I would like to make a suggestion.
First, I'm not a pilot, but I've been playing this game, and Harpoon before it since its inception, and I even go all the way back to the board version back in 1982-3 (I think), so I do have a little gaming knowledge about the topic. I don't use TacView, and I have no desire to fly my plane around on my computer screen. (Nothing against those who do.) In fact, I liked what CMANO did just fine, even though I do like the new enhancements of CMO.
My suggestion and the set up: Four planes have just delivered their ordinance and are heading home. Let's call them Flights A-D. An I-Hawk starts shooting two SAMs in their general direction. Obviously, the planes do not know which plane is targeted, so they all begin their standard turn back toward the SAM maneuver. Well, within a very short period of time I can see which of the planes the missiles are headed for. Let's say that it's Flight C. What I think should happen is that if I can see it, then the computer's AI should be able to see it as well. So, I would like to see Flights A, B, and D (the other planes) then turn back toward the course toward THEIR base and hit the afterburner. They can't do anything to help Flight C anyway. Whether the SAMs hit Flight C or not is irrelevant. By the time that the I-Hawk can shoot again, the others are that much further away, and the odds of their destruction bu a subsequent shot have been significantly reduced. Sticking around, and making the same maneuvers that Flight C is doing merely keeps the other planes in the danger zone longer.
It's just a thought, but I think that it would reduce some of those subsequent "corkscrew deaths" that seem to occur more often than they should.
Airplane Defense Logic
Moderator: MOD_Command
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
LargeDiameterBomb, Chickensim, and Dimitris (and a few others) all came up with some really greatsuggestions. Some probably overlap a little bit. All seem to tackle exactly what is needed to be done.
One thing that might make the game even more fun is if a group of options were available to the computer opponent, that then randomly chooses which evasive action that it will take for each individual attack.
In the movie Top Gun, "Iceman" was always the perfect tactician, always choosing exactly what he had been trained to do. In essence, that's what the game does. It ALWAYs selects the same evasion technique. But, of you recall, "Maverick" rarely did exactly what he had been trained to do. He was very unpredictable. Both pilots were highly effective.
So, perhaps the game could be programmed so that 80 percent of the time (or so), our pilot making defensive maneuvers does exactly what the book says to do, and 20 percent of the time he chooses something else.
Again, it's just a thought, but it might make the game a little bit more fun to play. (If nothing else, I'm just brainstorming here. Who knows how possible/difficult any of this would actually be to program? <lol>
Doug
One thing that might make the game even more fun is if a group of options were available to the computer opponent, that then randomly chooses which evasive action that it will take for each individual attack.
In the movie Top Gun, "Iceman" was always the perfect tactician, always choosing exactly what he had been trained to do. In essence, that's what the game does. It ALWAYs selects the same evasion technique. But, of you recall, "Maverick" rarely did exactly what he had been trained to do. He was very unpredictable. Both pilots were highly effective.
So, perhaps the game could be programmed so that 80 percent of the time (or so), our pilot making defensive maneuvers does exactly what the book says to do, and 20 percent of the time he chooses something else.
Again, it's just a thought, but it might make the game a little bit more fun to play. (If nothing else, I'm just brainstorming here. Who knows how possible/difficult any of this would actually be to program? <lol>
Doug
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
In the movie Top Gun, "Iceman" was always the perfect tactician, always choosing exactly what he had been trained to do. In essence, that's what the game does. It ALWAYs selects the same evasion technique. But, of you recall, "Maverick" rarely did exactly what he had been trained to do. He was very unpredictable. Both pilots were highly effective.
On yeah.. because Top Gun is the best source on tactics!
Seriously, though, the most accurate answer for how an aircraft would evade a threat SAM would depend highly on the threat encountered, the energy state of the aircraft, its distance from the threat, and all types of available ECM. Also, there's probably some threats out there which are so evil that the best thing to do is just destroy it before it destroys you (with cruise or ballistic missiles for example), because there's probably not a lot that can be done to reliably defeat the weapon by the time a pilot knows about it. As a pop up threat, the evasion tactic for SAMs like that is to pull the handle and enjoy the hospitality of one's captors.
