A very late After-Action Report/Summary

[Molon Labe]

This is mostly in response to Maxed's question about how this turned out. I'm rather surprised I hadn't posted a summary to this site earlier. I'm sure I reported back to the GNSF on it, although that was more of a feasibility report than an AAR.

The site that where all the info was based no longer exists, but I'll reproduce as much of the information as possible in this thread/post. I'll reconstruct the events as they went down with the best information I have available in my records.

Initial Setup
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4847/image3141ga0.jpg

The Mariners started at its home port of Bluefields and the Tyrian Fleet started at Covenas (aka Dom Hasquez; the alternate name is in posthumous recognition of a drug lord who died due to a mysterious explosion aboard his yacht in this area. The cause of the explosion may not be so mysterious to some members of the Silent Service who have been playing nuke subsims since, say, 1997 :wink:)

The order of battle for each side was:
2 688I
1 Seawolf
1 Kilo
1 Akula I (imp)
3 Perry FFG

1 Arleigh Burke DDG
2 Harper's Ferry LSD
2 Sacramento AOR
1 Osprey MHC
1 DSRV
4 LCAC

6 MH-60
2 P-3

2 Special Forces Teams
4 Marine units
4 SAM site

Each side also had a set income level which they could use to build additional units. Annexing other ports would increase the income available.

Naval Forces on Full Alert
Lucy Biers
15 March 2008
BLUEFIELDS, Colombia (WNN) — The Mariners fleet, based in Bluefields, went on full alert this morning as tensions in the region reached a boiling point. Yesterday, the Tyrian Fleet released photographs purporting to show a boarding party escaping after sabotaging a super tanker, and a surfaced submarine meant to recover the party. Accompanying the photographs was a declaration of war, effectively ending any hope left for preventing a violent confrontation in the region. The Mariners have denied any involvement in piracy.
Crews of merchant ships called in to report that they observed docked submarines being loaded with what they thought were Tomahawk cruise missiles. The base was later closed to merchant traffic until arming operations are completed.
Foreign governments were quick to condemn both sides. “We don’t know who is responsible for the attacks on merchant shipping,” said Kristen Bradley, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., “but we feel that the rhetoric on both sides needlessly escalated the situation.” Foreign governments have cancelled all military training operations in the southern Caribbean and are pulling their forces out of the way. Merchant traffic continues throughout the region, although several shipping companies have expressed reservations. “It’s a difficult decision,” said Matt Bruno, a representative of Ajax Shipping, Inc. “We don’t want to put our crews at risk unnecessarily, but the regional economies—and our salaries—depend on trade. We’re hoping this whole thing blows over, or failing that, that the belligerent navies watch what they’re shooting at. In this day and age, we would hope they could tell the difference between a cargo ship and a warship and hit what they aim at.”Turn 1:
The Tyrians formed a large combined surface/subsurface task force that headed for the canal zone, while sending P-3s on patrol in the spaces immediately adjacent to Bluefields. They also sent a small force to annex Riohacha, and a submarine towards Kingston. The Mariners formed two task forces: an amphib supported by an FFG, AOR, and minesweeper headed for the northern port of Playa Larga, and one 'phib escorted by an FFG headed for nearby Trujillo. They deployed submarines independently of surface forces, headed for the Canal and Kingston, looking to intercept Tryian surface groups. The Mariners tasked their P-3s mostly to surface survielance, with one ASW search performed.

The Tryian P-3s immediately detected two Mariners submarines and engaged them. This resulted in the loss of the Mariners' Akula-I (commanded by Luftwolf). The Seawolf was also engaged, however it escaped because the P-3 had not set the floor deep enough to hit it.

The Tyrian P-3s also fired a SLAM-ER attack against Bluefields, but the Mariners' Burke DDG shot down the missiles over the ocean with little difficulty.

