Matrix Games Forums

Hello,

I was originally planning to do a big scenario featuring a war between China and US-Japan, but decided it was a little too big to be feasible. So I've downsized it.

This scenario is set five days in the future. You are in control of two ships, a submarine, two F-15 squadrons, and some JGSDF helicopters. You face off against a similarly sized Chinese force, or at least that is what intelligence says. The goal is simple- achieve air and sea superiority around the Senkaku Islands and use the helicopters to land an infantry company on one of them, evicting the Chinese militants who have occupied it.

Enjoy! If you have any questions or advice, please do share!

UPDATE 1/16/2024: The scenario now features more balance between each side, with 16 unmodernized 4th gen fighters and 8 updated 4th gen fighters on each side, 8 ships on each side, and a small array of regional strike assets for each side to use. The new scenario is available in this post and in one below. Enjoy!

Intresting，when Beijing decided to make such a bold move, it only pitted its old su-30mkk against the more advanced AAM-equipped F-15J. Convince me.

And the PLAAF & PLARF "mercifully" spared land-based anti-ship missiles on the Sakishima Islands, spending a disproportionate amount of firepower on Okinawa, which is heavily protected by BMD systems.

Sanyr1310 wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2024 11:40 am Intresting，when Beijing decided to make such a bold move, it only pitted its old su-30mkk against the more advanced AAM-equipped F-15J. Convince me.

The air brigade equipped with Su-30MK2 was the closest one to the islands. The government is trying to contain the situation and avoid escalating it out of control, and therefore isn't deploying further units to the vicinity yet. I also was not sure if that air base was capable of housing more than one fighter brigade.

Considering less than half of the JASDF fighters are modernized, the rest dating from the year 2000, and the Flankers are operating under SAM cover, it is more evenly matched, IMO.

The more modern units were also being held back in case the US decided to intervene, or if Taiwan tried to declare independence.

Sanyr1310 wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:06 pm And the PLAAF & PLARF "mercifully" spared land-based anti-ship missiles on the Sakishima Islands, spending a disproportionate amount of firepower on Okinawa, which is heavily protected by BMD systems.

These are mobile systems and the PLA had no way of locating their location for a timely ballistic missile strike. It was also expected that the TELs would just drive away once a ballistic missile launch was detected, so instead of wasting them targeting what amount to dirt patches on the outer islands, it was decided to try and strike Okinawa.

The air brigade equipped with Su-30MK2 was the closest one to the islands. The government is trying to contain the situation and avoid escalating it out of control, and therefore isn't deploying further units to the vicinity yet. I also was not sure if that air base was capable of housing more than one fighter brigade.

Considering less than half of the JASDF fighters are modernized, the rest dating from the year 2000, and the Flankers are operating under SAM cover, it is more evenly matched, IMO.

The more modern units were also being held back in case the US decided to intervene, or if Taiwan tried to declare independence.

So Beijing is foolish enough to risk its own annihilation rather than use any of its many ETC J-16 brigades (such as Hangzhou's 83rd Air Brigade, identified by various OSINT sources including scramble). Is this what you envision a "formidable adversary" to look like? I can't help but wonder: who is deliberately trying to limit the scale of scenario to their advantage for fear of "escalation"? If a regime fears escalation, isn't it trying to create a fait accompli by using the advantages it already has more quickly and forcefully?

These are mobile systems and the PLA had no way of locating their location for a timely ballistic missile strike. It was also expected that the TELs would just drive away once a ballistic missile launch was detected, so instead of wasting them targeting what amount to dirt patches on the outer islands, it was decided to try and strike Okinawa.

I just did a quick Wikipedia search and found that the largest island in the Yaeyama Islands is only 200 square kilometers in size, the longest island span is only about 30 kilometers, and the areas that allow TELs to maneuver are all along the coast, where do you think these TEL can hide without being detected (there are no underground bunkers)?

I notice you have deliberately arranged for an Air regiment-sized UAV force, why can't they be used to search for TELs on the archipelago? What's more, wouldn't China's vast array of low-orbit reconnaissance satellites be enough to spot and track a target on a small island hundreds of kilometers from its own coast in time to deliver firepower? If this sounds like a detectable detectable detectable to you, I just set it to "auto-detectable" if a target that in reality cannot be avoided being discovered and destroyed. Instead of telling my opponents to destroy these "auto-detectable" targets, I choose to have them hit at a time that mimicked the search-recognisation-strike process. At this point, the player needs to find ways to preserve them by other means.