-
ChickenSim
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:43 pm
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
SeaQueen, I think we're on the same page as far as the scope of CMO goes. I don't want it to be a flight simulator either, and I think trying to scope-creep beyond the M in DIME is probably a mistake - those things can provide context for scenario creation but ought not have mechanics in play.
I agree that someone in the JFACC's chair isn't going to tell each flight how they ought to dodge SAMs (beyond perhaps guidance for things like hard decks and setting the acceptable level of risk (ALR), which may dictate tactics). In the real world, that's because they can trust the pilots to make the best decisions while coloring inside the lines as best they can. In CMO, we can't. So I think it's reasonable that we be able to set our own rules to help ensure our AI jets are coloring inside the lines we draw.
And while I agree that the TOPGUN movie isn't the best source on tactics, I do like DWReese's idea that sometimes the pilots mess up or don't make the best decisions, and perhaps this is something side/pilot skill can contribute to in cases not covered by doctrine settings.
I agree that someone in the JFACC's chair isn't going to tell each flight how they ought to dodge SAMs (beyond perhaps guidance for things like hard decks and setting the acceptable level of risk (ALR), which may dictate tactics). In the real world, that's because they can trust the pilots to make the best decisions while coloring inside the lines as best they can. In CMO, we can't. So I think it's reasonable that we be able to set our own rules to help ensure our AI jets are coloring inside the lines we draw.
And while I agree that the TOPGUN movie isn't the best source on tactics, I do like DWReese's idea that sometimes the pilots mess up or don't make the best decisions, and perhaps this is something side/pilot skill can contribute to in cases not covered by doctrine settings.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
As I'm sure that you actually know, the "Top Gun" reference wasn't made with the intention of discussing the reality of the movie. If that is what you gathered from it, then I missed my own point.
My point was that there are two different pilots represented in the film, each good, but they are polar opposites when it came to their methodology. I'm sure that those types of personalities really do exist, regardless of all of the training that they have had.
So, if that's the case, then it would be nice to not have every pilot in our game ALWAYS take the same exact evasive action maneuver every time. Change it up a little bit. Randomize some of the evasive options. That's all that I am suggesting.
Otherwise, multiple planes ALL taking the same evasive action at the same time starts to resemble synchronized swimming. <lol>
My point was that there are two different pilots represented in the film, each good, but they are polar opposites when it came to their methodology. I'm sure that those types of personalities really do exist, regardless of all of the training that they have had.
So, if that's the case, then it would be nice to not have every pilot in our game ALWAYS take the same exact evasive action maneuver every time. Change it up a little bit. Randomize some of the evasive options. That's all that I am suggesting.
Otherwise, multiple planes ALL taking the same evasive action at the same time starts to resemble synchronized swimming. <lol>
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
Pilots are trained to use DIFFERENT evasion maneuvers based on the circumstances.
A LOT of the tactics depend on identifying the threat. That identification can be done via RWR/DECM/OECM or intel. The other basis, and a critical one in the moment, is to VISUALLY ACQUIRE the launch and the missile. Luckily, missile launches are very energetic and kick up large plumes of dust and smoke. The exhaust is very bright and leaves a nice trail. (Assuming there's no cloud deck in the way.)
If the missile is staying between the pilot and the launcher, that means it's one type of guidance.
If the missile is staying on a constant location in the canopy despite maneuvering, that means it's another type of guidance.
The optimal maneuver would change based on what the pilot sees the missile doing.
Beaming towards the launcher every time a missile launches is sub-optimal.
Different evasive maneuvers would enhance the game, significantly.
If, at an operational level, my squadrons continuously misapplied tactics, I would not let them near SAMs. I'd fire the squadron commander, stand them down, retrain them, and then reintroduce them to combat.
A LOT of the tactics depend on identifying the threat. That identification can be done via RWR/DECM/OECM or intel. The other basis, and a critical one in the moment, is to VISUALLY ACQUIRE the launch and the missile. Luckily, missile launches are very energetic and kick up large plumes of dust and smoke. The exhaust is very bright and leaves a nice trail. (Assuming there's no cloud deck in the way.)
If the missile is staying between the pilot and the launcher, that means it's one type of guidance.
If the missile is staying on a constant location in the canopy despite maneuvering, that means it's another type of guidance.
The optimal maneuver would change based on what the pilot sees the missile doing.