Breaking: Missile Attack Thwarted, Akula Submarine Claimed Sunk
Lucy Biers
15 March 2008
BLUEFIELDS, Colombia (WNN) — Just hours after being deployed, Mariners ships were photographed firing surface-to-air missiles at cruise missiles headed for Bluefields. There were no reports of any missiles reaching shore. The Tyrians confirmed that 12 SLAM-ER missiles were fired at military facilities, and that they believed that those missiles had been destroyed. Mariners officials declined to comment.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8724/image3121pw1.jpg

For the residents of Bluefields, the concern about the attempted missile attack was quickly overshadowed when rumors spread about the loss of a Mariners submarine just offshore. Families of Mariners submarine crews have been contacting military officials and news agencies seeking further information, but so far the only military source commenting has been the Tyrian fleet, which reports that two of its P-3s engaged two Mariners submarines. According to the Tyrians, an Akula class submarine crashed into the bottom while attempting to evade the P-3, while a Seawolf class submarine escaped a torpedo attack. The Tyrians claimed that they had “proof that only a few sailors were killed” aboard the Akula, and announced at they will not attack any unarmed ships sent to rescue the survivors. They reserved the right to attack armed vessels sent into the area. Mariners officials have neither confirmed nor denied the report of the loss of the Akula, and there is no information regarding any pending rescue operations.

Just as a side note, in case anyone is curious where the name "Lucy Biers" came from, it's an amalgam of "D'Anna Biers"--a reporter in Battlestar Galactica--and Lucy Lawless, the actress who plays D'Anna. I used the same convention to name several "characters" in the tournament.

[Molon Labe]

Turn 2:
This turn went equally badly for the Mariners. A 688I, commanded by Fish, was ordered to conduct a TLAM strike against Dom Hasquez. A Tyrian P-3 was conducting an ASW search at the 688I's location that same turn. The P-3 easily prosecuted and destroyed the 688I.

The missile strike against Dom Hasquez was partially effective, because the missiles had been routed overland. The defending DDG shot down many missiles, but not all of them. Overall, the damage to Tyrian facilities was light, resulting in the loss of some income and the extension of some shipbuilding activities.

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/5062/image3201go9.jpg Covenas Residents Awaken to Damage, Debris
Matthew Doral
16 March 2008
COVENAS, Nicaragua (WNN) — A missile attack came a bit too close to home for many Covenas residents in the early hours of the morning. At about 3 A.M., a flight of an unknown number of Tomahawk cruise missiles approached the Tyrian naval base, where they were engaged by air defenses. The missiles approached from over land, and were attacked by surface to air missiles as they overflew a commercial district. Debris from several missiles littered the streets, while fragments from the SAM warheads pelted several stores. No injuries were reported, and the Tyrian fleet declined to comment on if any missiles hit their base.

The Mariners, seeing the large Tyrian task force headed for the Canal, sent in P-3s to mine the area, an operation that went unnoticed in the cover of night...

[Molon Labe]

Turn 3
Both sides successfully annexed their first ports without resistance and received a Tico CG with those ports.
The Tyrian task force was also arriving at the Canal. The Mariners ordered their Seawolf to attack the Tyrian task force as it entered the area. A P-3 supported their efforts. Tyrian forces included two FFGs, 3-4 submarines, and supporting aircraft. At the beginning of the battle, a neutral merchant struck a mine and exploded. The Mariners' P-3 got too close to the task force and was shot down by an FFG. Their Seawolf attempted a TASM attack against the task force, but ended up hitting a U.S. (neutral) car carrier instead. A Tyrian P-3 engaged in fratricide against a 688I escorting the task force, but then sank the attacking Seawolf.

Tyrians Take Panama Canal; 23 Civilians Dead
Matthew Doral
16 March 2008
COVENAS, Nicaragua (WNN) — After a deadly battle, Tyrian forces took possession of naval facilities at the entrance to the Panama Canal this afternoon. Some combat took place with Mariners forces, however, it appears that civilian shipping took the worst of it.



The first ship to be hit was the freighter Mikhail Kholov, a small Venezuelan-flagged vessel carrying chemical products to Europe. The Kholov was in front of the Tyrian fleet advancing on the Canal when it was rocked by a tremendous explosion that was felt several miles away on the Danill Bodlev. The crew of the Bodlev managed to rescue three survivors of the Kholov out of a crew of 23. The survivors were evacuated to a Panamanian hospital where two are listed in serious but stable condition.
The source of the explosion is unknown, but the crew of the Bodlev believes that the explosion was probably underwater. This, combined with the observation of a Tyrian P-3 antisubmarine aircraft intensely searching the waters very near where the Bodlev sank, has fueled speculation that the Bodlev was torpedoed by a Mariners submarine attempting to intercept the Tyrian fleet. A Mariners spokesman acknowledged the presence of a submarine with orders to stop the fleet, but denies that any weapons were actually fired.