In my opinion, a good scenario is never based on deliberately weakening the opponent's ability at some key nodes.

Sanyr1310 wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:17 pm

The air brigade equipped with Su-30MK2 was the closest one to the islands. The government is trying to contain the situation and avoid escalating it out of control, and therefore isn't deploying further units to the vicinity yet. I also was not sure if that air base was capable of housing more than one fighter brigade.

Considering less than half of the JASDF fighters are modernized, the rest dating from the year 2000, and the Flankers are operating under SAM cover, it is more evenly matched, IMO.

The more modern units were also being held back in case the US decided to intervene, or if Taiwan tried to declare independence.

So Beijing is foolish enough to risk its own annihilation rather than use any of its many ETC J-16 brigades (such as Hangzhou's 83rd Air Brigade, identified by various OSINT sources including scramble). Is this what you envision a "formidable adversary" to look like? I can't help but wonder: who is deliberately trying to limit the scale of scenario to their advantage for fear of "escalation"? If a regime fears escalation, isn't it trying to create a fait accompli by using the advantages it already has more quickly and forcefully?

Beijing is assuring its survival by keeping larger forces in place to respond to any US provocations. Their real enemy is the US and Taiwan, not Japan. IRL Beijing functionally controls much of the resources around the Senkakus by violating agreements on oil drilling and frequent Coast Guard patrols around the islands. They already control what makes the islands valuable, and realistically there isn't much point in fighting over them. But the MSS officer in the scenario forces Xi's hand, trying to start a war similar to the Sino-Vietnamese War in which Beijing shows its muscle and demonstrates that China is not to be messed with. But Xi doesn't really want to commit, because his true goal is the ejection of the US from Asia and seizure of Taiwan. Realistically China is not yet strong enough to take on the US or even Taiwan, (hence the often reported date of 2027 as the earliest for a deliberate conflict over the island) and thus sincerely does not wish to let the situation escalate out of hand. If China deploys J-20s and larger numbers of warships to the ECS around the Senkakus, then Japan does, and then more aircraft fall and more ships sink. It also weakens the hard sought gains intended for taking Taiwan, built up during the preceding decades of military modernization.

Thus Xi decided to bet on a limited force being able to take control of the air and sea around the islands. He also was making decisions under the assumption that Japanese will to fight would be weak, and that so long as China controlled the islands long enough, the Japanese public would demand an end to the fighting in days after seeing ships sunk and aircraft shot down on TV. The punitive strikes on Okinawa were also made for this purpose.

This is why in the briefing the Joint Staff tells you time is of the essence, and they decide to airlift a standard infantry company in from Okinawa instead of waiting for the specialized amphibious or airborne brigades. The faster Japan ends the war the better, which is also why the forces involved are limited to two ships and the squadrons at Okinawa, because waiting for the 6th and 8th fighter squadrons on Kyushu to move to Naha to be in place for combat operations would take too long. It would also take too long to raise a squadron incorporating an Aegis vessel or helicopter carrier, let alone get the amphibious vessels to Kyushu- which are based in Kure- and then load up the amphibious brigade.

I didn't use any other brigades like the 83rd because I felt they were too far away for combat over the Senkakus. Also, if I bring in the 83rd, in then gets called into question why I didn't bring the 84th at Jiaxing, and then the 78th at Shanghai/Chongming, and then the 7th at Rugao, and it never ends until the entire ETC air forces are in the scenario. But there are "in-scenario" political reasons why this doesn't happen, and practical reasons why I didn't want to do this that I describe at the bottom.

Sanyr1310 wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:17 pm

These are mobile systems and the PLA had no way of locating their location for a timely ballistic missile strike. It was also expected that the TELs would just drive away once a ballistic missile launch was detected, so instead of wasting them targeting what amount to dirt patches on the outer islands, it was decided to try and strike Okinawa.

I just did a quick Wikipedia search and found that the largest island in the Yaeyama Islands is only 200 square kilometers in size, the longest island span is only about 30 kilometers, and the areas that allow TELs to maneuver are all along the coast, where do you think these TEL can hide without being detected (there are no underground bunkers)?

