MNC Player support thread

[Warship NWS]

This thread is for questions relating to our upcoming Modern Naval Conflicts Series of wargames.

Thanks.

[Saldin]

So my question is - does the game cover current technology, units, and tactics like UAVs. stealth, and boghammers?

[Warship NWS]

So my question is - does the game cover current technology, units, and tactics like UAVs. stealth, and boghammers?

As noted in our information page, the first edition is designed to cover what would have been potentially the most brutal of all modern naval time frames.. the 1970s. Anti-ship missiles were starting to be proliferated and built in large numbers, the Russian Navy was rapidly expanding, AEGIS was not available yet, point defense systems were just starting to be developed and deployed, and rail launchers were still the predominant way to launch SAMs prior to wide spread use of rapid fire VLS systems. A modern naval war during the 1970s would likely have been a series of devastating naval battles involving the GIUK naval theater.

Future editions will cover other time frames and include additional rules for updated technologies and weapons.

Thanks.

[Stratos]

Wondering If sub and anti-sub ops will be modelled

[Warship NWS]

Wondering If sub and anti-sub ops will be modelled

ASW, AShW, AAW, EW, etc..etc..etc.. all dimensions of naval combat.

[Saldin]

It certainly should be easy to add modern technology and tactics. In a relatively abstract game all it really does is change the relationship between the main factors ASW, AShW, AAW, EW. So when I get the game, I'll start working on those (since I'm more interested in today and the near future).

Which brings up the question, What exactly is the scale and some of the ratings/mechanisms?

[Warship NWS]

Design Scale : Individual weapon scale using a set of stastical weapon charts for multiple weapon engagements to be resolved using die rolls.

I will note however, it will not be that "easy" to add future combat units as we already plan on technology evolution rules to be added when new editions are published. The design is not as abstract as you may assume. ;)

Point being, this is just the first edition and the combat unit charts are fairly detailed. The entire design is quite unique as it blends a combination of realistic detail with fast moving combat systems. Future editions are already planned covering multiple theaters and time frames.

Thanks.

[Micke G]

Seven years have passed since I've heard about this game for the first time, and finally it seems to be published:)

So, when could we expect to see some deeper description of the game mechanics and examples of play?

[Warship NWS]

Hi MG.. what your thinking of was the original plans for NW-WW3 which would have been based on the similiar design as our previous NW editions - however - MNC is a bit different and much more detailed yet will still allow for fast game play.

Right now we are play testing the rules and working on the combat unit charts - over 200 will be included on a CD that players can print out as needed.

Examples of play are also being worked on and we plan on posting some samples of the counters, map, unit charts, and snippets of the rules very soon.

Do you have any specific questions we could possibly make an example of?

[Micke G]

Ok, some questions:

1) What scale is used, is there an operational and a tactical level?

2) I play Harpoon and the Fleet series (VG), where do you place this game compared to them?

3) What about solitaire play?

4) How is detection handled?

5) Are there any shipborne helos that the ships can use for different missions?

6) How is C3 modeled?

I will post more questions as they pop-up later.

Thanks,
Michael

[William Miller]

Micke,

"NW-WW3" was the working title for the possible modern-period followup to our NW-WW1 and NW-WW2 games, and would have used the same system/mechanisms as those two games.

Modern Naval Conflicts, while it also covers modern naval combat, is a completely different game system and design. MNC has a good level of detail (it models individual missiles, as an example) but is designed to play faster than most other games that have that level of detail. The combat rules are completed and we are in testing of those at the moment; most of what remains to be completed are the scenarios and some graphics stuff.

The scale is 20 minutes per game turn and 25nm per map hex, with a 5nm scale at the tactical/formation level. The game scale is designed to handle "extended tactical" situations; basically this means you can fight tactical-level battles with operational-level influences that may affect the situation as play progresses.

While as the primary designer I am admittedly biased :D, I am personally rather excited about the potential of this series; I have missed working in the modern naval combat arena and am enjoying being back in the genre. While I still very much enjoy the past historical periods of naval combat, nothing is as relevant for many of us as modern naval warfare, both in the professional and personal sense.

As Christopher pointed out we will be posting samples and related materials for the game in the very near future, and we always appreciate everyones interest in our work.

Thanks!

[William Miller]

Ok, some questions:

1) What scale is used, is there an operational and a tactical level?

2) I play Harpoon and the Fleet series (VG), where do you place this game compared to them?

3) What about solitaire play?

4) How is detection handled?

5) Are there any shipborne helos that the ships can use for different missions?

6) How is C3 modeled?

I will post more questions as they pop-up later.

Thanks,
Michael

You popped your questions up while I was laboring over my previous reply...lol.

Some answers to your questions;

1) 25nm/map hex and 5nm/formation scale, 20 minutes per game turn.

2) The detail is closer to that of Harpoon (less in some areas more in others).

3) I would rate the game as "fair" for solitaire play.

4) Detection is on a "threshold" basis, with rules/tables for every virtually type of detection used in the real world. Detection is however not "absolute"; each sensor type has a range-of-detection-variability that mimics the real-world limitations of each type.

5) Yes, certainly. The game also has rules for fuel and ordnance use so that those are limited by what stores/ordnance could be carried on each ship and carrier.

6) Each unit in the game has ratings for how well it can communicate/coordinate with other units, as well as if it can datalink with other units. There are (important) rules that model the impact of these communications/control values as well as the use of (or lack of) certain datalink types.

[Micke G]

That sounds really, really good William. So far, this game sounds exactly what I've been looking for during my whole gaming career. I actually gave up modern naval wargaming for a while because I couldn't find a game that met my "demands". So a game with focus on both operational and tactical MNW will make me a very happy man:) Can't wait to see the examples and components. By the way, is this game using unit cards as those in your NWS WW1/WW2 game?

[Warship NWS]

MNC uses data forms instead of unit data cards. Too much info for those little cards to handle. ;) The data forms will be in PDF format and published on a CD so players can print them as needed. Each form will display all the needed information for each combat unit including logistical data, damage records, sensors, weapons/loadouts, tactical details, available ordnance, etc.

Some map info,

The map covers ~1.5 million nautical miles using 9 x 8.5x11" map panels that will be printed on hard card stock. This will allow players to use any number of the panels depending on the size of the battle. A small battle could be fought using 1 panel or a large operational action using all 9. The map will also be very easy to understand - no "is that land or water??" questions. Each hex is colored in with 3 different depth colors and land. Military base markers will also be included to designate active military installations/ports as required per scenario.

I have attached a sample of the present draft map - note, more details will be added to the map soon.

[Micke G]

Any updates on the game?

[Warship NWS]

Any updates on the game?

a) Rules are done - testing.
b) Combat, detection, etc.. charts are done - testing.
c) Map is nearly finished.
d) Counter sheets - in progress.
e) Unit data forms - nearly finished.

Presently we are about 90%+ finished with the production design, and about 50% done with testing.

Thanks.

[Micke G]

Is there any possibility for you guys to post some sneak-peaks, please!

[Warship NWS]

Is there any possibility for you guys to post some sneak-peaks, please!

We are talking about some ideas of what we could post as "previews".. stay tuned. Right now we are just real busy testing out, and tweaking, the rules and combat systems.

