New scenario: Polish Navy vs Baltic Fleet 2013

[emsoy]

Okay just a quick note, the following features are now being worked on:

- SAM in ASuW role as Doctrine option (will enable/disable AI use of SAMs against ships for unit/group/mission/side)
- Hold Position option for mobile facilities (mobile units will not move to engage targets)
- Change callsigns for aircraft
- Delete specific aircraft

Neat?

[kbosak]

Verry nice. In fact all those user interface changes are very important for making scenario testing efficient.

I see the following UI problems:
-you cannot select in mission editor current aircraft altitude, only desired.
this means every scenario 'has to converge' from max altitude to something realistic 'on the run'. This implies unnecessary and unfair chance for the enemy to detect those airplane groups (descending from say 12000m to 80m). It also concerns actual heading as RCS depends on it.
-F-16 (at least polish and greek) are flying with 'crab angle' of 20deg (their fuselage, radarcone , everything is rotated relative to flight path)
-I suggest an option 'merge range-symbols-by-type'
because once you have at least one harpoon/exocet/NSM/RBS-15/tomahawk oboard,
it is impossible to manage efficiently the opening arrangement for a surface gunfight,
because harpoon wins over all ranges creating a nice circle.
Therefore the option reduces as much clutter as it removes crucial information, being as much advanced as useless. There is also a bug that merging those symbols sometimes merges enemy symbol with ownside symbols, when emitter center is outside the screen.
-Airfeild icons should be displayed on top of other icons like AA sites
otherwise it is very difficult to select them.
-There is also an issue with 'aircraft ready time' dialog box, in which the focus is not on OK button.
-During editing and 'pre-heating' the scenario, I have found that If I have enabled a radar on a submarine by mistake, then switched it off and saved the scenario, opossing side has this ancient radar contact in memory and ther is no way to delete it. Therefore it is easy to mess up a scenario without a chance for rectovery. The same story with selecting 'visible by default' option for one of the missile sites or any other facility - there is no way to 'clear sensor contact list' when editing a scenario.
-there is one more problem similar to all harpoon-like hames: all scenarios are not 'coocked' before startup so once you start a game, there is a flood of contacts that otherwise would be detected since a long time due to enabled radars, eyesights etc. My proposal is to add '1min cookicng time' as a button for a scenario when you can freeze all firing, movement and aircraft preparation, game tiem is frozen, but sensor time goes on. Therefore you could settle all contacts then save a scenario in a state corresponding to all sensor status. In other words, an option 'drop all contacts then cook for one minute' would be a perfect solution for adjusting headings, depths, altitudes and sensor contacts to a coherent state, without adding complicated manual edition options for the contacts.

[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

Concerning WR-40 Langusta,
it is strictly BM-21 launcher withh no reloads on the truck as before,
the difference is in things that are very important but not simulated at all in the game: the use of GPS+INS, full automation, 7.26mm protected cab for the entire
crew and probably ABC secured.
I would just copy-paste BM-21 specs, extrapolate linearly CEP, apply ranges as I have stated, max car speed is now 53mph and it is heavier but otherwise it is
essentially the same system.
The ammunition is 122mm of a new type but compatible with BM-21, yet I think standard BM-21 cars don;t have aiming instrumentation for those new larger pages.
http://www.altair.com.pl/magazines/a...article_id=272

Thanks! Added:

Arty Bty (BM-21 Grad MLRS Mod [WR-40 Langusta] x 6) -- Poland (Army), 2011

Originally Posted by kbosak

If you want to order a few examples online, webpage of their maker is here:
http://www.hsw.pl/1076/artillery-equipment
http://www.hsw.pl/czytaj/649
interesting piece of equipment,
http://www.hsw.pl/czytaj/875
Langusta with reloads like RM-70
Polish Su-22M-4 also used the AS-7:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krzesiny_52RB.JPG
Therefore we have a new loadout:
-no ECM pod
-2x fuel tanks
-2x atoll (here not sure of the type)
-2x kh-29L (one more thing, it looks it should be L=laser version, su-22M4 has laser designator in nose cone, and I see no camera head for tv initial guidance at
launch phase on thsi airplane).
-in total 40x S-5K 57mm

Okay first of all, those missiles are AS-10 not AS-7 as I first assumed, and like you say they are the laser-guided version. Have updated the database accordingly.

Have also added the AS-10 + S-8 80mm rockets (not S-5) + AA-8 loadout, it looks pretty cool hehe. The 57mm S-5 was a horribly inaccurate weapon, while the S-8 which entered service in the mid-1980s was called a 'precision weapon' compared to the S-5.

I think Poland used the TV-guided AS-14 / Kh-29T, the laser version has a very different nose profile:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...117642-Su-17M4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-29
http://www.google.no/imgres?sa=X&biw...81819152832031

Still no info on AS-9 so removed it from the aircraft.

Btw Time To Ready dialog box is not having its default focus on OK button so you always have to click with mouse or use tab-enter. Mildly annoying.

