[Logged] Vampire EMCON settings

[1nutworld]

Is there a way to change the EMCON settings from "everything" active, upon getting "vampire" weapon detection so that my group's units also don't set their SONAR to Active?

Maybe the incoming threat is submarine launched, but truth be told, I don't want to give the enemy MORE ways to get a precise fix on my location.

From playing scenarios, that seems to be the default- that Radars go active, Sonar goes active and Jammers go active. While under guided missile attack, threat, having my radar active and Jammers (if available) will of course be a good countermeasure to defeat the potential attacker, but I see no sense in giving any sub-surface threats - more targeting information by blasting sound from my sonars, to help them pinpoint my location.

[KnightHawk75]

Wait, your sonar is going active for that automatically now even when you have them all set passive before hand?

I wonder if it's related to this (passive no longer really meaning passive) but related to sonar.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4906979

or maybe I'm missing something that makes this completely separate.

[Battelman2]

No, 1nutworld is correct. For as long as I can remember, having Ignore EMCON under attack set to Yes will cause Sonar to go active when under surface threat. This is only marginally related to https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4906979

I agree that this is undesirable. Might be worth opening a Tech Support thread.

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: Battelman2

No, 1nutworld is correct. For as long as I can remember, having Ignore EMCON under attack set to Yes will cause Sonar to go active when under surface threat.

I agree that this is undesirable. Might be worth opening a Tech Support thread.

Wow, I was getting worried that this event was only happening to me....thanks for confirmation that it is not. I'm not sure it's a tech support issue or a programming issue, but to me the default of sonar going active when under missile or guided weapon attack seems like a ridiculous 'auto' setting.

[KnightHawk75]

ORIGINAL: Battelman2

No, 1nutworld is correct. For as long as I can remember, having Ignore EMCON under attack set to Yes will cause Sonar to go active when under surface threat. This is only marginally related to https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4906979

I agree that this is undesirable. Might be worth opening a Tech Support thread.

Ah I missed that was set in what 1nutworld was explaining (with applies by default you're right). Then actually it would seem in the technical sense it's WAD in that EMCON is infact ignored, though I agree in the case of a sub\ship detecting a vamp turning on sonar does seem an odd reaction.

I'm trying to think of reasons\cases where that might be desired, maybe it's reaction is just not tuned to be "weapon vs particularly unit type" sensitive\specific yet. IDK though would it ever be helpful to attempt to locate a potential nearby firing unit that may have launched said vamp contact that later turns torpedo (rum-139 etc), or to prepare to detect such if\when it hits the water? Spitballing for possible case where it might be deemed by someone as helpful as a default - particularly if it's the AI player. Can't really think of any but, don't know what I don't know. [&:] Certainly worth asking about if it's intended or not.

[Eboreg]

Well... on the other hand, ships also activate their radars and jammers when being attacked by a torpedo, which is actually rather helpful if the submarine in question is getting targeting information from an external asset like an airborne radar.

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: Eboreg

Well... on the other hand, ships also activate their radars and jammers when being attacked by a torpedo, which is actually rather helpful if the submarine in question is getting targeting information from an external asset like an airborne radar.

excellent point, that I wasn't thinking about when I posted.

Can some of the DEVS, look into this and maybe have a discussion about modifying the settings for threat defense more accurately to counter the specific threat, instead of a "generic" one setting fixes all, type solution. Which isn't practical and certainly wouldn't be applied in "real world" threat scenarios.

[thewood1]

The best way to ask the devs is put into the feature request and changes thread.

[Rory Noonan]

excellent point, that I wasn't thinking about when I posted.

Can some of the DEVS, look into this and maybe have a discussion about modifying the settings for threat defense more accurately to counter the specific threat, instead of a "generic" one setting fixes all, type solution. Which isn't practical and certainly wouldn't be applied in "real world" threat scenarios.

Happy to take a look, but without any specific direction on what should be changed I'm not sure that we'll make the changes you'd like to see.

My first thought on reading this thread is that if you're defending against incoming missiles, the fact that there might be a submarine nearby who is unaware of your presence that picks up your active sonar is handily offset by the benefits to situational awareness that going EMCON unrestricted provides. The logical argument there is that the enemy side already knows where you are if missiles are in flight, so what exactly are we gaining by not using active sonar?

As Eboreg suggests, in the case of a short range launch of torpedoes from a sub, the OECM, Radar and Sonar going active is actually the optimal response--there is no use in quietly evading a torpedo if you're just going to be dodging another after that because the enemy still has the advantage of knowing where you are; and you lose the potential advantage of quickly and precisely counter-detecting them.

Anyway, the above isn't to dismiss any changes out of hand--I just wanted to get a little more specific about proposed changes and outline the rationale for the system we have [:)]

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: Rory Noonan

excellent point, that I wasn't thinking about when I posted.

Can some of the DEVS, look into this and maybe have a discussion about modifying the settings for threat defense more accurately to counter the specific threat, instead of a "generic" one setting fixes all, type solution. Which isn't practical and certainly wouldn't be applied in "real world" threat scenarios.

Happy to take a look, but without any specific direction on what should be changed I'm not sure that we'll make the changes you'd like to see.

My first thought on reading this thread is that if you're defending against incoming missiles, the fact that there might be a submarine nearby who is unaware of your presence that picks up your active sonar is handily offset by the benefits to situational awareness that going EMCON unrestricted provides. The logical argument there is that the enemy side already knows where you are if missiles are in flight, so what exactly are we gaining by not using active sonar?

