LtCdrAlan
12-01-08, 06:35 AM
***Reasoning for my question follows in paragraph 1. Question is in paragraph 2***
I watched Crimson Tide earlier (one of my fav movies for the suspense it offers - if not for the somewhat accurate look at what the people who would be pulling the trigger go through) and wondered why I have never seen a mission based loosely on the plot. Before I start, obviously the movie isn't completely accurate (I hate the way they show the sonar like a radar display rather than a broadband waterfall, narrowband, etc, - though I was impressed that the movie version of Hunt for Red October shows a waterfall display) in plot or visuals, but it is fun to watch, and does in a way show how hard life on a sub can be, especially for those who are on boomers should the unthinkable event ever transpire that they receive launch authority for their SLBMs. There are PALs (Permissive Action Links) on all US and I believe Russian nuclear devices, although I don't think the UK has a PAL system in place. Either way, the movie shows that the CO has a "Captain's Launch Key" (CLK) which precludes release of any weapon. After the CLK is inserted and activated, there are also launch keys for each individual tube. After that, Weaps has a combination lock safe housing the firing mechanism with a combination known to him, and only him. Not to mention the fact that the CO and XO obviously have to agree to the order (on which the plot is centered). The movie starts by saying: (paraphrased) The three most powerful men in the world are: President US, President Russian Republic, The Captain of a US nuclear missile submarine. Now I know PALs have been around for a long time, if not properly used (SAC set early Minuteman ICBM codes to all 0's fearing the code may for some reason be unavailable in the event of a launch authorization), but the sequence I mentioned in the film obviously serve as part of a PAL system to which I would think is even more extensive (such as enabling and/or launching only upon simultaneous action that is made by two officers) even in the film (I know of at least some systems requiring multiple persons to take simultaneous action - usually entering a code, or similar). Either way, the part I dislike the most that actually involves the plot (sonar suite is just a graphics/visuals issue) is the radio failure. The ELF antenna was severed, yes, but the main radio mast presumably wasn't, as the sail of the ship seems undamaged since the periscope is used at one point. Once they were at PD, they could have raised the radio mast and been done with it (which is why the failure of internal equipment was included I presume). Oh, and the ICBM silos are "hardened silos" in the film; Only mobile and above ground launch systems can be seen being fueled by the spy birds in space, so this makes no sense, but is not known to the general public so it presumably was dismissed as not significant of an error to fix. Hardened (sub-surface) silos generally have pre-fueled missiles, as there have been fuel leaks and near catastrophic failures in the US with the old Titan II ICBMs.
My question and concept is as such: Obviously Ohio SSBNs (or any of the boomers for that matter) are not controllable platforms in DW, but a "plot" could be set up for a 688i to receive orders to release TLAMs from the VLS which could be "said" to be equiped with nuclear warheads or used as is. The plot of the mission (remaining as close to the movie as possible) could be taken in the context of Russian rebel forces controlling a naval base and IRBM or ICBM launch sites that are a threat. Such sites could be mobile launchers (SSM targets could serve the purpose), "hardend silos" (helipad strike?), support units such as command and control centers, etc. A patrol is ordered in waters nearby for the controllable 688i for the pre-emptive TLAM strike, should it occur. On triggers, radio updates are given and eventually (but not too long from mission start as to avoid 8 hours of boredom followed by seconds of action) a launch order given. Enemy subs (rebel captured Akulas) could also be trigger based to either engage the controllable 688i after having tracked it for a time, or just set to a different alliance and ROE = War (among many possible options). Additional trigger events could be included to increase the unpredictability of the mission when you play it (and possible replayability). Triggered system faiures could also take place allowing for the partial reception of a no-go for launch (retraction of launch authorization order or new order with other information) by triggering a partial message to be received, trigger Akula detection (and possible engage order for Akula(s), trigger systemfail on radio wire, mast, or both with a certain time to repair, etc. The whole while a clock is ticking (in the players mind that he/she must remain aware of) that expires when the supposed rebel forces achieve launch capability. I think it would be really fun to have a certain randomness to the final mission outcome which could be partially trigger controlled; IE perhaps sometimes the TLAM targets remain threats, sometimes TLAM targets change, sometimes a no-go on some TLAM targets, and sometimes no-go all TLAM targets. Depending on which outcome is triggered, at a time near the expirattion of the clock until the targets are launch ready, a trigger repairs radio wire, mast, or both. Shortly thereafter a radio is received indicating what the final objective is (either engage all targets, change targets, remove certain targets, or do not engage targets). Of course the outcome may not follow the movie, in which the authorization for launch is canceled), but the rest of it will "feel" like the movie with the inclusion of the failures, Akula(s), etc. Even if a trigger is fired to make the end result a no-go all targets, there is still the Akula(s) to deal with which means there is still action in the water. You could even set an Akula to controllable which has to prevent the 688i from taking out the land targets while staying alive itself as part of the rebel forces or put a friendly (russian loyal) akula tasked with taking out enemy akula(s) before it/they kill US or Russian units...
