Matrix Games Forums

I have been following the idea exchange but haven't provided anything as all the good ideas I could have haven been already presented.

However, this quote has made me think:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
My main concern is a full blowm military-grade planner will take a long time to code up and deliver. I would rather have something simpler, easier to use, and delivered faster.

I find quite intriguing that the professional customers of CMANO haven't requested an Advanced Strike Planner for themselves yet. Do they do all the micromanagement by themselves? I find that interesting/inevitable in some instances/levels of command, but not on others.

Therefore, my suggestion (if you will [;)]): go for a full blown military-grade planner, that can be sold to the pro customers. That way you can sell us (perhaps) a bit nerfed down version while keeping development costs and times contained. And, hopefully, we could get it with a DLC price (and not Premium price hehe [:D])

If development is projected to take 7+ years as the devs said, they may as well do nothing at all. And I'd rather have something than nothing

ORIGINAL: c3k
Very well said.

Let me Pre-Plan the strike before launching the package. The ability to create ingress/egress routes for multiple flights; to have timing triangles built in; to have designated launch points with Time to Impact information; to have pop-up windows which will help guide me as to the best altitude and airspeed to launch the weapon against THAT target; to see how much fuel is required at each point to follow the route and RTB; to see if that is a shortfall in internal/external fuel; these are the details which allow for competent use of modern air assets and give a chance of success.

The crux is the ability to pause the game and pre-plane a coordinated strike.

Thanks

For version 1.0 of the AMP I'm thinking this:

OK: Let me Pre-Plan the strike before launching the package.
OK: The ability to create ingress/egress routes for multiple flights;
OK: to have designated launch points with Time to Impact information;
OK: to see how much fuel is required at each point to follow the route and RTB;
OK: to see if that is a shortfall in internal/external fuel;

Sounds too complex for v1.0, what would it look like in-game: to have pop-up windows which will help guide me as to the best altitude and airspeed to launch the weapon against THAT target;

What do you mean by "To have timing triangles built in;"?

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero


Something that may make life easier is the use of templates, defining statuses and/or actions at a waypoint. A template could define altitude, speed, EMCON, etc. These could be used to easily set the status of multiple flights arriving at a waypoint, instead of having to manage each one separately. For example, 3 flights could be set to TemplateX at WP5, while a 4th flight may have TemplateY at WP5.

A template could also include "time at", to help with coordination and sequencing, though there'd clearly need to be clever code under the hood to realistically make use of that.

An excel-like editor could create a template, and it could be cloned to create an (initially) identical one. Such a cloned template would allow small variations to be edited in, e.g. TemplateX and TemplateY differ only by altitude or TimeAt.

Another use of cloning would be to define subsequent waypoint states, e.g. TemplateA at WP6, and a modified TemplateB at WP7.

As well as defining states at a WP, it could also include actions such as commencing a sub-mission. For example, a tanker may commence serving local receivers, or a fighter may commence a BARCAP. A mud mover may commence its strike sub-mission. Clearly these sub-missions would need to created beforehand (include a create button in the AMP?) - the AMP & templates would coordinate their use.

In the AMP, any particular flight could have a sequence of "template instances", e.g. launch -> WP1:TemplateW -> WP2:TemplateX(refuel) -> WP3:TemplateY(Strike) -> WP2:TemplateZ -> Land.

Other flights could be coordinated to use some of the same waypoints for different purposes, such a a tanker having WP2:TemplateA(serve fuel), with TemplateX and TemplateA having the same TimeAt.

Such sub-missions would need an "exit mission" ability so as to return to the coordinating sequence; they'd otherwise be pretty similar to the existing missions.

Hmmm this is actually not a bad idea. But doubt we get time to add it for v1.0.

Another thing that could be useful (although I don't know how technically feasible it is, and it certainly will not be for v1.0) would be the ability to export and import flight plans. Perhaps in a Excel-readable format? That way, your large strikes could be exported, edited in excel, and imported into the same scenario or even a different scenario.

ORIGINAL: Grazyn

If development is projected to take 7+ years as the devs said, they may as well do nothing at all. And I'd rather have something than nothing

Which is why we need to split the project into manageable pieces. First up is basic flight planning in AMP v1.0. Then add targeteering, weaponeering, tanker stuff, etc, etc, in v2.0, v3.0, v4.0.

ORIGINAL: emsoy
Which is why we need to split the project into manageable pieces. First up is basic flight planning in AMP v1.0. Then add targeteering, weaponeering, tanker stuff, etc, etc, in v2.0, v3.0, v4.0.

