A challenge to the experts: Win "Canary's Cage" w/o losing >4Hornets

[jomni]

So far I have lost 4 Harriers and 4 Hornets. Scenario still on going.

The enemy Air Force rarely goes out on sorties anymore. And if they do, then they are reduced to single ship formations and easily overwhelmed.

I did this by micromanagement. No patrol areas. Just launching AIM-120 at optimal range, turn left / right at full speed to beam incoming missiles. Send them home once AIM-120 are expended. Rinse and repeat. Something not ideal according to the thread starter.

[$trummer]

ORIGINAL: jomni

So far I have lost 4 Harriers and 4 Hornets. Scenario still on going.

The enemy Air Force rarely goes out on sorties anymore. And if they do, then they are reduced to single ship formations and easily overwhelmed.

I did this by micromanagement. No patrol areas. Just launching AIM-120 at optimal range, turn left / right at full speed to beam incoming missiles. Send them home once AIM-120 are expended. Rinse and repeat. Something not ideal according to the thread starter.

I have no objection to playing this way and may well do so in my next run through the mission. However, this is an operational-level sim that, ideally, should not depend on close tactical control by the player to enforce a plausible outcome. The mission editor in this game is fantastic, which is why I was surprised at seeing my BARCAPS dismantled by enemy air when I had expected the AI to deploy the Spanish Hornets' Slammers in the way you did it manually against more maneuverable fighters with a shorter reach. It is useful to learn the limitations of the AI and when player intervention is needed but my original point still stands, which is that ideally one should expect an operational outcome consistent with the circumstances and competence of the opposing forces. I am confident from reading the above that the devs will have accomplished this fairly soon…

[CaptCarnage]

ORIGINAL: $trummer

Knocking out the E2C is sound tactics but bad politics as the brief specifies no preemptive action. However, no harm in having a couple of F/A-18s loiter there, huh? The mission designer should have anticipated this airspace incursion by making a no-fly zone over Morocco, though…

I have seen this comment in another thread but I don't think the Mission Brief specifies a defensive action only?
There is a message early in the scenario that says "Don't shoot unless shot at" but it is directed at Tramontana which is a sub that is supposed to land SpecOps in the LZ. For a covert thing like that it makes sense to keep guns holstered - but otherwise: hey it's your islands that got nicked so it's weapons-free.

[bvoid]

I won this scenario with no losses, too easy. Same method as detailed here: tm.asp?m=3431972

If you micromanage - game is incredibly easy because of bad ai.

If you don't micromanage - welcome to 50:50 loss ratio.

This is a big problem, it's not fun micromanaging so many units...

[Tomcat84]

Don't forget to use your jammer airplane. Sparrows dont seem to enjoy it.

[$trummer]

@bvoid: very interesting. I think we are making essentially the same point. I like the game but I do not want to micromanage, let's say, 12 out of 16 AAW contacts between Spanish F/A-18s and Moroccan F-16s in order to obtain the outcome which I think reflects the real-world balance of power here. I want to have the option of relying on the mission editor for tactical oversight. So: there are two issues here, an iffy combat AI that, when left to its own devices, cranks out 50-50 outcomes, which I see as a form of stalemate, and the absence of a competence factor to make these AI confrontations more realistic in certain specific circumstances.

[thewood1]

So what should the outcome be in real life between a mature late model Sparrow on a more maneuverable plane and an early generation AIM-120 equipped multi-role fighter?

And what data is there the the Arab forces are any less proficient than Spanish forces?

I am just curious how much different from reality you think my results were. I did very little micro-management in my tests.

[Tomcat84]

It depends lol

Depends on how smartly/stupidly each side uses its assets. But given equal proficiency my money is on the AMRAAMs because they are more flexible. And you can achieve this in Command but you do have to manage it yourself. Yes it would be great if Command could do it for you but it does not shock me because it's very complex and in my experience sims like Falcon 4 and DCS also do not have active shooters fly real tactics that fully exploit what launch & leave can do for you. You need human brain for it I think [:)] and some knowledge of tactics probably helps.

[$trummer]

It's not my intention to disparage the Moroccan military nor to over-inflate Spain's. However, my assumption, going into "Canary's Cage", was that my tactics, as Spain, would reflect the real-world balance of power, which is:

- Spain is a first-world nation and NATO member

- Morocco is a third-world country and, as a Muslim nation and non-NATO member, excluded from any post-9/11 US or NATO support for US equipment like F-16s.