The spokesman went on to say that the Tyrians shot down one of their aircraft, and that the submarine in the area surfaced to rescue the downed crew and was attacked by missiles fired from Tyrian aircraft. The sub reportedly sank with the crew still aboard.


The next ship hit was the Florida bound Pure Car Carrier (PCC) Ceaspray, an American-flagged merchant under contract with Toyota. No fewer than five missiles struck the Ceaspray, causing the massive ship to sink in less than 30 minutes. Six out of the sixteen crew members were killed. The source of the missiles remains a mystery, although there is some indication that they may have been Tyrian. Fisherman in the vicinity of the approaching fleet reported seeing missiles fired from the Tryian warships at about the same time as the Ceaspray was hit. However, survivors from the Ceaspray believe they were hit from missiles approaching from the north, while the Tyrian fleet was to the east. Defense analyst Richard Bass of WorldWideSecurity.org also commented that the photographs of the stricken PCC show damage far greater than the Harpoon or Standard missiles carried by the Tyrian ships are capable of, suggesting that the larger Tomahawk antiship missile was more likely to have sunk the Ceaspray.


United States Secretary of State Mary Roslyn will be holding a press conference on the American government’s reaction to the sinking of the Ceaspray and Bodlev later this evening.

We have also received an update to this morning’s report on the missile attack against the Tyrian base at Covenas. They Tyrians report that 16 missiles were fired on the base, of which 14 were intercepted and 2 struck unspecified targets. The Tryians expressed faith that the damage would be quickly repaired, however.


With all resistance terminated, the Tyrians annexed the Canal port, which put their side at a strategic advantage in materials (3 ports possessed to the Mariners' 2).

The mining of the Canal and the sinking of two neutral merchant ships was something that could become a problem. The income of the ports depends on merchant shipping, and with two sunk in the span of a few hours, shipping companies were starting to see trade in the area as a bad investment. The destruction of the neutral ships might also lead to sanctions against the party responsible, or with foreign navies sending warships to the area to protect their interests in the region.

[Molon Labe]

Turn 4
This was something of a time for recouperation. Tyrian forces at the canal began replenishment operations to replace expended loadouts. They airlifted their DSRV to the Canal space and rescued the survivors of the sunken 688I. The Tyrian task force that had taken Riohacha turned north and headed for Port Au Prince, taking the new Tico with it (and leaving the base--including the shipyard--undefended).

The Mariners moved an FFG and AOR into the space where Fish's 688I was sunk, where they were attacked by a Tyrian P-3 to no effect. They launched a DSRV and successfully rescued the survivors.

A merchant engaged in commerce with the Tyrian fleet (non neutral) struck a mine at the Canal zone and sunk. The Tyrians made their first mistake by announcing to the world that the Mariners had mined the area. Fearing for the safety of their crews, shipping companies ceased all trips to the Tyrian port at the Canal, reducing materials available for construction.

The Mariners also began a dialogue with the US State Department about the loss of the Ceaspray. They told the US that the Seawolf had not carried any TASMs.


Panama Canal Port Feared Mined; Trade Cut Off
Lucy Biers
17 March 2008
PANAMA CITY, Panama (WNN)— After the sinking of a third merchant ship hours after all combat near the Panama Canal had ceased, the Tyrians released a statement claiming that the harbor had been mined by a Mariners submarine. International shipping companies responded by banning shipments to the port. The Panamanian navy is holding all traffic through the canal until it is declared safe, but officials felt confident that no mines would be found in that area and that traffic would resume quickly.

The Tyrian press release implicated the minefield in the sinking of the Kholov, and attributed the sinking of the Ceaspray to an attempted Mariners missile strike against the Tyrian fleet.

