Matrix Games Forums

BDukes wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:21 pm I was talking about the community scenario set.

Yes, the Community Scenarios designers don't owe the customers anything. If they have the time to update the scens that's fine, if not that's ok as well.

Gizzmoe wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:27 pm

BDukes wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:23 pm I'd shelf the worry until more than one person screams.

Yes, but there IS more than one person screaming about that

I'm not screaming, but actually came out of lurking after years because I'm worried about the official and DLC scenarios. The combined change of kinematic model, evasive manoeuvres, and default A2A WRA seems so massive that I fear it's very likely that something broke.
If anything, now all red side pilots are instructed to behave like kamikazes, laser focused on destroying the enemy with little regard to their life. It could be fine, I don't know yet.
Then there is the issue of balance, which is a difficult term to use, but we can presume that is likely that scenarios now work quite differently from the way they were designed in the first place.

That said, I love the update.

Gizzmoe wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:27 pm

BDukes wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:23 pm I'd shelf the worry until more than one person screams.

Yes, but there IS more than one person screaming about that

True Let's shoot for 5, with at least a couple willing to show a bad outcome in a file.

If I come across something, I promise I'll post in tech support. If its a pattern I will post that I'm a doofus and Gizzmoe was right in this string. You can see I add stuff regularly with files etc.

Mike

Gizzmoe wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:27 pm

BDukes wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:23 pm I'd shelf the worry until more than one person screams.

Yes, but there IS more than one person screaming about that

I'd think if there were so many people worried about the scenarios, it would be pretty easy to find at least a couple that have broken by the change. I would also think at least one of those worriers would step forward and try a couple scenarios out. Especially if they are playing a lot.

I didn't hear the same level of angst on sonar changes awhile back and those were probably more fundamental than this when it comes impact on ASW and sea control scenarios.

Naeradan wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:43 pm Then there is the issue of balance, which is a difficult term to use, but we can presume that is likely that scenarios now work quite differently from the way they were designed in the first place.

Yes, there is lot to relearn with the new version.

I would really like to see those scenarios that have so changed by the new modeling that makes those scenarios so different than the designers' intent.

Well... at least I know what my next video's going to be about...

(F***!)

SeaQueen wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 3:30 pm
At some point a scenario is so huge that CMO is no longer a good tool for playing out scenarios of that scope...

There may be multiple ways to think about what is "most dangerous," and allowing the computer to choose that is delegating your decision making to a computer programmer...

There is the database viewer. You should be able to study the order of battle of the enemy presented to you. I spend more time planning a scenario than I often spend actually playing...

I think it's also important to keep in mind that many scenarios are not the most wisely designed...

If I can summarize your arguments against this (and correct me if I'm misrepresenting anything):

1) You don't care for really big scenarios;
2) A lot of scenarios aren't wisely designed, so who cares about updating them;
3) We should tune all worthwhile scenarios by hand instead of using a default rule;
4) We shouldn't delegate decisions to computer programmers;
5) There are no shortcuts and it would be better for everyone to study the database for hours before embarking on a scenario.

I'll skip over #1 and #2 because I think you can see that's a matter of opinion, no?

Regarding #3, there are currently 575 scenarios in the Community Scenario Pack alone, so I'd argue that tweaking all of these by hand, even if you only did the 'wisely designed' ones, wouldn't be a practical approach.

#4: We delegate decisions all the time in CMO! For example, we set an engagement doctrine because we don't want to micromanage the waypoints for each aircraft when they enter combat. If you're a person who absolutely doesn't want to do this, there are probably some great tabletop air-combat simulations for you. But we are here, in CMO.

#5: There are INDEED shortcuts. Here is one of them: I just wrote a Lua script called BETTER_BVR that you can run on any scenario, and will set the WRA for BVR weapons to a value that makes much more sense than NEZ for the given circumstances, using the 'most dangerous range' approach you laid out earlier. I'm not arguing that this is the BEST solution (please improve it!) but it yields much more lifelike BVR tactics and behavior by default, and gives players a good starting point for further customization.

(One possible area for improvement is what you said about ignoring low-Pk missiles -- that's a good idea, still working out how to extract that info from the QueryDB() function.)

EDIT: put it up for discussion in "Mods and Scenarios" to break out of the No-Escape-Zone that is this thread.

thewood1 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:06 pm I didn't hear the same level of angst on sonar changes awhile back and those were probably more fundamental than this when it comes impact on ASW and sea control scenarios.