I notice you have deliberately arranged for an Air regiment-sized UAV force, why can't they be used to search for TELs on the archipelago? What's more, wouldn't China's vast array of low-orbit reconnaissance satellites be enough to spot and track a target on a small island hundreds of kilometers from its own coast in time to deliver firepower? If this sounds like a detectable detectable detectable to you, I just set it to "auto-detectable" if a target that in reality cannot be avoided being discovered and destroyed. Instead of telling my opponents to destroy these "auto-detectable" targets, I choose to have them hit at a time that mimicked the search-recognisation-strike process. At this point, the player needs to find ways to preserve them by other means.

Using the UAVs over the islands is out of the question because they are protected by Type 03 medium range SAMs. You raise a good point about the satellites, but as I said before, Japan would have advanced warning of the launches from the US SBIRS network, and would be able to move the TELs.

Considering Okinawa and the possibility of a conflict over Taiwan present greater threats, it would make more sense from their POV to save the missiles instead of using them in a tactical manner.

Sanyr1310 wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:17 pm In my opinion, a good scenario is never based on deliberately weakening the opponent's ability at some key nodes.

Unfortunately, theaters of war are often too big to model completely in CMO. Take for instance the Central Front in the Cold War. There is a scenario called "The Fighter-Bomber Regiment". It only consists of a regiment of MiG-27s and some NATO SAMs and an air base to target, IIRC.

Realistically, there would be fighters all over the frontline, with ample opportunities to target the MiGs in question. But it isn't feasible to put those in, so the scenario is limited. Yes, it isn't a totally realistic picture of combat over Germany without inclusion of the entire 16th Air Army and NATO forces in West Germany, but if you add those, you then have to add their follow on forces in Poland and England, respectively, and then you have a 10,000+ unit scenario on your hand and its just unplayable.

As I said in the first post, I was originally planning a massive scenario involving a US carrier group, more JMSDF vessels, the Liaoning, more Chinese vessels, and 4+ more squadrons of aircraft on either side. But then I saw a post in the general section about a guy wondering about the presence of Leopard 2s in the DB, and he mentioned how he had this massive Central Front scenario he was trying to make. Someone said that trying to make an all encompassing scenario is one of the mistakes of early CMO players, and I also recalled a discussion in which it was said the ideal scenario doesn't have more than 120 aircraft for the player to control. So I abandoned the bigger scenario (although I had already finished unit placement and still have it saved) and made this smaller one.

A "skirmish" scenario just involving the forces on Okinawa and maybe one nearby PLAAF regiment/brigade is also something I have wanted to do for a long time but never got around to.

Your responses have piqued my interest though, and I will return to the bigger scenario and see if I can make it work. I'll also try to make the Chinese more aggressive this time around.

Using the UAVs over the islands is out of the question because they are protected by Type 03 medium range SAMs. You raise a good point about the satellites, but as I said before, Japan would have advanced warning of the launches from the US SBIRS network, and would be able to move the TELs.

Considering Okinawa and the possibility of a conflict over Taiwan present greater threats, it would make more sense from their POV to save the missiles instead of using them in a tactical manner.

So Beijing was foolish enough to project the force that could have destroyed the Yaeyama air defense systems onto the main island of Okinawa, which could have provoked even greater retaliation, leaving SSM TELs free to fire on their own poorly defended fleet. Nice try!

So Beijing was foolish enough to project the force that could have destroyed the Yaeyama air defense systems onto the main island of Okinawa, which could have provoked even greater retaliation, leaving SSM TELs free to fire on their own poorly defended fleet. Nice try!

Moreover, the deployment and migration of SSM TELs also takes time. If the air defense system is destroyed and the drone flies over the island, it can fully monitor and even rely on its own fire to strike the platform (as in the recent image of the Russian military destroying HIMARS, there is more maneuverable space on the Ukrainian plain than the Yaeyama Islands).

Unfortunately, theaters of war are often too big to model completely in CMO. Take for instance the Central Front in the Cold War. There is a scenario called "The Fighter-Bomber Regiment". It only consists of a regiment of MiG-27s and some NATO SAMs and an air base to target, IIRC.

Realistically, there would be fighters all over the frontline, with ample opportunities to target the MiGs in question. But it isn't feasible to put those in, so the scenario is limited. Yes, it isn't a totally realistic picture of combat over Germany without inclusion of the entire 16th Air Army and NATO forces in West Germany, but if you add those, you then have to add their follow on forces in Poland and England, respectively, and then you have a 10,000+ unit scenario on your hand and its just unplayable.

