I understand the principle, function, purpose of Command and Control in a real operation. However, what I don't understand is what, if any, benefits accrue to using them - and here I thinking specifically of EC-135K Head Dancer - within an Harpoon scenario? 

In game terms all they are to the side with them is a burden that you try to keep from getting shot down.

I sort of suspected that they might really be just another juicy target -  but I wanted to be sure that there wasn't some devious benefit they conferred.

Thank you. 

Rescue, we're always open to home-grown game rules.  What do you think these juicy targets should do for the player?

On 3/8/2021 at 9:32 PM, TonyE said:

Rescue, we're always open to home-grown game rules.  What do you think these juicy targets should do for the player?

   

Gosh!

Apologies for the tardy response: I had to think about this and, for me, that's something that can't be rushed.

The question is, of course, beyond both my pay grade and my IQ but since you ask, and assuming you'll be polite enough to only snigger at me behind my back, here goes.

Blue's Asset + Red's Juicy Target = A/JT

Analysis: As I understand it, Blue accrues no benefit by deploying the A/JT, let alone putting in harms way. Similarly, as I understand it, Red would accrue no benefit from risking its own assets in prosecuting the A/JT.

Conclusion: Why bother (other than for reasons of verisimilitude) to put the A/JT in the order of battle in the first place?

Outcome: Unsatisfactory.

Solution: Place a benefit on Blue’s deployment, and Red's destruction of, the A/JT.

At this point my lack of knowledge and understanding of the game's mechanics takes me into the realm of pure speculation. I've really no idea about what might be possible, improbable or absolutely impossible to achieve within the parameters of the game’s capabilities so the following 'ideas' make no allowance for feasibility or practicality.

1. Blue’s use, or Red’s destruction, of the A/JT accrues ‘victory points’ in terms of howsoever such things are calculated by the game. (Maybe, say, by damage points accrued against “off map” bases (or bases beyond the reach of of units in the scenario).
2. Deployment of the A/JT enhances Blue's ECM capacity and/or degrades Red's ability to detect/intercept/engage Blue's assets (In effect the making the A/JT 'a jammer' which gives Blue a reason to use it while giving Red a reason to hunt it down and kill it).
3. Blue’s use, or Red’s destruction, of the A/JT accrues tangible benefits through the release of ‘reinforcements’ (basically new assets entering the game) for either side as appropriate.
4. Incorporating some sort of “deus ex machina” into the scenario. Perhaps a condition which makes it significantly more difficult or, maybe, even impossible for Blue to achieve its victory conditions if it doesn’t place the A/JT within, say, a given range of and active Red installation for (or by) a specific time or keep it on-station XYZ for a defined period.

As I said, these are just ideas, I’m totally ignorant about the internal mechanics of the way the game works. Personally, I tend to deploy the A/JTs because I like the sense of realism engendered and “having one more thing to worry about” appeals to my masochistic streak!

    

 

 

 

They could probably be incorporated into victory conditions if the scenario writer wished?

Yes, anyone want to see if the victory conditions are already fine-grained enough to isolate a particular class of aircraft?  

I also appreciate that there was no suggestion to add modelling of communications networks, everything suggested Rescue is within the realm of reason!