SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Molon Labe · 02-04-08, 04:02 AM

Hopefully I'll be able to test my old projects and get them out soon... but SuBB and the FdB/Sakura mods got my hamster wheel spinning again and I'm thinking up design concepts. Between these new mods giving us new tools to play with in mission design and real-world events occuring which can be recreated and developed with the tools DW and the mods give us, we might have a lot to work with.

So, what I'd like to do is come up with a scenario (or perhaps series) that puts as much of these ideas and tools into one bundle as possible. I'm leaning towards a single adversarial multiplayer mission, however, MP coop or SP scenario/campaign is on the table. And if it can be done, I'd like to try to make the scenario involve dynamic or discretionary mission objectives. (Dynamic meaning not the same during every instantiation of the scenario, discretionary meaning all objectives are constant but the commanding officers will be able to choose between several; either way neither side knows what to expect of the enemy in advance). There will be two major design challenges: first, making sure all playables have adequate tasking at all times, and second, maintaining balance in a scenario where it's entirely possible that objectives will be completed unopposed.

With that said, here is what we have to work with that I've thought up with so far, starting with the obvious and ending with the unconventional.

1. Conventional SAG/ARG/CSG escort/intercept
2. Area ASW/attacks on Sea Lanes of Communication
3. Intel work
---2A. Harbor surveilance (sub)
---2B. Aerial recon (P-3)
---2C. Signals intelligence (radio mod)
---2D. Identifying and locating HVTs, shipping lanes, patrol routes, etc. (battlefield prep)
4. Strategic mining
5. Special Forces deployment
---5A. Takeover/destruction of oil platforms
---5B. Support of insurgents/Al Qaida in Iraq
---5C. Covert destruction/sabotage of ships in harbor
6. SAR
---6A. At sea
---6B. On land (CAS)
---6C. Flipside: capturing downed enemy pilot
7. Maritime security operations
---7A. Enforcement of maritime boundaries against potentially hostile platforms
---7B. Detention and inspection of vessels suspected of smuggling weapons
---7C. Flipside: capturing inspection teams near maritime boundaries
8. Suicide boat attacks
(Edit) 9: TBM countermeasures
---9A. Strike vs. TBM sites
---9B. Conventional protection/attack vs. TBM assets (e.g. USS Port Royal, Patriot batteries)

Obviously a lot of this points right at US vs. Iran, hence the thread title. The region is giving us a lot to work with lately. The biggest limitation with using Iran though, is that we're mostly working with Kilos, and that means a relatively small op area for those platforms as well as a light weapons load. So in giving the Kilos something to do, we have to be careful that we don't ask too much of them or get too many platforms doing too many things in too small a space. (This is where a series or campaign might be more do-able). So what I'm thinking about now is about what missions above can the Kilo take part in, how can it be set up so that the Kilo has the choice between them, and/or has the ability to respond to new developments as they occur. And most importantly right now, what overarching strategic missions/interests are the US and Iran working towards?

The design concept I'm working with now is this: The scenario starts at a time of elevated tension between the US led coalition and Iran. Both sides feel a fight is coming, and start playing a delicate game of chess to try to get an advantage for when the fighting does break out. This includes locating key targets, getting weapons to the right people, getting political leverage, etc. The principal op area will be around the maritimie boundaries of Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran, where at minimum an FFG will be engaged in security operations. FFG tasking will include keeping Iranian platforms out and inspecting suspicious merchant traffic. At minimum, a Kilo may by trying to get in. It may try to land terrorists on an oil platform, identify HVTs in a harbor, get supplies to insurgents, mine a harbor... perhaps even command some Boghammars to ambush a coalition boarding team. There will be many tankers in the area which Iran will want to locate in the event of hostilities. There will be at least a few Kilos which the coalition will want to locate before the night sky is lit up by those tankers. There may be innocent looking fishing boats hanging around for a chance to blow someone up. There may be fast attack craft that "identify" US formations near the Iranian coast, only to turn and attack upon receiving a signal from a nearby Kilo, (which may be timed to coincide with the Kilo's own attack, when the US ships are most distracted)...

I'm thinking that the overarching goals/victory conditions would break down as follows:
Coalition win: Safe arrival of reinforcements (needed for operations in the coming war) AND protection of SLOC from major disruption
Iranian win: Prevention of reinforcement arrival
Draw: Reinforcement arrived, but Iran beasted the SLOC.

The various objectives that come up all have to feed into those conditions in some way. The SLOC related goals are faily simple, you just aggregate kills vs. tankers, platforms, ports mined, etc. Transit related goals less so, although you could, for example, require that a minesweeper survives if the port gets mined else it the formation stops or turns around. Or if special forces sneak around somewhere maybe there's an extra suicide attack to deal with. Or maybe forces just have to get pulled off the transit objective to cover the SLOC objective. Not sure how to work in the politics of capture yet... Maybe after I get some sleep.:hmm:

G'nite.