United States Secretary of State Mary Roslyn held a press conference on the conflict last night. In her statement, she criticized the Tyrians for not warning the public that the area had been mined after the loss of the Kholov. “The Tyrians selfishly kept this a secret so that their shipments would continue. Those twelve lives weren’t the Tyrians’ to risk.”

Secretary Roslyn also addressed the Ceaspray incident. She announced she had contacted the Mariners directly and established a dialogue about the incident. Her outlook was less than optimistic, however, because the Mariners had initially claimed that their submarine at the canal carried no Tomahawk antiship missiles, but then admitted that the weapons were carried when asked to accept an inspection team to verify the claim. When asked if she had been lied to, she attributed the reversal to “an innocent clerical error.” “Unfortunately, this leaves us back at square one,” the Secretary commented. “ When they first told us that no missiles were carried by the submarine, we thought we would be able to rule the missile attack theory out. Now, it remains the most likely among several theories we have to investigate.”

In another conference, Secretary of Defense James Adama announced that a cruiser-destroyer group was being diverted from damage control training at Guantanamo Bay and sent into the warzone, but also said that no decision had been made as to providing for escorts for merchant shipping.

[Molon Labe]

Turn Five
Combat in this turn occurred all over the region.

Both fleet's 688Is reached Kingston. The Tyrians diverted a P-3 to participate in the action, resulting in the loss of the Mariner's last SSN (all four of which were killed by P-3s).

A battle broke out near the Canal zone as a detachment from the Tyrian task force, including an FFG and Akula, encountered the FFG and AOR sent to rescue Fish and his crew. In the resulting battle, the Mariners' lost their AOR and a supporting P-3 was shot down. The Tyrians suffered the loss of two MH-60s, and their FFG was damaged by a Harpoon missile.

At the Mariners-controlled port of Trujillo, a Tyrian P-3 deployed three mines and fired nine SLAM-ER missiles at the shipyard. A task force had just departed this turn bound for Kingston, so the missiles struck unopposed, resulting in major damage to the shipyard and to a 688I that was being built there at the time.

The outcome of the war wasn't in doubt at this point. The Mariners were left with only a Kilo SSK, 2 FFGs, a Burke, and a Tico left, of which only the Kilo, Burke, and an FFG (without any Harpoons left) were in a position to oppose the large Tyrian combined surface-subsurface task force bound for the Mariners' home port. So we called it off here.
------------------
Why did it turn out so lopsided? There were four main reasons:

1. Strategy. The Tyrians made a strategic choice to make a strong play for the Canal area, while committing only modest resources to the northern ports. This essentially was a strategy of direct military confrontation (a "rush") rather than an attempt to win by out-resourcing the Mariners (a "turtle"). The Mariner's strategy, instead of picking one or the other, tried to do both. They committed significant resources to the northern ports, but also committed most of their SSN fleet to search and destroy missions. By trying to do both, they did neither well. This was in part due to some confusion about the mine rules--the Mariners incorrectly believed that warships were eligible to be hit by mines when in fact the original mine rules only made provision for merchant hits. In response to this confusion, modified rules (http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4276) allowing military vessels to be hit were made right around turn 2 or 3, but these changes were insufficient to result in amphibs being blocked from the Canal port.

2. Operations. The Tyrians operations were in perfect support of their strategy of direct confrontation. Their submarines, surface ships, and air cover moved together and supported each other, and were always ready to deal with an attack from any platform type. The Mariners deployed submarines mostly independently (though occasionally with air cover) sending most of their AAW capability to the north, where it was never needed. The resulting matchups were extremely in favor of the Tyrians, who always enjoyed the advantage of superior numbers or being on the winning side of the unit-counterunit relationship. This is particularly clear in the case of P-3 operations--all four Mariners SSNs were lost to P-3s while they had no AAW protection.

3. Tactical
3a. On my part, match format used to resolve combat resulting from a P-3's successful ASW search could have been made harder for the P-3 than it was, by giving the P-3 a larger search area. This was a factor in the sinking of Luftwolf's Akula (http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7922&postcount=3) and the near-sinking of Driftwood's Seawolf.
3b. The Mariners made poor choices about when to engage, in particular by sending in a Seawolf and FFG, in separate turns, against a clearly superior force. Retreat was the only viable choice in both situations.