I think it is also reasonable to assume, given the above, that the Spanish pilots would be better trained (Red Flag and all the trimmings). Bottom line: In a real-world scenario, I would expect Spain to assume air superiority against Morocco if it could deploy two entire squadrons of Hornets over the AO. Instead, when the mission editor is used to manage Spanish air operations using BARCAPs and intercept missions, the die-rolling (which is, essentially what all AI vs AI confrontations are in peer-to-peer confrontations without proficiency mitigation) will always produce 50-50 win/loss, which I define as a stalemate, or attritional conflict of precisely the kind which all modern doctrine avoids these days. If Spain anticipated this kind of outcome against such a strong Moroccan air defence, it would obtain air superiority by taking out the Moroccan air bases preemptively, but the brief appears to forbid that.

A lot of this is about mission design, which is something in which I have a lot of experience and wish to become involved with in CMANO. If this were my mission, I would compensate for the present lack of proficiency mitigation by (i) allowing the player to use preemptive airfield denial as Spain and/or (ii) I would not give Morocco the kind of equipment which, again with the present lack of proficiency mitigation, would create a 50 -50 outcome in all computerised A2A battles. CMANO is a command sim, and, as a commander in this situation, I would not deploy F/A-18 BARCAPS or intercept missions if I felt that I'd have to fight tooth and nail for air superiority and possibly either lose or get into a WW1-style attritional stalemate. It's just not valid doctrine.

To summarise my response to your specific question, thewood1: I think it's reasonable to assume that the NATO power has an edge here against a third-world military. This would encourage me to assume that properly organised BARCAPs and intercept alert flights, with refuelers, jamming and all the goodies, would be sufficient to maintain air superiority (not supremacy) under computer control. If, on the other hand, I felt I could not assume air superiority (if this were India vs Pakistan or US vs Russia, for example) I would not contemplate undertaking this mission without a concerted effort to interdict the enemy airfields first, especially as they are easily within range.

[Tomcat84]

ORIGINAL: $trummer
- Morocco is a third-world country and, as a Muslim nation and non-NATO member, excluded from any post-9/11 US or NATO support for US equipment like F-16s.

Are you aware the Moroccan AF flies brand spanking new Block 50s, with its pilots trained in the USA? I think Spain probably still has the edge because of experience but I think your statement is a bit rash. I think it is lucky that the scenario takes place in 2005 and not present day, or Spain would be facing AIM-120C-7 equipped Block 50s.

[$trummer]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

It depends lol

Depends on how smartly/stupidly each side uses its assets. But given equal proficiency my money is on the AMRAAMs because they are more flexible. And you can achieve this in Command but you do have to manage it yourself. Yes it would be great if Command could do it for you but it does not shock me because it's very complex and in my experience sims like Falcon 4 and DCS also do not have active shooters fly real tactics that fully exploit what launch & leave can do for you. You need human brain for it I think [:)] and some knowledge of tactics probably helps.

Totally fair comment. It summarises, for me, the importance of getting some sort of proficiency modifier into CMANO, as without it, the otherwise excellent mission editor will tend to produce only 50-50 outcomes in A2A conflicts that, in real-world circumstances, would resolve themselves in different ways. As before, I cite the Yom Kippur War as an example: If I were gaming that air war in this sim, I'd have to find a way to give Israel a decisive edge, even when facing a peer-equipped enemy force. As you say, it is not ideal that the player be required to micromanage every individual fighter engagement in order to mitigate the inevitability of a 50-50 outcome when it's not appropriate or realistic.

[CaptCarnage]

Gentlemen,

This is the NAIL you are talking about!
They managed to take the Canaries by surprise... That counts for something. That is a big feat.
Their pilots are probably the best of the best from the whole of North Africa - not just Morocco.

[$trummer]

Good points about both Morocco's real-world capabilities and the fact that the scenario is not exactly real-world but involves a north African super-coalition.

I'm treating the experience of this mission, and others, as invaluable training for my own use of the scenario editor. And when I next play "Canary's Cage" I'm going to bomb the crap out of the Moroccan airfields because, with the intel I now have about the enemy's air capability, it would be very bad doctrine to allow for any possibility of an aerial bloodbath/stalemate with the kind of Blue losses that would be doctrinally unacceptable in contemporary warfare planning. The alternative would be to micromanage all the A2A engagements but I consider that a bit of a kludge when this game has a mission editor with as much competence as this one (but also, I am arguing, a few holes...)

