Palex80

I played this scenario as RED (Russia) You are given command of 5 submarine groups operating in the North Sea. Your task is to kill the UK carrier Queen Elizabeth as well as any escorts, that may be escorting her. You have a few ASW and recon assets in Kola Airfields, but no strike aircraft. I started off by checking bearings and speed of my submarines. They all made sense, so I left them untouched, with the exception of lowering speed on a couple of groups to make detection by the British harder. A few aircraft were launched from the Kola airfields. I then accelerated the game, since I didn't expect much to happen. The first report came in from the diesel boat Sankt Petersburg, which acquired a bearing on an enemy ship formation. I diverted my aircraft to the area and immediately found the British carrier group. What I found surprising, was that the enemy did not try to intercept my ASW / Recon aircraft, which had a permanent fix on the enemy carrier group. Since I knew I was only up against a pair to Type 23 frigates and the Queen Elizabeth itself, there was no threat from long range SAMs as well. Continuous tracking was thus possible. I tried manuevering the Sankt Petersburg into a good spot for an attack, while my faster SSNs started a speed dash towards the group. I took a shot against the group with the Sankt Petersburg, sinking one of the escortng frigates. The Queen Elizabeth itself was killed by submarine launched cruise missiles by a modified Yankee class boat. Minimum victory was thus achieved. Suggestion: I encountered no enemy interceptors. JSFs operating off the QE is not realistic yet. However CAPs with Typhoons from UK bases would make the scenario more realistic and tougher to play.

Thank you! Works like a charm now!

I am getting the following error, when trying to play the scenario Any idea what's wrong?

Indeed, if THAAD was used to intercept the missiles, it would be visible to anyone in Guam if it was successful or not. But couldn't Aegis-equipped cruisers be used in that role too? If they are far out at sea when they engage the IRBMs, then there's less risk of anyone finding out, if they ever tried to intercept the missiles or not. If they manage to splash all of them, the US can then state that they countered the threat successfully. If not, they can still claim they never tried to intercept the missiles at first place. On the other hand, I cannot image the US administration being happy with not-intercepting or attempting to intercept incoming IRBMs. They would seriously lose face if they didn't even try and let North Korea (in case of a successful test) "prove" that they can hit Guam if they want to. It just doesn't fit to the rhetoric of the current administration.

Does anyone have any information concerning US measures in / around Guam in reaction to this perhaps planned North Korean test launch? Is the US deploying Aegis cruisers around Guam? Have the THAAD-batteries in Guam been reinforced? And what does everyone think here? Would a North Korean test launch lead to a US response? Of what magnitude? Would this be dependent on how many missiles actually got through to splash somewhere around Guam?

Sorry, I didn't manage to accomplish a reproducible situation. It happens sometimes when I perform one of the commands I listed, other times it doesn't. That's the strange thing...

Update is up!

Well, it happened again today. I wated to split an air patrol which was airborne in the formation editor from a base, so I pressed F8. Crash resulted.

I think it's actually a gamble here. Striking at NK with overwhelming force means that NK may not be able to actually threaten the US with deliverable nuclear weapons, while its record of intermediate range ballistic missiles is also not that good. Which again means less of a threat for Japan and US bases in Asia. The first question is whether the US can use overwhelming force to perform this, while keeping casualties in Seoul at a minimum. That's a tough question. NK has hundreds of long range and thousands of intermediate/short range artillery pieces just Norh of the DMZ. Can the US use overwhelming force to stop artillery rounds from landing into Seoul? Perhaps yes, but that again would probably mean deploying nuclear weapons. Tactical ones, yet nuclear. I do not think that conventional weapons are going to be enough, there are simply way too many targets and many of them very well dug in mountains/caves to hit before they start pounding Seoul. This again makes the equation more difficult, since one needs to ask the second and third questions: 1. how is the US going to justify going offensively nuclear as a preemptive strike? Quite tough. Unless directly provoked, nuking another country at right may be viewed as a very hostile move by China and Russia. 2. would South Korea allow such a move? I don't think so. Not unless directly threatened by NK. Most South Koreans would actually be more in favor of giving billions of dollars to NK in aid (or ransom) in order not to risk nuclear war in their ***ula. On the other hand not doing anything right now will only make matters worse. NK will be able to perfect its arsenal and may actually start blackmailing the South Korean regime. They will be able to nuke Seoul in a matter of years (they can probably due that now already) and could simply blackmail them then. Would the US step in and nuke NK if NK blackmailed South Korea? Difficult to tell... There is hope that there may be some kind of regime change in NK, but this hope has been there for decades and proven wrong. The NK regime has survived and is still strong. And then there's the Trump card. I think we do not know really know what the current administration wants and what Donald Trump is willing to allow. He has already been quite loud about not being willing to allow NK to threaten anyone. Let's see if his Tweets may need to find counterparts in action.

