Matrix Games Forums

Third scenario, which meant: Poor Ralf had to play Soviets again.

It started with a devastating Tomahawk attack on Kevlavik. Déja vu. Next came his Tomcats closing in and clearing the skys for his Hornets.

After not so many hours it was clear that I had only my subs to fight back. One Akula got a rather good fix on the US CVBG and thus my Oscar lurking far North could fire a salvo of Shipwrecks. None came through. Next he started attacking my SAG. But there he was too ambitious: I had detached one DD from the group and radar on; the rest of the SAG remained passive. He closed in with a Prowler followed by Tomcats and Hornets. Now my SAG lit up and the Grumbles got half a dozen AC.

That was my finest hour in this one.

But to little, to late: In the long run I was just overwhelmed by his superior forces.

Resumé:
1. Technical: No crash; but max. time compression was 1:15 seconds.
2: Game Play: Better balanced than the other two original scens. But the US carrier was too close. The game should not start with Tomahawk attacks making an imbalanced starting position even worse. The Soviets desperately need Mainstays and Badger jammers there. If there was a carrier group that near, there would have been at least one Mainstay, one Bear-D and fighter coverage over Iceland.

[Deleted by Admins]

Hello Dale,

ah, Linchpin Red ! This one drove me nuts back then in the H2 era - the nightmare of all 486PCs and even Pentium I and Pentium II!

The slowest scenario I have ever experienced. It did not perform even under 1:1. That was rather 10:1.

ORIGINAL: VCDH

We've been talking about the Lynchpin scens Ralf.  Especially Lynchpin Red.  It's one of the scens we used to check our speed issues.  While we're ok with Blue, we're talking about a rebuild of Red for a few reasons, mainly realism about Soviet and NATO but also about the huge number of aircraft in that scen.

If you have any comments to add we'd greatly appreicate it.

Later
D

I think the main performance problem of Linchpin Red are not the aircraft, but foremost the Transit Missions for the Soviet task forces. The CPU must calculate all this long way to and around Iceland with its complex shape. That is in my eyes more important than the number of planes. You could test it by replacing all transit missions with plotted ones. Should run faster.

Regards,
Ralf

Hi Dale,

took a look at Linchpin Red with scenedit. You asked me for my opinion on several topics. Here is a short summary:

1. Balance

I think the scenario is clearly imbalanced in favour for Nato side:
- Nato has eight (!) Sentrys; Soviets have not one Mainstay
- Nato has 16 Orions each carrying 4 Harpoons and 12 Nimrods each carrying 2 Harpoons. That is just too much to survive. What powerful Harpoon punches!
- Soviets lack AEW, Jammers and tankers. I would give them a full regiment Fulcrums for the southern airfield, too.

2. Realism

- IMO In a war Nato could not waste eight Sentrys for that theatre. Don´t know how many they have, but surely not enough for sending so many there
- 16 Orions at Iceland? Seems to many. In "Red Storm Rising" there are nine stationed on Iceland - and even that are many I think.
- Intruders and Hornets at Stornoway? Where is their carrier?

3. Suited for Multiplayer?

This could be an very interesting scenario for MP I think; especially playing the Soviet side. Power Projection with a Soviet CVBG has its own fascinating topics. But this only makes sense if there is massive and well coordinated support from land based assets: Jammers, Fighters who are refueled by tanker and AEW ac.

If the scen should be redesigned for MP, I would rebuild the Nato SAG and make a MAU out of it. Thus both sides have the chance to attack and counterattack.

Playing it singleplayer as Nato side is a mere duckshoot, since the AI is just not smart enough (besides the lack of AEW, jammers, tankers) to perform a power projection to Iceland.

Playing SP as Soviet side is interesting, but the absence of jammers, tankers and AEW is unrealistic and annoying.

4. Performance

The scenario suffers from the "Deadly Three":

a) large map
b) many AC
c) Transit missions over long distances with complex land shapes.

I would care for c) first. Then decrease the number of Nato AC: Orions, Nimrods down to 50 per cent. Intruders and Hornets out. Some more for the Soviets on the other side.

5. Resume

This scenario has a lot of potential for MP play. But it has to be redesigned carefully IMO.

Hope You can use these thoughts, Dale.

Ralf

[Deleted by Admins]

Hello,
I applied for a beta tester a couple of weeks ago but have not had a response yet.

Anyway, When you get it re-built, I can test it for you.