Hi all,

 

This is playable as BLUE only.

 

I would highly grateful if someone could take this scenario for a spin and give me some pointers on what could be improved before I release this to the playerbase.

 

This is my first ever new scenario for anything, so the whole theatre of scenario design as a whole is totally new to me so please be gentle

 

I hope this gives you some enjoyment as I did building it!!

 

Cheers

FRTITAN.zip

Closing in on finishing up your scenario, Terry, and though I know we've discussed it on IRC, I'll put up my comments here so that other prospective scenario designers can (hopefully) benefit:

 

* I like the concept, UK vs France. Its different from the usual genre, and since the two countries have similar capabilities, it generally makes for a well balanced scenario. I did a 'campaign' of sorts for HC many moons ago called Channel War, which examined a very similar confrontation over the course of a series of scenarios.

 

* You can complicate player SEAD/DEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses/destruction of enemy air defenses) efforts by adding SAM/AAA systems to an installation and use the various formation rings to place them on the map. This way they don't appear on the Group Map, which makes it more difficult to target them and also reduces map clutter. Note as well that you can attach a SAM/AAA system to one Installation, and then place it in the formation so that it geographically protects another nearby Installation. Sneaky! You can mix and match the two approaches, that is, some SAM/AAA systems placed outside Installation formations and some inside, if you want to add further layers to the IADS (integrated air defense system) onion.

 

* AI controlled AEW&C (airborne early warning & control) assets have improved survivability when they can orbit behind their own protective IADS (combined SAM/AAA layers and combat air patrols). I usually recommend putting them into Installation formations that are 'behind' their home base and thus somewhat protected from player efforts at knocking them down.

 

* You made good use of neutral shipping and air to simulate civilian traffic. It adds flavour (and difficulty, because nobody wants to sink or shoot down neutrals) that old versions of HC lacked.

 

* The Charles de Gaulle CVBG was seriously hampered by its geographical position. Not by any fault of yours, but the AI controlled ships have a great deal of difficulty dealing with proximity to land. In many cases, they'll steer straight for an objective despite an intervening land mass. And while we don't see 'land ships' like we used to, the AI will inadvertently beach themselves because they can't maneuver around land masses. In this case, de Gaulle steered straight into the Brittany peninsula between Lorient and Brest and beached itself there from the start. I think perhaps if you position the de Gaulle group further west into the Atlantic, it won't have this problem.

 

* If you're aiming for rigid realism, which I certainly do not believe is a prerequisite for an enjoyable scenario, then you should probably substitute some of the Patriot and Hawk systems. SAMP/T was the system I recommended for the French side.

 

* There appears to be little variation in Blue aircraft loadouts. For example, the GR.4's are all loaded for SEAD. This was convenient for me, because that was my first priority strike wise. You might want to add some variety there to get the player thinking about his own priorities, and to add a time factor to ready any aircraft to meet those priorities.

 

Anyway, some comments I hope you will find helpful. Scenario building is to be encouraged wherever and whenever possible, and I am always available to test and help out with those efforts.

* You can complicate player SEAD/DEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses/destruction of enemy air defenses) efforts by adding SAM/AAA systems to an installation and use the various formation rings to place them on the map. This way they don't appear on the Group Map, which makes it more difficult to target them and also reduces map clutter. Note as well that you can attach a SAM/AAA system to one Installation, and then place it in the formation so that it geographically protects another nearby Installation. Sneaky! You can mix and match the two approaches, that is, some SAM/AAA systems placed outside Installation formations and some inside, if you want to add further layers to the IADS (integrated air defense system) onion.

 

Fixed! I have taken this to heart and now you should see a mixture of individual sites and intergrated air defence systems

 

* AI controlled AEW&C (airborne early warning & control) assets have improved survivability when they can orbit behind their own protective IADS (combined SAM/AAA layers and combat air patrols). I usually recommend putting them into Installation formations that are 'behind' their home base and thus somewhat protected from player efforts at knocking them down.

 

Fixed! I had not realised how far the AEW airfcraft would drift out of formation, this has been adjusted and additional surprises installed to protect it

 

* The Charles de Gaulle CVBG was seriously hampered by its geographical position. Not by any fault of yours, but the AI controlled ships have a great deal of difficulty dealing with proximity to land. In many cases, they'll steer straight for an objective despite an intervening land mass. And while we don't see 'land ships' like we used to, the AI will inadvertently beach themselves because they can't maneuver around land masses. In this case, de Gaulle steered straight into the Brittany peninsula between Lorient and Brest and beached itself there from the start. I think perhaps if you position the de Gaulle group further west into the Atlantic, it won't have this problem.

 

Fixed! The CVBG has now been relocated to a position where it will be unlikely to fall into this situation again

 

* If you're aiming for rigid realism, which I certainly do not believe is a prerequisite for an enjoyable scenario, then you should probably substitute some of the Patriot and Hawk systems. SAMP/T was the system I recommended for the French side.

 

Fixed! SAM systems replaced with their appropriate French counterparts

 

* There appears to be little variation in Blue aircraft loadouts. For example, the GR.4's are all loaded for SEAD. This was convenient for me, because that was my first priority strike wise. You might want to add some variety there to get the player thinking about his own priorities, and to add a time factor to ready any aircraft to meet those priorities.

 

Fixed! Several groups of Blue aircraft have recieved an initial loadout update

 

Thanks for you help with this Brad it is much appreciated!!

 

I have also taken note and adjusted a few things based on other reccomendations in the discussion we had on IRC

 

So without a further of a do, attached is the release candidate for the scenario, considering the minor problems that were discovered with the last version which should be resolved now.

 

If anyone has the time to do so a test of this version would be very well recieved, if no-one takes me up on the offer I will assume all is well and release to the public in the next few days

 

Cheers!

French_Titan_V102.zip

Did you decide to retain all eight Nimrods?

DOH! I knew I would forget SOMETHING!

 

Ok V1.3 minor update to Nimrod numbers.

 

Thanks

French_Titan_V103.zip

I opened up the latest version last night. The Ark Royal CVBG came under an almost immediate, vicious attack. I think you're on the right track now, Terry.

I opened up the latest version last night. The Ark Royal CVBG came under an almost immediate, vicious attack. I think you're on the right track now, Terry.

 

Alright beta-newbie question, what build/version should I use if I were to take this out for a spin this weekend and report back?

Being a beta tester and that the builds are pretty stable these days (more stable than the 2008.024 release version anyway), I'd say use the latest beta and the latest HCDB-080406. It would probably be good for StalinTC to run it through 2008.024 once just to make sure it doesn't crash every time or something though

Brad - Thats excellent news! I think V1.3 has to be the release after I double check everything, I should be posting it up sometime this evening GMT!

 

 

Pete - Thanks for offering to check it out, I think we are already on a winner for a release version, so im looking to push it out this evening but by all means there is nothing stopping you playing

 

 

Tony - Good idea, and I have now completed a run through of the scenario and nothing appears to cause a crash under 2008.024 with the 080122 version of HCDB

 

Thanks to those of you that have taken the time to have a look and a run through, the input has been greatly appreciated, its now time to let it out into the wild methinks

 

*rushes off to check spellings etc*