As Eboreg suggests, in the case of a short range launch of torpedoes from a sub, the OECM, Radar and Sonar going active is actually the optimal response--there is no use in quietly evading a torpedo if you're just going to be dodging another after that because the enemy still has the advantage of knowing where you are; and you lose the potential advantage of quickly and precisely counter-detecting them.

Anyway, the above isn't to dismiss any changes out of hand--I just wanted to get a little more specific about proposed changes and outline the rationale for the system we have [:)]

Rory,

Your points are certainly valid and another reason why I bring up the discussion, not as a criticism of the Developers thinking, but because I simply don't know the proper tactical response, in "real world" situation as I described. I ask the questions to try and pick the brain of not only the DEVS, but also those in the community that may have faced this tactical situation in training scenarios or real world activity.

Of course, my hope is, that the discussion prompts the potential for giving the player different options to use and try, using the power of this simulation, so that all of us become better "warriors", as we play and learn.

While as you very validly point out, going active with Radar, Sonar and Jammers as "default" may indeed be the proper "official defense" tactic, in the real world action and training, the command of the surface vessel (or group) may want to use different options to help teach the learning officer crew to try this tactic or that one, as learning tools. Wouldn't we as amateurs that enjoy the sim, like to have the same tools?

Scott

[thewood1]

Is that how the real world works in naval doctrine? Are commanders given that kind of leeway if they train a specific way? I don't know the answer. To me, that is the discussion as much as changing default behavior. I assume training in built off of established doctrine and its the whole point of having doctrine. So in the seconds you need to make a decision, you don't have any hesitation. Incoming Vampire...light everything up. Is that how it works?

[Gunner98]

Is that how it works?

Not sure about the navy but army commanders have quite a bit of discretion when it comes to drills and employment of doctrine, pre-briefing how s/he sees the threat and the IAs (immediate actions) to suit. I suspect that modern western navies are the same.

[Battelman2]

Yeah some real world accounts would be useful here. Of course, it depends on the situation the ship under threat is in, and there are numerous variables- set both prior to and while already underway- so it's difficult to emulate with a simple unite doctrine rule.

I always just set "Ignore EMCON under attack" to No and manually change EMCON when under threat.

There has been discussion about how complicated the settings are getting by trying to satisfy each and every configuration, so caution should be taken when considering modifying the EMCON under attack rule.

That being said, adjusting the EMCON under attack rule could look like this:

- No
- Yes, energize relevant sensors only
- Yes, energize all sensors

This is simply achieved by renaming the current "Yes" option to "Yes, energize all sensors", and adding the "Yes, energize relevant sensors only" option.

Just my thoughts. This change could get CMO closer to emulating the real world- but a more accurate simulation would require fundamental changes to unit autonomy as I've mentioned in other threads regarding other shortcomings.

For now I plan to continue playing with the rule set to No and manually changing EMCON when needed.

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: Battelman
That being said, adjusting the EMCON under attack rule could look like this:

- No
- Yes, energize relevant sensors only
- Yes, energize all sensors

Sounds interesting. Lets see what we can do!

[thewood1]

But what are relevant sensors? And whose doctrine do you use as the definition of relevant sensors? And then does it change over the sixty years CMO covers? And considering how many sensor combinations there are, what work should the devs drop to take on this monumental task?

You can say its just sonar vs. radar, but the next player comes along and wants to slice it to long range radars vs short range depending on air threat vs. surface threat vs. land threat.

I'm not saying the current reaction is correct, incorrect, realistic, etc. But for a situation that only has an impact for a short time while under attack, lets make sure the ask here thought out and proportional to issue.

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Is that how it works?

Not sure about the navy but army commanders have quite a bit of discretion when it comes to drills and employment of doctrine, pre-briefing how s/he sees the threat and the IAs (immediate actions) to suit. I suspect that modern western navies are the same.

NATO standard procedure for ships evading is a ZIPPO drill--a pre-planned series of actions based on the assessment of the incoming threat. These change regularly and are classified, as they are based specifically on the known capabilities of both the ship and threat.

A (very vague and completely made up) example might be incoming missile that fits criteria X: Activate OECM, Activate CM launchers, Activate CIWS, Immediate course change 90 degrees, Turns for 25kt.

There would typically be a whole bunch of these planned out and regularly practiced by the ops room team. There is a bit of leeway in selection and implementation, so you may get different results depending on who's on watch.

[thewood1]

One possible long term solution might be with the template idea. Before you send your units into harm's way, you have the option to configure detailed doctrine for response to threats.

[Rory Noonan]

Logged for investigation.

0014278

[SunlitZelkova]

A situation where this would be a problem is where ships escorting a carrier are responding to a ballistic missile attack in the region (turns on everything as part of launching SM-3s) which then gives their position away to a nearby submarine. In the past my Aegis ships have turned on their surface search radars and sonars while engaging ballistic missiles.

I like Battelman2's idea.

[Battelman2]

ORIGINAL: SunlitZelkova

A situation where this would be a problem is where ships escorting a carrier are responding to a ballistic missile attack in the region (turns on everything as part of launching SM-3s) which then gives their position away to a nearby submarine. In the past my Aegis ships have turned on their surface search radars and sonars while engaging ballistic missiles.

Is this a result of self defense, as prescribed by the Ignore EMCON under attack rule, or rather is it due to WRA inflicting this pain point: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4906979

Unless the missiles are launched directly against your surface group, the EMCON under attack rule shouldn't be relevant, but I'm not sure why sonar would be activated to launch SM-3s... Maybe there is something I'm missing here about the criteria units use to determine when they are under attack.