A few ideas that might help:


1) Missions could be divided into mission segments, each consisting of a number of waypoints & legs. If the time at the last waypoint is known, then the aircraft speed can be used to calculate times at all earlier waypoints.

Say a flight is to take off off at A, then fly to waypoints B, C and D. It is required to be at D at a given time. The times at all earlier waypoints can be established by back-propagation, hence takeoff time is established. If D is the target, ToT is simply the time at D.


2) Mission segments could be chained, so that a new segment can commence from an earlier segment. Back-propagation of times works backwards along the chain.

Example 1:
Flight F1 flies segment ABCD, arriving at D at a given time. Here D is not the target, just a useful action point e.g. a split. Flight F1 splits into F2 & F3. F2 now flies chained segment DEFG, while F3 flies segment DXYG. G is the target. As ToT (time at G) is defined, then the required times at earlier waypoints can be established by back-propagation, including the split and takeoff times.

The bizlogic handling ABCD is the same as that handling DEFG, so adding segments can simplify multi-path missions with desired ToTs and other action points.

Example 2:
Similarly a cruise missile could be launched at D, following its own path DEFG as a chained segment. This would treat WToT the same way as as aircraft arriving at a timed waypoint. Possibly other weapons could be handled in a related way, with WToT propagating back all the way to takeoff.


3) This is all complicated by the fact that the target and carrier may be moving. Essentially the first and last legs are variable. The good news is that these will have exact solutions (assuming predictable movement), though as my linear algebra is very rusty, I'll not provide any here just now

Hi there,

Long time lurker here. Firstly thanks to the devs for this great simulation. I have spent countless hours playing the game and trying to design scenarios (that end up too complicated and binned). I am far from expert in this game or military affairs in general but I think the ASP would greatly unlock the potential of this game and make it much more easier for casual (by that I mean people who do not want to spend 3 hours in front of an excel sheet before playing a scenario) to make the most out of the amazing possibilities that this game offers.

Firstly I think that the biggest benefit of the ASP would be to the scenario designer. Just imagine how more enjoyable and challenging to play would be scenarios that the "computer" side launches coordinated attacks that follow land features. As far as I am aware (correct me if I am wrong) specific waypoints cannot be assigned to a mission. Additionally, I agree with others that a military grade ASP that will take 7 years to develop would be a drag on resources and actually will be used in vey few occasions.

I believe that most of the features of an ASP that would be able to do what the vast majority of scenario designers and players want are already there!

I think the easiest way to explain my point is by a simple scenario. Lets say I want to attack and shut down a red airbase. I know the AB is defended by an S300 and I suspect that there are also 1-2 short range SAMs and a couple of AAA guns. I have at my disposal few cruise missiles, a flight with ARMs, a flight with laser-guided bombs, a flight with cluster bombs and a flight with anti-runaway ammunition. I want to shoot the tomahawks at the base and have my ARM flight in range to shoot at any SAMs that lights up when the cruise missiles enter the S300 maximum range. Simultaneously I want my flights with short-range ammo to enter the S300 engagement range and dash towards the AB whilst the SAMs are occupied with the cruise missiles and ARMs. Additionally, there are mountains that can cover part of the approach of my planes whilst within the S300 range.

For each of these flights I need to create separate missions. As it stands now the mission planer generates a straight route following the mission profile. But how about if in the ASP (and actually this could be useful for any mission) we can design each flights route adding waypoints similarly to what we do with cruise missiles. These waypoints need to be editable for speed, altitude and EMCON, as we currently can do (but now prior to launch) and also an extra option WAIT FOR (h:min:sec) needs to be added. An estimated time of arrival to each WP could be added but it is not entirely necessary as you will see below. I think this so far does not require a lot of extra coding and can be incorporated in the current mission planner (correct me if I am wrong).

So what happens if the player chooses the Advanced Strike Planner option. Then a new window with the game in simulation mode starts. In that new window all the ground and naval assets (subs, SAGs, radars, SAMs, airbases) and landed planes with their current loadout of the player are added. Also all the known ground assets of the enemy are added. E.g the AB, the S300 I have identified, any radars I am aware of etc. Also this needs to have some editor functions so enemy units can be added. Eg I suspect a TOR-M1 and a couple of AAA guns are also present at the AB but I have not positively identified them. Using the editor function I can add them. Then I can select to add (copy-paste?) relevant missions for the strike I am planning from the main game. E.g. The strike mission of the sub with my cruise missiles, the SEAD patrol, the approach of the flight with the cluster bombs and anti-runaway ammo etc. Then I unpause" the game and see what happens. Opps my cruise missiles arrive 5 mins early? no problem I delay the sub's strike mission by 4-5min. These changes modify the relevant missions in the "live" version of command. Are my planes loaded with durandals arriving too early, no problem I ask them to hold for 2 extra minutes in the waypoint 100Km off the target.

