Dimitris

Miguel Molina has released a new revision of the Command community scenario pack, the compendium of Command scenarios crafted by the user community. The new release contains nine brand-new scenarios: The Old Regime and the New Nation, 1966: Franco’s regime is reluctant to abandon its colonial possessions and responds forcibly to provocations from Nigeria. This hypothetical scenario features the combat swan song of the famous He-111 bomber. Team Mysore, 2017: Tensions between India and Myanmar have continued to mount. Indian intelligence indicates that Myanmar plans to attack Indian-flagged merchant vessels. Available Indian forces, centered around the new destroyer Mysore, are limited and far closer to Myanmar threats than any support. Will they be enough? Marinha do Brasil - PASSEX 2010 - Carl Vinson, 2010: Based on an actual 2010 exercise. Take command of a Brazilian diesel submarine, penetrate a US carrier group’s defences and claim the big prize, the carrier itself. Growler vs Growler, 2014: EA-18G Growler, the USN’s top-line SEAD and electronic attack aircraft. S-400 (NATO: SA-21 “"Growler”), the most modern operational long-range Russian SAM system. FIGHT! Team Dido, 1964: Based on the historical conflict between Indonesia, Malaysia and the UK. The British government offers increased assistance to Malaysia including two of its RN frigates in the region. But Indonesia may up the ante more than usual this time. Shangri-la Comes Calling, 1965:In the mid-1960s, tensions increased dramatically between Egypt and the United States. With Egypt threatening maritime traffic in the eastern Mediterranean, the United States has decided to act pre-emptively. An air strike against an Egyptian air base has been selected as a suitable demonstration of American resolve. The Shangri-la carrier group is the nearest available force for this operation. Memphis Goes North, 1981: During 1981, the submarine USS Memphis completed an around-the-world cruise. This scenario assumes that during this time she was also called upon to assist in the completion of a covert CIA mission. Helping Brothers, 1990: Egypt is in social unrest and riots due to the ascendance of extreme Islamic elements. The country is on the brink of civil war. The military government try to control of the situation by means of martial law. Libya decides to support the Islamist rebels by supplying weapons and sends a small convoy with supplies for them. Egypt will have none of this. Frozen War, 2014: Chile and Argentina are at it again over oil exploration in the Antarctica. Can things get hot in the coldest part of the world? Yes, they can. As always, the community scenario pack is available for download at the WarfareSims download section: http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=1876 With the new scenario pack release, the total number of released Command scenarios is now 172!

Acclaimed by both modern warfare specialists and wargaming enthusiasts, Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations has swept the awards since its release last September, including the Usenet’s Wargame of The Year 2013 and the gold medal for Grogheads Game of the Year 2013 readers’ award. Developers Warfare Sims (www.warfaresims.com) have not rested on their laurels though as they have been working on several updates since the release of the game. These patches, including the newest 1.04 released today, have included a whole host of new features, improvements on the simulation engine and user interface, bug fixes and a veritable avalanche of database updates and additions. Here is the list of some of the major improvements implemented in this new version. Configurable strike auto-planner. Your planes plot intelligent paths for their missions (complete with multiple off-axis ingress and egress lines, split-to-attack and form-up waypoints, suitable altitudes for each leg etc.). As always you can tweak the strike plan to perfection. An extensive array of UI enhancements such as wireframe-only map view, selection-only range symbols, new hotkeys, menu list for quick-jump slots, additional information on the database viewer, configurable ghosted-unit visibility, configurable plotted course visibility, one-click jump to unit mission, single-icon enemy groups and more. AI and mission editor additions such as configurable sprint-and-drift, optional prosecution areas for patrols (goodbye fainted drawn-out patrol assets and edge-of-envelope SAM shots, hello true SAM-ambushes!), new doctrine options and more. Improved simulation mechanics such as multiple cloud conditions, refined offboard-sonar modelling, ABM/ASAT guidance refinements, realism improvements for anti-missile engagements, longer-range AI torpedo shots and more. Significant performance & stability improvements. A mile-long list of database additions including future Virginia SSGN versions, Tomahawk MMT, M982 Excalibur guided 155mm artillery, KC-46 tanker, MC-130 with the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter" & GBU-43 MOAB mega-bombs, Chinese "High New" C4-ISR series, the entire Ukraine naval OOB, Oscar-III SSGN, JLENS, tons of Vietnam-era units, hypothetical systems like the F-19A, A/F-117X, Boeing 747 ALCM carrier and generic CATOBAR mini-carrier, and much more. The full release notes for the v1.04 update are available here. The update is available for download here. Get more information on Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations from its official product page.

Hello. A number of points. 1) On the whole "unfinished / work-in-progress" argument. I posted my position on this a while ago, on the Matrix forum: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3449564 Since that post, our (and our early customers') faith in Command has been fully justified. Command has sweeped the WOTY-2013 awards from multiple sources and totally dominates its genre. Is it, technically, still a "work in progress"? Of course it is - fixes, improvements and user-requested features & content are being added regularly (and by the same yardstick, Counterstrike is also a WIP). If you think that's a bad thing, look what happens to games that are not being worked on anymore. 2) Value vs price. I addressed this recently: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2174956&postcount=14 . In my view, and that of our thousands of satisfied-to-ecstatic customers, Command is a bargain. 3) DB editing. I explained the hows & whys recently: http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=12431&p=50378#p50378 (that post also addresses the frequent "culture shock" of old Harpoon hands starting with Command, the different formation editor being a fair example). We thank everyone who has voted their trust on us and our game by buying it, and we welcome the holdouts to give it a chance after considering its true value and overcoming the sticker shock. We're very excited by Command's soaring performance to date and we have even bigger plans for the future. Thanks.