We appreciate the interest in MNC! :)

[William Miller]

Is there any possibility for you guys to post some sneak-peaks, please!

Micke,

We will be posting some sample unit sheets and the Table-of-Contents (TOC) for the (beta-version) Rules Manual for MNC:1970s this coming week...stay tuned!

Thanks.

[Micke G]

Sounds very good:)

[Akmatov]

Very interesting, looking forward to the sneak-peaks, i.e. temptations.

[William Miller]

Greetings,

The first sample file pack for MNC:1970s has been posted; the download link is in the "Information and Progress" section above this thread. Keep in mind that although the files are close to their final fomat, minor (or more significant) changes may occur to these before final game release.

[Micke G]

Thanks for posting the files. The rules seems to cover every aspect of modern naval warfare, well done! I hope that you also post an AAR/Example of play as to describe the mechanics and the flow of the game.

[Warship NWS]

We already have plans for posting some game play examples. Stay tuned. ;)

Thanks.

[William Miller]

Greetings,

I have posted MNC:1970's Playthrough Scenarios #1 and #2 to the 'Downloads' thread of this forum. These are intended to help new players understand the MNC system by giving a detailed step-by-step description of each turn of gameplay of a (simple) scenario. Now, obviously without having the Rules and Reference Tables you will not be able to fully follow or understand some of the events in the playthroughs, but I have posted them anyway to give everyone a better understanding of the overall game process and detail level. Also, the Scenario description format for these are identical to the actual game scenario format, giving you a look at how the full scenarios will be presented.

Also bear in mind that these playtests are with late beta versions of the game Rules; there may be slight differences with the final Rules release (but nothing that would invalidate anything significant). An updated set of these scenarios will be included on the CD-ROM that accompanies the game, when it is released.

I will be happy to answer questions about the playthrough Scenarios...bear in mind that questions about specific rules references may be answered in general terms at this point.

[Micke G]

Thanks, I will look into it soon.

[Warship NWS]

Modern Naval Conflicts 1970s is now available for pre-order

A picture of all components has also be posted .. click the link below..

http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?600-Modern-Naval-Conflicts-Series-Information-and-Downloads

Thanks! :)

[Blacknova]

Just pre-ordered MNC, it looks to be a great game. Two questions - what's your gestimated release at the moment? Also what additional eras/campaigns have you considered so far?

[Warship NWS]

Hi Blacknova,

Right now the print run is expected sometime in next month, November.

As to eras and theaters.. we have the ability to prepare expansions for nearly any theater or time frame covering from the 1950s to present day. The MNC rules are easily adaptable, or can be used as is, for all future expansions. We will also of course support the system fully after release with clarifications, any needed rules corrections, additional data/charts, etc.

We have planned on from the very start to build on the MNC design for quite some time after the release date.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

Latest news.. MNC 1970s is now preparing for the first print run starting Friday. Shipping should start within about 2-3 weeks.

For those of you that have already pre-ordered.. thank you! :)

Let me know if there are any questions. Thanks.

[darthvader170]

in game terms, how radars are affected by weather clutter (rain), land clutter, offensive jammers, etc or is this level of detail just out of the scope of these rules.

[William Miller]

in game terms, how radars are affected by weather clutter (rain), land clutter, offensive jammers, etc or is this level of detail just out of the scope of these rules.

Hello,

The following lists what can affect the net radar range in a radar detection attempt in MNC:

1) Detecting Radar Rating (Determines the "base" detection range against a standard target)
2) RLOS (Radar Line-Of-Sight, based on radar horizon and relative sensor-target height)
3) Target Radar Signature rating
4) Environmental conditions (Good weather, Fair weather, Poor weather conditions, etc)
5) Detection Variance-Range (random variance to range based on real-world typical variances by specific sensor type over the course of a 20 minute turn period)
6) Look-Down (for aerial radars: technology of radar determines if what level of ability in detecting lower or higher altitude targets)
7) Jamming (Variable modifier based on technology-level, type and power of enemy jamming systems...note that friendly jamming systems will somewhat degrade friendly radar systems in some cases in the game!)
8) Number of targets in a task-force/air-task-force (affects the odds of overall detection of the group)
9) Target at low level over land (harder to detect with most radars)

In certain scenarios (especially the Norwegian ones) ships that are near their own coastlines can take advantage of their intimate knowledge of their coast to more effectively conceal themselves from detection (both radar and visual) in most cases.

Thanks!

[darthvader170]

I think that tactical nuclear weapons aren't included, both Nuclear depth bomb and up to 300kt antisurface nuclear missiles and free fall bombs, can you confirm this?

sincerely.
1039

[Warship NWS]

Nuclear weapons are included in the game, but, they are optional and dependent on the scenario. Click on the attachment below for a list of the available tactical weapons.

[William Miller]

I think that tactical nuclear weapons aren't included, both Nuclear depth bomb and up to 300kt antisurface nuclear missiles and free fall bombs, can you confirm this?

sincerely.
1039

All the types shown in the rules excerpt Christopher posted exist in MNC. Weapon yields of from ~ 1Kt to 5Mt are covered; effects upon communications and sensors are modeled in addition to the damage effects. Damage effects include determining damage to ships, submarines, and aircraft, as well as the possible loss of weapons that are in transit in the area (such as torpedoes and missiles).

[darthvader170]

it looks like this game covers all aspect of modern tactical naval warfare, looks awesome.

next time I should ask something more general like "is there something you would like to add to the rules that was impossible? is anything forbidden or missing?", is this the new reference for modern tactical naval warfare game? or some dumb questions like these!!.

congratulations NWS

sincerely.

[Warship NWS]

Thanks for the support dv170.. just note that this is just the first of what we plan to be a long list of MNC releases. A wide range of theaters, countries, and time frames are planned for the series. We will be taking a LOT of notes based on player feedback while we decide what to include for the first expansion - some ideas are the 1980s, the Med, the Pacific, more nationalities for the GIUK, etc...

BTW, WM is also working on Modern Armored Conflicts right now..due out around April.

I am working on Modern Naval Tactics which is due to launch around Feb-March.

The upcoming launch of MNC.. is just a warm up for 2011! ;)

[Rik81]

Well I just got on to this thread--and it appears I'm in on the ground floor, LOL. Order now, shipping still 2 or 3 weeks away? May I refer back to a "golden oldie" in the old Avalon Hill board game days: JUTLAND! (I know, not very modern ... but I have a point, maybe). In a modern (computer) setting I like to do, (mostly by neccessity) most of my game playing as PBEM! Now back to Jutland. In the day, I worked out a PB(snail)M system for that game and did get to play some.

So now you know where this is going: How feasible might this MNC game lend itself to a PB(M) system? Is there any "fog of war" in this game? (BISMARK/MIDWAY from AH days come to mind).

[William Miller]

So now you know where this is going: How feasible might this MNC game lend itself to a PB(M) system? Is there any "fog of war" in this game? (BISMARK/MIDWAY from AH days come to mind).

Hello,

Section 5.7 of the MNC Rules Manual covers Fog-of-War options, which consist of 'Duplicate Counters', 'Independent Plotting', 'Umpired Game', and detailed 'Identification-of-Target' rules (or a combination of the previous options). The rules were designed with the possibility of play using the above modes of play. My personal favorite PBEM option is the 'Umpired Game', wherin two players send their decisions each turn to a third person (the Umpire), who plots the movement and actually resolves the combat, then sends back the results to the players and awaits the next turn's decisions.