Edit: mmmm, coffee. Anyways, consequences of captured boarding crews/pilots could include coalition forces restricting operations of the relevant platforms to prevent such occurances, which in turn could make it easier (or perhaps automatic) for other objectives to be achieved.

I'm not too happy with the 'safe arrival' goal being a master goal. A better framework might be a political goal, that of being in position to win the war at mission end (which would mean an Iranian settlement on the aid to insurgents/nuclear issue). Victory for Iran would be to prevent the military/political conditions necessary to force such a settlement, which could include degradation of coalition miltiary strength or political will. If combat gets truely out of control to the point that a de facto state of war already exists, it would probably be considered a loss for both sides under this model. The downside of this would likely be that it will be fairly hard to put players on notice of what they need to do to win, but then again that's war isn't it?

Edit 2: Is there room to get the Russians involved? Originally, I thought no. Now I'm thinking maybe. Let's assume for a moment that Russia is seeking resurgence back onto the superpower stage. Let's also assume that Russia believes that the US is in a state of military decline, and a defeat at the right moment may cause the US to assert itself less in the Eastern hemisphere, giving Russia the room to fill the vacuum. So maybe some of the smuggling to insurgents has Russia's name on it. Maybe there is an Akula poking around assisting the Iranians. Having an Akula around means the Iranians have a greater capacity to seriously hurt coalition surface forces and are not completely lacking in ASW capability. Mobility may also increase, although not necessarily because practical speed is limited by detectability, and the detection of such an Akula conducting pro-Iranian operations in the Gulf would have to have serious consequences. (Serious as in, "hey, you know how the Kuznetsov is conducting exercises in the Med right now? Well, we noticed you have a sub dangerously close to our forces. We've moved the USS Seawolf similarly close to the Kuznetsov. You might wish to consider withdrawing the Akula before something really bad happens to the pride of your fleet. By the way, here some some pictures the Connecticut took during your last exercises. Yeah, we can get that close. Have a nice day.") Having an Akula around would definitely allow for a greater role of any US sub that might be included, especially since without it the Iranians would have little capability of killing the US sub at all (they do have helos and MPAs, but as a practical matter they will not survive long if a shooting war develops).

