Closing the Gate v2.0

[Deltapooh]

Updated the Closing the Gate Scenario. The main improvement allows you task organize support artillery.

The "strangest" improvement is events. It's not the strongest feature, but they do have some use in single player. (If Jim would expand on the conditions to trigger events, these would be very useful.)

http://www.warfarehq.com/archives/showthread.php?t=458

 

[KG_Norad]

Thanks...

Thanks DP.
Always appreciate your efforts, as I do with all our contributing members.

 

[cbelva]

Thank you, SIR! Are you working on any other scenarios. I have been kicking some ideas around but have not settled on anything as of yet.

 

[Deltapooh]

I've settled on a battle between the US and Pakistan. The US drives to secure Peshawar. The political setup centers around Islamic radicals fulfilling threats against President Pervez Musharraf for supporting the US War on Terrorism.

 

[cbelva]

Sounds interesting. Can't wait to see it.

 

[KEYSTONE07950]

Regarding the Closing The Gate scenerio. I noticed there were no CFZ or CFFZ's in the US force listing. As an interested civilian, what conditions would allow the US forces the CFZ or CFFZ?

Thanks,
Arthur

 

[Deltapooh]

Regarding the Closing The Gate scenerio. I noticed there were no CFZ or CFFZ's in the US force listing. As an interested civilian, what conditions would allow the US forces the CFZ or CFFZ?

Thanks,
Arthur

CFZ's depend on the availability of detection assets such as the AN/TPQ-36 or AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder radar systems. When a round is detected in a CFZ, it generates a high priority fire message, resulting in a counter fire mission CFZs are employed around breaching lanes, chokepoints, defensive positions, and support-by-fire positions.

CFFZ's are used to suppress or neutralize enemy fire positions, such as artillery, mortar, or missile positions. Radar search the zone, and upon detection, degenerates a slightly lower priority message to execute fire mission.

I excluded them from this scenario because I felt the speed of maneuver and the terrain would make it difficult for radar to be very effective. Also, in my own scheme of things, there would not be enough time to setup sensors since its imperative the division gets through the gap and secure OBJ PEACH quickly. UAVs are faster, and more effective. And if I;m not mistaken, were used by Vth Corps to help ensure the enemy reacted to the feint maneuver before moving through the gap.

Of course it is very easy to change this option. you can open the .sce file in the scenario editor, click on the scenario page. When asked do you want create a new one, select no. Then find the Blue CFZ and Blue CFFZ boxes and select the number of zones you want.

Or you can open the .sce file in Wordpad. Scroll down to BCFZ and change 0 to whatever you want. You can also add CFFZ by scrolling and changing the BCFFZ.

In fact, I strongly encourage players to use the scenario editor to change settings in a scenario. I change often change the number of CAS sorties per day just for the heck of it.

 

[KEYSTONE07950]

Deltapooh:

In theory, how many CFZ's or CFFZ's would a US division be able to establish? Would the radar referred to be a divisional or corps asset?

Also, what is the rule of thumb regarding how many TAI's and NAI's that a division would be able to establish?

Thanks,
Arthur

 

[Deltapooh]

Deltapooh:

In theory, how many CFZ's or CFFZ's would a US division be able to establish? Would the radar referred to be a divisional or corps asset?

I believe each division is assigned a set of radars. The system can hold up to nine zones. However, parameters such as avoiding intersecting zones might limit that number.

Also, what is the rule of thumb regarding how many TAI's and NAI's that a division would be able to establish?

I really don't know the answer to this one. I know in DA NAI's represent sensor and special forces. TAI's are limited by the amount of assets the commander wants to commit to attack a specific zone. For example, if you have 3x helicopter companies, three or four TAIs should be sufficient.

In DA, scenario developers want to limit the number of zones to avoid turning games into automated confrontations. You also want to create friction and surprise. If you have just four NAI's, you're going to really going be careful about where you place them.

 

[Scully]

Hey DP,

Nice scenario so far...I'm on turn 17. This is actually only the second time I've played DA. The first was when I first picked it up a long time ago. Man I've got a lot to learn.

Anyway, a quick question for you.

In the opord, you have all blue units heading north through the more difficult terrain to the east. But on the map, you have all the phase lines further to the west in the open ground. I've been keeping my units within the original phase lines, but wanted to make sure I wasn't screwing anything up. It would be much easier to move outside the eastern phase boundaries...but don't want to cheat.

Take care,
Brian

 

[Deltapooh]

Anyway, a quick question for you.

In the opord, you have all blue units heading north through the more difficult terrain to the east. But on the map, you have all the phase lines further to the west in the open ground. I've been keeping my units within the original phase lines, but wanted to make sure I wasn't screwing anything up. It would be much easier to move outside the eastern phase boundaries...but don't want to cheat.

Take care,
Brian

Sorry for the delayed reply. I designed the OPORD map for Blue and Red. In hindsight, I guess I should have been less lazy.

I used ON Point for the scenario. So I designed the map to illustrate the feint maneuver, rather than an attack through the Karbala Gap.

 

[Scully]

Sorry for the delayed reply. I designed the OPORD map for Blue and Red. In hindsight, I guess I should have been less lazy.

I used ON Point for the scenario. So I designed the map to illustrate the feint maneuver, rather than an attack through the Karbala Gap.

Hey DP,

No problem. I ended up violating the lines a bit in the "armpit" area near karbala, but aside from that, I followed things properly.

Great scenario, by the way. I particularly liked the use of Fedayeen and the NBC attacks. They added a real interesting problem to work out. I played about 20 turns and took all of the objectives, though my logistics were starting to get in a bit of trouble.

I'll have to sit down and write a quick aar...or maybe I'll just post the files. Anyway, it was a great scenario and showed me how much I don't know about this level of warfare.

Take care,
Brian