[CaptCarnage]

I suppose you could bomb the airfields but they will have enough "dollar-intensive ordnance delivery vectors" airborne before you will have your birds loaded with air-to-ground fireworks...

[Primarchx]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Because Command offers a high-fidelity simulation of sensor and weapon performance it creates a narrower margin for 'sloppy' performance in many situations, especially combat. My impression is that Game AIs in this day and age are going to have difficulty dealing with the layered complexities of multiple units, detailed sensor interactions and precise weapons parameters in any way resembling the capability a knowledgeable person can. Even then, I do lose units to the Game AI frequently, so it's certainly doing something right.

[Blas de Lezo]

Just wait a moment gents!
Are you realizing than to overcome the natural shortfalls of the AI you are advocating to introduce a totally subjective, never proven and completely false variable such as the morale/ training?

In other words... you're assuming the Spaniards with the F18 and AMRAAM should be better that the NAIL... But if a match AI vs AI doesn't show what you are expecting... Lets fine tune the proficiency to give advantage to the Spaniards...., maybe you have to consider the overall effect of the instantaneous communication between all units from the same side... Oh! Yes we have given every one of them and brand new link-16 datalink unit... this means for practical purposes that if a unit sees the missile, all the units see them, so they are able to apply the ability value....Have you realize that providing this magic datalink just throw over the window one of the advantage of the active radar... I don't have to keep my radar lock in the target... So I can use my radar to search around and get a better situational awareness... well, guys shooting SHAR in the game don't have that problem...

IMHO we are walking here over thin, very thin, ice.... I rather line the devs to concentrate in improving the AI, making possible for the AI to use real life tactics and so on... and them, just then introduce subjective inputs such us morales, training and so on...

[$trummer]

ORIGINAL: Blas de Lezo

Just wait a moment gents!
Are you realizing than to overcome the natural shortfalls of the AI you are advocating to introduce a totally subjective, never proven and completely false variable such as the morale/ training?

In other words... you're assuming the Spaniards with the F18 and AMRAAM should be better that the NAIL... But if a match AI vs AI doesn't show what you are expecting... Lets fine tune the proficiency to give advantage to the Spaniards...., maybe you have to consider the overall effect of the instantaneous communication between all units from the same side... Oh! Yes we have given every one of them and brand new link-16 datalink unit... this means for practical purposes that if a unit sees the missile, all the units see them, so they are able to apply the ability value....Have you realize that providing this magic datalink just throw over the window one of the advantage of the active radar... I don't have to keep my radar lock in the target... So I can use my radar to search around and get a better situational awareness... well, guys shooting SHAR in the game don't have that problem...

IMHO we are walking here over thin, very thin, ice.... I rather line the devs to concentrate in improving the AI, making possible for the AI to use real life tactics and so on... and them, just then introduce subjective inputs such us morales, training and so on...

Well the idea is for the mission designer to use the proficiency modifier as he sees fit. It's just another tool. I think it's a very valuable one.

If the NAIL forces in "Canary's Cage" have the kind of tremendous sophistication you describe, this has to be mentioned in the brief because it's not fair to expect the player to make such a fantastical assumption.

[Meroka37]

Please note that the F-16s in the scenario are from Egypt  (remember NAIL side use platforms from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia), scenario runs in 2005, no F-16 for Morocco are present in the scenario.,

[CaptCarnage]

I did not do much micromanagement at all (just had a lot of birds in Patrol missions where I sometimes adjusted the Patrol area - and I had my a/c flying in groups of minimum 4) and I am about to complete the scenario with the following losses:

3x F/A-18A Hornet
3x AV-8B Harrier II+ [Night Attack]
1x S-70B-1 Seahawk [HS.23]
1x Falcon 20C-ECM [TM.11]
1x AB.212 Colibri EW
____

The Seahawk, Falcon and Colibri were entirely due to sloppiness on my side - wasn't paying much attention when they went astray or when they had enemies inbound on their patrol loop.

The NAIL has the following losses:


20x F-16C Blk 42 Falcon
3x E-2C Hawkeye Group II
3x Mirage F.1CH-200
4x SH-2G(E) Seasprite
7x SA.565MA Panther
4x MiG-25P Foxbat A
4x Mirage F.1CH
8x Mirage F.1ED
4x MiG-29 Fulcrum C
6x Su-24MK Fencer D
_____

That's about a 1:7 ratio. Not bad really? Not all enemies were downed by my aircraft though.