>>>We always recommend using the 0/10000 weapon record for ammo dumps.
Not the best solution as it hides logistics problems: if you are doing aviation dispersal, you don,t want to cheat by bringing 300 guided antiradar missiles to some
remote wooden base if there is no storage for it, using ferry flights (for example to keep it all out of SRBM range, but in reality preventing further use).
Therefore I suggest making manually editable min and max count for each ammo.

Agreed, and in Command you can customize any base (and any ammo bunker on each base) to your needs.

In attachment: a simple setup, BM-21 and howitzers vs 3000m 'generic airstrip' with its hangars etc. It is best to do a standalone scenario for testing purposes, but
the situtaion is clear: airfield gone in 1h with all tanks, hangars, bunkers and 45 planes evern using 2 BM-21 BTYs.

Would help a lot if you could upload the actual savegame

Are you using the 'Single-unit' airfields? These are only intended for scenarios/bases that will never be attacked, as they group all runways, taxiway and parking (hangar, tarmacs, revetments) facilities into one single unit with no geographic dispersal. The reason why these exist in the database is simple: to save CPU and speed up gameplay in scenarios where complex air bases aren't needed.

Bases that will come under attack will have to be built on a per-component basis. I.e. you have to add each component individually: runway(s), taixways, runway access points, tarmacs, revetments (every single one of them!), hangars, hardened shelters, ammo dumps (also on a per-bunker/shelter basis!), and fuel facilities.

There are two ways to do this. You can either export map overlays from Google Earth and similar programs and import into Command, or you can make placemarks in Google Earth that you convert to Command facilities and import into the simulator.

I prefer the latter, you can read more about KML-to-INST (Google Earth to Command) tool here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3471768

Also check out the tutorial videos etc.

Sweet, huh?

Please note that building detailed air bases like this will use extra CPU.

[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

Verry nice. In fact all those user interface changes are very important for making scenario testing efficient.

I see the following UI problems:
-you cannot select in mission editor current aircraft altitude, only desired.
this means every scenario 'has to converge' from max altitude to something realistic 'on the run'. This implies unnecessary and unfair chance for the enemy to detect those airplane groups (descending from say 12000m to 80m). It also concerns actual heading as RCS depends on it.

Thanks again for your input KBOSAK.

Yes and we're working on that, and will implement it in baby steps as it is a horribly complex thingie. The first step was adding waypoint orders (speed/altitude and sensor settings) and DTG/TTG estimates. The next step will probably be calculating fuel consumption estimates.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-F-16 (at least polish and greek) are flying with 'crab angle' of 20deg (their fuselage, radarcone , everything is rotated relative to flight path).

Yeah it is a known GUI issue and is being looked into. The models themselves work correctly.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-I suggest an option 'merge range-symbols-by-type'
because once you have at least one harpoon/exocet/NSM/RBS-15/tomahawk oboard,
it is impossible to manage efficiently the opening arrangement for a surface gunfight,
because harpoon wins over all ranges creating a nice circle.
Therefore the option reduces as much clutter as it removes crucial information, being as much advanced as useless. There is also a bug that merging those symbols sometimes merges enemy symbol with ownside symbols, when emitter center is outside the screen.

Hm need to do some thinking on this one. In the cases you need to know the range rings by weapon type then the enemy is so close you also need to know each unit's range rings? And you would turn off range ring merging alltogether?

Do you have a savegame & screenshot showing own and enemy range rings merging?

Originally Posted by kbosak

-Airfeild icons should be displayed on top of other icons like AA sites
otherwise it is very difficult to select them.

Think the solution to this one is that you should be able to drag-select all units in the area and have the Air Ops button available. There is already a feature request for this in our bug database.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-There is also an issue with 'aircraft ready time' dialog box, in which the focus is not on OK button.

Added feature request, thanks!

Originally Posted by kbosak

-During editing and 'pre-heating' the scenario, I have found that If I have enabled a radar on a submarine by mistake, then switched it off and saved the scenario, opossing side has this ancient radar contact in memory and ther is no way to delete it. Therefore it is easy to mess up a scenario without a chance for rectovery. The same story with selecting 'visible by default' option for one of the missile sites or any other facility - there is no way to 'clear sensor contact list' when editing a scenario.
-there is one more problem similar to all harpoon-like hames: all scenarios are not 'coocked' before startup so once you start a game, there is a flood of contacts that otherwise would be detected since a long time due to enabled radars, eyesights etc. My proposal is to add '1min cookicng time' as a button for a scenario when you can freeze all firing, movement and aircraft preparation, game tiem is frozen, but sensor time goes on. Therefore you could settle all contacts then save a scenario in a state corresponding to all sensor status. In other words, an option 'drop all contacts then cook for one minute' would be a perfect solution for adjusting headings, depths, altitudes and sensor contacts to a coherent state, without adding complicated manual edition options for the contacts.

Thanks, this is an interesting suggestion, will have to discuss it with the others.

PS: you can drop any contact you want by pressing '3' on the numeric keypad.

