking about adding civilians. That way the US player can't just fire at yellow-colored units and assume that they are the enemy. These would represent civilian oil workers, air port facilities employees, and scientists, etc. According to Google, there are 8K civilians that live there, and up to 20K could be present as additional workers coming in from the mainland. Of course, killing non-combatants would reduce the score of the US player. I believe that it would make it a much more difficult scenario to play. The Iranians could literally hide behind them. Thoughts?

[DWReese]

I have added in civilian personnel, and that has made the scenario much more difficult. I am testing it now. Cluster bombs, etc., may be very difficult to use now as the civilians are often located close to military personnel. Several sources have confirmed that there are at least 8000 permanent residents, and that number is likely to be over 20000 when you factor in the oil and military personnel. In any case, the scenario is much more difficult now. Proper identification and precision strikes are now needed to complete your mission. I will post an updated scenario as soon as I have completed my own testing.

Here is the most recent scenario:

Amphibious Assault on Kharg Island (Beta4).zip

(602.38 KiB) Downloaded 6 times

Please let me know what you think.

[Knightpawn]

Please let me know what you think.

I will give it a go and revert.

[Nikel]

Adding civilian units means realism, so it is a good addition IMO.


Played this last version with the suggested and limited OoB of recon drones, 4 A-10s, tankers and the 12 Ospreys loaded with Marine units (platoons and snipers).

The A-10s attacked selectively the SAMs and also the AAA units, that are the more dangerous to the Marines. And playing carefully the land battle could minimize my own loses and the civilians, and get a triumph with 205 points.


2 questions while playing.


- How to get that a weapon is not used at all, I do not want the A-10s dropping bombs for the civilians, but the options in the WRA are too many. There is not such a simple option, is there? Of course in the editor I can remove the weapon, but this is not available while playing normally.

- The land battle in the island happened during the night. The Marines have problem detecting the enemies, so tried adding night vision goggles to their sensors, but could not see much difference, is it a bug?.

AS OF: 29-Aug-26 00:07:48

SIDE: USA
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x A-10C Thunderbolt II
2x Infantry Section [7.62mm MG/Unguided Infantry Anti Tank Weapon]
2x Sniper Section [7.62mm Sniper Rifle]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
46x 7.62mm MG Burst [20 rnds]
85x 7.62mm Sniper Rifle Volley [5 rnds]
8x AGM-65K Maverick IR
54x AGR-20A HYDRA APKWS II 70mm Rocket [WGU-59A/B, Fixed Wing Launch]
16x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
96x Generic Unguided Anti Tank Weapon
8x Mk82 500lb AIR [Ballute]



SIDE: Iran
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
28x 23mm ZU-23-2
60x Infantry Section [7.62mm MG/Unguided Infantry Anti Tank Weapon]
8x Misagh-2 MANPADS
1x Radar (Bashir)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
41x 23mm ZU-23-2 Burst [20 rnds]
8x 7.62mm MG Burst [20 rnds]
20x Generic Unguided Anti Tank Weapon
24x Misagh-2



SIDE: Oil Faciliy Structures and Airport
===========================================================

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


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



SIDE: Submersible
===========================================================

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


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



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

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x Civilians


EXPENDITURES:

[DWReese]

Nikel,

Remember, this was not intended to be a normal, balanced on both sides, scenario. There are plenty of platforms that a game player may never use. This more of a test bed. What if the A-10s (my favorite) aren't available? What if you only have F-16s? Or, F-15s? Or, what if, because of politics, you had to hit the target within 24 hours, and you only had certain units, or ordinance to work with? These things make the task more difficult. That's why you can set up your own way and try it differently each time. If you had used the same ordinance that you had originally used, then you would have killed many civilians. If you fire a YELLOW, without waiting for RED, then you deprive yourself of fun, and the Iranians of their biggest asset. The only thing that the Iranians actually have is points. That's their defense. If the US loses a couple of Warthogs, or a loaded Osprey, the chance for success is almost instantly gone. Loading just one loaded Osprey is worth about 60 points. As you can tell from your score, the loss of just one would have dropped you all the way down to Average.

This will be a scenario that, if the game player actually follows the rules, will likely require it to be played several times before it is beaten. This is one screw-up and you are finished. It requires perfection. If you were to lose two Ospreys, then the whole thing is a Disaster.

I added in an End Game scenario if too many civilians are killed. That will be in the next version.

The ships, and sub, are not intended to be anything other than potential drama. To me, the game doesn't really start until your surveillance aircraft begin locating and identifying the enemy, and your attack aircraft begin attacking their targets. If you find them all, then that aspect is a walk in the park. If you fail, then it's disaster. The ground war is fun. Again, if the surveillance aircraft identified the targets ahead of time, then you should be okay. If not, then as you found out, the targets reveal themselves when they start shooting at your ground troops, and that is usually a 1:1 kill ratio.