02-04-08, 04:02 AM	#1
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Brainstorming the persian gulf... Hopefully I'll be able to test my old projects and get them out soon... but SuBB and the FdB/Sakura mods got my hamster wheel spinning again and I'm thinking up design concepts. Between these new mods giving us new tools to play with in mission design and real-world events occuring which can be recreated and developed with the tools DW and the mods give us, we might have a lot to work with. So, what I'd like to do is come up with a scenario (or perhaps series) that puts as much of these ideas and tools into one bundle as possible. I'm leaning towards a single adversarial multiplayer mission, however, MP coop or SP scenario/campaign is on the table. And if it can be done, I'd like to try to make the scenario involve dynamic or discretionary mission objectives. (Dynamic meaning not the same during every instantiation of the scenario, discretionary meaning all objectives are constant but the commanding officers will be able to choose between several; either way neither side knows what to expect of the enemy in advance). There will be two major design challenges: first, making sure all playables have adequate tasking at all times, and second, maintaining balance in a scenario where it's entirely possible that objectives will be completed unopposed. With that said, here is what we have to work with that I've thought up with so far, starting with the obvious and ending with the unconventional. 1. Conventional SAG/ARG/CSG escort/intercept 2. Area ASW/attacks on Sea Lanes of Communication 3. Intel work ---2A. Harbor surveilance (sub) ---2B. Aerial recon (P-3) ---2C. Signals intelligence (radio mod) ---2D. Identifying and locating HVTs, shipping lanes, patrol routes, etc. (battlefield prep) 4. Strategic mining 5. Special Forces deployment ---5A. Takeover/destruction of oil platforms ---5B. Support of insurgents/Al Qaida in Iraq ---5C. Covert destruction/sabotage of ships in harbor 6. SAR ---6A. At sea ---6B. On land (CAS) ---6C. Flipside: capturing downed enemy pilot 7. Maritime security operations ---7A. Enforcement of maritime boundaries against potentially hostile platforms ---7B. Detention and inspection of vessels suspected of smuggling weapons ---7C. Flipside: capturing inspection teams near maritime boundaries 8. Suicide boat attacks (Edit) 9: TBM countermeasures ---9A. Strike vs. TBM sites ---9B. Conventional protection/attack vs. TBM assets (e.g. USS Port Royal, Patriot batteries) Obviously a lot of this points right at US vs. Iran, hence the thread title. The region is giving us a lot to work with lately. The biggest limitation with using Iran though, is that we're mostly working with Kilos, and that means a relatively small op area for those platforms as well as a light weapons load. So in giving the Kilos something to do, we have to be careful that we don't ask too much of them or get too many platforms doing too many things in too small a space. (This is where a series or campaign might be more do-able). So what I'm thinking about now is about what missions above can the Kilo take part in, how can it be set up so that the Kilo has the choice between them, and/or has the ability to respond to new developments as they occur. And most importantly right now, what overarching strategic missions/interests are the US and Iran working towards? The design concept I'm working with now is this: The scenario starts at a time of elevated tension between the US led coalition and Iran. Both sides feel a fight is coming, and start playing a delicate game of chess to try to get an advantage for when the fighting does break out. This includes locating key targets, getting weapons to the right people, getting political leverage, etc. The principal op area will be around the maritimie boundaries of Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran, where at minimum an FFG will be engaged in security operations. FFG tasking will include keeping Iranian platforms out and inspecting suspicious merchant traffic. At minimum, a Kilo may by trying to get in. It may try to land terrorists on an oil platform, identify HVTs in a harbor, get supplies to insurgents, mine a harbor... perhaps even command some Boghammars to ambush a coalition boarding team. There will be many tankers in the area which Iran will want to locate in the event of hostilities. There will be at least a few Kilos which the coalition will want to locate before the night sky is lit up by those tankers. There may be innocent looking fishing boats hanging around for a chance to blow someone up. There may be fast attack craft that "identify" US formations near the Iranian coast, only to turn and attack upon receiving a signal from a nearby Kilo, (which may be timed to coincide with the Kilo's own attack, when the US ships are most distracted)... I'm thinking that the overarching goals/victory conditions would break down as follows: Coalition win: Safe arrival of reinforcements (needed for operations in the coming war) AND protection of SLOC from major disruption Iranian win: Prevention of reinforcement arrival Draw: Reinforcement arrived, but Iran beasted the SLOC. The various objectives that come up all have to feed into those conditions in some way. The SLOC related goals are faily simple, you just aggregate kills vs. tankers, platforms, ports mined, etc. Transit related goals less so, although you could, for example, require that a minesweeper survives if the port gets mined else it the formation stops or turns around. Or if special forces sneak around somewhere maybe there's an extra suicide attack to deal with. Or maybe forces just have to get pulled off the transit objective to cover the SLOC objective. Not sure how to work in the politics of capture yet... Maybe after I get some sleep.:hmm: G'nite. Edit: mmmm, coffee. Anyways, consequences of captured boarding crews/pilots could include coalition forces restricting operations of the relevant platforms to prevent such occurances, which in turn could make it easier (or perhaps automatic) for other objectives to be achieved. I'm not too happy with the 'safe arrival' goal being a master goal. A better framework might be a political goal, that of being in position to win the war at mission end (which would mean an Iranian settlement on the aid to insurgents/nuclear issue). Victory for Iran would be to prevent the military/political conditions necessary to force such a settlement, which could include degradation of coalition miltiary strength or political will. If combat gets truely out of control to the point that a de facto state of war already exists, it would probably be considered a loss for both sides under this model. The downside of this would likely be that it will be fairly hard to put players on notice of what they need to do to win, but then again that's war isn't it? Edit 2: Is there room to get the Russians involved? Originally, I thought no. Now I'm thinking maybe. Let's assume for a moment that Russia is seeking resurgence back onto the superpower stage. Let's also assume that Russia believes that the US is in a state of military decline, and a defeat at the right moment may cause the US to assert itself less in the Eastern hemisphere, giving Russia the room to fill the vacuum. So maybe some of the smuggling to insurgents has Russia's name on it. Maybe there is an Akula poking around assisting the Iranians. Having an Akula around means the Iranians have a greater capacity to seriously hurt coalition surface forces and are not completely lacking in ASW capability. Mobility may also increase, although not necessarily because practical speed is limited by detectability, and the detection of such an Akula conducting pro-Iranian operations in the Gulf would have to have serious consequences. (Serious as in, "hey, you know how the Kuznetsov is conducting exercises in the Med right now? Well, we noticed you have a sub dangerously close to our forces. We've moved the USS Seawolf similarly close to the Kuznetsov. You might wish to consider withdrawing the Akula before something really bad happens to the pride of your fleet. By the way, here some some pictures the Connecticut took during your last exercises. Yeah, we can get that close. Have a nice day.") Having an Akula around would definitely allow for a greater role of any US sub that might be included, especially since without it the Iranians would have little capability of killing the US sub at all (they do have helos and MPAs, but as a practical matter they will not survive long if a shooting war develops). __________________ Last edited by Molon Labe; 02-04-08 at 11:16 AM.