Is browsing enemy platforms a cheat ?

[ultradave]

So don't look at the opposing side in the scenario platforms. When something is identified, then look it up in the Database viewer separately. "Problem" (if there is one) solved.

As a side note to this. I was in the Army in the 82d Airborne Division. By the time we actually had to do anything (I'm being intentionally vague here), we knew EXACTLY what we were up against, including at times, the names of commanders.

[thewood1]

I still can't figure out why this is even an issue.

[nukkxx5058]

ORIGINAL: ultradave

So don't look at the opposing side in the scenario platforms. When something is identified, then look it up in the Database viewer separately. "Problem" (if there is one) solved.

Not exactly because you are suppose to have some pre-knowledge of what to expect on the battlefield. Some times it 's mentioned in the scenario briefing, but not always.
But again no big deal here But a box to tick in the options could be nice. This in fact is about the general conversation on FOW. (message log, etc). If one day the devs decide to improve the FOW rules, then it could be taken into consideration [8D]

[thewood1]

I still think this is an artificial issue. The FOW in this game might be one of the best I have seen. If you don't want to see that list don't open it. You can still see all your units in the OOB. It takes a physical motion to open the db dialog and doesn't have to be done. As to the message log, turn off the stuff that destroys your "immersion".

Also, if the scenario designer wants you to have intel on opposing forces, it should be listed in a briefing.

[ExNusquam]

REDFOR OOB and disposition is one of the things that would be briefed to leadership at the daily Ops/Intel briefing. Having knowledge of expected enemy platforms and their expected intent is perfectly realistic.

ORIGINAL: SSN754planker

Back in my day, we had various classified and unclassified sources of information. Janes Fighting Ships being one of them.

The New York Times did a phenomenal article on the USS Chancellorsville operating in the SCS about a year ago...they've got Jane's up on the bridge looking at the specs for a Jiangkai II. Also included is one of the few pictures of a Baseline 9 CIC that I'm aware of.

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
I think there is something to not knowing the "ground truth" of when things are destroyed. During the Balkans conflicts, NATO greatly over-estimated their effectiveness at drawing down the FRY ground forces as a result of decoys, mobility, misidentification of their target, camouflage and difficulties determining whether a particular target had already been destroyed or not (e.g. recording a tank "kill" when in fact they'd just hit a burned out tank hulk that had already been struck). They weren't nearly as successful as they'd been during the Gulf War. It wasn't until after they'd integrated the US Army's counter-battery radars into the ATO generation process that they were really successful at all against the ground forces, and then it was only against the artillery.

This is pretty much the TL;DR for the first half of Clean Bombs and Dirty Wars by Gregory. Highly recommended book for those who haven't read it.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam
This is pretty much the TL;DR for the first half of Clean Bombs and Dirty Wars by Gregory. Highly recommended book for those who haven't read it.

I'VE READ IT! Definitely a good depiction of an air campaign. I also liked how they alluded to how the NATO air operation proceeded in phases. One of my favorite recent reads. I also enjoyed the bit about Libyan teenagers using Twitter to call NATO on to tank columns.