I guess I am lucky as I have had robust local gaming groups over the past 30+ years with which to game, but I do know that these can be hard to find/keep/startup so the above are pretty much standard options that I try to include in our games here at NWS.

[Warship NWS]

As a follow up to WMs post,

FOW, intel levels, and C&C considerations are critical to all of our designs - even our upcoming "Tactics" series.

Thanks.

[Rik81]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, the "umpired" game style is the best if one can get it. Anyway, glad to see FOW is included. BIG ADVANTAGE that computer games have, but of course how good it is depends on how good the programming of the AI is, not an easy task.

[Warship NWS]

Latest news.. we are all set to go for the first print run of MNC. We are just waiting until Monday for some final quotes from our print company and then we give them the green light that day to start the proof print. After we approve the proofs then we start the full production run. All of this should take no more then about 2-3 weeks, so presently we are on schedule. We are also in constant communication with our printing company production coordinator.

Let me know if there are any questions.

Thanks.

[Rik81]

So did the business with the print company work out? Any estimated shipping dates to customers?

[William Miller]

Hello Rik81 (Rick?),

The normal process for a full professional print run is as follows (this is after the printer gets the game files):

1) Pre-press: the files are reviewed/processed for the print process being used.
2) Proofing: the printer sets ups and prints a full game set for their review. We are mailed a copy for our review and approval.
3) Production Run: the full print run is done - all items printed, collated, and inspected.
4) Shipping to us: the print run is boxed up and shipped to us (this goes to our assembly/shipping warehouse).
5) Assembly/Shipping: the games are assembled/CD-ROMs added/game is boxed and then packaged for shipment to the customers.

Right now the game is is pre-press, proof printing is next. The game CD-ROMs are currently at a production facility being prepared as well.
It normally takes 2-3 weeks for the process to complete, sometimes it takes a bit longer.

Thanks!

[Warship NWS]

Presently we are still on schedule for a end of Jan to early Feb release of MNC. WM described the process for the print run and at this time everything is working out as planned.

Thanks.

[Rik81]

FYI ... the name is Richard, but I also have a son named Richard whom we called Rick (and still do), so Rich works for me here!

[Warship NWS]

FYI ... the name is Richard, but I also have a son named Richard whom we called Rick (and still do), so Rich works for me here!

Hi Richard.. so what interested you in MNC exactly?

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

We received our proofs for the MNC print run - all looks good. Preparing to green light the production run which should be completed within about 2 weeks.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

For new thread readers, you can see our detailed website for MNC here;

http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?600-Modern-Naval-Conflicts-Series-Information-and-Downloads

Samples, AARs, game contents, etc..

Thanks.

[darthvader170]

[QUOTE= BTW, WM is also working on Modern Armored Conflicts right now..due out around April.

I am working on Modern Naval Tactics which is due to launch around Feb-March.[/QUOTE]


what is exactly MNT (modern naval tactics) compred to MNC (modern naval Conflicts)? I mean, new scenarios, platforms, another game wich has little or nothing to MNC except time period...

and the same queston goes for Modern Armored Conflict, what is his scale (time, map scale, unit scale), is it compatible with MNC? is "gun and armor penetration" as detailed as Avalon Hill MBT/IDF or as Flames of War? is there any web page to get more info?

Thank You

[Warship NWS]

To DV,

Intermediate to advanced designs using hex maps and CRTs:
MNC = Individual ship/sub (combat), task force (C&C and movement), and aircraft squadron or individual helo scale.
MAC = Individual vehicle and squad (combat) and platoon scale (C&C and movement)

The "Tactics" designs are introductory to intermediate fast play combat system series of wargames that will utilize "battle charts" for deciding tactics and resolving combat.
MNT = Individual ship/sub and A/C squadron scale for combat/maneuvers.
MAC = Platoon scale for combat/maneuvers.

Time frames, primarily 1960s-1990s+ for all of the above through the release of new editions/expansion packs.

Let me know if that helps any.

[darthvader170]

Let me know if that helps any.


not many, probably as MNT (modern naval tactical, :confused:another acronym!) is expected for april, a counter or data form from one of their ships/subs will help, to see what information is importand for playing. MNC data forms where very helpfull.

right now, my interpretation is that MNC track individual missiles and helos, while MNT gives, individual units/group of aircrafts, attack points vs defense points; also known as combat odds, for combat.

[William Miller]

Greetings,

We have now received and approved the digital and physical proofs for MNC. This means that the full production print can now start up...at this point the production is keeping on schedule, so far. :)

Thanks!

[Warship NWS]

not many, probably as MNT (modern naval tactical, :confused:another acronym!) is expected for april, a counter or data form from one of their ships/subs will help, to see what information is importand for playing. MNC data forms where very helpfull.

right now, my interpretation is that MNC track individual missiles and helos, while MNT gives, individual units/group of aircrafts, attack points vs defense points; also known as combat odds, for combat.

MNT will use a very unique design - not just "attack vs defense points". I have not posted much about the series *yet*.. but I will be soon. ;)

[Rik81]

Was a kid growing up in WW II. Dad was in the Navy! So long time interest in all aspects of the Navy.

[Warship NWS]

Was a kid growing up in WW II. Dad was in the Navy! So long time interest in all aspects of the Navy.

My first wargame was AH War at Sea back in the 1970s. My dad also served in the USN, USS Hornet during the Vietnam War. WM, the designer of MNC, served on a Tico CG for several years and is also a long time veteran of naval wargames. Modern naval combat has been one of our favorite topics of research for around 30+ years.

Really looking forward to your feedback for MNC. :)

Thanks for joining our forums friend.

[Warship NWS]

News update.. looks like our MNC print run is due to arrive sometime next week - on schedule.

[Rik81]

Good to know!

[Warship NWS]

Latest print run update,

Most components have arrived and so far everything looks good. Counters are due in Monday 1/31. After the counters arrive we just need to prep the boxes and start shipping.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

Just a quick heads up.. I had to order in some more game and shipping boxes - which arrived. Over the weekend I will be putting the parts together then we will start shipping MNC out on Monday.

Watch your email boxes for any shipping notices, note they may show up in you spam folders.

Thanks.

[Saffron]

If only I had the space and a good human opponent ... I've looked over the game and it looks like it would be fun. Good luck with it, guys.

[Warship NWS]

If only I had the space and a good human opponent ... I've looked over the game and it looks like it would be fun. Good luck with it, guys.

Not a lot of space needed.. and you can play reasonably well solitaire. I know you used to play H4 so MNC would be a breeze for you.

[ArkadyRenko]

I noticed that the Visual ID rules don't seen to include modifiers for day/night and weather effects in table 5.1.1 either. Also, the rules mention that SAMs not capable of targeting SS or diving missiles suffer a bit penalty, are there any examples of such SAM systems? And, what is the asterix behind the AN(AI) for the Kara's SA-N-3 for?

And, a quick rules question, some SAMs have a range indicated with say T3/T1, does one of those ranges refer to a naval attack and, if so, which one?