Beaming towards the launcher every time a missile launches is sub-optimal.
Different evasive maneuvers would enhance the game, significantly.
If, at an operational level, my squadrons continuously misapplied tactics, I would not let them near SAMs. I'd fire the squadron commander, stand them down, retrain them, and then reintroduce them to combat.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
"Different evasive maneuvers would enhance the game, significantly."
I was really hoping that you would lend your insight and expertise to this topic.
Thanks.
I was really hoping that you would lend your insight and expertise to this topic.
Thanks.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
ORIGINAL: ChickenSim
I agree that someone in the JFACC's chair isn't going to tell each flight how they ought to dodge SAMs (beyond perhaps guidance for things like hard decks and setting the acceptable level of risk (ALR), which may dictate tactics). In the real world, that's because they can trust the pilots to make the best decisions while coloring inside the lines as best they can. In CMO, we can't. So I think it's reasonable that we be able to set our own rules to help ensure our AI jets are coloring inside the lines we draw.
The only drawback I see to that approach is that it adds a little bit more to the already daunting, "too many hats" problem, which continuously draws Command down further into the tactical level. While not making it a flight simulator, it's just one more knob to turn. That, and it'd add to D's already considerable stress issues, by making him add YET ANOTHER button.
And while I agree that the TOPGUN movie isn't the best source on tactics, I do like DWReese's idea that sometimes the pilots mess up or don't make the best decisions, and perhaps this is something side/pilot skill can contribute to in cases not covered by doctrine settings.
This is something which makes great sense as a game, and less sense as a tool. I worry that as time progresses the tension between the entertainment Command and C:PE might increase. As a gamer, you want unexpected twists and odd turn arounds. Unpredictability is part of what makes it fun. As an analyst, though, you're looking for control because you want to understand how tactics and technology interact, so unanticipated randomness is a frustrating source of noise in the data. To me, this is the sort of thing which if you want to randomize it, you could just write a LUA script to do it at scenario load or whenever. Of course, nobody likes to be told, "write a computer program inside your computer program," but that's also a reflection of the tension between advanced users and casual users.
-
LargeDiameterBomb
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:45 pm
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
I find DWReese's further suggestions to have been sound and reasonable. A variation in behavior among pilots would also make the game more intersting for me as well.
That said, none of what I wrote should be taken as a complaint that the developer's are not doing enough in enhancing this game. The advancements made have been beyond my wildest expectations when i first bought the game five years ago and the advancements are continuing apace.
And for everybody's information, i have never played a combat-oriented flight sim and about 200 hours in a purely civilian sim that i stopped playing years ago because I found it boring. I have however read a decent amount of material on military technology. combat pilot's memoirs, commander's memoirs and some material concerning doctrine with regards to the larger powers of the last 50 years.
Mu suggestions here comes purely from a desire to make the game more realistic or to word it in another way, avoiding the most unrealistic instances of unit behavior - whether that's done at an abstract level (Missile endgame calculations) or at a more concrete level (aircraft maneuvering in this case) is not of any special interest to me.
And I think my way of looking at things is colored not by flight simming but more by that I primarily like to play small to medium scenarios (which make up the bulk of the standalone scenarios that is included with the game as well as a decent amount of the expansion scenarios).
And I'd also like to point out that there is no inherent property in CMANO/CMO that gives that it should work best with large to very large scenarios (50-200 aircraft) - that's ultimately up to the developer's to decide with regards to their long-time vision of what CMO should become as well as financial considerations (Ie what the customers are willing to pay for).
That said, none of what I wrote should be taken as a complaint that the developer's are not doing enough in enhancing this game. The advancements made have been beyond my wildest expectations when i first bought the game five years ago and the advancements are continuing apace.
And for everybody's information, i have never played a combat-oriented flight sim and about 200 hours in a purely civilian sim that i stopped playing years ago because I found it boring. I have however read a decent amount of material on military technology. combat pilot's memoirs, commander's memoirs and some material concerning doctrine with regards to the larger powers of the last 50 years.
Mu suggestions here comes purely from a desire to make the game more realistic or to word it in another way, avoiding the most unrealistic instances of unit behavior - whether that's done at an abstract level (Missile endgame calculations) or at a more concrete level (aircraft maneuvering in this case) is not of any special interest to me.