Is it practical to do this again?
The advantages of the system are pretty obvious. DW matches are placed in a strategic context, where the setups are the result of choices made by the participants and the battles have an effect on the larger campaign. Without having any sort of dynamic campaign engine, it's worth doing on those merits.

Practically, though, this format is very burdensome. Accounting for the mobility of platforms and keeping records of their loadouts is very time consuming. It's also very difficult to get the required number of players together to play the matches in a timely manner. I'd say this can be done again only if a GM or team of GMs with enough free time on their hands can be found. Alternate formats that involve simplified rules for mobility accounting, etc. will probably be more viable.

[TLAM Strike]

Mission Specific AARs

Molon Labe you inspired me to put up my own AARs of the battles in GDT. I was the commander of the Tyrians and was involved in all but two battles. The games were so long ago so I may fudge the details a little.

Battle One P-3 Vs. Seawolf
I wasn’t around for that battle.

Battle Two P-3 Vs. Akula I (Luftwolf)
My strategy for this mission was a simple barrier search, I considered the Akula with its SS-N-27 ASMs the biggest threat to our forces so I pulled no punches. I laid two lines of buoys alternating DICASS and VLAD. Upon completing each line I went active. The second line got hot DICASS that could only be a submerged contact. I used the VLADs to insure there was a tonal incase it was a Biologic. I then got a MAD hit and made a stern attack. Luftwolf attempted to evade when he collided with a seamount. My report to Molon was simple: "Yeehaw Luftwolf dead!" Poor Luftwolf has not yet lived that one down.

Battle Three P-3, MH-60x2 Vs. 688(I) (Fish)
I was piloting one of the MH-60s, which started some distance from the battle area. The P-3 had a ring of buoys around the area and detected something to the north, the contact was reported to be faint but it corresponded with a flaming datum from the TLAM launch. As the two MH-60s approached the area the P-3 attacked with a single fish to no effect. I told the P-3 driver to conserve fish until we confirmed the contacts identity, Fish was doing a good job at masking is signature. The POSSUB was too deep for a MAD hit but it seemed the only submerged contact in the area but I had the two MH-60s start a search in the eastern and southern areas of the area just incase. The P-3 attacked again with several fish and scored a kill near the northern edge of the battle area.

Battle Four Tyrian TF Vs. Seawolf (Driftwood):
I wasn’t available for that battle, my XO was in command.

Battle Five P-3, 688(i) Vs. 688(i) AKA "TLAM’s Gamble"
Kingston was just beyond the range for a P-3 to do an ASW search but when our 688 arrived it would detect any submarine contact there or entering that hex. The 688 did and the P-3 was overhead and ready. I coordinated with the 688 giving him the surface picture from my radar while he gave me bearings to any suspicious contacts. We had two in close proximity. I attacked with a torpedo and killed a whale the enemy 688 was hiding near. I reattacked and sank he but not before he got off an MK 48. I tracked his torpedoes on my buoys and gave that info to the 688 allowing him to evade easily.

Battle Six FFG, Akula I Vs FFG, AOR and P-3
I had the FFG on this one. I proceeded a medium speed under EMCON to appear to be a merchant ship while the distant TF and my MH-60s gave me radar data, I was acting as a "SAM Trap" for the enemy P-3. Sure enough he headed right for me and I gave him a couple of SM-2s. As I recall the P-3 driver was very angry at that dirty trick. I then went active on radar and began searching for targets for our Akula. I got solutions on the enemy TF and the Akula opened fire with ASMs sinking the AOR. The Akula was out of missiles as the two FFGs exchanged Harpoons. I sent my harpoons straight in while they sent them to attack from two directions at once. I nailed the first harpoons and knew exactly where that last harpoon was coming from but I didn’t see it on radar for some reason until I was hit. I guess it got dropped due to lag- this battle had quite a bit of lag at my end. I send my MH-60s out to harass the enemy FFG. One was shot down after firing its Penguin. The other got caught in the cross fire between my CIWS and an incoming SM-2. The Akula fired several Subrocs in an attempt to deplete the enemy FFG of SAMs then sprinted in for a torpedo attack that failed. Molon said in his AAR that the enemy SAG was wiped out but I think their FFG was still alive.