Good points CV32. I do wonder however, if the US administration is simply going to allow the NK regime to perfect its delivery systems, which could strike mainland US. Whether or not such a threat is really viable is another issue. The NK delivery systems have had trouble in the past and numerous failed launches have been recorded. Furthermore we know little about what kind of warhead they could possibly put into such a missile. It's doubtful if they have miniaturized a nuclear weapon enough to actually send it half away across the globe. On the other hand allowing a rogue nation to posess WMDs and now have the capability to deploy them upon the US mainland is a new development, which has not happened before. If the US was to allow this to happen, it would actually mean a fundamental change of policy. Another question is however how "safe" the US administration feels right now because of the GMD system. Although only half of the tests were successful, it is probable that a limited NK strike of let's say 5 missiles could be intercepted if 20 or so killer vehicles were deployed against the incoming ICBMs.

I am not certain if a topic like this is welcome here. I have been asking myself this question every other day the past week and would like to hear your opinion.

Hey I've been playing more Harpoon again and I've been running into some troubles in my Win10 installation. Specifically I've noted crashes of the game in the following situations: F8 (split groups) F7 (join groups) Opening "Order of Battle" Are there any issues you are aware of? Could it be a problem of database compatibility when playing older games with a patched up version of Harpoon? I am using HUCE 2015.027. Would you recommend running the game in some kind of compatibility mode when operating in Win10? Thank you, Alex

Update uploaded, hope you enjoy it! I am going to work over all the scenarios in the series during the following weeks and finally submit follow-up scenarios.

How silly of me. I have been using a wrong database version. Thank you!

I played this scenario as BLUE (USA) This is quite a big scenario! At the beginning your forces are more or less surrounded by RED bases, ships and aircraft. The assets in Thailand can be ignored, I couldn't find any use for them, only 3B2s are available at Guam and quite far off in the beginning. What was a bit frustrating is the fact that many of my Super Hornets on the Stennis were not outfitted with desirable outloads. I only had 4 aircraft fit out in "Intercept" role. I launched two Hawkeyes and pretty soon dozens of chinese aircraft started coming in from multiple vectors. I immediately readied two dozens of further aircraft with AA-loadout but the first 30 minutes were quite tense. 45 minutes into the game, I launched my first airstrike against the reefs in the south with 12 Super Hornets armed with SLAMs. Some Growlers went with them to kill off radars, jam SAMs. 1 hour later I launched a follow-up strike wirh JSOWs. And finally 3 hours into the game I launched my Tomahawks. My B2s were already underway by then, all armed with JDAMs. About 12 hours into the game I had destroyed all 7 bases in the south, but didn't get any MIN-VIC. I also spotted the Chinese carrier battle group, as well as two groups of destroyers, which I also hit with Harpoons. I then quit actually, cause I seemed to have run into the same issue as CV32, not getting MIN-VIC, although I had managed to eradicate the enemy bases. I didn't spot any subs and didn't get attacked by the fearsome carrier-killer ballistic missiles. I had destroyed over 200 aircraft by the time I quit. I had lost 4 aircraft, no ships. A few suggestions: 1. Fix the MIC-VIC problem, if not already tackled with. Perhaps I had been using an older version of the scenario? 2. My B2s had a SIOP loadout in Guam. Was that intentional? I don't see why... 3. The aircraft on the carrier should have more proper loadouts at the beginning of the scenario. It would be fullish to start an offensive action in the South China Sea with only 4 aircraft on anti-air loadout. Great scenario!!! Thank you!

Interesting... In this case perhaps the MIN VIC conditions should be adapted. Destroying the carrier and destroying some bases should be required... If the anti-ship missiles only engage after MIN VIC conditions for BLUE are met, it's less of a challenge. On the other hand, it should be a limited campaign against the carrier according to the creator.

