Weapon Endgame calcs / Weapon Damage / BDO

[Knightpawn]

I discover that the only way for someone to play a slow scenario such as Indian Fury 1 - Persian Pounce (excessive simultaneous gunnery), was to turn off Weapon Endgame Calculations and Weapon Damage in the Message Log. And to my surprise it worked quite well.

This made me wonder whether the "correct" level of realism is indeed to have these to settings turned off and simply rely on visual BDO after all. On the other hand, there are weapons that benefit from a camera image (see drone attacks, or footage of Ribs blown in the water). The questions is: for long range weapons such as tomahawks, Harms or similar weapons do we really know whether they hit the target, or if they malfunctioned in real life.

[SunlitZelkova]

If the weapon has a datalink it would presumably be possible to know if the weapon failed mid-flight, as the datalink would be severed before the target.

But mid-flight malfunctions aren't modeled in CMO. For something like a warhead malfunction, the only way to know would be BDA or, if the target was being actively tracked, if it is still there. (in CMO) All surface search radars can tell the user if the target was destroyed or not, either by actually still being capable of detecting the burning wreck on the surface or simply losing the contact once it ceases to be a normal "upright" vessel. If the vessel is hit but doesn't sink, there are usually other tell-tale signs it has been hit, like a sudden drop in speed.

I don't think there is a correct level of realism because realism can mean different things to different people. For me, "realism" tends to be more about having reasonable objectives set up and a convincing political background. I don't bother as much with trying to limit the way each side behaves based on their real capabilities, because there are already certain things about CMO that make it inherently unrealistic. Most importantly, the instantaneous and constant communication between varying levels of the command hierarchy.

Technically it would be possible to address this by creating multiple sides for each level (so each regiment is its own side, and then the division with its reconnaissance assets is its own side, and then the player at the army level is its own side), but having a large number of sides dampens performance. As much as it is a simulation, CMO is also a very high-fidelity game. I've learned to prioritize fun over too much realism.

[thewood1]

I have played a lot with multiple sides being used for layers of C&C. Its a lot of work building a scenario with it, but its not too bad to play. But knowing the number of micromanagers who play CMO, it could be very frustrating.

Also, the performance is not really impacted by number of sides. Number of units has so much more impact, it makes side negligible.

edit...I thought it was obvious that showing all the calcs was a wargaming mode. Not really connected to realistic decision-making.

[SunlitZelkova]

Interesting. I wonder if I'm misremembering something from the CMANO days.

[TyphoonFr]

If we observe how this plays out in Ukraine, satellite imagery and civilians, via social media, can be helpful. (Spies infiltrated into a neutral camp, who conveniently become allies, provide you with the results of your strikes.)

Propaganda can amplify or diminish the impact of a strike depending on the desired effect on public opinion.

A weapon that misses its target is considered a malfunction by the launcher and an interception by the adversary. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the success rate of Patriot surface-to-air missiles against Scud missiles varied from 10% to 97%, depending on the source.

Combat Assessment /Analyzing the Results of an Air Campaign:

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portal ... /sopko.pdf