[UPDATE] New Scenario: Hold the Line

[Dannyp19]

Just stumbled upon this a few days ago. I remember trying this one when you 1st. Put it out. Also tried H-Hour when you brought it out. It was unplayable then. Now it runs very well on my new machine.

But the biggest difference is the Sim itself. Amazing improvements since a year ago it's almost a different Sim. (Can't wait for the new build/upgrade).

I'm sorry, but I forgot all about your N Fury scen.'s....just to many damn scen.'s and not enough time.

A very nice piece of work you have done here.

[Gunner98]

Thanks. I have a few weeks off starting this weekend, so intend to tidy this one up and release it. Will also put out at least two more for testing , Keflavik Capers and Plug the Gap before the end of the year. After that - Eisenhower moves North, Changing of the Guard and Aardvarks Revenge are almost ready - just need some time....

Getting much more interest on the testing which is great and really appreciate it.

B

[TheOriginalOverlord]

Still playing this out...the F-18C AMRAAMs have just made it to the CV and a Shipwreck strike is inbound.

I got lucky early on with an F15/tornado raid with jammer support towards Iceland...pressed hard and got several fighters and jammers and killed several tankers I found. I think that is the big reason I've had good luck and why I keep getting soviet aircraft lost msg...they have all run out of gas....lol

I am about ready to launch an attack on the western battle group and if successful will either work on the Eastern group or move north to Iceland.

I am still upset at some of my planes running out of fuel for no reason. I had a Seahawk orbiting the CV with a msg that it had priority landing due to low fuel and for 30 minutes it didn't land..just crashed..grrr that and a S-3 viking did something similar...

Overall fun and time consuming game..lol

[Gunner98]

I got lucky early on with an F15/tornado raid with jammer support towards Iceland...pressed hard and got several fighters and jammers and killed several tankers I found

Well done, unfortunately this is what I was trying to avoid by trickle feeding the Ftrs in the UK - having too much combat power too early.

Would you say that the adjustments made to the UK base have made it too easy for the player? Are you able to use the F-4s, or are they largely outclassed?

Good luck on the strikes, glad your enjoying the game.

B

[TheOriginalOverlord]

No I kinda sorta cheated... I sent a KC135 across the Atlantic with a pair of AIM-54 F14s to Lossiemouth...

The KC135 is supporting the F15s while the Victor can handle everything else. I'm using the F14 radar for long range search and vectoring in the Tornado/F15s.

The FGR.4 Phantoms aren't that useful against the front line fighters but they have the legs to go after the tankers/jammers with the Victor support.

[ojms]

The first thing I did was launch all my tomohawks at the runway access points at keflavik which stopped any flights from there, would that be classed as "cheating" ?

[Maromak]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Would you say that the adjustments made to the UK base have made it too easy for the player? Are you able to use the F-4s, or are they largely outclassed?

B

I didn't really use the F-4s so these could be removed from the scenario imho.

Also, the F-15Cs in the UK can't refuel from the UK tanker which is a good balance of capability i.e. can only use the Tornados for very long range intercepts.

[Dannyp19]

ORIGINAL: ojms

The first thing I did was launch all my tomohawks at the runway access points at keflavik which stopped any flights from there, would that be classed as "cheating" ?

I dont think its cheating its in the briefing. I did the same thing at the start using jammer support from UK and Enterprise with excellent results. Im getting a lot of messages of enemy aircraft losses.

The loss of a helo. trying to land is a bug that is fixed in the next release IIRC. Ive lost one also.

Also lost a Viking to a pot shot! My torpedo fired and hit an SSN (I dont have a precise ID) but didnt sink her. That SOB surfaced at shot down my Viking. . . thats going to be one dead SSN!

I sent the F4's on a mission to get some recon and OECM birds and they got shot up pretty bad. Should have given them some ECM support.

@ Gunner- What is the max. AC that a carrier can support? I dont want to have "air boss" issues.

[Gunner98]

The TLAM strike at Kef is fair ball. I am surprised that it is very effective, might have to crank up the AD around there. My thoughts on Kef at this stage of the campaign is that it would take a significant strike, well coordinated with EW, AAW, SEAD and ASuW strike in conjunction with TLAMs to close the base. If a player can pull it off - well done [&o], scenario 10.1 'Ant Eater's revenge' and '10.2 Buff's bite back' focus on closing the base before the combined weight of the Carl Vinson and Eisenhower to restore cave dwelling as an acceptable way of life up there. All in preparation for 'Jar Heads on Ice' to retake the island.

I would call the shifting of the tanker and F-14's a bit of a stretch, clever and obviously effective, but it unbalances things a bit. I wouldn't want to specifically restrict that move but I'll need to think about disadvantaging it somehow.