I am concerned about the night aspect, but that hasn't seemed to stop anything at all. If it's a bug, then that is in the game.

Thanks again for looking at the scenario. Any other feedback would be great. The only change that I have right now that you don't have is the total civilian End Game, and you haven't come close to that as of yet.

I do believe that a new gamer may have trouble winning this scenario if they abide by the strict rules. That's what makes it challenging.

[Nikel]

The night vision goggles was a general question for CMO, not specific with your scenario, but perhaps you or Knightpawn knew the answer, so I asked here


I never lost any Osprey in the 3 tests of the different versions of your scenario.

Losing 1 A-10 means -20 points and killing a civilian unit -5, and you can still get a triumph, because you will destroy many red targets.

The A-10 dropped bombs but did not kill any civilian, pure luck. And the Marines only fired to red targets, this was no luck I micromanaged it.

Just checked the log and in fact I did not kill any civilian, the Iranians did, and the minus points were assigned to the USA side.

It happens at the beginning of the scenario.

ID2.gif (580.87 KiB) Viewed 48 times

[DWReese]

Excellent.

Thanks again for providing the playtesting, and suggestions. (I wanted to say that before I forgot to do so.)

So, what is your gut feeling when someone plays it for the first time, without having the knowledge of what happens, as we all do at this point? Will they win? Will they fall into a trap? Will they end up with a bunch of civilian deaths and end of scenarios? Or, will they sail right on through and win it on the first try? What are your thoughts? Also, do you have any suggestions?

[Nikel]

I usually do not get a triumph the first time I play a scenario, and this was not an exception, this is OK because I did not use the more powerful weapons.

However with so many options available a normal player may destroy the targets from the air and with missiles and get a victory, so the addition of losses for civilians is right. He will have to be careful also in the land battle.

Again if what you want is that the options are limited, you should remove them, or perhaps create 2 versions of the scenario, one OoB limited and another sandbox.

In Correcaminos' scenario where you had to invade Abu Musa and another minor island, the red units were not visible from the air, they were created by event when the Marines landed, so that the land battle happened, of course you could also destroy them from the air, but only after the landing.

Perhaps you can add more units that are spawned when the Marines land.

Another idea is to add explosive fpv drones for the Iranian side

[DWReese]

Thanks for the suggestions.

I was actually thinking about adding more spawned enemy units, but they would be on a percentage of appearance basis.

The Correcamino's scenario idea interests me. Is it called, "Abu Musa?" I'll take a look.

When you to first started playing the game you were using the "big weapons." Did you happen to run that again to see what would happen? I'd like to know what would happen if that is the approach that most people would take and, if so, what would the result be?

I hear you about the numerous weapons, but I do want to keep it this way for now. I can't keep people from overloading the scenario with extra platforms etc. As I said from the beginning, the US has the resources to apply as many as they desire to accomplish their goal in real life, so this will give them they same opportunity. They could obliterate the island if they wanted to. It would be safer as well to do it that way.

When using the Warthog, have you ever allowed it to just roam free using a mission only to control it? When I do that, I get it shot down almost every time. I don't believe that the Warthog can be allowed to work on a mission only. It has so many weapons, and it jumps up and down in altitude that it quickly finds itself in trouble. When micromanaging I can attack from high at first, and then work my way down. But, if you enable strafing, which is very effective, you run the risk of being shot up, or even shot down. Warthogs are fun though.

I'm going to try to look for Correcamino's scenario, and then try some attacks without the A-10s, just to see what would happen. I don't think that 4 F-15s (for example) would have enough firepower to exceed what the A-10s can do.

[Nikel]

This is Correcaminos' scenario. The invasion of 2 islands is only a part of the scenario. It is more about demining and protecting a convoy.


https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 5#p5271085


I used more weapons than when playing with your limited OoB, but I do not think they were the bigger ones, they were standoff missiles and guided bombs from F-35s, but your scenario is an arsenal of weapons

I have not tried in the last version because I thought you preferred the limited OoB.

I did not use any mission. In the last test, as commented above, for the A-10 used targeting priority in the doctrine, SAMs and AAA units, and ordered to attack them one by one.

The surviving and the rest were left for the Marines, that were micromanaged. I had to get the A-10s back to detect (not to fight), some of the contacts that were lost, also get the recon drones nearer.

The landing always in the NW of the island after the A-10s cleared that zone. So the Ospreys are always safe if the course to that point is around the island.