A couple of things I remember differently:
We didn’t attack the TF sent to rescue Luftwolf.

We used our DSRV to capture Driftwood and offered to air mail him straight to Gitmo for sinking an American ship. We were about to airlift the DSRV to Kingston to capture the captain and crew of that 688. We also captured the crew of the two downed P-3s (MaHuJa was the pilot I think). We had quite a few EPWs on our hands!

Also I think Bluefields was about to be on the receiving end of a bunch of TLAMs and SLAM-ERs turn 6.

[Molon Labe]

Battle Five P-3, 688(i) Vs. 688(i) AKA "TLAM’s Gamble"
Kingston was just beyond the range for a P-3 to do an ASW search but when our 688 arrived it would detect any submarine contact there or entering that hex. The 688 did and the P-3 was overhead and ready. I coordinated with the 688 giving him the surface picture from my radar while he gave me bearings to any suspicious contacts. We had two in close proximity. I attacked with a torpedo and killed a whale the enemy 688 was hiding near. I reattacked and sank he but not before he got off an MK 48. I tracked his torpedoes on my buoys and gave that info to the 688 allowing him to evade easily.
I forgot about that move. That was nicely done...clever, without being an exploit.


Battle Six FFG, Akula I Vs FFG, AOR and P-3
I had the FFG on this one. I proceeded a medium speed under EMCON to appear to be a merchant ship while the distant TF and my MH-60s gave me radar data, I was acting as a "SAM Trap" for the enemy P-3. Sure enough he headed right for me and I gave him a couple of SM-2s. As I recall the P-3 driver was very angry at that dirty trick. I then went active on radar and began searching for targets for our Akula. I got solutions on the enemy TF and the Akula opened fire with ASMs sinking the AOR. The Akula was out of missiles as the two FFGs exchanged Harpoons. I sent my harpoons straight in while they sent them to attack from two directions at once. I nailed the first harpoons and knew exactly where that last harpoon was coming from but I didn’t see it on radar for some reason until I was hit. I guess it got dropped due to lag- this battle had quite a bit of lag at my end. I send my MH-60s out to harass the enemy FFG. One was shot down after firing its Penguin. The other got caught in the cross fire between my CIWS and an incoming SM-2. The Akula fired several Subrocs in an attempt to deplete the enemy FFG of SAMs then sprinted in for a torpedo attack that failed. Molon said in his AAR that the enemy SAG was wiped out but I think their FFG was still alive.
You're right, just found an debrief file confirming this.


A couple of things I remember differently:
We didn’t attack the TF sent to rescue Luftwolf.
The FFG and AOR above were that TF--I think they were after Fish though, they might have previously rescued LW.

[subb]

So, I'm just curious, making reference to battle 2 (p3 vs sub)

These scenarios of GDT... how were the outcomes determined? Using the sub vs p3 for example, assuming the sub has no allied forces to really counter the p3, (hence sub vs p3).

Are outcomes of these maps destination sensitive where the p3 had to prevent the sub from transiting the area? Or are the outcomes determined by elimination of a platform, basically your typical DM scenario where your akula isn’t a submarine anymore and is SAM hunting aircraft?

[Molon Labe]

The "outcome" is determined by whatever happens in the match...all the way up to and including expended weapons and CMs (players were required to take screenshots of their loadout screens and sent it and the replay to me for review).

On the more abstract level, if a platform retreated from the battle, then depending on the direction it went, it might be moved to a different hex space, provided that space was one the platform could have reached that turn anyway. For a P-3 vs sub sort of situation, a minimum transit distance was required for the sub to be allowed to move into the hex it was transiting to, so that it couldn't just sit at 0 knots without any consequence.

So, pretty much everything that happened in the match is reported back and is represented in the situation for the next turn.