Dannyp19: The Max is 90 but a good number for an Air Group is 72-76. I have not tested this but from what I've read that seems to be the norm for the era. In this scenario there are already 82 in the Air group and the potential to reinforce by 24x F-18, you will max out quickly unless you take casualties or beach some A/C. Rule of thumb is 1 for 1, to fit the 24 new AC you need to lose or move 24 or at the very least 18. If it comes to deck space, priority has to be to get the F-18Cs with the AMRAAMs out there first - then beach the F-18A's in exchange for the Jar-Head F-18As at Oceana who are come loaded with some SLAM's - you will have ammo issues later[;)]

I am really glad that improvements to the game are allowing you all to enjoy this one, very reassuring and I appreciate the comments. Should be able to fix it up and release as final this weekend.

B

[Tomcat84]

It came up in closed beta that a lot of your AI missions have "Engage opportunity targets" doctrine set to Yes - inherited.

This led to a TU-16 ECM aircraft chasing a Tornado F.3 to try and kill them with its tailgun. You might want to take a look at that?

[Gunner98]

You might want to take a look at that?

Thanks for the heads up - I'll do just that.

B

[Gunner98]

New updated version 2.2. Quite a few changes so it’s out for more testing if anyone is willing:

V2.2 Changes:

-Thinned out the MiG 31’s from up north
-Moved the MiG 31’s to Kef and set up a couple surprises
-Adjusted the CAP around Iceland which should make it a little more interesting to go for the deep strikes
-Adjusted the LR Bmr missions somewhat, I think the LOCs in the South will need more attention from the player now
-Turned off the ‘Engage Opportunity Targets’ for the Bmrs and gave them Prosecution zones instead.
-spread the Sov jammers out a bit
-Spruced up the SAM and AAA at Kef. Along with the adjusted CAP, this should defeat a single throw of TLAMs unless they are escorted in with AAW, SEAD and OECM.
-Removed the Phantoms from the UK
-Removed the Ch-53’s from the Seattle

Here is the file and I’ll add it to the first post as well. Really appreciate the help in making this one better.

One year – almost to the day since first release!

B

[Maromak]

Thanks. There goes another week... [&o]

[Gunner98]

[:D]

[magi]

oh geezzz....
i started 2 then you gave me 2.1... soo ive spent days on it.. doing perty good with it too... but man its work... managing my tankers... there are so many scattered across a couple thousand miles of ocean... its hard to find them some time and i have to have the boom tankers for the air force guys... there is so much stuff.... and micro managing my air battles so i dont get my air stuff totally creamed creamed.. and i prety much have command of the air except keflavekic whatever which ive prety much stayed away from and i was about ready to make my first strike on the northwest red group and youve taken my f4s away which i liked very much making raids on their recon and other support assets in the north... and now im going to start over i suppose....
however...... on the up side... i want to thank you for making me get my cool new monitor.. and now i play on two which is way more better than one... you know that two one armed carpenters are twice as good as one one armed carpenter... well this is much better than even that...
and your briefings are the best.. some guys dont get that they are elemental... and you understand doctrine.. mission and force composition.. which some guys dont get... and there is honest plausibility in your scenarios....
i think its the best thing ive played in cmano so far..... it is a very good attempt at trying to give people a bit of an idea of the huge scope a oceanic theater operation.... its awesome... brava brava.... i hope you will be my buddy.... i was born in Newfoundland you know... a harmon usafb outside of saint johns.... my dad.. he was an air sea rescue guy then flying pbys... cool job... peace be with him....

[Gunner98]

Magi
Thanks for your continued interest and diligence, not to mention your kind words. To say an Army guy like myself understands Naval Doctrine might be a stretch but I'll take it [;)]. I recommend you use missions as much as possible in a scenario this size, especially for the tankers an such, and then use the number keys to jump around to key areas when they need your attention.

I've never been to 'The Rock', although it is on my bucket list. Life flying PBY's in the North Atlantic and the Gulf of St Lawrence must have been crazy at times, one helluva job![&o] Was Newfoundland part of Canada when you were there or still on its own?

B

[Major SNAFU_M]

Hi Gunner98,

I am fresh to this sim/game as of last week, but I couldn't resist taking a peek at this. Very impressive and to me at this point, daunting.

The only thing I will make a suggestion upon is the opening line is the briefing. It states that the player is the commander of the USS Enterprise, CVN-65, but then goes one to explain all of the ships under your command and concludes with a reference to the player being an Admiral.