As I said in the first post, I was originally planning a massive scenario involving a US carrier group, more JMSDF vessels, the Liaoning, more Chinese vessels, and 4+ more squadrons of aircraft on either side. But then I saw a post in the general section about a guy wondering about the presence of Leopard 2s in the DB, and he mentioned how he had this massive Central Front scenario he was trying to make. Someone said that trying to make an all encompassing scenario is one of the mistakes of early CMO players, and I also recalled a discussion in which it was said the ideal scenario doesn't have more than 120 aircraft for the player to control. So I abandoned the bigger scenario (although I had already finished unit placement and still have it saved) and made this smaller one.

I am looking forward to your larger scenario, preferably with both China and US-Japan bilateral perspectives, so that we can better explore what a possible future war in the Western Pacific might look like.

For this scenario, I mean, if you look at the scene from Beijing's point of view, by your argument: either this pointless fight never happens, or you do your best to win it. The way for Beijing to win and control the scale is also very simple: do a good job in air defense and anti-submarine work (the submarine JMSDF have is a huge variable, perhaps the key to Japanese victory is more reflected here), find and destroy the SSM launch vehicles (this is the key node that is avoided in your scenario).

Including me, I don't think any scenario author can be absolutely objective. Each author has his or her own idea, and it's bound to be the side that wants the player to win in a given situation. However, I have also noticed that there are many writers who are biased against China out of ignorance or deliberately weaken its power, so that the democratic and free civilized world can return in triumph.

This thought, gave me a feeling like this, so I acted more excited. If you're not who I say you are, allow me to apologize.

The air brigade equipped with Su-30MK2 was the closest one to the islands. The government is trying to contain the situation and avoid escalating it out of control, and therefore isn't deploying further units to the vicinity yet. I also was not sure if that air base was capable of housing more than one fighter brigade.

Considering less than half of the JASDF fighters are modernized, the rest dating from the year 2000, and the Flankers are operating under SAM cover, it is more evenly matched, IMO.

The more modern units were also being held back in case the US decided to intervene, or if Taiwan tried to declare independence.

Then why they only use 2x BVRAAM 2x WVRAAM light loadout rather than Standard 6x BVRAAM loadout? Cut A/Cs in area from 6 to 4 and using 6 BVRAAM loadouts should also be able to fullfill the continuity and fire power.

Sanyr1310 wrote: Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:59 am
I am looking forward to your larger scenario, preferably with both China and US-Japan bilateral perspectives, so that we can better explore what a possible future war in the Western Pacific might look like.

For this scenario, I mean, if you look at the scene from Beijing's point of view, by your argument: either this pointless fight never happens, or you do your best to win it. The way for Beijing to win and control the scale is also very simple: do a good job in air defense and anti-submarine work (the submarine JMSDF have is a huge variable, perhaps the key to Japanese victory is more reflected here), find and destroy the SSM launch vehicles (this is the key node that is avoided in your scenario).

Including me, I don't think any scenario author can be absolutely objective. Each author has his or her own idea, and it's bound to be the side that wants the player to win in a given situation. However, I have also noticed that there are many writers who are biased against China out of ignorance or deliberately weaken its power, so that the democratic and free civilized world can return in triumph.

This thought, gave me a feeling like this, so I acted more excited. If you're not who I say you are, allow me to apologize.

You’re in for quite a treat. I just want to say thanks for the feedback, because I’ve had a lot of fun working on the bigger scenario over the past couple days. Even with much of the JMSDF forces from Sasebo and Kure, and a whopping 2/3 of the PLAN East Sea Fleet, the scenario is shaping up to be at a decent 2,000 units, which shouldn’t be too bad for the average CMO player’s computer.

A couple notes as I’m nearing completion of the first iteration. Feel free to comment and I’ll consider adjustments if you reply before I finish it (I’ll consider adjustments after of course too).