This is just an idea I thought someone would have already thought of, but after searching, hasn't been done or discussed AFAIK. I have only created a few missions and thus thought someone else is probably better suited to do this if there is any interest in the community, but the ones I have done relied heavily on triggers and scripts, as well as included a a lot of ambient activity surrounding the area of operations (things like civilian traffic, friendly/non hostile units that are the same class as hostile or objective targets to make IFF more difficult [such as friendly ru kilos and hostile cn kilos, or even friendly akulas and hostile rogue akulas], changes in alliance some times the mission is played and not others, etc). Has anyone else ever thought of this that I'm unaware of? Is there even any interest in something like this? If so, would anyone want to attempt it? I am wondering if I should attempt to create a "demo" or "lite" version of such a scenario to see what kind of reception it would get, then possibly create a full mission or small (4-8 missions to start, continuation if there was further interest) campaign which is dynamic and dependent on player actions within missions. A campaign would also probably include player option for which side to play as well as multiple platforms throughout the campaign, including surface and air aside from the subs. A mission would probably be first, and if it was well received the campaign would be an expanded version of the mission with new elements, and the addition of missions where other platforms come in to play (obviously this would be speculative plotline since the only units in the movie are subs and the land targets, which we never really "see").
Any thoughts?
I watched Crimson Tide earlier (one of my fav movies for the suspense it offers - if not for the somewhat accurate look at what the people who would be pulling the trigger go through) and wondered why I have never seen a mission based loosely on the plot. Before I start, obviously the movie isn't completely accurate (I hate the way they show the sonar like a radar display rather than a broadband waterfall, narrowband, etc, - though I was impressed that the movie version of Hunt for Red October shows a waterfall display) in plot or visuals, but it is fun to watch, and does in a way show how hard life on a sub can be, especially for those who are on boomers should the unthinkable event ever transpire that they receive launch authority for their SLBMs. There are PALs (Permissive Action Links) on all US and I believe Russian nuclear devices, although I don't think the UK has a PAL system in place. Either way, the movie shows that the CO has a "Captain's Launch Key" (CLK) which precludes release of any weapon. After the CLK is inserted and activated, there are also launch keys for each individual tube. After that, Weaps has a combination lock safe housing the firing mechanism with a combination known to him, and only him. Not to mention the fact that the CO and XO obviously have to agree to the order (on which the plot is centered). The movie starts by saying: (paraphrased) The three most powerful men in the world are: President US, President Russian Republic, The Captain of a US nuclear missile submarine. Now I know PALs have been around for a long time, if not properly used (SAC set early Minuteman ICBM codes to all 0's fearing the code may for some reason be unavailable in the event of a launch authorization), but the sequence I mentioned in the film obviously serve as part of a PAL system to which I would think is even more extensive (such as enabling and/or launching only upon simultaneous action that is made by two officers) even in the film (I know of at least some systems requiring multiple persons to take simultaneous action - usually entering a code, or similar). Either way, the part I dislike the most that actually involves the plot (sonar suite is just a graphics/visuals issue) is the radio failure. The ELF antenna was severed, yes, but the main radio mast presumably wasn't, as the sail of the ship seems undamaged since the periscope is used at one point. Once they were at PD, they could have raised the radio mast and been done with it (which is why the failure of internal equipment was included I presume). Oh, and the ICBM silos are "hardened silos" in the film; Only mobile and above ground launch systems can be seen being fueled by the spy birds in space, so this makes no sense, but is not known to the general public so it presumably was dismissed as not significant of an error to fix. Hardened (sub-surface) silos generally have pre-fueled missiles, as there have been fuel leaks and near catastrophic failures in the US with the old Titan II ICBMs.
