Blue Water Operations

[Canadair 16]

By using targets.ini and terrain.ini properly it is possible to have a campaign similar to convoy battles in the atlantic. I tested already ona smaller scale this concept.

It is possible to have massive strike of bombers against convoys and carrier groups, perhaps with S-3B (that badly need a purpose, attacking subs)

request.

Could someone make a simple BIG terrain, only water, perhaps some patches of land east and west, nothing fancy, just room enough for two airfields, for P-3 on one side (yes sub hunting, maybe) and soviet bombers on the other.

Just nothing fancy. Just to further test the idea. I really can't spare time enough to learn terrai editor. I tried.

Maybe the campaign to be released in it could be an inspiration to move forward and do a GIUK gap campaign.

....

any takers, please?

[sparkomatic 7]

Now this is something very interesting...being the only other person it seems that actually likes anti-shipping missions...

[Canadair 16]

Not only that;

but with a sea-moslty terrain we can identify the ships as tanks, therefore moving them in the map, according to movement ini; they could be defined as groud untis in campaign ini, and perhaps engage enemy similar ground-ship units. and CAS mission, (now anti-ship) would be triggered agaist them.

eh eh picture a group of submerged november attacking a convoy with the air cover of S-3b

just one idea.

IT is feasible with current means

please someone make the terrain, please!

[Canadair 16]

This is the project:

Friendly convoys defined as ground units in the campaign data, with cargo ships and tankers defined as tanks. they would follow the movement routes only to be engaged by submerged subs folllowing routes in a movement.ini

CAS would be triggered, and P-3 and S-3 (from a carrier station) would be launched from one side, and long range bomber from the other; loadout [attack] would have to be changed for the proper anti ship and anti sub missiles, we have plenty of operational and tested cruise missiles antiship for badgers and blinders.

Fixed convoy and carrier stations (carrier made stationaty with modifications at the movement enrty in data.ini, could be placed targeted to spice up the fight with strike mission (again with proper loadout suitable for ship-only targets.)

ship targets can be made intersting to the campaign system by raising the target value entry in the types.ini

oh and ships maxvisibility must be increased,I increased up to 40000 in the data.ini, but probably even more to benefit of the long range of anti-ship missiles. aircraft visabiliy increased to allow B VR shots at the bomber formations.

Might require a single install, or the creation of dedicated ship used as tanks, (running the risk of having them show up in single -mission random generated CAS mission, but who careS)

And yes GIUK is no feasible

And yes , I can see Bears and Backfires, and kiev and kirov.

But not yet,

now I need the terrain. just water; just big, a patch of land with an airfiled in a corner and another one at the other corner,. no types.ini or targets.ini, entry excpet thoe required for the airports. I will do the rest

[sparkomatic 7]

Did you try the Solomon Islands or the Okinawa map? Lots of water there...

[Canadair 16]

I was thinking DBS, but that would require copying the terraina and doing everything from scratch; and I would like a 1:1 terrain for long range engagements tests

[Guest Saganuay82]

Yeah thats done quite easy. All you need is a map 1500 kms with a couple of areas above sea level. Maybe 3. A large airfield on each land mass or two.

 

If no one does it, Ill do it next weekend when I get home.

[Canadair 16]

Yeah thats done quite easy. All you need is a map 1500 kms with a couple of areas above sea level. Maybe 3. A large airfield on each land mass or two.

 

If no one does it, Ill do it next weekend when I get home.

Thanks Canadian Friend! I am half-canadian myself... anyway, let me know, I am starting to work on the ini

I think thic could be a test-bed and a feasibilty-test for a major GIUK campaign

[Guest Saganuay82]

Rgr, biggest problem with the GIUK was distance due to no AAR in game. But if want to have fields in place so you don't have to splash on the return home, it will work.

 

Plus before the TE wouldn't take DEM from either the next DEM or the DEM below. But that works now and you can make rather large terrains.

[Canadair 16]

Rgr, biggest problem with the GIUK was distance due to no AAR in game. But if want to have fields in place so you don't have to splash on the return home, it will work.

 

Plus before the TE wouldn't take DEM from either the next DEM or the DEM below. But that works now and you can make rather large terrains.

 

Carrier stations along the way; and only land assets as soviet big bombers, and p-3

[+Typhoid 231]

count me in!!

 

as one of those other people who do lots of anti-shipping missions.

 

I can put some missions together. I've already built quite a few anti-warshipping missions (in the airwing we called these War at Sea Strikes but not sure the rest of the forum would understand just what all that means.)

