Has there been much thought to creating a number of extremely introductory scenarios to give new players, or recently-returned "strangers" an opportunity to step through various naval warfare disciplines? They could be created in a form that would step up in complexity much akin to how TacOps has a number of similar scenarios where your forces remain the same but the enemy's gear gets enhances while time limits are shortened or the building block scenarios from the H4 Quick Start Rules. Topics could be things as ASW, take in somewhat restricted waters, a 1990's Perry and conduct ASW seaches against a noisy D/E sub, then progressively better equipped opposing subs.

 

Again for E/W, have a carrier launch strikes against poorely defended point targets, then medium, then more modern defenses (S-60/SA-6/SA-11) in order to give the user a better feel for the different effects and combinations of electronic warfare. Start with something similar to A-4's, then A-7's, then A-6/EA-6B combos against the various defense scemes.

 

Just a thought. I'm essentially SE illiterate so...

I can't recall any specific suggestion along those lines of increasing complexity. The introductory level is certainly WestPac 1.0. Anyway, your thought sounds like a good idea to me.

Not a bad idea at all, Pete. Worth investigating further.

A series of 'shakedown' or 'Tactics 101' scenarios are something that I'd like to guage input on, both from our stalwart, long time scenario designers around here and some of the new folks too (if you're interested in getting your feet wet).

 

It can probably be undertaken in a stepped fashion, as Pete suggests, each new scenario adding a layer of complexity through added platforms, weapons and/or sensors.

 

Of course, there are a wide range of "areas of interest", for example:

 

1. Anti-submarine warfare (ASW), including ship vs sub, land based aircraft (maritime patrol aircraft, or MPA) vs sub, and of course, sub vs sub, etc. And several layers within each of those too, e.g. conventional sub vs nuke sub.

 

2. Anti-air warfare (AAW), including ship vs aircraft, SAM/AAA vs aircraft, anti-ship missile defense, ballistic missile defense, etc.

 

3. Air warfare, including fighter tactics, strike planning (see, for example, Tactics 101: Strike Planning), etc.

 

4. Electronic warfare (EW), including jamming, electronic surveillance measures (ESM), etc.

 

Pipe up and we can flesh it out ...

This is a great idea. As a newcomer I'd personally opt for something which teaches fundamentals which can then be applied to training scenarios.

 

The problem is the scope of what to cover is so large, some initial areas of focus would probably have to be settled on.

 

Maybe the first thing that should be covered is the basic composition of various taskforces/SAG etc etc and how to utilise the platforms in those groups. Then on to how to ensure some basic security for your task force. I think the most challenging aspect to completing objectives is protecting your own assets.

This is a great idea. As a newcomer I'd personally opt for something which teaches fundamentals which can then be applied to training scenarios. The problem is the scope of what to cover is so large, some initial areas of focus would probably have to be settled on. Maybe the first thing that should be covered is the basic composition of various taskforces/SAG etc etc and how to utilise the platforms in those groups. Then on to how to ensure some basic security for your task force. I think the most challenging aspect to completing objectives is protecting your own assets.

 

Sounds as though you'd like to see a mixture of fundamentals discussion/tutorials and scenarios based on those lessons?

 

I'm not opposed to that approach because I think there's value in having a source or guide to fundamentals that one can keep referring to (such as that attempted with the Tactics 101 posts). The scenario would then build on that.

 

I'm assuming that you've read or at least perused the HCE manual in this regard?

This sounds a bit like Ralf Koelbach's "Papa and Son" battleset whereby he has a serious of scenarios of increasing complexity for beginners. A couple of them are already in the Baltic Battleset by Rene.

This sounds a bit like Ralf Koelbach's "Papa and Son" battleset whereby he has a serious of scenarios of increasing complexity for beginners. A couple of them are already in the Baltic Battleset by Rene.

Never heard of this. Perhaps it's already "out there".

Never heard of this. Perhaps it's already "out there".

 

There are plenty of 'introductory' or 'tutorial' scenarios, or scenarios that focus on just one aspect of warfare or another. Its not the same as what I was contemplating.

Its not the same as what I was contemplating.

 

Nor I,...continue.

Its not the same as what I was contemplating.

 

Nor I,...continue.

 

Indeed, your idea is more like a campaign, with a backstory, plot et al. paired with the gradually augmented cognitive load (hehe, I wanted to write that) on the new (or not so new) player to teach him how to properly use the assets under his command while following a typical NATO, WP or any other doctrine by introducing other elements of warfare a la Harpoon as you progress into the storyline

e.g You start as a lone ASW ship who has to catch up with a convoy, which then sails on to a meeting point with a CVBG, etc.

 

Excellent, I say.

Maybe even an alternate path, where you introduce the player to the SE by having edit the next scenario according to his results in the one before

If I may summarize for a moment. What I'm reading are two distinctly different ideas.

 

1. Siloed approach to each component of naval warfare. i.e. 7 scenarios dealing strictly with ASW, then 4 scenarios dealing strictly with surface warfare, then 6 scenarios on air warfare, etc.

 

2. Naval warfare progressing from a light work-load single or multi-faceted scenario and progressing to a complex environment that nobody can fully control.

 

I think the first approach naturally leads to the second but the second can exist without the first. Personally the first approach appeals to me as the more unique approach thusfar.

 

As for tying any of this in with the SE, the pessimism is way to great to ever expect that to work (getting participation at any level). I would like to see a number of video lessons of the SE though, maybe it is easier to pass on the word of mouth knowledge that way than typing which ships go into the group first to optimize SAM response and so on and so forth.

1. Siloed approach to each component of naval warfare. i.e. 7 scenarios dealing strictly with ASW, then 4 scenarios dealing strictly with surface warfare, then 6 scenarios on air warfare, etc.

 

This is the approach I am thinking of (and prefer).

 

As for tying any of this in with the SE, the pessimism is way to great to ever expect that to work (getting participation at any level).

 

Yes, for some reason people are way too afraid (perhaps not the right word) of the SE. I'm confident that we can get a few people to participate, and if not, I'm quite willing to go it alone if people will test the scenarios. (The latter part hasn't usually been too much of an issue).

 

I would like to see a number of video lessons of the SE though, maybe it is easier to pass on the word of mouth knowledge that way than typing which ships go into the group first to optimize SAM response and so on and so forth.

 

Also an excellent idea.

My original intent was a siloed approach to the various and distinct naval warfare disciplines.

 

Those familiar with TacOps, see scenarios Gallagher 1-8. While not a demo or other training tool, the TacOps example of a singular unit facing escalating opponent unit size, equipment, and time constraints over the course of the 8 scenarios. for example, it could be something like US Army Mech Bn vs BTR-60 Bn; vs BTR-60 Bn with Tank support; vs BMP-1 Bn; vs BMP-1 with Tank support; vs BTR-60 Regiment, etc.

 

Each scenario could be self contained, however each subsequent scenario would bring on a greater "tactical puzzle".

My original intent was a siloed approach to the various and distinct naval warfare disciplines. Those familiar with TacOps, see scenarios Gallagher 1-8. While not a demo or other training tool, the TacOps example of a singular unit facing escalating opponent unit size, equipment, and time constraints over the course of the 8 scenarios. for example, it could be something like US Army Mech Bn vs BTR-60 Bn; vs BTR-60 Bn with Tank support; vs BMP-1 Bn; vs BMP-1 with Tank support; vs BTR-60 Regiment, etc. Each scenario could be self contained, however each subsequent scenario would bring on a greater "tactical puzzle".

 

Yep, we're on the same wavelength, Pete, and being familiar with those TacOps scenarios, that's what I think we should aim for.