Ok, I replayed this one from the BLUE side. This time I was much more aggressive at the beginning. I did not waste time attacking Chinese bases with aircraft. I simply launched all my Tomahawks at the beginning, saturating the bases in Zhejang and Jiangsu. With 2 bases killed and 2 bases damaged, things were going to be easier now... I also moved my AEW assets further forwarded and established offensive air patrols over the East China Sea. A couple of left overs SAM sites around the destroyed Chinese bases were attacked by Growlers and P-8 Poseidons. Pretty soon I knew again were the Chinese carrier was, it was picked up by my Sentry. Chinese aircraft came crashing down over the East China Sea, as they were trying to kill my AWACS. It didn't work out well for them. I launched 2 consecutive strikes from by CVBG against the Chinese carrier, each strike consisted of 38 Super Hornets (24 ASuWs + 12 tankers). Older F/A-18Cs operating out of Japan also targetted the carrier. In between I experienced a scare, as a biological popped up near my CVBG. It was lucky enough to be IDed early enough and not killed. Later on however, a Chinese SS managed to penetrate my ASW screen and launched a volley of 7 torpedoes. I ran and evaded them all (lucky me!), while the Chinese sub was hunted down by my ASW helicopters. My Virginia class SSN also bagged a Chinese SSN a couple of hundred miles away. The first couple of air strikes went after the escorts, killing 4 of them. The final F/A-18C strike launched 16 Harpoons at the Chinese carrier, setting it on flames with more than 70% damage sustained. Further 8 Harpoons were launched, killing it. MIN VIC. To go: 3:12:13. I did not lose a single unit this time.

What threats did you encounter CV32? Do you mean on the US or Chinese side? I am not sure why I was never attacked by their submarines while playing US. Probably got lucky there, since when I played as Chinese I did manage to attack the CVBG with one of my subs. All in all meeting MIN-VIC as US was rather easy. I attacked quite a few bases in China, which I didn't have to, since it doesn't aid in achieving MIN-VIC. Where the carrier will be is pretty obvious and you do have ample resources to track and attack it. I could have probably even won faster, if I went in with a full strike from my CVBG from the beginning on. The US has quite a few tankers there, so a 30-plane strong FA-18 strike from the CVBG within the first couple of hours is possible. No way the Chinese carrier group can shoot down 60 Harpoons or SLAMs aimed at the carrier.

Thank you for the information, broncepulido! If your goal was to depect the current order of battle, wouldn't it also be reasonable to include Guam and perhaps a few US bombers stationed there? In case of a conflict, they would certainly be deployed. It seems than in early 2017 a group of 4 B-1Bs was deployed in Guam. http://thediplomat.com/2017/02/us-air-force-rotates-supersonic-strategic-bombers-in-the-asia-pacific/

Having played the scenario as BLUE, I decided to give it a try as RED. I was aware of the massive quality disadvangement I would be in. However I presumed that given the numbers of assets at my disposal I could be able to overrun the US. It would however not be without losses. Starting the scenario left me a bit perplexed. I had hundreds of aviation assets, but they were all dispersed at various locations. I also had dozens of assets of little to no use. Dozens of troops transports, I would find no use for. In order to limit losses I started moving assets I wouldn't need to bases outside of the battle area. Not losing forces I wouldn't need anyway, seemed logical. My orders prohibited any attacks on the US installations in Japan. That's a major setback, since I could have easily annihilated those bases with the assets at hand. I thus started offensive sweeps using sheer numbers of fighters against the Japanese airbases. Knowing that only a few squadrons of aircraft were there, I knew I could take losses to bleed the enemy dry. Dozens of J-8s flew towards Kadena. While the first flight was shot out of the sky by Amraams, the second one made a supersonic dash against the F-15s and killed them using Chinese shorter ranged BVR-AAMs. After 4 hours of battle, the PLAAF had lost 53 aircraft but had managed to shoot down 13 US fighters. A kill ratio of almost 1:4. The PLN was also taking losses, losing a few subs due to undetected US SSNs as it seems. They were clearly no match for the superior US submarine force. Seconds before being sunk however, a Ming class submarine got to periscope depth and managed to track the US CVBG with its ESM mast. I now knew where to find them approximately. More air battles followed, this time I pressed the USAF as hard as I could, however my losses now became unsustainable. For only 5 downed fighters, I lost over 40 of mine. And then it happened... The US CVBG sailed close to one of my subs, giving me a very good bearing at them. I launched my all out offensive. Short ranged JL-8s served as bait. They would lure out the USAF and USN fighters, forcing them to expend their missiles on them, while my more formidable fighters would follow. 6 squadrons of JH-/As armed with long range anti-ship missiles would follow (80 aircraft). Behind them 2 squadrons of chinese copies of the Tu-16 Badger armed with 400km ranged ASMs were ready to unleash their payload. It was an all out gamble. Over 300 aircraft were in the air going against the presumed position of US CVBG. While this happening one of my Kilo subs picked up a Virginia class SSN that was firing on another of my Yuan submarines. The US SSN did not stand a chance against 3 torpedoes launched from a distance of less than 3 miles. The Yuan submarine died however too. The KIlo managed to put two torpedoes into an Arleigh Burke DDG, before dying too. The USAF and USN downed dozens of my fighters, but they were pressed to the limit. The USN jamming proved very good and I only managed to get clear fixes on the ships of CVBG once inside SAM-range, meaning I lost a dozen or some fighter bombers to missiles. In the end however, I prevailed. Volleys of ASMs overwhelm the Aegis system sinking the US carrier and a few of its escorts. I was granted minum victory and decided to quit, not wanting to keep on the carnage. I had lost almost 250 aircraft and 3 submarines. But the US carrier, 2 ships and 1 submarine were sunk and over 120 aircraft/helicopters were destroyed. [i forgot to make a screenshot of the game status] Nice scenarios!