In this way by playing the "simulation" version of the game I can also see if for the profile and the route I have chosen some/all of my planes reach BINGO fuel so I need to add tankers on the way in, or on the way out, or if unavailable this profile/route is not possible. I hope you get what I am trying to explain.

The enemy SAMs/AAAs can also shoot at you as in the "real" game so you can get an idea how feasible is your approach. I do not think that enemy fighters need to be included at this stage - this is simplified strike planner making sure that all the packages arrive at the correct time and that you have enough fuel.

I think in this way by using mostly existing features of the game 90% of what is needed in most situations requiring coordination is covered. My only reservation with this idea is how easy in terms of programming and/or computer resources is to exchange information between the "live" and the "simulation" instances of the game.

Please let me know what you guys think

Regards
P.

What happened with this? I note that an advanced mission planner is still mentioned as a future feature for the pro edition....

We are not at liberty to discuss this ATM.

+1 on this question

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100
+1 on this question

Well, if it's not up for discussion at the moment, there'll be a reason for that. Which we retail gamers might hear about some day.

The Advanced Mission Planner would be a TREMENDOUS addition to the simulation.

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

We are not at liberty to discuss this ATM.

I have to agree with the post by tango4 above, an advanced strike planner is really necessary for this game. Whenever I try to schedule an airstrike, I feel like I'm fighting the game. It is incredibly frustrating having an idea in my mind and knowing that it is time prohibitive to execute it in game.

It basically makes playing larger scenarios impossible with limited playtime. Even scenarios - like the Korean Missile Crisis - where the strike scheduling is relatively straightforward. So my experience with the game has to be limited to scenarios with a few active aircraft at a time and limited air defense activity.

An advanced strike planner is a necessary to really explore Cold War / modern warfare. Otherwise, air warfare feels like you have to fight the game (instead of fighting the scenario) to get what you want.

ORIGINAL: DrRansom


I have to agree with the post by tango4 above, an advanced strike planner is really necessary for this game. Whenever I try to schedule an airstrike, I feel like I'm fighting the game. It is incredibly frustrating having an idea in my mind and knowing that it is time prohibitive to execute it in game.

It basically makes playing larger scenarios impossible with limited playtime. Even scenarios - like the Korean Missile Crisis - where the strike scheduling is relatively straightforward. So my experience with the game has to be limited to scenarios with a few active aircraft at a time and limited air defense activity.

An advanced strike planner is a necessary to really explore Cold War / modern warfare. Otherwise, air warfare feels like you have to fight the game (instead of fighting the scenario) to get what you want.

This.

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

We are not at liberty to discuss this ATM.

I have to agree with the post by tango4 above, an advanced strike planner is really necessary for this game. Whenever I try to schedule an airstrike, I feel like I'm fighting the game. It is incredibly frustrating having an idea in my mind and knowing that it is time prohibitive to execute it in game.

It basically makes playing larger scenarios impossible with limited playtime. Even scenarios - like the Korean Missile Crisis - where the strike scheduling is relatively straightforward. So my experience with the game has to be limited to scenarios with a few active aircraft at a time and limited air defense activity.

An advanced strike planner is a necessary to really explore Cold War / modern warfare. Otherwise, air warfare feels like you have to fight the game (instead of fighting the scenario) to get what you want.

Absolutely not. I play scenarios all over the place where an AMP wouldn't even come into use. On some scenarios, an AMP might help. If enjoyment of this game is based on there being an AMP, you might be playing the wrong game or not playing this one the right way.

deleted

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Absolutely not. I play scenarios all over the place where an AMP wouldn't even come into use. On some scenarios, an AMP might help. If enjoyment of this game is based on there being an AMP, you might be playing the wrong game or not playing this one the right way.

It's very true an AMP is not needed at present - all the scenarios have been designed without one. Doubtless quite a few, though, particularly the larger ones, would surely benefit.

If an AMP were to appear, then there would undoubtedly be a stream of new scenarios/campaigns designed around its existence. It would be an extra tool in the game toolbox that's useful for many situations, though by no means a requirement for all.

However as Dimitris stated it's not up for discussion at the moment, I think we should respect that.

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

An advanced strike planner is a necessary to really explore Cold War / modern warfare. Otherwise, air warfare feels like you have to fight the game (instead of fighting the scenario) to get what you want.

Not exactly necessary, but would of course be very nice to have

"......but would of course be very nice to have."

Yes, it would be nice to have, wouldn't it?

There is poll with AMP features on forum. Getting votes probably best way to get.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4709794