The changes in submarine warfare have been quite drastic indeed, notably on the bread-and-butter of sub ops, the layer. It was entirely removed in some places.
I haven't had the opportunity to fully replay The Silent Service since those updates but surely this makes things different, the first scenario for example, located in the Arctic, doesn't have a layer anymore.

cmanouser1 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:01 am

thewood1 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:06 pm I didn't hear the same level of angst on sonar changes awhile back and those were probably more fundamental than this when it comes impact on ASW and sea control scenarios.

The changes in submarine warfare have been quite drastic indeed, notably on the bread-and-butter of sub ops, the layer. It was entirely removed in some places.
I haven't had the opportunity to fully replay The Silent Service since those updates but surely this makes things different, the first scenario for example, located in the Arctic, doesn't have a layer anymore.

I don't doubt there are impactful changes in ASW. Thats my point. In fact, over the last year or two, several players pointed out how one or two of the tutorials had some issues with ASW. The devs went back and fixed them as they were pointed out. My real point is if the change is so dramatic that people start to point them out because the scenario is broken, the devs can fix it. I suspect if there is a real issue around BVR, it'll be with tutorials because they have specific instructions on how they operate. I went back and played a couple and didn't see anything. My opinion in playing dozens of scenarios over the last year, post-tiny, is there is no issue substantial enough to break scenarios by setting the AI default to NEZ. In fact, its better for the game overall.

I'll also add that I saw no one "worried" about ASW when those changes were implemented. Most people thought the changes were needed. There is just something about the some of the air warfare crowd that's different than people playing the game as an overall operational simulator.

musurca wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 3:48 am If I can summarize your arguments against this (and correct me if I'm misrepresenting anything):

1) You don't care for really big scenarios;

I think that's missing my point. My point is that if a scenario grows too large it's no longer realistically represented by CMO. It's the wrong game. At it's most extreme, The POTUS, for example, doesn't care what the WEZ of a given missile looks like, nor does he care how an aircraft of a given RCS will interact with a radar in a given frequency band, with a given power output. They just don't. That's someone lower on the totem pole's problem. He's not planning ingress routes, and probably not even picking targets (unless you're President Johnson in 1968, planning the Rolling Thunder Campaign from the oval office, a practice that is universally reviled as exactly NOT how to wage an air war). This is all the substance CMO. CMO doesn't make sense for someone commanding the entire US military. It becomes silly. It hits peak realism somewhere far below that level.

2) A lot of scenarios aren't wisely designed, so who cares about updating them;

And I would group megascenarios in that group. Just because it runs doesn't mean it's a good idea.

3) We should tune all worthwhile scenarios by hand instead of using a default rule;

Yes. If you don't understand why the shot distance is what you're choosing it to be, then you probably shouldn't be picking it.

4) We shouldn't delegate decisions to computer programmers;

Ideally not if that decision means locking you into specific tactics that reasonable people choose differently.

5) There are no shortcuts and it would be better for everyone to study the database for hours before embarking on a scenario.

That's called "planning." People in the war business do that. If it's supposed to be a warfare simulation, you should too. You'll probably do better.

I'll skip over #1 and #2 because I think you can see that's a matter of opinion, no?

Maybe, but it's a pretty well reasoned opinion, with a lot of professional experience behind it. Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean you should discredit it.

Regarding #3, there are currently 575 scenarios in the Community Scenario Pack alone, so I'd argue that tweaking all of these by hand, even if you only did the 'wisely designed' ones, wouldn't be a practical approach.

Maybe, but I doubt all those scenario receive equal playtime. Popular scenarios should be adjusted first, and less popular ones should not be prioritized.

#4: We delegate decisions all the time in CMO! For example, we set an engagement doctrine because we don't want to micromanage the waypoints for each aircraft when they enter combat. If you're a person who absolutely doesn't want to do this, there are probably some great tabletop air-combat simulations for you. But we are here, in CMO.

That's true, but they've taken great pains to provide many options to affect the behavior of the AI so that it avoids locking players into one specific tactic. If, by delegating a decision to the programmer, you're forced to play with what you believe to be "correct" tactics (which I can tell you, if it's in the public domain and not historical, it's probably either wrong or a lie), then it's something that you shouldn't be delegating.