And I think my way of looking at things is colored not by flight simming but more by that I primarily like to play small to medium scenarios (which make up the bulk of the standalone scenarios that is included with the game as well as a decent amount of the expansion scenarios).
And I'd also like to point out that there is no inherent property in CMANO/CMO that gives that it should work best with large to very large scenarios (50-200 aircraft) - that's ultimately up to the developer's to decide with regards to their long-time vision of what CMO should become as well as financial considerations (Ie what the customers are willing to pay for).
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
And I'd also like to point out that there is no inherent property in CMANO/CMO that gives that it should work best with large to very large scenarios (50-200 aircraft).
That's not large, dude. That's one strike. To put things in perspective, the strike against H2 in Desert Storm involved ~70 aircraft, and struck probably over 100 DMPIs including fuel storage, runways, aircraft on the ground, chemical weapons storage, SCUD support facilities, AAA sites, SAM sites, and C2 facilities. They were all an integrated part of a single raid against one air base complex.
I think part of what's at work here is a difference in perception regarding what "small" is between people with experience and without experience in what a real air battle might look like. Think about it, a CVW has ~50 combat aircraft, and in the real world if you've got sorties you're flying. There's no parceling out aircraft ad hoc, unless you're talking about missions like TST CAP, or strip alert and even that's planned and has aircraft apportioned for it. You don't sit around and wait, you get out there and kill them! The level of violence and aggression is way beyond what you guys are thinking about. With that in mind, a single USAF fighter squadron is ~24 aircraft. A composite air wing is going to be in the 50-200 range easy. That's just at one airport! Big scenarios are in the 500-1000 aircraft range. That's frickin' huge!
70... 100... that's actually in the sweet spot for Command.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
Why don't we allow the Dev's to decide what they think would be valuable to add to the game based on the suggestions made?
Rather than criticise the way that others perceive "their" game and the way it's played.
Some reasonable suggestions have been made following frustrating experiences during play. If you don't experience that frustration, bully for you. But I'm starting to get a little frustrated reading passive aggressive put downs or subtle inferences that people are in some way playing the game "wrong". I'm not pointing at anyone in particular btw... It's just this seems to be a common occurance in threads with more than 6 answers... We all paid good money to play. We each have as much right as the next player to leave our feedback. Finally. Not once have I seen anyone Complain, or aggressively attack the devs. We all know and respect the work that goes into the game.
Rather than criticise the way that others perceive "their" game and the way it's played.
Some reasonable suggestions have been made following frustrating experiences during play. If you don't experience that frustration, bully for you. But I'm starting to get a little frustrated reading passive aggressive put downs or subtle inferences that people are in some way playing the game "wrong". I'm not pointing at anyone in particular btw... It's just this seems to be a common occurance in threads with more than 6 answers... We all paid good money to play. We each have as much right as the next player to leave our feedback. Finally. Not once have I seen anyone Complain, or aggressively attack the devs. We all know and respect the work that goes into the game.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
Do you really think we thought we made the decision?. But I just want to make sure there is a counterpoint.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
ORIGINAL: serjames
Why don't we allow the Dev's to decide what they think would be valuable to add to the game based on the suggestions made?
I am not the decision maker here. We're having a healthy debate about what might be useful to us in some future version that might not ever happen.
Rather than criticise the way that others perceive "their" game and the way it's played.
One should not take what I have to say personally. I have much thicker skin than many people, so I don't feel the same things others sometimes do. If people feel as though I'm attacking them personally, I apologize. That is not my intent.
Not once have I seen anyone Complain, or aggressively attack the devs. We all know and respect the work that goes into the game.
Right on. Don't worry, we can call the guys "dumbasses" elsewhere.
-
LargeDiameterBomb
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:45 pm
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
And I'd also like to point out that there is no inherent property in CMANO/CMO that gives that it should work best with large to very large scenarios (50-200 aircraft).
That's not large, dude. That's one strike. To put things in perspective, the strike against H2 in Desert Storm involved ~70 aircraft, and struck probably over 100 DMPIs including fuel storage, runways, aircraft on the ground, chemical weapons storage, SCUD support facilities, AAA sites, SAM sites, and C2 facilities. They were all an integrated part of a single raid against one air base complex.
