Matrix Games Forums

I decided this airbase needed a pounding, so I built it out. Nothing about this .inst is sacred. Please feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

I'm really curious about your approach to the strike. Can I ask whether you're working w/ strategic bombers or a CVBG/CSG?

ORIGINAL: Fido81
I'm really curious about your approach to the strike. Can I ask whether you're working w/ strategic bombers or a CVBG/CSG?

Well... in this case, I wasn't thinking about either, really. I was going to use a combination of land based tacair, tacair off a Lightning Carrier, ATACMs from HIMARS, and sea based cruise missiles. My original concept for the scenario was that it was going to be a sort of early-in-the-conflict scenario where forward deployed USMC forces might strike a Russian air base or some other complex target.

It should be fun when I'm done. There's Norwegian AF, there's USMC 35B and 35C. There's submarines. There's surface ships. There's ballistic missiles. There's even some hypersonic weapons. So... lots of toys to play with.

I like to see whats the lowest yield nuke it takes to completely obliterate everything [:D]

ORIGINAL: VFA41_Lion
I like to see whats the lowest yield nuke it takes to completely obliterate everything [:D]

Barbarian...

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
Well... in this case, I wasn't thinking about either, really. I was going to use a combination of land based tacair, tacair off a Lightning Carrier, ATACMs from HIMARS, and sea based cruise missiles. My original concept for the scenario was that it was going to be a sort of early-in-the-conflict scenario where, forward deployed USMC forces might strike a Russian air base or some other complex target.

That sounds like a very interesting concept of operations. I never really considered that the Severomorsk airfields are not just strategic resources with respect to the Northern Fleet, but also tactical resources in a potential conflict with a Scandinavian country.

I'm intrigued to hear you say that a Lightning Carrier has enough staying power to stick around in a conflict, because that seems to be such a big change from past NATO doctrine...or is assessing that the whole point of this exercise?

ORIGINAL: Fido81
I'm intrigued to hear you say that a Lightning Carrier has enough staying power to stick around in a conflict, because that seems to be such a big change from past NATO doctrine...or is assessing that the whole point of this exercise?

I can't really speak to past NATO doctrine. My original idea was that early on in the conflict, there might not be carriers the theater, in that case something else would have to hold down the fort until heavier forces arrive.

when downloaded... these files do not show up in the cmo scenario selection menu....

It's a *.inst file, not a *.scen file, so it shouldn't go in the scenarios folder.
On my install, it lives in "Command - Modern Operations > ImportExport > Forums > Russia" (I created these lsat 2 folders). I manually copied it there.