 

 

I've several mission packs built on the Bering straight and Germany terrains that I use myself. I can clean these up and post them if there is interest.

[tank03 1]

count me in!!

 

as one of those other people who do lots of anti-shipping missions.

 

I can put some missions together. I've already built quite a few anti-warshipping missions (in the airwing we called these War at Sea Strikes but not sure the rest of the forum would understand just what all that means.)

I've several mission packs built on the Bering straight and Germany terrains that I use myself. I can clean these up and post them if there is interest.

It'd be great if you posted them, I'm quite interested in giving them a try.

[Canadair 16]

It'd be great if you posted them, I'm quite interested in giving them a try.

 

Typhoid thanks for answeringmy pm as well

As for the anti-ship campaign at the moment I guess the whole idea is better put on hold according to this thread, about a bug I spotted and apparently every one knew about.

Please give it a read

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=24817

 

It clearly makes no sense since it is impossible to release the power and destruction of the soviet ASM

Unless missions can be done which I d really like to get, from someone who really met MR Bear, Badger and Backfire

[+Typhoid 231]

I've seen that as well on AI missions with dumb bombs. As the flight rolls in on the ship formation, I tell the flight to attack ground (being the only option) and they go off somewhere and look for ground targets, on dry land somewhere......

 

:(

 

I did have some success by splitting the flights into separate flights. I'll have to try that out on ASM missions. I already have some working ones set up so I'll see how it plays out. I had some multi-element strikes with Hornets in and around the Bekka Valley that seemed to work ok. So I'll try them out and see how they work in this situation.

[Canadair 16]

I've seen that as well on AI missions with dumb bombs. As the flight rolls in on the ship formation, I tell the flight to attack ground (being the only option) and they go off somewhere and look for ground targets, on dry land somewhere......

 

:(

 

I did have some success by splitting the flights into separate flights. I'll have to try that out on ASM missions. I already have some working ones set up so I'll see how it plays out. I had some multi-element strikes with Hornets in and around the Bekka Valley that seemed to work ok. So I'll try them out and see how they work in this situation.

 

Onorary Gaeta-Citizen,

you have no idea how bad I felt when in a test flying the badger formation rolled in on the ship group,, and did not launch kent missiles,, I really felt the GIUK scenario, right... there!

Anyway, it is worth testing in campaign environment subs and ships typed in as ground units, so that ground battle occurs; perhaps the sub will engage the ship with CAS (simulating anti-sub) performed by s-3 or p-3;

But I will test and try this when I reconcile myself with sfp1 at the moment I am very disappointed

[+Typhoid 231]

Onorary Gaeta-Citizen,

you have no idea how bad I felt when in a test flying the badger formation rolled in on the ship group,, and did not launch kent missiles,, I really felt the GIUK scenario, right... there!

Anyway, it is worth testing in campaign environment subs and ships typed in as ground units, so that ground battle occurs; perhaps the sub will engage the ship with CAS (simulating anti-sub) performed by s-3 or p-3;

But I will test and try this when I reconcile myself with sfp1 at the moment I am very disappointed

 

actually, I recall getting them to launch ARMs on the formation. It was cool. Even as Terriers nipped at my heels.....

 

also set up an air to surface support op to help out a surface fight. As I rolled in, the two opposing surface forces were slugging it out. So it does all work but difficult to get set up right.

 

in a campaign mode not sure how to set that up. The single missions have some dynamic movement but the campaigns have to roll in on predetermined target sets. So a series of single missions seem to work ok. I did some in the Falklands set up and they worked ok. (Insurance salesmen should avoid Argentine pilots......)

Edited January 22, 2008 by Typhoid

[Canadair 16]

actually, I recall getting them to launch ARMs on the formation. It was cool. Even as Terriers nipped at my heels.....

 

also set up an air to surface support op to help out a surface fight. As I rolled in, the two opposing surface forces were slugging it out. So it does all work but difficult to get set up right.

 

in a campaign mode not sure how to set that up. The single missions have some dynamic movement but the campaigns have to roll in on predetermined target sets. So a series of single missions seem to work ok. I did some in the Falklands set up and they worked ok. (Insurance salesmen should avoid Argentine pilots......)

 

Well the idea is a campaign, althoguh the mission would be great in aGIUK package...