[William Miller]

I noticed that the Visual ID rules don't seen to include modifiers for day/night and weather effects in table 5.1.1 either. Also, the rules mention that SAMs not capable of targeting SS or diving missiles suffer a bit penalty, are there any examples of such SAM systems? And, what is the asterix behind the AN(AI) for the Kara's SA-N-3 for?

And, a quick rules question, some SAMs have a range indicated with say T3/T1, does one of those ranges refer to a naval attack and, if so, which one?

Hello Arkady,

The updated Reference Sheet 02 has the Day/Night/Weather modifiers, see the "MNC RULES-UNIT DATA OFFICIAL THREAD" for the post and link for the corrected table.

An * after a SAM system "AN(AI)" value indicates that the SAM has full capablility to engage Sea-Skimming (SS) missiles/targets and does not sustain the SS to-hit modifier; if an * is after a ASM/SSM "AN(AI)" value of an ASM/SSM system then the ASM/SSM is sea-skimming. I note that the SA-N-3 system on the Kara does not have an * after it so it has poor capability against sea-skimming missiles. The SA-N-4B does have an * so it has full capability against such missiles. Possibly you meant SA-N-4B in your question???

If a SAM system has an ^ symbol after the "AN(AI)" value then it has full capablility to engage terminal diving missiles and does not sustain the terminal-dive to-hit modifier; if an ^ symbol is after the "AN(AI)" value of an ASM/SSM then the ASM/SSM performs a terminal dive. Table 9.3.1 indicates these symbols for both SAM and ASM/SSM systems, but is not as clear as it should be.

For SAM/Gun ranges the value before the slash (T3 in this case) always indicates maximum anti-air range, the value after the slash always indicates the maximum anti-surface range. If either value has a "-" instead of a range value then that system cannot engage targets in that arena.

Thanks!

[ArkadyRenko]

I had a brief rules question, which I wanted to open up to see if there are any good suggestions. I'm thinking about a scenario that pits a US / British fighter and bomber force in England vs Soviet bases in Norway. The basic idea is going to be either, NATO wants to knock out the captured Norwegian bases or the Soviets are repairing the Kiev off the Northern coast of Norway. The Soviet goal will be to protect their airbases or defend the Kiev from NATO air attacks or possibly launch their own counter attacks against NATO bases in Norway for a bonus side objective.

In either case, the question was this: would it be possible to create a terrain following radar special rule for SS flight? I am thinking allowing the F-111F to go at SS for up to 6 hexes a turn, with the usual 1D10 role for plane destruction. The idea here is that the F-111s would take off from England, do a low level insertion into Norway, bomb the runways, and return to base. Does anyone have any other ideas for allowing sustained SS flight? Or, was that not possible in the 70s at all?

[William Miller]

Arkady,

I have some notes I will post shortly on this subject...mostly it covers 1980s+ when the TF technology matured, but a few aircraft had differentated capacity terrain-following ability during the 1970s in this regard so I will post the portion covering that.

Update: I have now posted the advanced rules for SS flight on the "MNC: RULES-UNIT DATA OFFICIAL THREAD".

[ArkadyRenko]

Quick question about scenario 8. Where are the Soviet bombers based?

And, time to slide the next question in, any updates on modern armor conflicts?

[Warship NWS]

Quick question about scenario 8. Where are the Soviet bombers based?

And, time to slide the next question in, any updates on modern armor conflicts?

MAC is about 30-35% complete.. should be ready around May-June.

I will let WM answer the scenario question as that was his scenario design.

Thanks.

[William Miller]

Quick question about scenario 8. Where are the Soviet bombers based?

And, time to slide the next question in, any updates on modern armor conflicts?

Arkady,

The "Special Rules/Restrictions" section of Scenario 08 points out that the Soviet bombers are being based from "captured Norwegian airbases". The Soviet bombers are placed on the map directly (with a reduction of
2 starting Endurance) in hexes 43-20 through 43-28, and return to those same hexes to exit the game. Please remember the primary point of the scenario concerns difficulties in handling the defense of Northern UK airspace with rather limited resources and no US supercarriers near; thus the scenario was designed with this in mind and ignores area-of-operations that are not vital to that aspect. Of course, if you really wish to set a particular base for the bombers to operate from then the airbase in Hex 54-15 is the one you should use.

Thanks!

[Warship NWS]

Moved to this thread,


First, I received the package and am impressed. I've always thought there should be an operational element to Modern Naval gaming (ala the old SPI Task Force) and this seems to do the trick. Now, having read through the main rule book, I have a couple questions.

Question 1: On the Aircraft Data Sheets there are 2 speeds listed for each aircraft (e.g., 7/11 for the CF-104). I cannot find anything in the rule book describing or explaining the two values. It may be I just missed it. Can you enlighten me?

Question 2: Many US ships are not equipped with the Harpoon missile on the Data Sheets (e.g., USS Bainbridge) even though they were equipped with Harpoon by 1977 (some earlier). USS Bainbridge, for example, underwent a major modification in 1975 during which Harpoon 1C missiles were installed. I realize I can easily add this to the Data Sheets once printed, but I am curious why this weapon system is not included on many US ships which had it during the 70's.

Thanks. I am sure I shall have more questions as I get into playing and umpiring games, but these are the 2 major ones I have for now.
Kevin


Q1A: 7= normal speed, 11= intercept speed. Rule 7.4.3 .. we are also posting a clarification for this rule on our official thread;
http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?2097-MNC-RULES-UNIT-DATA-OFFICIAL-THREAD/page2

Q2A: Harpoon IC (RGM-84C) was not available until 1985. The original RGM-84 was first deployed in 1977. Only a few ships, and/or classes, had them on board at various times from 1977 to ~1980. Note, the mounts for the launchers could be removed and refit in a short time on most USN warships with the available space. The CGN Bainbridge, according to our sources, did not receive the RGM-84 mounts until 1979 - very close to the cut off time frame covered by the first edition of MNC. You can of course add 8xRGM-84s to the ship for a specific scenario.

Let me know if that helps any or if you have any further information/sources you would like to share.

Thanks.

[Rik81]

I think I saw somewhere that "1" is North, and the numbers go clockwise. Anyway, I'm trying to figure out the function of having the Formation/Tactical display? What can be consider it's purpose in the context of the game? I realize its scale (at 5nm) is different than the operational map. If two opposing TF's are in adjacent "Operational Map" hexes, and each are in the "Main" box they would be 25nm apart, correct? So, if they were in different boxes of the formation display is the variation in distant import for detection or combat considerations? Is that the reason?

[William Miller]

Hello,

The "1" on the Map Direction Indicator is North, yes.

You are essentially correct on formation distance: the "Main" holding boxes of two adjacent Formation Diagrams are 25nm apart. I will refer you to Rules 6.2.2, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.2 and 6.2.2.3 which cover the use of the Formation Diagram in detail, and also shows how to determine the distance between any two holding boxes in two adjacent Formation Diagrams.

You can use Formation Diagrams for ship/sub Task Forces, Air Task Forces (ATF), or even Land Groups (LG) in the game. I think it is best to visualize a Formation Diagram as simply a set of smaller "Tactical" 5nm "hexes" inside the larger Operational 25nm Hex it occupies.