#5: There are INDEED shortcuts. Here is one of them: I just wrote a Lua script called BETTER_BVR (attached below) that you can run on any scenario, and will set the WRA for BVR weapons to a value that makes much more sense than NEZ for the given circumstances, using the 'most dangerous range' approach you laid out earlier. I'm not arguing that this is the BEST solution (please improve it!) but it yields much more lifelike BVR tactics and behavior by default, and gives players a good starting point for further customization.

I use LUA to enable the AI to behave more realistically too. I'm not sure that's a shortcut, though. The scripts I use for one country might be entirely different from the scripts I use for another. It's also important to recognize most players do not use LUA. Most players won't even do math, hence there was a push for an "autoplanner" or whatever. But, that's a very nice script. I wouldn't use it, but do what you think is good. I don't think that an "insert script here" approach is wise. The best way to use LUA is when there's behaviors that are more specific than can be represented by a single "one size fits all" approach. Maybe, for example, you have a historical document suggesting that SAM tactics in China aren't the SAM as they were in Russia in the same time period. You could use scripts to cue radars and missiles reflecting to reflect those differences.

I'm not really sure that your script is really that much of an improvement over the existing logic, though. Why 2/3s? What if your sensor range is longer than that and his sensor range is shorter than that? You can't shoot what you can't see. You might get an improvement in lethality with no decrease in survivability by closing shorter than that? Without looking at it on a case by case basis, you don't know. The engagement timeline is dictated by more than just the range of the weapon, it's also dictated by the sensor performance. Your script doesn't do that.

SeaQueen wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:36 pm Why 2/3s? What if your sensor range is longer than that and his sensor range is shorter than that? You can't shoot what you can't see. You might get an improvement in lethality with no decrease in survivability by closing shorter than that?

Great -- yes, the 2/3 assumption was the weakest part of the model; I was approximating a much more complicated relationship that I didn't have time to fully sketch out until today. I've changed that model completely and describe the newer approach here.

I've taken this into account as well as your excellent point about the sensor, thanks. The latest version of the script has incorporated both.

SeaQueen wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:36 pm I'm not really sure that your script is really that much of an improvement over the existing logic, though.

I don't want to make too strong of a claim here--but in the testing I've done, the script already beats the existing default of "WRA at NEZ" in many scenarios. That is, if you use the latest version of the script on one side, and set the other size to NEZ for all BVR weapons, the NEZ side will likely get a complete drubbing. Which is entirely expected, because they never get into range for their perfect shot before they're forced to go defensive or are hit in the face by a missile. This is a classic case of that old cliché that "all models are wrong, some are useful," in that this model doesn't have to be perfect in order to beat a model that doesn't take into account the enemy's missile performance.

I certainly don't discount your opinions, but I think we may otherwise disagree on some fundamentals (I think the autoplanner was great!). Having said that-- if you can put aside your objections, it would be great to hear any thoughts you have on improving the model further in that thread!

musurca wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:21 am I don't want to make too strong of a claim here--but in the testing I've done, the script already beats the existing default of "WRA at NEZ" in many scenarios. That is, if you use the latest version of the script on one side, and set the other size to NEZ for all BVR weapons, the NEZ side will likely get a complete drubbing.

Well... yeah... all things being equal you're probably going to range them. You don't need a LUA script to do that, though. That's all doable with the doctrine settings.

I do have thoughts on ways to improve BVR behavior, but not here. I am not against using the autoplanner. I was skeptical of it when it was under development because I was worried it would lack the flexibility to model things the way I'd prefer. One of the weaknesses of Command, is that very often they program the AI to do what they THINK it should be doing, not what they actually should be doing, because of the limitations of unclassified information, and sometimes inexperience with what a real air operation might look like. I'm pretty sure that the way I play the game and the way that a beginner player plays the game are pretty different. I never want to be constrained to what a programmer thinks is real when it's not, or it might be in some cases but not others. They are, by the nature of what Command is, operating on imperfect information, so in my mind, flexibility is the most important thing.

I haven't really worked with it yet, because for some reason my CMO version is 1.04 and for some reason when I push the "Check for Updates" button it doesn't find an upgrade. At some point I'm probably going to have to do it manually. I do dislike some extremely large scenarios for reasons I've described before. It makes no sense to even be playing a wargame where you're worried about all the technical aspects of warfare when you're effectively in the President of the United States' chair. That's just silly, and reflects a profound misunderstanding of how things work. I hate scenarios like that. From my perspective, they're unplayable at best, and silly at worst. You don't learn anything real from them.