I think part of what's at work here is a difference in perception regarding what "small" is between people with experience and without experience in what a real air battle might look like. Think about it, a CVW has ~50 combat aircraft, and in the real world if you've got sorties you're flying. There's no parceling out aircraft ad hoc, unless you're talking about missions like TST CAP, or strip alert and even that's planned and has aircraft apportioned for it. You don't sit around and wait, you get out there and kill them! The level of violence and aggression is way beyond what you guys are thinking about. With that in mind, a single USAF fighter squadron is ~24 aircraft. A composite air wing is going to be in the 50-200 range easy. That's just at one airport! Big scenarios are in the 500-1000 aircraft range. That's frickin' huge!
70... 100... that's actually in the sweet spot for Command.
This is getting off topic but I'll give one quick reply on this subject.
First, I just used those exact numbers (50-200) since you mentioned them in a previous post and I'd probably agree that a scenario involving 50 aircraft could justly be described as either medium or large.
My premise here is that I look at existing scenarios involving aircraft as a significant part of the forces at hand for completing the given mission (Even if it's only six ASW helicopters stationed on some ships where ASW is an important part of the scenario) and classify the scenarios as belonging to one of five size classes with the same amount of scenarios in each size class: very small, small, medium, large, very large.
Maybe you have another definition, but I'd at least argue that any definition of the size of a scenario would have to be relative, ie it would have to take into consideration how many aircraft (Which almost always make up the bulk of units that can apply combat power in a scenario, except for very small scenarios) other scenarios that presently exists involve, to be meaningful.
Therefore how large real air strikes or campaigns have been is of quite small importance, even though I overall agree with your points there. Remember we (Or at least I) were talking about scenarios in CMANO/CMO, not real air battles.
A scenario with for instance 400 aircraft must belong to something along the line of the top 3 percent of scenarios in terms of size. Given that a large scenario in your opinion would refer to scenarios with 100-500 aircraft, it's my opinion that a term like very large (In other words a term describing scenarios that involve more aircraft than just large scenarios) would lose almost all of it's meaning.
Anyway, this seems like an unnecessary sidetrack and my main point was just that thewood1's and your contention that this discussion was happening because of giving flight simmers what they wanted sometime back in the past was wrong. I could easily have written this OP just as DWReese did and I can in no way be described as a flight simmer.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
ORIGINAL: DWReese
"Different evasive maneuvers would enhance the game, significantly."
I was really hoping that you would lend your insight and expertise to this topic.
Thanks.
I cannot tell if you're being sarcastic, but it certainly seems so. I'll take my 28 years as a USAF pilot and let you figure it out.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
No, I'm quite serious.
As I said before, I sincerely appreciate your insight. I believe that an addition like this, with some sort of randomization to a variety of evasive techniques, would be great for the game. Like I said, watching all four of my planes always turn to the right and peel back toward the SAM resembles some kind of synchronized swimming maneuver. (And, I'm no fan of synchronized swimming.)
As I said before, I sincerely appreciate your insight. I believe that an addition like this, with some sort of randomization to a variety of evasive techniques, would be great for the game. Like I said, watching all four of my planes always turn to the right and peel back toward the SAM resembles some kind of synchronized swimming maneuver. (And, I'm no fan of synchronized swimming.)
-
LargeDiameterBomb
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:45 pm
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
C3k.
first, there's more airforces than the USAF, not all as well-trained as the USAF and some of them not well-trained in any sense of the word.
The novice setting in CMO is in my mind meant, at the very most, to represent a pilot who has just been assigned to a combat squadron out of the Iraqi air force academy (Or whatever equivalent institution existed there at that time) in 1994. Such a pilot might very well panic and do outright stupid things when seeing a missile coming straight at him, or simply lack the will to fight and just eject prematurely if over friendly territory. Even a pilot with a cadet setting, going by the name of the setting only, might very well not make the best decision when under high stress.
Second, other smaller air forces might have different doctrine for dealing with some missile threats even though I haven't found anything different in my admittedly quite sparse reading about doctrine among the main powers of the cold war.
Third, as you certainly know optimal defensive tactics depend on utilizing your aircraft's strengths and the threat's (Weather an §AM, AAM or enemy aircarft) weaknesses.