The use of the Formation Diagram is very important to help resolve shorter range combat, and is especially helpful in resolving combat involving ships equipped with such weapons: One of my favorite test scenarios was a Soviet missile boat attack on a US SAG (Surface Action Group) which lacked any Harpoon missiles, where the boats had to risk getting into enemy gun range because their radars were being jammed by an EA-6B Prowler. Two of the boats were able to fire off their SS-N-2 missiles, but some were damaged or sunk by gunfire or SAMs (used in anti-surface mode) before they could fire.

[William Miller]

First, I received the package and am impressed. I've always thought there should be an operational element to Modern Naval gaming (ala the old SPI Task Force) and this seems to do the trick. Now, having read through the main rule book, I have a couple questions.

Question 1: On the Aircraft Data Sheets there are 2 speeds listed for each aircraft (e.g., 7/11 for the CF-104). I cannot find anything in the rule book describing or explaining the two values. It may be I just missed it. Can you enlighten me?

Question 2: Many US ships are not equipped with the Harpoon missile on the Data Sheets (e.g., USS Bainbridge) even though they were equipped with Harpoon by 1977 (some earlier). USS Bainbridge, for example, underwent a major modification in 1975 during which Harpoon 1C missiles were installed. I realize I can easily add this to the Data Sheets once printed, but I am curious why this weapon system is not included on many US ships which had it during the 70's.

Thanks. I am sure I shall have more questions as I get into playing and umpiring games, but these are the 2 major ones I have for now.

Kevin

Greetings Kevin,

First thank you for trying out the game, I appreciate your very kind comment about it!

Some explanation concerning the Data/Record Sheets in MNC: 1970s: All sheets have a "YEAR" rating field, which is the earliest year for which the data shown on the ship applies. This means that the weapons/equipment/capabilites of the unit shown on the sheet reflect the actual state of that unit during that year.

For example the "Year" rating for the US CGN Bainbridge is "1976", meaning that the Bainbridge had the listed stats starting that year. As Christopher pointed out, the Bainbridge did not have Harpoon missiles mounted until early 1979, and the ship's actual certified I.O.C. (Initial Operational Capability) with the Harpoon system was not until late July 1979. Since that fell so close to the 1980 cutoff it was not included in the unit notes. Bear in mind updated data/record sheets for 1970s-era units (that are still in service during the 1980s) will be included in the MNC: 1980s game, and some updated sheets will be posted in these forums as well.

Having said the above, being the fallible beings that we are, we will have typos and/or errors in some of the existing data/record sheets, so if you see something you think is questionable do not hesitate about bringing it to our attention.

Thanks again!

[Rik81]

Thanks for the reply. I guess what was kind of throwing me off was the reference in the Introductory Scenario #1 to the Formation/Tactical display. Essentially there is no need for it in a scenario like that. Your example of gunboat scenario of course would use those smaller distances.

[Rik81]

A SUGGESTION: I would like to see a "sheet" that would make it easy to find where the various Tables are located. I realize that the index of the manual does give "page numbers" where the Tables are mentioned, but I am referring to the many, many, reference sheets provided in the game. Something like:

QUICK REFERENCE CARD

Table 6.0 OPERATIONAL MOVEMENT
Table 7.6 CREW QUALITY EFFECTS
Table 9.9.0 DAMAGE NUMBER RESULTS
etc.

I suppose for completeness the manual page numbers could be included, thus Table 6.0 OPERATION MOVEMENT (p.25)

Then of course a second reference sheet that would provide the inverse:

SHEET LOCATION FOR TABLES

Tables listed in numerical order followed by Sheet #.

____________
Probably a bear to put together, but once done sure would make it easier to play the game.

[Warship NWS]

Hi Rik81, in basic form I think your asking for a type of "player's aid" reference chart. I will discuss this with WM and see what we can come up with. Stay tuned.

Thanks.

[William Miller]

A SUGGESTION: I would like to see a "sheet" that would make it easy to find where the various Tables are located. I realize that the index of the manual does give "page numbers" where the Tables are mentioned, but I am referring to the many, many, reference sheets provided in the game. Something like:

QUICK REFERENCE CARD

Table 6.0 OPERATIONAL MOVEMENT
Table 7.6 CREW QUALITY EFFECTS
Table 9.9.0 DAMAGE NUMBER RESULTS
etc.

I suppose for completeness the manual page numbers could be included, thus Table 6.0 OPERATION MOVEMENT (p.25)

Then of course a second reference sheet that would provide the inverse:

SHEET LOCATION FOR TABLES

Tables listed in numerical order followed by Sheet #.

____________
Probably a bear to put together, but once done sure would make it easier to play the game.

Rick,

I have created a new chart that lists a summary of all Tables found on the MNC:1970s Reference Sheets. The Summary lists the Sheet number the table is on, the name of the table, the function of the table, and the page number in the Rules Manual that the table appears on.

The download for this new chart can be found in the "OFFICIAL MNC: RULES, UNIT DATA, FAQ THREAD (http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?2097-OFFICIAL-MNC-RULES-UNIT-DATA-FAQ-THREAD)" as per usual.

[Rik81]

Thank you so much! That should really help speed up the play for those not familiar with the game (which is most of us at this stage, LOL).

[darthvader170]

HI, LET'S SEE:

Are there any rules for Air Search radars agaist seaskimmers?, I only found Surface search radars agaisnt Air targets.

Active sonar range for Kresta (the one in the tutorial scenario) is T.05, but there is not such column on Table 5.5 "adjusted sonar detection range"; the first column is T1. I did not search more, but shouldn't there be also columns for T1.5 and T2.5?.

How do I calculate sonar rating for hull mounted sonar (active or passive) for a ship listed with towed array but wants to use its Hull mounted sonar to avoid the cross layer modifier, or in shallow waters, or don't want deploy Twd sonar, etc.?.

Radar and Active sonar gives automatic ability to fire/attack, Should I understand that within this rules ESM and Passive sonar detections also provides ability to fire inmediately, or should I make some kinds of die rolls like the TMA procedures in Harpoon 4?



:confused:Thank you.

[William Miller]

Hello,

Answers to your questions are below:


Q1): Are there any rules for Air Search radars agaist seaskimmers?, I only found Surface search radars agaisnt Air targets.

ANSWER: Air Search radars always may attempt to detect seaskimming targets, as per the rules in section 5.2.2. The additional rule (Section 5.2.5.4) for Surface Search radars is used only if the searching unit does not have an Air-Search capability. Surface Search radars (as stated in Rule 5.2.5.4) have only a limited ability to detect low-flying air units at SS level, and it is almost always better to use the Air-Search radar range if the unit has one.

Q2): Active sonar range for Kresta (the one in the tutorial scenario) is T.05, but there is not such column on Table 5.5 "adjusted sonar detection range"; the first column is T1. I did not search more, but shouldn't there be also columns for T1.5 and T2.5?.

ANSWER: Units with a "X.5" Active Sonar rating use "X" column for active sonar detection on Table 5.5, but add "2" to the die roll made on that table (this is missing from the notes in the table...). Example: A "T1.5" rating active sonar would use the "T1" column but add 2 to die rolls made on the table.

Q3): How do I calculate sonar rating for hull mounted sonar (active or passive) for a ship listed with towed array but wants to use its Hull mounted sonar to avoid the cross layer modifier, or in shallow waters, or don't want deploy Twd sonar, etc.?.