Or are the outcomes determined by elimination of a platform, basically your typical DM scenario where your akula isn’t a submarine anymore and is SAM hunting aircraft?
A typical DM situation would involve more or less equally capable platforms. As I recently reminded one of our Xfire buddies (with an over-the-shoulder SLAM-ER shot), using a sub to get into a missile-slinging battle with a P-3 is a losing proposition. It would make a lot more sense for a player's objective to be survival rather than the destruction of the P-3, but of course, in this format, how they choose to play it is entirely up to them... and their side's OOB in the next turn will reflect that choice.

[subb]

The "outcome" is determined by whatever happens in the match...all the way up to and including expended weapons and CMs (players were required to take screenshots of their loadout screens and sent it and the replay to me for review).

On the more abstract level, if a platform retreated from the battle, then depending on the direction it went, it might be moved to a different hex space, provided that space was one the platform could have reached that turn anyway. For a P-3 vs sub sort of situation, a minimum transit distance was required for the sub to be allowed to move into the hex it was transiting to, so that it couldn't just sit at 0 knots without any consequence.

So, pretty much everything that happened in the match is reported back and is represented in the situation for the next turn.


A typical DM situation would involve more or less equally capable platforms. As I recently reminded one of our Xfire buddies (with an over-the-shoulder SLAM-ER shot), using a sub to get into a missile-slinging battle with a P-3 is a losing proposition. It would make a lot more sense for a player's objective to be survival rather than the destruction of the P-3, but of course, in this format, how they choose to play it is entirely up to them... and their side's OOB in the next turn will reflect that choice.

Interesting….

Ok.. real quick.. please confirm this….

Alright…

If I were to design a scenario that best re-creates the p3 v sub scenario. Then I would need to do the following:

1.. Random location of both playable platforms

2.. Long / lat destination triggers monitoring that the sub was successful in transiting, excluding use of ‘drawn lines’ which makes no sense if you ask me. But theses long / lat destination triggers would be placed as such to monitor the direction from all four sides of the area, checking to see if the sub either retreated, advanced or is attempting for flanks into the next hex.

3.. Tasking triggers for all playable platforms specifying objective(s) for each and all.

4.. In GDT were / are there AI platforms involved? If this is only humans then that is great and trigger design is minimized greatly. If not then triggers can start rolling in by the dozens if you want AI to be smart. 600 triggers finished Map C for 10 people, and I haven’t even started optimization yet.

5.. And what about ROE? Were these always hot scenarios or did ROE come into play at all?

6.. Truth is good buddy, as much as I hate to admit it, time is becoming a commodity and is no longer a luxury. :frown: It’s something I have less of these days, and I think you know why $$$. :smile: Well I should say that I have less control of time because other endeavors are demanding more of it. But that isn’t really a show stopper. And if I’m understanding this right, GDT would be something I would love to experience but I can be more effective in scenario design, and one day when time permits, I could actually participate. Anything I can drop now / pick up later shouldn’t be a problem. Anything more will cost me in so many ways and I can’t have that.

I’m going to back-read and try to understand GDT more in depth, but if this is something you wish to recreate and if my understanding of scenario design is correct, then maybe I can contribute to the cause in that fashion.

[subb]

i meant 6 sides of the scenario, not 4 :redface:

[TLAM Strike]

Interesting….

Ok.. real quick.. please confirm this….

Alright…

If I were to design a scenario that best re-creates the p3 v sub scenario. Then I would need to do the following:
<SNIP>


I still have several of the GDT scenarios on my computer. If you like I can post them. Just give me a day or two to do it.

[subb]

I still have several of the GDT scenarios on my computer. If you like I can post them. Just give me a day or two to do it.

do it up, I'd like to see them. Thank you!!!

Also is contact with forces guaranteed to happen every time?

For example if I’ve been tasked to deliver some LAMS and I need to transit from port to firing position, I would want to minimize contact with opposing forces as much as possible until the last minute, even if it means retreating from a hex, then attempting flanks around forces & resume transiting.

[Molon Labe]

I thought I already responded to this one, but I guess I didn't click the button. So, take 2:



If I were to design a scenario that best re-creates the p3 v sub scenario. Then I would need to do the following:

1.. Random location of both playable platforms
Not really. A re-creation of any of the P-3 vs. sub matches would need to have starting positions based on the location and destination of the sub and the amount of time the P-3 had been patrolling.