I doubt SR-71 Blackbird pilots dove and started to maneuver when detecting a launch from a SA-2d or SA-2f missile battery, or to put it more forcefully: I know they didn't, even though i freely admit that's an extreme case (I however in no way doubt that you know a lot more about USAF & Threat doctrine, ACM and a host of other combat piloting-related topics than i do).
So I don't find DWReese's suggestion as absurd as you do, primarily for the first and third reasons.
first, there's more airforces than the USAF, not all as well-trained as the USAF and some of them not well-trained in any sense of the word.
The novice setting in CMO is in my mind meant, at the very most, to represent a pilot who has just been assigned to a combat squadron out of the Iraqi air force academy (Or whatever equivalent institution existed there at that time) in 1994. Such a pilot might very well panic and do outright stupid things when seeing a missile coming straight at him, or simply lack the will to fight and just eject prematurely if over friendly territory. Even a pilot with a cadet setting, going by the name of the setting only, might very well not make the best decision when under high stress.
Second, other smaller air forces might have different doctrine for dealing with some missile threats even though I haven't found anything different in my admittedly quite sparse reading about doctrine among the main powers of the cold war.
Third, as you certainly know optimal defensive tactics depend on utilizing your aircraft's strengths and the threat's (Weather an §AM, AAM or enemy aircarft) weaknesses.
I doubt SR-71 Blackbird pilots dove and started to maneuver when detecting a launch from a SA-2d or SA-2f missile battery, or to put it more forcefully: I know they didn't, even though i freely admit that's an extreme case (I however in no way doubt that you know a lot more about USAF & Threat doctrine, ACM and a host of other combat piloting-related topics than i do).
So I don't find DWReese's suggestion as absurd as you do, primarily for the first and third reasons.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
ORIGINAL: LargeDiameterBomb
C3k.
first, there's more airforces than the USAF, not all as well-trained as the USAF and some of them not well-trained in any sense of the word.
The novice setting in CMO is in my mind meant, at the very most, to represent a pilot who has just been assigned to a combat squadron out of the Iraqi air force academy (Or whatever equivalent institution existed there at that time) in 1994. Such a pilot might very well panic and do outright stupid things when seeing a missile coming straight at him, or simply lack the will to fight and just eject prematurely if over friendly territory. Even a pilot with a cadet setting, going by the name of the setting only, might very well not make the best decision when under high stress.
Second, other smaller air forces might have different doctrine for dealing with some missile threats even though I haven't found anything different in my admittedly quite sparse reading about doctrine among the main powers of the cold war.
Third, as you certainly know optimal defensive tactics depend on utilizing your aircraft's strengths and the threat's (Weather an §AM, AAM or enemy aircarft) weaknesses.
I doubt SR-71 Blackbird pilots dove and started to maneuver when detecting a launch from a SA-2d or SA-2f missile battery, or to put it more forcefully: I know they didn't, even though i freely admit that's an extreme case (I however in no way doubt that you know a lot more about USAF & Threat doctrine, ACM and a host of other combat piloting-related topics than i do).
So I don't find DWReese's suggestion as absurd as you do, primarily for the first and third reasons.
First, let me address the part I bolded, in your last sentence. I have NO friggin' clue where you thought that I considered any of DWReeses suggestions absurd.
I would like you to re-read my posts and show me where I came across, implicitly or explicitly, holding such a stance.
You have seriously mis-read or misunderstood something.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
ORIGINAL: DWReese
No, I'm quite serious.
As I said before, I sincerely appreciate your insight. I believe that an addition like this, with some sort of randomization to a variety of evasive techniques, would be great for the game. Like I said, watching all four of my planes always turn to the right and peel back toward the SAM resembles some kind of synchronized swimming maneuver. (And, I'm no fan of synchronized swimming.)
Thank you for clarifying.
RE: Airplane Defense Logic
If, at an operational level, my squadrons continuously misapplied tactics, I would not let them near SAMs. I'd fire the squadron commander, stand them down, retrain them, and then reintroduce them to combat.
Maybe what we really need is a "Fire Subordinates," button which reshuffles the OODA values among the various units under one's control? [:D][:D][:D]