Tony is correct. Keep in mind that to this patrol you can assign assets not only of the group, but from anywhere else too.

Hello, 1) Where did you read that? 2) The lack of DB editing does not prevent you from editing aircraft complements on airbases and ships. 3) A lot of things that until now required DB-editing are now possible in Command through the scenario editor. For example if you want to fit Aegis (launchers, radars, datalinks, the full kit) on an Iowa battleship you can do it in ScenEdit and not touch the DB at all. The alterations you do on a platform can be replicated and persisted across different scenarios. 4) The rationales for making the DBs read-only have been explained at length, here are some examples: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=4065.msg189810#msg189810 http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=4065.msg189828#msg189828 Thanks.

http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=2090 Tons of new features, improvements and fixes. Recommended upgrade for all users.

Thanks. Fixed this for Build 466.

[...delete...]

> On the downside the SAMs do circle back for target if contact is reestablished, I don't think even command guided ones can do that. Well, a sophisticated model yields sophisticated complications. We're working on a fix for that. The latter part is quite true, but both sophistication and simplicity can be taken too far. Balance is everything. > Yes (sigh) but with it's leaner model Harpoon was (is, I hope) better positioned to develop a potent AI in this respect too. Having potential is great. Following through on it is even better

Hello, thanks for the feedback. > * While the automation of the refueling process is a big help (in this scenario you have to 'shuttle' land based air from Spain to the Canaries), > there is some smoothing that needs to be done with the way Bingo fuel is calculated. I lost more than a few aircraft (including a precious KC- > 130H tanker) to a miscalculated Bingo. I'd appreciate a save of this. > * I-HAWK is a serious threat, but SA-3 is meh. Can't tell what is going on under the hood, but it seems to me that > CMANO (like Harpoon) still makes shooting down attacking ARMs (like HARM) too easy. There are indeed modifiers for high-speed targets and even hard limits to maximum target speed (e.g. a Patriot cannot engage an incoming ICBM RV). Most older SAM systems are also altogether unable to engage missiles. Looking at the DB3K for example, the SA-3A has a max target speed of 1100 knots. Did you encounter an instance where an obsolete system was able to engage a HARM? If yes, a save would again be useful. > * Pop up threats such as sub launched UGM-84 Harpoons and massed SSM fire from fast attack craft are very dangerous. I really like how CMANO > seems to model the real threat posed by sea skimmers, and the difficulties in detecting and defending against them. Combination of low-altitude detection modifiers and most importantly OODA value (reaction time). With a careful attack you can even bag an Aegis ship with just a few missiles. > * I am NOT a fan of how submarine launched torpedo attack is modeled. Reducing the range of the sub's heavyweight torpedoes > (presumably to reduce a target's escape zone) has a sort of theoretical sensibility to it, but it really defangs a submarine's power. > As a sub you have to get very close (if you manage to escape detection) to shoot, and you will almost certainly be greeted by an instant > counter-fire that isn't hampered by a reduced engagement range. That's an endlessly debated point. The few available accounts of post-WW2 sub action (either in combat or in exercises) show that in most cases subs get really close before launching an attack, even with modern long-range weapons. FWIW we intent to add a manual option to launch torpedoes beyond the nominal range. > * I am likewise NOT a fan of how easily submarines are detected and killed. Other than the UGM-84s mentioned earlier, enemy submarines did not pose much > of a threat to me. And they should have. I was able to find and kill subs - even at close range - when they ought to have had the jump on me. Were they maybe sprinting to intercept a fleeing unit and were detected by another? My experience with sub AI in Command is that it is _very_ reasonable and quite careful to creep up on its target if it can afford to (if it has to catch up then running becomes necessary). Try a few other scenarios before forming an opinion on this. Might I suggest Trapped Under Ice, for instance. > * The ability to undock and launch amphibious landing craft is very nice. Though I see "land ships" is not something suffered only by Harpoon. Depends. At small distances (a few nm) we pay the price of a global-scale pathfinding grid (and the necessity to fit in 32-bit RAM) by allowing small "beach" detours (the alternative is a gazillion "my ship is stuck on the shore!" posts). At large distances and substantial landmasses the pathfinder has been shown to be quite reliable. I'd be really worried if I saw e.g. a ship passing straight through the middle of Crete but this hasn't been observed so far. > * Once the AI runs out of aircraft to throw at you, this scenario is pretty easy. (Sound familiar?) I think I would have made the amphibious landing part a little more challenging. This is up to the scenario author really. You'll find quite a few scens (both stock and community) were airpower is restricted by either inventory or situational parameters. From our modelling part, we restrict weapon inventories for aircraft (though we have also added an optional "infinite weapon stocks" option for those who want to quickly experiment without worrying about logistics) and we have also gone to great lengths to show that airbase ops are far more complex and _fragile_ (vulnerable to disruption) than what most people think. (And we've paid the price for that). In the future we're also going to introduce additional restrictions to air ops by way of weather effects (no more 24/7 early MiG-21s, for example). So in scenarios up to the early/mid-80s the night sky (or a day sky with bad weather) will be _really_ quiet. Thanks.