Tweet
You know, i surfed the web and i found that the Harpoon missiles were deployed in 1985 
Sorry, but the seawolf missiles should stay in the scenario.
Sorry, but the seawolf missiles should stay in the scenario.
-
-
Some stats on UK platforms in the conflict:
5 nuclear-powered subs (half of the fleet!): Spartan, Splendid, Conqueror, Courageous, and Valiant
Destroyers:
Type 82 carried Sea Dart SAM
"County" class carred Seslug/Sea Cat SAM and Exocet SSM
Type 42 carried Sea Dart SAM. Also deployed 1 Lynx
Frigates:
Type 22 carried Exocet SSM and Sea Wolf SAM Deploys 2x Lynx
Type 21 carried Exocet SSM and Sea Cat SAM. Deploys Lynx or Wasp
"Leander" class carried Exocet SSM and Sea Wolf/Sea Cat SAM. Deploys 1 Lynx
"Rothesay" class carried Sea Cat SAM
Lynx helicopters performed anti-sub and anti-ship missions. The latter with the Sea Skua
Sea Wolf was a brand new system at the time, and more useful as a point defence weapon; hence, the decision was made to retain both the type 22s close to the carriers with the Type 42s on point. These engaged multiple contacts at long range with Sea Darts to deter enemy aircraft."I didn't invent these rules, I'm just going to use them against you."Comment
-
AL another Harpoon player?
If 'missiles' on subs are a priority, why not use torpedoes (Tigerfish?)?Comment
-
Andrew Livings:
What do you want me to do? I don´t get it
No comments about exocets inside carriers / submarines?
Comment
-
Did the British use the submarine launced variant of the Exocet before the Harpoon was introduced?'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'
- Neal Stephenson, CryptonomiconComment
-
Case:
Argentina used the exocets, not englandComment
-
The ships of the British navy were equiped with exocets as well, so it seems possible that the Royal Navy's subs would have carried the sub-launched variant.
On the other hand, seeing as the only attack that the RNs subs made in the war was using WW2 era torpedos, perhaps the subs shouldn't have any missiles whatsoever...'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'
- Neal Stephenson, CryptonomiconComment
-
Really? Did they use them in the faklands war in 1982??
Where did you get that information?
Could you put a link?
I´ve never read anything about that.Comment
-
Anyway, when you think of exocets in the fakland wars you relate them to argentina not england.
I won´t give england exocets!!
Moreover, the majority of those missiles were fired by argentine aircrafts!!! and you know that I can´t to that in civ2.
Please!!! Don´t be so strict!! THIS IS A CIV2 SCENARIO!! It´s a game!!!! I have to take into account playability, fun, strategy.
I remember a WW2 scenario were i was able to put V1 and V2 missiles inside german subs!!!!
Is that correct? NO!!!Comment
-
Do you want me to include missiles or not in the scenario?
And if you think that I should do it, please tell me the correct names of the missiles.Comment
-
Ok. I found that it´s true. Type 22 Frigate had Exocet system. So what?
I can´t include missiles inside a frigate in civ2. can I?Comment
-
No, but only because the Argentine Navy stayed in port.Originally posted by academia
Really? Did they use them in the faklands war in 1982??
Actually, Argentina only used handfull of exocets during the Falklands War. From memory, Argentinas total stock of the missles was less then a dozen, and once these were expended they were unable to purchase any more. In contrast, just about every British warship involved in the war had 4-8 exocets on board.Anyway, when you think of exocets in the fakland wars you relate them to argentina not england.
I won´t give england exocets!!
Moreover, the majority of those missiles were fired by argentine aircrafts!!! and you know that I can´t to that in civ2.
Had Argentina had even a few more of the missiles, the war would have almost certainly ended in humiliating defeat for Britain.
Given the scale of the map and the nature of the war that you're simulating, I think that you should definetly include them.Do you want me to include missiles or not in the scenario?
How about this:And if you think that I should do it, please tell me the correct names of the missiles.
Agentina:
*Super Entard with Exocet
*Whatever Surface to Air Missile the Argentine Army used, with very short range (2 spaces max)
Britain:
*Sub launched Exocet
*Sea Wolf (again, with very short range)
*Rapier (to be fired from the rapier launchers)'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'
- Neal Stephenson, CryptonomiconComment
-
Great Case!!!
That´s exactly what i want
With exocet? We are talking about just one unit, aren´t we? I have a Super Etendart.*Super Entard with Exocet
However, it´ll give argentina 3 different airplanes...
I read that argentina had land based exocets...*Whatever Surface to Air Missile the Argentine Army used, with very short range (2 spaces max)
mmm... you know i don´t want them (arg and uk) to have the same missiles*Sub launched Exocet
But where do i put them? England only has submarines, carriers and transports*Sea Wolf (again, with very short range)
I´ve already included some rapiers in the scenario*Rapier (to be fired from the rapier launchers)
Comment
-
Seeing as Exorcets have a range of about 30 miles (source: Harpoon 97), I think that you should include the aircraft which carried them as part of the unit.Originally posted by academia
With exocet? We are talking about just one unit, aren´t we? I have a Super Etendart.
Hmm, you may be right...I read that argentina had land based exocets...
Why not? - Argentina and Britain shared lots of common equipment. Hell, Argentina's best destroyers were exactly the same ships as Britain's best destroyers (the Type 42s).mmm... you know i don´t want them (arg and uk) to have the same missiles
You could give frigates and destroyers the aircaft carrier flag and institute a house rule where players aren't allowed to carry aircraft on these ships...But where do i put them? England only has submarines, carriers and transports
When you do the stats, make sure that the Sea Wolfs can't do much damage to land units - they were strictly air to air missiles.
CoolI´ve already included some rapiers in the scenario
'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'
- Neal Stephenson, CryptonomiconComment
-
Just to add my two cents worth (obviously contingent on the prevailing exchange rate at the time), the missles used by the Brits during the falklands war were purely defensive. I would prefer their ability to be placed in the units used in the game. E.g.: The Aegis bonus in normal Civ2. Furthermore, the offensive bonus of the exocet could be used to enhance the offensive ability of the particular offensive rating of the Mirage which was its sole launch platform during the campaign.
The rapier system itself, could simply be a unit with a high defense level against air attack.
Thoughts?
PS the scenario itself play fine ad is probably the best falklands scen I have played"the bigger the smile, the sharper the knife"
"Every now and again, declare peace. it confuses the hell out of your enemies."Comment
Comment