Mission Design balance - FFG

[Kapitan]

at 900 meters probly hear it anywhere the al'fa was only truly noisey when she stepped on the peddle

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Bellman

SeaQueen has raised several good points.
Although we lack many Harpoon tools the FFG would be part of a group and in DW scenarios accompanying convoy warships can be alloted 'Threat axis' positions.

We don't really need all the tools that Harpoon has. They're an overkill. One DOES need to think, when designing scenarios, what would be an appropriate force tasked to do whatever is the stated goal of the mission is, though. If the mission is to destroy an Akula, a single FFG is not an appropriate platform. Honestly for OFFENSIVE ASW, a submarine is probably the best way to go. For ASW defence, though the FFG alone lacks the defensive capabilities it really needs. If an FFG was caught alone by an Akula, the FFG would probably try to run away, assuming it avoided the Akula's first attack, and call for help from a P-3, other aircraft and warships.

An FFG with a DDG and maybe a pair of F/A-18s would be better. The FFG / DDG combination has significant ASW capabilities and the F/A-18s combined with DDG's AEGIS, the FFG's SM-2, CIWS and chaff provides a layered defence against incoming cruise missiles. The playing field would be a lot more equal in this case.

Also, one would have to wonder why an Akula would bother chasing after a lone FFG in the first place. More likely, the Akula would be tasked to go for L-ships, CVs, and cargo vessels -- the Allied / American center of mass. Sinking an FFG in that case might be a means to an end, but once he hits the FFG there's a flaming datum so the high value units (if they're smart) have been alerted and taken evasive measures, complicated the Akula's problem.

I have a reoccuring dream that SS will combine elements of 'Fleet Command' with DW to to give us strategic fleet planning/implementation combined with the buzz of operational tactics. It has been done in flight sims. :|\

It already has. You just need to think about how a scenario would really work. Don't think of scenarios as "I'm going to put an X versus a Y and see what happens." Think of scenarios as "X is doing this. To insure that X does this I need to protect him against A, B, and C. To do that I need (or better yet, HAVE) 1, 2, and 3..."

It tends to lead to fairly balanced scenarios that have at a reason motivating them, and it also gives your scenarios some depth. Personally I think it's much more satisfying.

[timmyg00]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

We don't really need all the tools that Harpoon has. They're an overkill. One DOES need to think, when designing scenarios, what would be an appropriate force tasked to do whatever is the stated goal of the mission is, though. If the mission is to destroy an Akula, a single FFG is not an appropriate platform. Honestly for OFFENSIVE ASW, a submarine is probably the best way to go. For ASW defence, though the FFG alone lacks the defensive capabilities it really needs. If an FFG was caught alone by an Akula, the FFG would probably try to run away, assuming it avoided the Akula's first attack, and call for help from a P-3, other aircraft and warships.

An FFG with a DDG and maybe a pair of F/A-18s would be better. The FFG / DDG combination has significant ASW capabilities and the F/A-18s combined with DDG's AEGIS, the FFG's SM-2, CIWS and chaff provides a layered defence against incoming cruise missiles. The playing field would be a lot more equal in this case.

Also, one would have to wonder why an Akula would bother chasing after a lone FFG in the first place. More likely, the Akula would be tasked to go for L-ships, CVs, and cargo vessels -- the Allied / American center of mass. Sinking an FFG in that case might be a means to an end, but once he hits the FFG there's a flaming datum so the high value units (if they're smart) have been alerted and taken evasive measures, complicated the Akula's problem.

It already has. You just need to think about how a scenario would really work. Don't think of scenarios as "I'm going to put an X versus a Y and see what happens." Think of scenarios as "X is doing this. To insure that X does this I need to protect him against A, B, and C. To do that I need (or better yet, HAVE) 1, 2, and 3..."

It tends to lead to fairly balanced scenarios that have at a reason motivating them, and it also gives your scenarios some depth. Personally I think it's much more satisfying.

It's pretty rare to see such good tactical/mission design analysis around here. Bravo Zulu.

TG

[Kapitan]

personaly surface sub surface air land or sea is a target to me

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by timmyg00

It's pretty rare to see such good tactical/mission design analysis around here. Bravo Zulu.

TG

Building computer models of naval combat is what I do for a living. It was actually one of my supervisors who got me into DW.

[Bellman]

Thanks SeaQueen - thats just the sort of information I hoped to elicit. As I said I am a 'Learner' in mission design :-

I am at primary school where triggers are concerned but will get there - eventualy.

A very neat exposition.

[Bellman]

Its the combination of force from inter-related platforms that creates a powerful group.
Harpooning has taught me that but I am new to mission design period. It will be interesting
to attempt to translate that experience within DW.