My question and concept is as such: Obviously Ohio SSBNs (or any of the boomers for that matter) are not controllable platforms in DW, but a "plot" could be set up for a 688i to receive orders to release TLAMs from the VLS which could be "said" to be equiped with nuclear warheads or used as is. The plot of the mission (remaining as close to the movie as possible) could be taken in the context of Russian rebel forces controlling a naval base and IRBM or ICBM launch sites that are a threat. Such sites could be mobile launchers (SSM targets could serve the purpose), "hardend silos" (helipad strike?), support units such as command and control centers, etc. A patrol is ordered in waters nearby for the controllable 688i for the pre-emptive TLAM strike, should it occur. On triggers, radio updates are given and eventually (but not too long from mission start as to avoid 8 hours of boredom followed by seconds of action) a launch order given. Enemy subs (rebel captured Akulas) could also be trigger based to either engage the controllable 688i after having tracked it for a time, or just set to a different alliance and ROE = War (among many possible options). Additional trigger events could be included to increase the unpredictability of the mission when you play it (and possible replayability). Triggered system faiures could also take place allowing for the partial reception of a no-go for launch (retraction of launch authorization order or new order with other information) by triggering a partial message to be received, trigger Akula detection (and possible engage order for Akula(s), trigger systemfail on radio wire, mast, or both with a certain time to repair, etc. The whole while a clock is ticking (in the players mind that he/she must remain aware of) that expires when the supposed rebel forces achieve launch capability. I think it would be really fun to have a certain randomness to the final mission outcome which could be partially trigger controlled; IE perhaps sometimes the TLAM targets remain threats, sometimes TLAM targets change, sometimes a no-go on some TLAM targets, and sometimes no-go all TLAM targets. Depending on which outcome is triggered, at a time near the expirattion of the clock until the targets are launch ready, a trigger repairs radio wire, mast, or both. Shortly thereafter a radio is received indicating what the final objective is (either engage all targets, change targets, remove certain targets, or do not engage targets). Of course the outcome may not follow the movie, in which the authorization for launch is canceled), but the rest of it will "feel" like the movie with the inclusion of the failures, Akula(s), etc. Even if a trigger is fired to make the end result a no-go all targets, there is still the Akula(s) to deal with which means there is still action in the water. You could even set an Akula to controllable which has to prevent the 688i from taking out the land targets while staying alive itself as part of the rebel forces or put a friendly (russian loyal) akula tasked with taking out enemy akula(s) before it/they kill US or Russian units...
This is just an idea I thought someone would have already thought of, but after searching, hasn't been done or discussed AFAIK. I have only created a few missions and thus thought someone else is probably better suited to do this if there is any interest in the community, but the ones I have done relied heavily on triggers and scripts, as well as included a a lot of ambient activity surrounding the area of operations (things like civilian traffic, friendly/non hostile units that are the same class as hostile or objective targets to make IFF more difficult [such as friendly ru kilos and hostile cn kilos, or even friendly akulas and hostile rogue akulas], changes in alliance some times the mission is played and not others, etc). Has anyone else ever thought of this that I'm unaware of? Is there even any interest in something like this? If so, would anyone want to attempt it? I am wondering if I should attempt to create a "demo" or "lite" version of such a scenario to see what kind of reception it would get, then possibly create a full mission or small (4-8 missions to start, continuation if there was further interest) campaign which is dynamic and dependent on player actions within missions. A campaign would also probably include player option for which side to play as well as multiple platforms throughout the campaign, including surface and air aside from the subs. A mission would probably be first, and if it was well received the campaign would be an expanded version of the mission with new elements, and the addition of missions where other platforms come in to play (obviously this would be speculative plotline since the only units in the movie are subs and the land targets, which we never really "see").
Any thoughts?