With weapons set as ARM and ALL ships with radars maybe it could work, but then each and every anti-ship would be a sead mission,

althoguh in hyoptehical sea scenario, ships could be declared in the types as Sams, launchers or radar, or AAA and they would be in target areas so prepared, being ships of course but with the system thinking they are AAA, or SAM In this case SEAD mission would be generated, but those would require, a useless strike flight, which WILL overfly the fleet and get , most likely shot. Which was less or more the role of Mr.BEAR. So a huge number of bomber armed with ARM-modified cruise missiles and tasked 100 SEAD, and a few wtasked with strike role and strike loadout empty, so to play disguised as strike the recon role of sea-recon planes.

It is very complicated, but could work. I will try

Saguany please still waiting for yuor terrain test bed, since this is going toward the single install thing

[+Typhoid 231]

Well the idea is a campaign, althoguh the mission would be great in aGIUK package...

With weapons set as ARM and ALL ships with radars maybe it could work, but then each and every anti-ship would be a sead mission,

althoguh in hyoptehical sea scenario, ships could be declared in the types as Sams, launchers or radar, or AAA and they would be in target areas so prepared, being ships of course but with the system thinking they are AAA, or SAM In this case SEAD mission would be generated, but those would require, a useless strike flight, which WILL overfly the fleet and get , most likely shot. Which was less or more the role of Mr.BEAR. So a huge number of bomber armed with ARM-modified cruise missiles and tasked 100 SEAD, and a few wtasked with strike role and strike loadout empty, so to play disguised as strike the recon role of sea-recon planes.

It is very complicated, but could work. I will try

Saguany please still waiting for yuor terrain test bed, since this is going toward the single install thing

 

actually, they were tasked as anti-ship in my own flight. I armed them with ARMs and they laid waste to the escorts.

 

another flight though I will have to experiment with. I think if the weapons loads are biased to ARMs for anti-shipping missions they will work OK. I'll have to try some out and watch.

[Canadair 16]

actually, they were tasked as anti-ship in my own flight. I armed them with ARMs and they laid waste to the escorts.

 

another flight though I will have to experiment with. I think if the weapons loads are biased to ARMs for anti-shipping missions they will work OK. I'll have to try some out and watch.

 

Ah so you are talking about missions; anyway I am testing the concept of previous post before which opens some possibilities..

but still guided weapons ar enot deployed such as lgb and eogr,, but one thing a t the time

 

edit after a few minutes. no joy. sigh

Edited January 22, 2008 by Canadair

[+Typhoid 231]

Ah so you are talking about missions; anyway I am testing the concept of previous post before which opens some possibilities..

but still guided weapons ar enot deployed such as lgb and eogr,, but one thing a t the time

 

edit after a few minutes. no joy. sigh

 

 

don't recall yet how I did it. Ran last night as a straight anti-shipping and they didn't shoot. I might be thinking of something else.

 

I'll try a few other options and get back to you all if any of them work. And if they do, I'll post some missions.

[Canadair 16]

don't recall yet how I did it. Ran last night as a straight anti-shipping and they didn't shoot. I might be thinking of something else.

 

I'll try a few other options and get back to you all if any of them work. And if they do, I'll post some missions.

 

Apparently it is not a big-deal; I am the one getting "shocked at this "horrible finding"

let's see what happens, maybe in future patches... and let's experiment more.

Perhaps with ships as AAA....in terrain data

[+Typhoid 231]

Apparently it is not a big-deal; I am the one getting "shocked at this "horrible finding"

let's see what happens, maybe in future patches... and let's experiment more.

Perhaps with ships as AAA....in terrain data

 

well, they work just fine in bombing missions. So an era specific strike will work just fine, just not cruise missile stuff. yet....

[Canadair 16]

well, they work just fine in bombing missions. So an era specific strike will work just fine, just not cruise missile stuff. yet....

 

You know much more of me of naval-air battles; when it was last time that bombing mission with dumb bombs where planned against naval-forces? perhaps falklands but by fighter, not big bombers...

[Guest Saganuay82]

I made some ASUW strikes awhile back, never worked. My TU22s came in, hit the WPs, rolled out and went home. Well with a few F14s in chase making them smoke and crash.

 

It would be interesting to see what happens with your plan. It is your intent to have ships lods in place of the AAA/SAM and then run SEAD missions against them? So a SAM site would be a carrier and a few DDG/FFG assorted around it?

 

Anyone have a Tico or Arliegh Burke? :)

[+Typhoid 231]

You know much more of me of naval-air battles; when it was last time that bombing mission with dumb bombs where planned against naval-forces? perhaps falklands but by fighter, not big bombers...

 

correct. That's what I mean by era specific.