1. I tried using the multi unit airfields for Luqiao and Ningbo/Zhuangqiao, and found three whole fighter brigades (72 aircraft total) were able to fit in them. So to make up for the range issue they are based there. Each base has two brigades of Flankers (one with Su-30, one with J-11, and two with J-16) and one brigade of J-20.
2. On the other hand, this makes them vulnerable to an American strike. In the scenario you will be authorized to conduct strike ops over a limited part of the Chinese coastline including the two air bases. The Chinese are aware of this and have an HQ-64 battery at each air base, as well as having moved another S-300 battery to the area. There would potentially more HQ-9s available to move to the coastline but I wasn’t sure if they would want to sacrifice inland air defence. Thoughts?
3. China now has a significant advantage because in the story, they had 10 days to build up a presence in the ECS because Japan was forced to try diplomacy for as long as possible due to its pacifist nature. This contrasts to the previous iteration where China doesn’t even have a Marine unit at the island yet.
4. I decided to deal with the ASMs in the southern Ryukyus by having Shandong conduct strike operations to find and destroy them. With their air bases, the Flankers and J-20s should be more than sufficient to cover the ECS, which frees up Shandong’s air brigade for power projection. I’m going to have ballistic missiles target the radars in the islands, but on the other hand I decided to still have the JH-7s (plus two brigades now) as well as the ETC’s H-6s focus on Okinawa. This is important for reasons described below.
5. Yes, Okinawa has major air defences, but it is also the best position for the US and Japan to project power from. Okinawa has an enormous amount of ammunition bunkers, giving it a good ability to keep up with the ammo necessary for high intensity operations. The JSDF and mainland US bases on the other hand aren’t doing so great. The US bases, namely Iwakuni, are not designed to sustain major combat operations for a long time. Iwakuni itself only has two ammo bunkers. This is because the aircraft there are Marine fighters intended to be deployed aboard the USS America LHA, rather than fight as land based units. Meanwhile, the JSDF may not be as capable as it is thought to be. Historically during the Cold War, the JGSDF- and presumably JASDF and JMSDF as well- had such poor ammunition stockpiles that they were only intended to holdout on Hokkaido for two weeks before US forces were required for support. Now two weeks is a decent amount of time, but looking at the number of ammo bunkers there are, it isn’t encouraging. For this scenario, I decided to assume that one bunker could hold 60 “light” munitions (namely AAMs) or 48 “heavy” munitions (bombs, torpedoes, etc.).

RE: bias, I understand what you were thinking. As I said before, it wasn’t intended to be a totally realistic scenario. Think of it as more like Quick Battles+. To give you an idea of how limited the scope of the original conception was, there was just going to be a Japanese radar station on the island, and if you play Japan you have to defend it with an F-15 squadron and if you play China you bomb it with a Flanker brigade. Obviously a real war would never be that limited, but I just wanted to create a quick scenario you could enjoy in an hour or two. In contrast, the updated big one I’m working on now lasts 4 days and will involve a lot of different tasks. There are so many targets, so few missiles (on either side to some extent at least compared with-) so many SAMs, that I may even need to extend the scenario out to a week and try to work in logistics of resupplying AAMs and especially AShMs. The PLA Eastern Theater Command is really shaping up to be one tough nut to crack. I’m having a lot of fun with it in its own right, but there are also times I just want to play with a small number of units. I made the scenario for that purpose though- small scale play- and not as a realistic representation of what a war would look like.

RE: The Flanker loadouts, you raise a good point. I think I’m going to double the AAMs available at the fighter bases to simulate more ammo being trucked or flown in.

I can see that you have a thoughtful mind and a passion for the game.

Please allow me to apologize for my expression which may have caused you misunderstanding. I mean, I didn't set out to force you to make a larger idea, just to give my opinion that the idea could be more challenging and realistic at a limited scale.

It would be nice to have a larger vision, but the details can make it difficult for scennario makers and players alike.

I don't think we can say for sure whether the Chinese or the US-Japan coalition forces will win, especially if the battlefield is set within the first island chain (undoubtedly China's overwhelmingly superior fire zone). Therefore, if you decide to present such a scenario, I want it to be a scenario where the player can play both sides at the same time. In addition, it is possible to deploy and configure enough ideal deployments for both sides.

Thank you again. I think our conversation was very meaningful.

Not hat this message pertains to this scenario (it doesn't), I just wanted to make mention of the fact that many game players actually prefer smaller-sized scenarios, as opposed to the larger once. The smaller ones are deemed to be a scaled down version of events that may be happening elsewhere, and they generally present a clear objective, with only a dozen (or less) units on each side. It's something that can be quickly played, and even played a second time, all in one sitting. Throwing some randomization for units, and their initial placement, can keep the scenario fresh, and never predictable.

So, power to the smaller scenarios, whatever units are involved.

Again, this statement isn't about this specific scenario. It's a comment in general.

