Same.SeaQueen wrote: Sun Jul 06, 2025 7:01 pm What do you dislike about the way satellites are represented?
My biggest issue with satellites is the lack of an adequate representation of the processing, exploitation and dissemination (PED) process. That sometimes leads to unrealistically fast availability of the data. Unfortunately, when it comes to putting a specific number of now long the PED process should take, it tends to develop into an exercise in, "well... it depends," with lots of nuance and complication, but no numbers really settled on.
My recent thoughts on intelligence modeling for large scenarios is to collect some units by some parameter (geographic likely). At some point later present it to the player. Might be some other things to be done to model uncertainty, misidentification, or getting the short end of the stick using ye olde bell curve. I could go full Mythic (RPG system) and add a chaos rating for sorts to turn the knobs a bit.I've found that the best way to handle that, is to be very specific in one's thinking about which satellites to include, and why. Throwing in the entire US satellite constellation, for example, is probably not a wise decision, but if you're doing a scenario oriented towards ballistic missile defense, adding SBIRs satellites probably is. That sort of thing is much more realistic, because the satellites relevant to the task at hand are available. Once again, this tends to suggest smaller scenarios, mission oriented scenarios, not longer, large unit count, open-ended, mega-scenarios.
Mike