ANSWER: Since most ships with towed (not VDS) sonars also carry hull sonar, for active detection attempts a ship may use its active rating as being Hull-mounted if they wish. However, for passive detection attempts if a shiip/sub has a towed sonar then the towed sonar must be used. For the great majority of ships the towed sonar passive capability greatly surpasses the hull sonar capability, so even without the cross-layer modifier the hull sonar would not perform significantly better than the towed sonar for passive detection attempts. These were simplifications made to avoid having sonar ratings for each model of sonar which could have added considerably to the complexity level of the game in many cases.

Q4): Radar and Active sonar gives automatic ability to fire/attack, Should I understand that within this rules ESM and Passive sonar detections also provides ability to fire inmediately, or should I make some kinds of die rolls like the TMA procedures in Harpoon 4?

ANSWER: See Section 5.7.3 of the Rules, which covers this situation (and more!). :)

Thanks.

[darthvader170]

Hello,


Q4): Radar and Active sonar gives automatic ability to fire/attack, Should I understand that within this rules ESM and Passive sonar detections also provides ability to fire inmediately, or should I make some kinds of die rolls like the TMA procedures in Harpoon 4?

ANSWER: See Section 5.7.3 of the Rules, which covers this situation (and more!). :)

Thanks.


Poblaby I 've explained wrong, I dont want to identify the unit, what I want to know is if a single detection on ESM or passive sonar gives an accurate fire control solution inmediately or not, (example: my submarine is in an area with exclusion of frienly shipping, it means that any contact is hostile, after detecting the enemy in a single detection turn can my sub fire a torpedo with accurate targeting data or need to fire on BOL Bearing only launch )

[William Miller]

Poblaby I 've explained wrong, I dont want to identify the unit, what I want to know is if a single detection on ESM or passive sonar gives an accurate fire control solution inmediately or not, (example: my submarine is in an area with exclusion of frienly shipping, it means that any contact is hostile, after detecting the enemy in a single detection turn can my sub fire a torpedo with accurate targeting data or need to fire on BOL Bearing only launch )

Hello,

The short answer is "Yes" to your question, i.e. if the target is ID'ed in a single turn then it can be engaged that same turn in Phase 3 (assuming the engagement meets all the other required parameters for the type of attack attempted). Remember that in MNC each turn is 20 minutes duration which (for example) is considerably longer than the 3 minute turn used for sonar-target-ID analysis in the Harpoon 4 game. Also, I certainly would not look at detection over a 20 minute turn as a "single" detection; the detection ranges calculated represent the cumulative ability of the sensor involved to detect and classify the target over that period of time, and will represent numerous sweeps/passes by the sensors involved.

Also remember that the odds for a target identification with sonar are not very high, even over a 20 minute turn: the typical ship sonar attempting a passive detection/identification in MNC will have roughly a 20-40% chance of classifying a sub as "enemy" each turn, meaning that it can take a number of turns to achieve identification.

[ArkadyRenko]

I'm working on a scenario for this weekend, trying to recreate an anti airfield and air defense campaign in the game, and I had the following idea:

The Soviets get several air defense HQs. Each is assigned several SAM batteries and EW sites. If the incoming fighters are located by the EW radar, and they enter the range of the SAM battery, the SAM battery gets to double its AN during any attack against that unit.

The goal here is to: recreate the integrated air defense plans and also at the same time push the NATO player into attacking the HQ and EW sites in order to reduce the threat on the incoming strike aircraft.

But, I was wondering what other people thought about this rule?

[William Miller]

I'm working on a scenario for this weekend, trying to recreate an anti airfield and air defense campaign in the game, and I had the following idea:

The Soviets get several air defense HQs. Each is assigned several SAM batteries and EW sites. If the incoming fighters are located by the EW radar, and they enter the range of the SAM battery, the SAM battery gets to double its AN during any attack against that unit.

The goal here is to: recreate the integrated air defense plans and also at the same time push the NATO player into attacking the HQ and EW sites in order to reduce the threat on the incoming strike aircraft.

But, I was wondering what other people thought about this rule?

Greetings!

A few remarks on how the Attack Number (AN) values in MNC are derived might be helpful before I give my thoughts: The Attack number (AN) values for SAMs are calculated from the ability of each missile battery to track, designate, and launch at targets over the period of time that a 'standard' target requires to pass from the systems max effective engagement range to through the systems minimum engagement range, and is also affected by the number of targets the system can simultaneously engage, the velocity of the missiles fired (i.e. time required to reach the target after launch), the time required for the system/operators to process each target set, etc. Note that rule 9.3.1.2 SAM Transversing Target Modifier will reduce the base AN value if the target (for any reason) passes through less than SAM system's maximum engagement range.

What this means is that, in effect, the AN values assigned to each system are already very close to the systems theoretical maximum AN value if a target flies to the SAM position after coming in from maximum engagement range (which is a typical SEAD profile). Now, increasing the AN value would make sense if a target aircraft were to attempt to fly through the SAM's ENTIRE engagement envelope (i.e. fly into the SAM's maximum engagement range, fly to the SAMS position, then continue to fly and pass back out of the SAM's maximum engagement range). However, few or no pilots would risk flying through the ENTIRE envelope unless they intended to attempt to destroy the SAM battery and then egress. Now, if the aircraft fails to destroy the SAM battery it might decide to fly back out (out of the SAMs' minimum range) and cross the engagement envelope again, in which case the SAM system would get an increase to its effective AN value: if this occurs then the SAM system would gain an additional attack using 1/2 (rounded down) of its normal AN value against any aircraft group that did so.

However, I can think of no physical reason why having an EW radar available would increase a SAM system's AN value significantly: the EW radar certainly could alert the SAM system, but the EW radar cannot track targets for the SAM (the SAM systems tracking radar must perform that duty). It is probable that having an EW radar detect the target farther away than the SAM's radar system might in some instances allow a quicker first shot, but in the overall scheme of things (considering the scale of the game) this would amount to a fairly insignificant increase to the AN (less than a 10% increase in AN for the typical system). I would suggest that if you want a more dangerous AD environment for the attackers that you increase the density of SAM and AAA systems, and make certain to arrange them to overlap and allow for self-defnese of each other in areas that are vital to the defense. The Soviets had fairly good intelligence on NATO weapon system capabilities, and would (where practical, considering limits of resources and other restrictions) take into account likely weapon employment by NATO aircraft in their AD setups.

Always remember that you should never try to kill a SAM system simply for the sake of killing a SAM system: SAM systems are protecting something, either ground or airspace that you want/need to occupy or overfly for some reason. A SAM system in the middle of nowhere, protecting nothing within its envelope, is simply not a target. In the scenario type you mention I would make the HQ the primary targets for the NATO player. Once you set up a AD system, if the attacker chooses to enter it without proper SEAD and related tactics then his forces demise (and his loss of the scenario) would be self-generated, and frankly deserved.

Now if you are wanting an exercise involving just the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) phase of an attack then having the EW and SAM sites as the primary (or only) targets would be great, and would make good practice for someone wanting to learn the intricacies of SEAD.

Let us know how the scenario construction goes, and feel free to post the scenario when you have it completed -- I am sure that other players (and myself) would like to see it and possibly try it out. Thanks!

[ArkadyRenko]

Ok, so I shouldn't increase the AN. My idea was with the EW and the integrated air defense, the SAM batteries could probably get off another shot or two during an engagement, because they had advanced warning of incoming raids.