DWReese wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:24 am Not hat this message pertains to this scenario (it doesn't), I just wanted to make mention of the fact that many game players actually prefer smaller-sized scenarios, as opposed to the larger once. The smaller ones are deemed to be a scaled down version of events that may be happening elsewhere, and they generally present a clear objective, with only a dozen (or less) units on each side. It's something that can be quickly played, and even played a second time, all in one sitting. Throwing some randomization for units, and their initial placement, can keep the scenario fresh, and never predictable.

So, power to the smaller scenarios, whatever units are involved.

Again, this statement isn't about this specific scenario. It's a comment in general.

Can't agree more.

Sanyr1310 wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:47 am I can see that you have a thoughtful mind and a passion for the game.

Please allow me to apologize for my expression which may have caused you misunderstanding. I mean, I didn't set out to force you to make a larger idea, just to give my opinion that the idea could be more challenging and realistic at a limited scale.

It would be nice to have a larger vision, but the details can make it difficult for scennario makers and players alike.

I don't think we can say for sure whether the Chinese or the US-Japan coalition forces will win, especially if the battlefield is set within the first island chain (undoubtedly China's overwhelmingly superior fire zone). Therefore, if you decide to present such a scenario, I want it to be a scenario where the player can play both sides at the same time. In addition, it is possible to deploy and configure enough ideal deployments for both sides.

Thank you again. I think our conversation was very meaningful.

Thanks. No problem in regards to that apology, I didn't take any offense.

Setting up the Chinese side for player control should be pretty easy, so I'll do that. I'll also take into account what you and @DWReese said and try and limit the scale a bit more while still keeping a realistic-er set up.

So I worked for the past few hours trying to make the bigger scenario smaller while realistic, and I've decided it is not possible. To capture Sanyr's image of "Beijing goes all in" it really isn't possible to keep it small how I originally wanted to (48 fighters and 2-3 ships facing off at most). It will inevitably end up with 20-30 ships on either side and about 120-160 aircraft on either side. I feel this is just not what I wanted to do in building this scenario, so I will retire the "big" project for now.

However, I will make some adjustments to the smaller scenario based on Sanyr's feedback.

1. Change some of the Su-30s for forward deployed J-16s, to match the number of improved F-15Js that the Japanese side has.
2. I'm still going to increase the number of ships. I want to swap out the airlifted infantry company for a small JMSDF amphibious force, based on the 8+8 fleet doctrine they use.
3. Each side will now receive a squadron of strike aircraft. The JH-7s for China will be reconfigured for anti-shipping missions, while Japan will get F-2s.
4. I'm going to add a special action in which the Japanese player can request a missile strike on the Chinese airfield from an Ohio class SSGN. Likewise, the ballistic missile strike from the Chinese side will become a special action.
5. China will now be a playable side. I feel adding this feature keeps more in line with my original concept of a "Quick Battle+" scenario. I actually didn't want to do this with the big scenario after looking at all it would take afterwards, but I don't mind and want to for the smaller one.

SunlitZelkova wrote: Sat Jan 06, 2024 11:11 am So I worked for the past few hours trying to make the bigger scenario smaller while realistic, and I've decided it is not possible. To capture Sanyr's image of "Beijing goes all in" it really isn't possible to keep it small how I originally wanted to (48 fighters and 2-3 ships facing off at most). It will inevitably end up with 20-30 ships on either side and about 120-160 aircraft on either side. I feel this is just not what I wanted to do in building this scenario, so I will retire the "big" project for now.

However, I will make some adjustments to the smaller scenario based on Sanyr's feedback.

1. Change some of the Su-30s for forward deployed J-16s, to match the number of improved F-15Js that the Japanese side has.
2. I'm still going to increase the number of ships. I want to swap out the airlifted infantry company for a small JMSDF amphibious force, based on the 8+8 fleet doctrine they use.
3. Each side will now receive a squadron of strike aircraft. The JH-7s for China will be reconfigured for anti-shipping missions, while Japan will get F-2s.
4. I'm going to add a special action in which the Japanese player can request a missile strike on the Chinese airfield from an Ohio class SSGN. Likewise, the ballistic missile strike from the Chinese side will become a special action.
5. China will now be a playable side. I feel adding this feature keeps more in line with my original concept of a "Quick Battle+" scenario. I actually didn't want to do this with the big scenario after looking at all it would take afterwards, but I don't mind and want to for the smaller one.

I want to say: amazing work

I worked on it whenever I was able, and here it is! The updated scenario, featuring more balance between China and Japan and a playable Chinese side.

Feedback is very much welcome! Enjoy!