2.. Long / lat destination triggers monitoring that the sub was successful in transiting, excluding use of ‘drawn lines’ which makes no sense if you ask me. But theses long / lat destination triggers would be placed as such to monitor the direction from all four sides of the area, checking to see if the sub either retreated, advanced or is attempting for flanks into the next hex.
A re-creation would not require any triggers at all. Whether the sub had advanced sufficiently or had retreated or deviated could be determined by a review of the replay.


3.. Tasking triggers for all playable platforms specifying objective(s) for each and all.
Goal triggers are entirely optional. GDT scenarios typically did contain some goal triggers, but these were there mostly for purposes of reporting dives to the Seawolves and GNSF. They had no direct bearing to the resolution of the battle with respect to the GDT, since a side/player/platform's objectives are determined by the order of the fleet commander and/or the discretion of the player, not by the GM.


4.. In GDT were / are there AI platforms involved? If this is only humans then that is great and trigger design is minimized greatly. If not then triggers can start rolling in by the dozens if you want AI to be smart. 600 triggers finished Map C for 10 people, and I haven’t even started optimization yet.
Clearly, AI platforms are involved since the AOR mentioned in at least three posts so far is not playable in DW. Triggers relating to AI platforms are usually unneccessary. The exception would be the case where the AI platform is there to perform a specific function that requires scripting, such as and LSD spawning LCACs for an amphibious landing. The only thing I remember adding superfluous triggers for was an "easter egg", when the Kholov sunk, it spawned a life raft that could have been rescued by either side's helo. No one thought to save the civies though, so this easter egg went unnoticed. :rolleyes:


5.. And what about ROE? Were these always hot scenarios or did ROE come into play at all?
ROE was set according to the authority of the fleet commander and/or the discretion of the player. The strategic situation was, of course, that of a shooting war.


6.. Truth is good buddy, as much as I hate to admit it, time is becoming a commodity and is no longer a luxury. :frown: It’s something I have less of these days, and I think you know why $$$. :smile: Well I should say that I have less control of time because other endeavors are demanding more of it. But that isn’t really a show stopper. And if I’m understanding this right, GDT would be something I would love to experience but I can be more effective in scenario design, and one day when time permits, I could actually participate. Anything I can drop now / pick up later shouldn’t be a problem. Anything more will cost me in so many ways and I can’t have that.

I’m going to back-read and try to understand GDT more in depth, but if this is something you wish to recreate and if my understanding of scenario design is correct, then maybe I can contribute to the cause in that fashion.
It's not something I'd try to re-create, because I think we've already learned enough from the format that we can do something better. The GDT was, after all, an experiment.

I think your understanding of the scenario design probably involved a little more hand-holding than what it actually was. Scenario design was a very simple, mechanical process, the parameters of which were determined by a standard format for the match type and the disposition of the platforms involved. Complicated scenarios with scripted events or designer-imposed rules are sensible and necessary for matches in which designers place players in an operation the designer created and in a strategic context that the designer imagined (i.e., a well thought out objective based match with a backstory). But, in a persistent campaign where the players are decide the strategy and plan their own operations, the scenario designer's role is far more limited.

[Molon Labe]

do it up, I'd like to see them. Thank you!!!

Also is contact with forces guaranteed to happen every time?

For example if I’ve been tasked to deliver some LAMS and I need to transit from port to firing position, I would want to minimize contact with opposing forces as much as possible until the last minute, even if it means retreating from a hex, then attempting flanks around forces & resume transiting.

The simplified answer is that detection would occur if a platform of greater or (approximately) equal capability entered the same space. If you want the full answer, head over to the P-3 thread and download the rulebook posted there.

The hex-based system of mobility accounting and detection reporting will likely be abandoned for any future run, since an alternative (http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22251) which is should be more efficient, and will be less abstracted, has been thought up. :biggrin:

[TLAM Strike]

do it up, I'd like to see them. Thank you!!!

Here you go.

[Molon Labe]

Playa Larga... hehehehe. Another site rich in nuke subsim history!:biggrin:

[TLAM Strike]

Found a couple more GDT missions hidden in my incoming folder. Enjoy...