I would add to your excellent post that we shouldnt overlook the essential role of AEW nor forget the
S3 Viking. Both enable long range force projection. Another important player in the orchestra is airborne ECM -
not sure how much that figures in DW. Again the role of the Tomcat and F18(AAW) is the key to establishing
the right conditions for supremacy.

Tools - have we really got enough ? Agree we dont need the heavy Harpoon stuff but I am not alone
in wanting more MD flexible drawing/marking tools for the Nav map. In particular I want the ability
o produce individual marked Nav maps for each side/platform. Nav zones, exclusion zones etc.

Fleet Command - I did'nt make my point here - what I dream about is a sim like DIDs Total War which combines
the strategic with the tactical. In that flight sim you could design missions then board the AWACs aircraft
and as Air Controller issue instructions to individual flights carrying out your mission assignments and
then jump into any F22 pilot seat in 3D.

I seek, as Dids blurb outlined, the naval equivalent of :-
' An extremely sophisticated ariel campaign and and flight simulation program expertly
integrated into one very compelling game. '

You will agree I'm sure that design and implementation are strictly separate in DW.,
hence my desire to see FC and DW integrated.

Finaly a bit of provocative flag waving DID and Digital Integration were British firms squeezed out
of existence by 'Big Brother' The latter produced 'Tornado' and F18E which didnt stay
the course against the much less worthy F18., backed by greater promotional resources.

But then Rolls Royce engines turn up in some funny places. ;

[timmyg00]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

Building computer models of naval combat is what I do for a living. It was actually one of my supervisors who got me into DW.

You're a ringer!! :P

TG

EDIT: Sounds like a dream job... not sure my resume would hold up if I applied though

[Bellman]

I guess i'm getting used to seeing the back of the hat.. After a life time in technical sales - its par for the course.

Well theres a lot of appeals out there for missions designed for the FFG - even as a non-MP (temp) player it is easy
to see that this is vital to the future of the MP game. Seed corn ?

To those of us seeking to learn and develop mission design skills we would appreciate more of the SeaQueen type of input.

Who will do a TACMAN for Mission Design ? Like all the SS manuals there is much un/understated.

Let me commend OKO for his open, cooperative and very helpfull approach. Thanks OKO . :|\

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by timmyg00

You're a ringer!! :P

TG

EDIT: Sounds like a dream job... not sure my resume would hold up if I applied though

What is your background in? Mine's in physics. I had no military experience, outside of playing Harpoon. *shrug* In fact, I'm about the most UN-military person you'll ever meet.

I interviewed, they hired me, before I knew it, they sent me to school for underwater acoutics, taught me the modeling language, and set me up analyzing all kinds of things. You should apply, you might be surprised.

[Bellman]

SeaQueen wrote:-

I also tend to always start off scenarios with my helo airborn. Most scenarios should be designed around more than one warship. If it's against a highly capable threat like an Akula.
And-
Building computer models of naval combat is what I do for a living. It was actually one of my supervisors who got me into DW

Cant find any SeaQueen DW/SC scenarios at Bills - maybe I'm looking in the wrong place ? Or perhaps you refer specificaly to work ?

As you seem genned-up I thought I might continue the 'learning process'by having a look and running one. :hmm:

If you design exclusively for the 'Pro' sim area then I wont press.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Bellman

SeaQueen wrote:-
Cant find any SeaQueen DW/SC scenarios at Bills - maybe I'm looking in the wrong place ? Or perhaps you refer specificaly to work ?

As you seem genned-up I thought I might continue the 'learning process'by having a look and running one. :hmm:

If you design exclusively for the 'Pro' sim area then I wont press.

So far, yeah, I've only designed for pros. I'm actually working on a fun little SOF delivery scenario for DW with the helo, though. If people like it, I want to expand it into a full campaign involving all elements of an ESG. So far I'm not quite satisfied with it.

[XabbaRus]

I say do it SeaQueen it is good to have someone on the forum with in depth knowledge.

Some good scenarios could come out of it.

[timmyg00]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

What is your background in? Mine's in physics. I had no military experience, outside of playing Harpoon. *shrug* In fact, I'm about the most UN-military person you'll ever meet.

I interviewed, they hired me, before I knew it, they sent me to school for underwater acoutics, taught me the modeling language, and set me up analyzing all kinds of things. You should apply, you might be surprised.

Wow!

My background is: 6 years USN, with the bulk of that spent on SSN-760 as an ESM (and Radio) tech; another year afterwards working on USAF EHF SATCOM, then the past 7 years in civilian telecom (specializing in signaling analysis). (EDIT: and five years playing 688(I), SC, FC, SH1, SHII, and DW )

Hmmmm

TG

P.S. now, back to our program :P