Sure it's fun to destroy everything but Australia simply doesn't have the capability even with US help (unless it was a more extended conflict where a lot of stuff could be brought in) so victory conditions would reasonably be expected to be different.Nikel wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 5:09 pm
Yes, I agree in that the main goal are the strategic objectives, but getting them sinking 30 enemy warships and destroying 50 ACs cannot be the same than destroying 1/4 of those, and the same can be said for the losses. In your scenario the war ends, but you do not know that, it may last for years, clear example on Ukraine. Besides it is fun.
I decided deliberately, first to destroy the chinese task forces, then clean PNG sites from the air and only then transport the troops to take the places with minimal losses. And it was done on time, of course did not know the details of the scoring, I think it is a good idea to add them to avoid frustration.
No ADs in Australia? Well it is a continent in itself, and so you should have a lot!
For example, I virtually ignored the Shandong carrier group besides probing to keep track of the location. My first priority was Port Moresby, followed by making Honiara AB mostly ineffective to free up assets (plus stop the J-20s) and allow the Reagan TF to continue to head E/NE to engage PLAN ships there. As that was happening I was making ground across PNG, using Port Moresby as a staging point for ground forces.
As for AD in Aus, yeah, we've basically relied on our distance from everything and the fact attacking us would be largely a waste of time and resources. Until recently we just had SHORAD in terms of GBAD. Now we're at least getting NASAMS (plus SM-3/6 for our ships, not many though, they're $$$$ lol) so it's not quite so embarrassing... If there were strikes on infrastructure we'd suffer but all our military is really quite distributed and (from my limited knowledge) appears fairly well hardened.