Is there another way to simulate an integrated Air Defense? My Goal was to give the Soviets a lot of SAMs, but not an overwhelming number, then the NATO player would have to try and pick open the SAM belt with air attacks against the key control nodes in order to reduce the effectiveness of the network.

[William Miller]

Ok, so I shouldn't increase the AN. My idea was with the EW and the integrated air defense, the SAM batteries could probably get off another shot or two during an engagement, because they had advanced warning of incoming raids.

Is there another way to simulate an integrated Air Defense? My Goal was to give the Soviets a lot of SAMs, but not an overwhelming number, then the NATO player would have to try and pick open the SAM belt with air attacks against the key control nodes in order to reduce the effectiveness of the network.

It sounds like you are wishing to simulate the opening phase of a major attack against an enemy's IAD (Integrated Air Defense) system, something like the initial attack by US/ Coalition air forces against the Iraqi IAD system in the Gulf War in '91. I would suggest the following to simulate this sort of initial attack (wherein enemy IAD systems are perhaps not at full alert status and may not yet have permission to freely engage targets):

1) Set up a series of Early Warning Radar Sites (use the EW Radar Site (Gen) land unit); place each EW site from 4 to 6 hexes (100 to 150nm) apart.
2) Group 2 or 3 AAA batteries with each EW site, and perhaps a short-ranged SAM battery grouped with every other EW site.
3) Place a series of long-range SAM batteries covering the airspace between each EW site. Designate each SAM battery as being integrated with/associated with a specific (usually the nearest) EW site.
4) Group 1 or 2 AAA batteries with each of the long-range SAM batteries.
5) If a long-range SAM battery's associated EW radar site is destroyed (or loses its radar) then all long-range SAM batteries assocated with that EW site must make a check to be allowed to engage on first turn that any enemy air group enters its range: roll 1D10, and if the result is <= the SAM units COOR rating then the SAM battery is free to attack all targets for the remainder of the scenario. If the roll fails the SAM battery may not engage any air group on the first game turn. Roll the check again at the start of the second turn (with a +2 bonus to the SAM battery COOR rating), if this is successful then the SAM battery can engage at will. SAM batteries will become active starting on the third turn after an enemy air unit first enters SAM range and may engage enemy air groups at will. The AAA batteries are not affected by this rule and can engage enemy air groups at any time since they are locally controlled and are more likely to fire at uncertain targets.
6) Even if a SAM battery is allowed to fire the loss of its associated EW radar will cause it to lose some effectiveness: reduce the AN of any SAM battery that loses its associated EW site by 2 additional column shifts to the right on Table 9.1.8 PART B.

You can increase or decrease the SAM battery's "dependency" upon its associated EW site by varying the odds of allowing a SAM battery to open fire, or only requiring the check to fire on the first turn, etc...

[darthvader170]

Hi

In section 9.2.3.2 Torpedo Reaction Fire, what do you mean with the expression torpedoes were or were not "swim-out" launched.

Thanks

[old_pop2000]

Hi

In section 9.2.3.2 Torpedo Reaction Fire, what do you mean with the expression torpedoes were or were not "swim-out" launched.

Thanks

Torpedoes can either be launched on their own power or by a pulse of compressed air. The latter is detectable, so if you want a quiet launch, torpedoes will swim-out using their own power. The Seawolf's have eight swim-out torpedo tubes amidships.

[William Miller]

Hi

In section 9.2.3.2 Torpedo Reaction Fire, what do you mean with the expression torpedoes were or were not "swim-out" launched.

Thanks

Hello,

The "Swim-out" ability is as Dennis describes, and the rule was included for compatibility with future-period game releases...no submarine class in the 1970s had torpedo swim-out capability, that did not occur until circa 1990. Later MNC releases will have units that have that ability, and those units will be clearly marked as such in their data records.

So, basically you should ignore "swim-out" for all 1970s battles/units...

Thanks.

[ArkadyRenko]

I was doing a quick test of a SEAD mission and came up with the following questions.

First, the table suggests that a A seeker type weapon cannot attack at night. Is that true, that a passively guided missile wouldn't work at night without night time guidance?

Second, the Walleye 2 stat on the A-7E has a DR of 9, while a SA-6 has a max damage CAP of 2, does that mean that a Walleye will essentially destroy a SA-6 site with a single hit? I referenced the 9DR against the land attack table, rolled a dice, got 6 for a total damage taken equal to 10. Also, what is the DAM/SU stat supposed to be used for?

I was just surprised by the idea that a single hit from a Walleye woudl take out the whole SA-6 site, perhaps I was doing something entirely wrong?

[William Miller]

I was doing a quick test of a SEAD mission and came up with the following questions.

First, the table suggests that a A seeker type weapon cannot attack at night. Is that true, that a passively guided missile wouldn't work at night without night time guidance?

Second, the Walleye 2 stat on the A-7E has a DR of 9, while a SA-6 has a max damage CAP of 2, does that mean that a Walleye will essentially destroy a SA-6 site with a single hit? I referenced the 9DR against the land attack table, rolled a dice, got 6 for a total damage taken equal to 10. Also, what is the DAM/SU stat supposed to be used for?

I was just surprised by the idea that a single hit from a Walleye woudl take out the whole SA-6 site, perhaps I was doing something entirely wrong?

Arkady,

You are correct on the seeker limitation: PGMs with optical seekers ("O" code) alone cannot target enemy units if it is night. The PGM needs either an "I" (IR) or some other type of seeker that will work regardless of optical visibility. Remember that in the 1970s many PGMs did not have night attack capability (Bullpup, early Maverick, Walleye, etc fall under this category for example).

The DAM/SU item is "Damage per Sub-Unit": this is how many damage points are required to destroy each sub-unit in the land unit. Section 7.5.4 explains how you damage subunits. The "DAM/SU" item is included in MNC in case you wish to simulate partial or damaged units: in the case of theIn the case of an SA-6 battery it has 4 launchers (each with 3 x SA-6 missiles) hence it has 4 SU (sub-units), and each individual launcher requires 0.5 damage points to knock out. If, for example, you wish to start a SA-6 battery out with the loss of one launcher it would start with 0.5 damage for the single destroyed launcher.

As for a single Walleye II taking out a SA-6 battery: most radar-guided SAM batteries, including the SA-6A/B, have (normally a single) fire-control radar (in the case of the SA-6 this is a single "Straight Flush" radar on a command vehicle). For targets such as this you only really need to destroy the FC radar to effectively knock out the battery (this is the same reason why a single HARM ARM can theoretically knock out a SA-6 battery: it has a chance of destroying both radar boxes of the battery, thus making the battery ineffective).

For units such as Tank Platoons and such (whose sub-units can effectively operate independently of each other) each single PGM can only destroy a single sub-unit, no matter what damage the PGM causes. Note that this is NOT the case for attacks by iron bombs or rockets or guns; those types of attacks can destroy the entire unit if they hit and deliver sufficient damage. The following land units in MNC would fall under this rule: Tank Platoon, Tank Company, All (gun) AA Batteries, Chaparral SAM Btty, Imp Chaparral SAM Btty, KS-18 Gun Btty, SA-8 SAM Btty, SA-9B SAM Btty. The (relatively small) infantry units used in MNC would not normally fall under this rule because they are not either dispersed or hardened enough to avoid wide-spread damage by large PGM's such as the Walleye II with it's 2000-lb warhead. A scenario could, however, specify that certain Infantry units are dispersed or hardnend and thus are subject to the above rule in the scenario.

