What CMO scenarios lack

[LoBlo]

Everytime I play a CMO scenario, I'm struck with the sparseness of the scenario map. Look at the screen below to see what a typical day of civilian traffic on the Red Sea really looks like and compare it to a CMO scenario.

Is there a way to link CMO to bring AIS vessel tracking into a scenario?

---

Marine Traffic.jpg (324.87 KiB) Viewed 519 times

[HalfLifeExpert]

This is generally a self-imposed limitation for the scenario designer for a few reasons:

1) It massively saves demand on the end use's PC hardware to not have hundreds of ships/aircraft to contact, model and process all at once. Not all Command users have ultra high-end PCs that can smoothly handle all that.

2) It's alot of work for a scenario designer to accurately model that much traffic, be it air or surface.

3) It can be a total headache/imposing challenge for the player to process all that information.

While it is often unrealistic, it's a generally acceptable shortcoming most of the time.

Command IS capable of having that much shipping traffic in a scenario, but the practical considerations usually make it not worth the effort.

Having AIS integration would create far more problems than is worth. For starters, I think AIS only gives you live snapshots of the present moment of ships. That doesn't work for scenarios set in the past or the future. No scenario is really intended to be played as "right now, real time to the real world".

Second, by default, wouldn't AIS integration place tens of thousands of ships all over the world? Talk about a horrific nightmare for CPUs and RAM. Say goodbye to any sort of functional gameplay, and if it was sentient, you PC might go on strike and burst into tears.

[bladesinger79]

MY PC would explode and set the house on fire if I dared try to handle so many moving parts at once. Some of the scenarios such as Indian Fury 1 and 2 would run scratchy as proof of what a system and a game engine can handle.

[Nikel]

In Transient's scenario Operation Ardent Shield 2030, there is a good number of civilian traffic, still not as much as in the screenshot. IMO so much is not needed for the simulation.

[LoBlo]

I disagree. If CMO is a "simulation" then it has to simulate the reality. High traffic waterways are the choke points of global conflict and dealing with them are an absolute reality.

Its like a "simulaiton" that grants unlimited ammo and planes with unlimited fuel. Not a simulation at all, just a arcade style game.

Can't forgo these things. High traffic and fog of war drastically change the tactics of combatants. Here's another area that would be a hot bed of conflict.

Marine Traffic 2.jpg (557.96 KiB) Viewed 376 times

[tylerblakebrandon]

I disagree. If CMO is a "simulation" then it has to simulate the reality. High traffic waterways are the choke points of global conflict and dealing with them are an absolute reality.

Its like a "simulaiton" that grants unlimited ammo and planes with unlimited fuel. Not a simulation at all, just a arcade style game.

Can't forgo these things. High traffic and fog of war drastically change the tactics of combatants. Here's another area that would be a hot bed of conflict.

Marine Traffic 2.jpg

No one is arguing these are good points. But as others have stated.

1. Even with setting the commercial traffic to blind to reduce the loaf most machines casual players own won't be able handle the load and as such scenario designers limit AU count. And your just talking maritime traffic, just think about the air traffic too.
2. As many scenarios are not in the present you don't always have accurate data on mass traffic for a past period.
3. I can't speak for Pro scenarios but the images from Pro events don't show screens clogged with traffic contacts. So the tradeoffs must be seen as acceptable. Although I have played scenarios that addressed the issue and chose an explanation.

YMMV

You of course are allowed to build your own scenarios with fully functional commercial traffic.

[thewood1]

"You of course are allowed to build your own scenarios with fully functional commercial traffic."

There's the answer. The better question might have been what scenarios are there that include a lot of civilian ships and units. Instead of arrogantly declaring what makes a good scenario or simulator.

[caelunshun]

There is maybe a discussion to be had about what optimizations could be done in the sim to make high numbers of blind/"dumb" units more performant. Or to add an option to make civilians (once positively identified as such) appear smaller in the UI, reducing visual clutter.

[thewood1]

Its mostly a scenario design issue. There are scenarios that include a lot of civilian units. But they only include the ones that will have potential impact on how the player plays. CMO isn't a civilian tracking simulator. Its a game designed to have the player have to make decisions like a real life commander.

[thewood1]

Here is an original CMO scenario. God's eye is on. There are a lot of aircraft that show up as well.

Screenshot 2025-07-10 202848.jpg (1.24 MiB) Viewed 351 times

[AlexinCT]

Unless your scenario deals with an unexpected break of hostilities catching everyone by surprise, civilian traffic should be a fraction, if not totally non existent, in the area of conflict due to air and sea travel restrictions. Nobody flies or sails into the middle of a shooting conflict unless they can't absolutely avoid it. Heck, when Iran lobbed 13 missiles just a while ago, all air traffic was stopped in the area.

[Mickeys91]

OP go ahead and add a realistic number of civilian ships and possible civilian air traffic as well. After add all military units in a large mission set. I want to see how your PC handles. I also want to see how you would go about playing. After post a AAR of how things went. Im sure I will see none of this and you most likely wont be replying anymore since you lack a actual argument but but until you prove that heavy traffic will work smoothly for you and majority of the CMO players please try to refrain from calling this a "arcade" game

[Stanley_The_Rolmate]

I added neutral traffic with AIS to a number of my scenarios, mostly scenarios where hostilities are not ongoing at the start or are not expected to inevitably start, as most neutral ships would probably have already left the area.
To simulate AIS I turned on auto detectable and added (AIS) to the unit names. But this was mostly to add some scenery in scenarios that would otherwise have large empty parts, as players are very unlikely to misidentify or accidentally target known neutrals. In these scenarios I'd also put some neutral ships that weren't using AIS to force the player to send assets to identify them and make sure they weren't hostile.

[schweggy]

During "Operation Rising Lion" there was a huge swath of airspace, empty of air traffic. It was like that for the duration of the war. Visible on public flight tracking sites.

Likewise, during the Houthi's attacks on commercial shipping traffic in the Red Sea, there was, for a couple months, a huge reduction in shipping traffic... as seen in AIS tracking sites, as well.

In my opinion when hostilities are imminent or ongoing most, if not all, commercial traffic (air and sea) leaves the area. So modeling it is almost unrealistic... almost. There are always holdouts. And obviously not ever single ship or plane is going to leave the area if they've got "important things to do." But when hostilities are not ongoing or started and there's no plausible reason for them to start, then, yea some commercial traffic is probably acceptable if the scenario designer wants to include it. I try to include commercial/civilian traffic in scenarios where it makes sense and keep it to manageable levels. Same goes for biologics.

[thewood1]

Keep in mind that ships/task forces also have exclusion zones around them. Any AI side has to have exclusion zones around naval ships if you want it to be "realistic". And thats in war time and peace time. They do change depending on location and mission, but its something to keep in mind.

[rvseydlitz]

There are ways using LUA to bring as much traffic as you want into the actual area you are interested in and have them "disappear" when they leave that area. As others have said it's not a "CMO issue" as the OP implies but rather a choice made my scenario designers who may want players to actually...I don't know...PLAY their scenarios? Lol

[Craigkn]

A good scenario should pose one or more dilemmas for the player to consider. If civilian sea or air traffic has an impact on those dilemmas, then I see the value in including them, but if not, its just additional burden on the players computer for no real gain in advancing the scenario’s plot.

CMO itself does not model unit collisions, or an errant TLAM crashing into an unsuspecting oil tanker it tried to fly over. IFF does not seem to make mistakes - it follows its WRA to the letter and friendly fire or accidental launches dont happen. You could script all of this, which would make for an interesting scenario, but if my main focus is DEAD missions, then I am not worried about Civs.