[emsoy]

KBOSAK,

Would suggest you check out the very latest build (Build 475), here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3488125

It has the stuff you requested, incl 'SAM in surface mode doctrine' and new/corrected platforms.

Thanks

[kbosak]

660 orkan should have 4xdual RBS15 MK3 mounts, user downgradeable to either RBS15 MK2 and/or 4 single mounts

Concerning 23mm on Polish ships,
as said before, there are
Wrobel I (50 bullets per barrel, 100 per two, equals to 5x20 bursts)
and
Wrobel II (200 bullets per barrel, 400 per two, equals to 20x20 bursts) with 2 Grails

Wrobel II
206 minehunters
207 minehunters
767 LST )
130 minehunter base/specops base
all are not present in the DB

All others incl Kaszub proj 620 are Wrobel 1.
therefore Kaszub goes down to 5x20pcs rounds per mount

BTW Tarantuls are no lonbger in service since that month.

[emsoy]

Noted, thanks!

Will get to this once Command 1.02 is out

[emsoy]

Added the following:

511 Kontradmiral Xawery Czernicki [Pr.130Z] -- Poland (Navy), 2002, Modified Pr.130, NATO: Bereza
821 Lublin [Pr.767] -- Poland (Navy), 1990

Also made the changes you requested.

Thanks!

[mx1]

As I plan to do my own scenario related to the same area and sides I've read this topic with great interest. I've also downloaded the scenario provided by kbosak to learn more about the subject. I'd like to contribute my own research results in form of:
1. Units representing Polish Air Force bases - currently just two: Malbork AFB and Mińsk Mazowiecki AFB. I have modeled individual components of bases (instead of 'single unit airfield') using satellite imagery from Google and custom overlays in Command. I am working on the remaining 3 bases that are currently operational (Łask, Poznań, Świdwin). I also provide overlay files for all 5 bases in separate download.
2. Units representing NATO long range radar sites in Poland (there are six of them). I've corrected their location from the original scenario, based on the satellite images. The issue with current database is that it lacks Polish radar models. Three out of six radars are Polish made NUR-12 radars. I've modeled all six as RAT-31DL (as only these are in DB right now) but changed names of NUR-12 units.

As I can't upload anything on this site, here are the links to the Google Drive files:
1. Export of units (AFBs + radars) - 7kB (DB3000 build 403).
2. Overlay files for 5 Polish AFBs - 160MB (zipped PNGs + world files)

[Herman]

Originally Posted by mx1

As I can't upload anything on this site, here are the links to the Google Drive files:
1. Export of units (AFBs + radars) - 7kB (DB3000 build 403).
2. Overlay files for 5 Polish AFBs - 160MB (zipped PNGs + world files)

You can post files to the SubSim Download library at:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...p?do=cat&id=98

If you require additional access authorization, you can contact Neal Stevens at:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/priv...newpm&u=209959

If you prefer, I can post them on your behalf, just ask.

[Sunburn]

Hi mx1,

Do you wish that your files be added to subsequent Command official (.inst files) and community (overlays) releases? This will make them available to everyone who may use them to make scenarios dealing with this region. Please let us know.

Thanks!

[mx1]

Originally Posted by Herman

You can post files to the SubSim Download library at:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...p?do=cat&id=98

I don't see the option to upload to this section.

If you require additional access authorization, you can contact Neal Stevens at:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/priv...newpm&u=209959

If you prefer, I can post them on your behalf, just ask.

Thank you, I'll contact Neal then.

Originally Posted by Sunburn

Hi mx1,

Do you wish that your files be added to subsequent Command official (.inst files) and community (overlays) releases? This will make them available to everyone who may use them to make scenarios dealing with this region. Please let us know.

Thanks!

It would be an honor to have them added to official releases. I should update remaining AFBs soon. I also work on the SAM sites and naval SS sites.

Some more corrections to database regarding Poland:
1. S-75M Wolchow has been withdrawn from service in 2001.
2. S-75 Dvina has been withdrawn from service in 1990.
3. S-125M replaced S-125 in 1978 (not in 1979).
4. 2K11 Krug was introduced in 1976 (still in service).
5. 2K12E Kvadrat was introduced in 1974 (still in service).
6. 9K33M2 was introduced in 1980 (not in 1984).

[mx1]

I've uploaded the updated version of the .inst file to the "Downloads" section and updated overlays to the Google Drive (same link as before, file is now 291 MB). I have not playtested the airbases, but they should be fully usable (have all required components). As they are modeled based on reality and not fine tuned for playability I am not sure if aircraft capacity and landing/takeoff rates will be correct (as far I understand they depend on the number of runway access points).
Overlays contain Navy airbases which are not yet found in .inst file. I plan to update .inst file to include them as well.

[Sunburn]

Thanks! Appreciated.

If you don't see them on the next update(s) please drop me a note. Thank you!

[Herman]

Thanks for posting your bases. I'm sure SubSim members will be appreciative of your efforts.