[ArkadyRenko]

First, because one can launch a A seeker class weapon on Bearing Only, that means it is day and night capable?

Second, as the Walleye II is O,I on the A-7, that means it can attack at night, if the A-7E visually spots the target?

Third, is jammer power cumulative? I had two EA-6s with strength 4 jammers each, does that mean that every hostile radar within a 180 degree arc gets a loss of range equal to a strength 5 offensive jammer? Or, do you assign jammers to specific units? With that much jamming power, I was getting crazy results, like a SA-6 battery having to roll a 2 or less to shoot at a plane flying overhead...

[William Miller]

First, because one can launch a A seeker class weapon on Bearing Only, that means it is day and night capable?

Second, as the Walleye II is O,I on the A-7, that means it can attack at night, if the A-7E visually spots the target?

Third, is jammer power cumulative? I had two EA-6s with strength 4 jammers each, does that mean that every hostile radar within a 180 degree arc gets a loss of range equal to a strength 5 offensive jammer? Or, do you assign jammers to specific units? With that much jamming power, I was getting crazy results, like a SA-6 battery having to roll a 2 or less to shoot at a plane flying overhead...

Hello,

All "A" seeker (Anti-Radar) weapons can attack at day, at night, or in poor weather...to qualify to attack with an "A" seeker you only need 1) a radiating (emitting a radar signal) target and 2) to detect the target radar with your ESM.

The "I" seeker entry on the Walleye II on the A-7E and A-6E are incorrect: the seeker code should be "O" only. The Walleye II never had an IIR (Imaging-IR) seeker and thus could not effectively be targeted at night.

The effects of area ECM jammers (such as those employed by EA-6Bs) do not stack in the game. Yes, a jammer can affect every radar-guided/radar-homing/radar weapon/system in a 180-deg arc; in real life there would be some directional/swapping to cover as many sectors as possible; considerng the time scale of a single turn in the game this is best represented as the ability of the jammer to affect everything in the 180-deg arc in a 20-min turn. Bear in mind that the 'real-life' operation of Electronic Warfare results in a quite complex series of interactions (I know this from personal experience), and the EW system I designed for MNC is a method to generalize that complexity without overwhelming the player, and also frankly to avoid crossing into into grey/classified areas that a more complex system might risk.

As for a SA-6 battery having a very low PK in a heavy EW enivironment generated by a modern EW platform such as a EA-6B? We already have a historical record of this occuring at least in one series of conflicts: during the Kosovo/Balkans Wars in the late 1990s over four-hundred 2K12 (SA-6) missiles were fired at NATO aircraft with less than a 3% hit/damage rate resulting.

[ArkadyRenko]

Two more questions about electronic warfare.

Can jammers:
1) Stop surface search radars? IE put a EA-6 above the battle group to stop a recon bear from finding the battle group?
2) Degrade the effectiveness of Anti-ship missiles fired at the battlegroup?

[William Miller]

Two more questions about electronic warfare.

Can jammers:
1) Stop surface search radars? IE put a EA-6 above the battle group to stop a recon bear from finding the battle group?
2) Degrade the effectiveness of Anti-ship missiles fired at the battlegroup?

Here are guidelines and some greater detail on the use of airborne jammer/EW platforms (I will also add these to the eratta/FAQ document). These rules add greater detail and realism but may slow game-play down:

1) All airborne jammers in the game (EA-3B, EA-6B, EB-66E, An-12C, Tu-16H, Tu-16PP, and Tu-22P) have full effect against all airborne radars (both Surface-Search and Air-Search), and all surface (ship and land-based) Air-Search radars. They have much less effect upon surface-based (ship & land-based) Surface-Search radars as most jammers are not specifically designed to affect those types of radars: versus Surface-search radars used by ships or land units subtract 2 from the jammers rating for its effect against these types of radars. If this reduces the jammers rating to a 0 (zero) or less then the jammer has no effect against ship/land-based Surface-search radars.

2) A single airborne jammer can affect radars (as per above) in a 180 degree arc each game turn. Airborne jammers will affect all such systems that are within their ESM 'horizon': use Table 5.3.2 ESM LOS with the altitude of the airborne jammer and the target altitude to determine this range. Any unit (friendly or enemy) past the ESM horizon is NOT affected by the jammer.

3) Airborne jammers will effect all weapon systems that are using "H", "R", or "S" seekers that are within the 180-deg arc and within ESM LOS, and will affect guns (for AA firing only) that use Radar directors as well. Reduce the airborne jammers' rating by 2 against weapons using a "H" or "S" seeker code.

4) Airborne jammers (that are actively jamming) are automatically detected by all units with ESM/EWR ratings of "3" or greater out to the ESM LOS, but only if the detecting unit is in the jammed 180-deg arc. This means that the detecting unit will know the direction of the jammer unit, but not the exact distance. Air-to-air weapons with a "J" (home-on-jam) can attack active airborne jammers, but the airborne jammers Area EW rating will affect the home-on-jam weapon attacks accuracy.

5) Area jamming by airborne jammers lose effectiveness at longer ranges: Reduce the rating of the jammer by 1 at ranges of 6-10 hexes (120-200nm) and by 2 at ranges of 11+ hexes (220nm+). Jammers with a "1" rating are still effective out to 7 hexes (i.e. they lose 1 point at 8+ hexes, not 6+).

[William Miller]

Third, is jammer power cumulative? I had two EA-6s with strength 4 jammers each, does that mean that every hostile radar within a 180 degree arc gets a loss of range equal to a strength 5 offensive jammer? Or, do you assign jammers to specific units? With that much jamming power, I was getting crazy results, like a SA-6 battery having to roll a 2 or less to shoot at a plane flying overhead...

Another note on the effectiveness of SAM systems, and specifically another note on the SA-6 system:

Aircraft carry ESM gear that are designed to warn them of a launch and/or lock on by enemy SAM systems (and thus could start evasive maneuvers and countermeasures). However many times in modern history air forces have been caught with their ESM gear not able to detect the frequency of a particular enemy radar director. Case in point is the 1973 Arab-Israeli War: early in the war most Israeli tactical aircraft RWRs (radar-warning-receivers) did not have the 'Straight Flush' (for the SA-6) tracking radar in their emitter library. During this period the SA-6 had a 10-17% hit rate versus targets that were within its operational parameters. After a few days the Israeli technicians updated the RWR units with the 'Straight Flush' frequencies and the hit rate of the SA-6 dropped to 2-4% for targets within operational parameters.

What the above demonstrates is that the numbers given in the game are the 'typical' or average performance expected from the systems involved. For many specific cases, too many to be included in a single rules set, adjustments may need to be made at the scenario-design level. For example: If I were to create a scenario during the early part of the '73 war I would add a rule in the scenario that would reduce the EWR rating of Israeli aircraft (a 2 point reduction would be about right) against attacks by SA-6 battries. However if I created a scenario that was near the end of the '73 war then I would leave the Israeli aircraft EWR ratings as is.