With my lay understanding think this would perhaps be better if the opening line said the player is the commander of the USS Enterprise CVBG, which would typically be commanded by a RADM, and the carrier itself by a Captain (O-6).

For reference I offer from various web sources:

In the USN, the carrier CO will be a Captain (O-6), with both squadron command and a previous "deep draft" ship command (usually a supply ship, but they are a dwindling commodity these days). The CAG will also be a post-squadron command O-6, but without the ship command experience. Technically, the CAG is co-equal with the carrier CO reports directly to the CSG commander, but he has to defer to the CO on matters of ship operations.

The CAG and his deputy, the ship's Executive Officer and Chief Engineer, and the CSG Chief of Staff and Sea Combat Commander (embarked DESRON commodore) will also be O-6s. There's also going to be a couple of O-6 captains in the screen and attached UNREP force, etc. and there may be a couple of others around as well; it's hard to keep track of all the Captains these days.

AND

Looking through my 1985-6 USS Ranger CV-61 cruise-book, I found that the ship's CO (W. Davis) and CHENG (B. Young) were the only Captains (O-6) assigned to the ship herself.
The XO was CDR (O-5) B. Gohmann.
CAG was CDR R. Wilks, with CDR K. Lantta as his exec.

The CVBG commander was RADM C. McGrail, with 2 CAPTs on his staff, and DESRON was also a CAPT.


For the 1987 cruise, we did have a CAPT (R. McClendon jr) for an XO... with CAPT D. Baird for CO.
CHENG was CDR J. Holyoak, CAG was CAPT T. Latendresse, with CDR J. Roach as his exec.

For the CVBG, RADM A. Less had 3 CAPTs on his staff, and DESRON was also a CAPT.


Thus, where you show 5 O-6s assigned to the ship's company, we had 2 in 1985-86 and 3 in 1987.
Note that while we were just a CV, not a CVN, that our air wing usually had the same number of squadrons as the CVNs.

[Gunner98]

Well spotted! You are correct that I mean the Player to be the Battle Gp commander. Thanks, I'll fix that.

You may want to try a couple of the earlier scenarios in the Northern Fury battle set – they are little less daunting.

Thanks again

B

[magi]

Gunner
well darn... now that you mention it... i believe my birth certificate may say Commonwealth.... ill check it out... i guess that makes me older... born in 1949...

i do have a couple of points i find questionable:
that the sovites would start a major east/west campaign in February... i worked in alaska as pipeliner for eleven years in artic and sub artic environment... you have to have an incredible amount of support to even keep a couple thousand guys in the field in the winter... i dont know who could do that with tens of thousands of guys in a fluid hostile environment.... you might end up there but who would not want to start there...
i dont believe their would be any red satellites... or any that would share intel with redforce... they would be the first thing to go.. and i believe we had the ability to take them out by the seventies i believe...
also.. there are no defenses at raf lossiemouth... which leads me to believe that you had no intent for redforce to strike it... or if there is a red plan to strike it.. you are really mean...

if i was playing red... i would burden the cvbg run down NATO's right with my big hammers... destroy lossiemouth.. go full south and bust the aloc/sloc lines.... cool.... if lossiemouth was anchored.. defensible... it would be a nocando....

i want to be one of your beta guys in the future... i really like the way you do things.. i can be a groupie... yup....

magi....

[Gunner98]

[:)] If you came into the world before Mar 31 1949, then you would be a full blown Newf. Beyond that, Canadian.[;)]

I understand your point, and having been on exercise where guns freeze in recoil, metal breaks and frostbite is normal; it’s not fun. However the Sov’s are the only ones who could pull it off - they have. So why not use an advantage to your own gain, if WW3 did start in Europe and it was the WP who start it, I doubt that they would chose a time when NATO was ready. Also, North Norway and Iceland are downright tropical compared to many places, the Gulf stream keeps them fairly warm and wet. So a surprise attack in Mid Feb to take advantage of the weather is not too un-plausible, and by March when NATO's counter attack was expected and the real fighting would start, things would be warming up in Central Europe. The Lillehammer Olympics was a simple story hook which set the timeline (see NF 1 H Hour), but I don't think the WP would have attacked in the summer when NATO was at its prime.

As for the Satellites, I think your right. The one in the scenario is an experiment but I also needed to give some targeting info to the Sov side [X(]. I'll have to put the satellite situation into one of the update briefings

Scenario 7, Plug the Gap deals with Lossiemouth. I need to get that one out for testing, but real life keeps absorbing my time. Essentially, the Sov's have a choice: Iceland or Scotland. Iceland has a much better chance of success; therefore, Scotland is only a supporting effort.

Appreciate your comments, more coming soon I hope.

B