I played this scenario commanding the BLUE side. You get an interesting mix of assets here. One carrier battle group with a heavy Tomahawk arsenal, a couple of SSNs and few, but yet formidable aircraft dispersed at 3 bases in Japan. Like I already noted in the other thread, the lack of strike assets on the blue side is one issue. Of course the orders you get are to "just" sink the chinese carrier and not annihilate every single chinese unit/base on the map... :-) I launched several air patrols out my bases in Japan and carrier battle group (CVBG). The CVBG is stationed a bit off the area of conflict, so the F/A-18Es with their long range are excellent for the task of projecting air power. Air superiority is not much of an issue. You have tons of AEW-assets in the form of E3s and E2s, so you can cover the map quit well. The CVBG stayed on EMCON, in order not to attact attention by the Red side. It all worked fine, enemy fighters came up and were decimated by the F15s and F18s. The JSFs stationed at Iwakuni, Japan have a rather short range, so tanker support is imperative. I readied a squadron of F/A-18Es on my CVBG with SLAMs and started my first strike against the nearest Chinese base. At the same time the Growlers started working the Chinese SAM installations. Losses were rather light on my side, the only formidable air foe being the new 4th generation Chinese J-20 fighter. Al my air losses were attributed to them, I lost a total of 14 fighters to the J-20s. There are quite a few P-8s and P-3s available, so I used them as well in the anti-surface role to strike at Chinese bases. Soon, the Chinese carrier group was spotted heading South, so I started getting more aircraft ready in anti-ship role. The air battle was more or less over. Offensive fighter sweeps near the Chinese bases cost the Red side over 200 aircraft killed. I fired off my Tomahawk stock at Chinese bases in the North, with quite good success, silencing them and removing the threat to Iwakuni by an attack coming in from the North. The JSfs were relocated from Iwakuni to Kadena and started pounding the southern coastal Chinese bases with JSOWs. My subs picked up a couple of Japanese subs, which were quickly sunk by ASW fixed wing aircraft and submarine fired torpedoes. No threat to the CVBG so far... Just as the Chinese carrier group was starting to exit the Yellow Sea, I pounded it with a multi-vectored attack from my CVBG, Iwakuni and Kadena. Two dozen F-18s joined the fight and the P-3s/P-8s also launched missiles. Min Victory was achieved with 3:10 to go after the Chinese Carrier started sinking together a few of its escorts.

SPOILER ALERT!!! I enjoyed playing this scenario last night. I have not finished it yet and will probably give it another shot tonight. What's challenging in my opinion is the lack of adequate strike assets on the US side. Until the carrier battle group get's closer to China, there's not much to throw against those Chinese bases. Perhaps long-range heavy bomber support from Guam would have been an interesting and historically plausible addition to the scenario (a pair of B1Bs and B2s?). USAF assets are formidable and AWACS support great, so the Chinese don't really stand a chance. I quit last night after sinking the carrier and damaging a couple of bases, but had depleted most of my Tomahawks in the process.

I am kind of shocked to see how many new toys the Egyptian Armed Forces are buying nowadays... Rafales, FREMM-frigate and now the Mistral warships. I also think they are getting some new subs. Add to that a couple hundred of F16s already in service. Who are these guys arming themselves against? Libya is pretty much out of the picture and you don't need all that stuff to combat IS. Or perhaps there is serious money (bribes) involved here? One possible explanation for the navy expansion may also be the increased interest of Med countries in securing oil fields in the Med. Cyprus has just sold its fields, Greece is planning to do so with Turkey complaining about both. Who knows?

It's obvious that the deployment of the Flankers was performed to remind NATO, that it cannot interfere with Russian operations in the region. Why else would Russia deploy Flankers, when its only interested in attacking the revolutionary militants and IS? Both of them do not have any air force at all. It was a "necessary measure" to deploy the Flankers now before NATO considered imposing some kind of no-fly-zone over Syria as a reaction the Russian operations. Regardless this development is quite serious and I just hope we don't run into any trouble on the way as for example some eager Turkish F16 pilot "locking on" a Russian Su-24 which passed the Turkish-Syrian bomber by mistake...

SPOILERS ahead... You are really good CV32! I lost more ships, mainly to subs. Those diesel subs are hard to detect.