Matrix Games Forums

i think hitorical scenarios where the quality/skill would be well documented would allow for scenarios to be designed with some differences set in - this is all so much easier in wargames where skill is just abstracted into a 1 or 2 digit factor. In command though so much is not abstracted

I think what is better is not to get into trying to work out how competent the operators are specifically but rather look at what are the command limitations of a particular army. I am not an expert on Desert Storm but i remember reading some us tank platoon accounts of them attacking iraqi tanks without gettig much response from the iraqis at all - i am sure the iraqis knew how to operate their tanks but were there failures with their communication and command aspects?

it is always to the detriment of a force if its individual parts do not operate in coordination with each other - it is quite possible to model this in CMANO at the present i think. - creating multiple sides to reflect different components of the AI or even on your own side.

but to add this perhaps in futre as mentioned above the options to have ai units with things like maybe a slower time at correctly identifying the opponent and less effective evasion maneuvers -

I would argue that a wargame/military simulation game may or may not take into account soft factors, depending on what the game is trying to accomplish. In a tactical/ strategy trainer or evaluation, you are absolutely correct. The idea is to check strategy, concepts or TTPs, so soft factors are removed. However, for sandbox play, you may want them in. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish with the game. I would argue that CMANO has the potential to be an engine to meet both objectives-hence it (IMHO), should include a slider to allow the player/scenario designer to make the determination, based on what their goals are.

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

This is accurate. For military simulations or games used in training, "soft factors" are usually not input. I would not be opposed to it being some type of option, but in general it is best to assume your enemy is as good as you are, so that it comes...not necessarily to how good the machines are, it is still "men above machines" but YOU, as the player, are the "men" in this analogy. It is your tactics that determine the outcome, not "Hey, I am the American, so I can magically load out faster because the game says my guys are better" lol.

I would agree with this IF we were talking about a vehicle or systems simulator (eg, the DCS flight sims, Dangerous Waters, etc) where you can apply your skill to affect the outcome. In this case your knowledge, skills and abilities have no bearing on kill rates or system up time, not can your superior "planning staff" influence the OODA loop built into the game.

JD

The military sims I referred to are tactical sims, not vehicle simulators. Most military training specs specifically do not want these soft factors, because they want to test you the player, and your choices, not seeing someone easily win just because of the "side" they are playing. So the onus is then on the player who is expected to make the correct tactical choices, assuming that both sides are equal except of course the equipment, and the one learning (the player). And you yourself as the player can(and should) influence the OODA loop.... probably moreso, in head-to-head, but even against the AI.

I think we are on the same page, but cannot be sure haha.[:D]
The OODA loop, (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) should be, in this game, you as the player... each step. You observe the enemy, orient your forces to face them (or, more precisely, orient your forces to achieve your objective) decide how you will act, and act. Each of these steps, you as the player control, so I guess I am not seeing how you mean, you have no control over it. But you are right in that you do not have control over the levels several organizational layers below you, yes, you cannot control how fast the aviation ordnance men load your aircraft... and something like this may not be a bad idea to input actually, but even without it, someone in the position you are playing, would also not have any control over that. The decisions in this game seem to occur on an operational level, or, sometimes on a "grand tactical" level, both of which challenge the player to win by using the OODA loop mentioned. At that level, it is less important in the end, if the Chinese load their torpedo tubes 2 seconds slower than an American crew (and this is also very much dependent on opinion-another reason to be careful) and more important that the commander (you) follows sound ASW tactics in assuming that yes, that PLAN crew is as good as you are (always something a smart commander should assume) so it comes down to the chess game, and who will blink first.
Chess, by the way, the oldest and best example of a operational level game where the pieces are equal, so it comes down to the players.
That said though, I actually am in favor of it being an option, just trying to point out that it probably is not a "mistake" that it is not in there right now.

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

I'm sorry... I know you've said this twice already but I guess I'm just not understanding. Or we're talking past each other without really listening or something.

For instance, the OODA loop I mentioned is built into the game. The player has no influence or control over it, nor is there any variation based on parameters that might reflect training or experience levels, just being smarter than the other guy, or anything like that. As far as I can see, the game has taken that out of our hands entirely, and we're reduced to comparing factors like thrust and wing loading to determine who wins or loses a dogfight.

I know this is what Harpoon gave us, but I was (and still am) hoping for more... maybe something like WitP with it's qualitative factors (pilot training, damage control, night combat, etc). Of course I realize there's a big difference between 4 or 5 years vs 70+ years, and two possible sides vs hundreds of different sides... and maybe I don't have a good answer for that. But that doesn't mean there isn't one.

JD

ORIGINAL: CV60
I would argue that a wargame/military simulation game may or may not take into account soft factors, depending on what the game is trying to accomplish. In a tactical/ strategy trainer or evaluation, you are absolutely correct. The idea is to check strategy, concepts or TTPs, so soft factors are removed. However, for sandbox play, you may want them in. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish with the game. I would argue that CMANO has the potential to be an engine to meet both objectives-hence it (IMHO), should include a slider to allow the player/scenario designer to make the determination, based on what their goals are.

Check B455 once it's out.

Great! Looking forward to it!

I'm on the growing band wagon for an option when picking the scenario to be played that the quality of the forces on both sides can be adjusted. This would address training and leave the what ifs a wide variety of options for each scenario.

I think I may see the problem. [:)]

Are you aware that the OODA stuff is actually built into CMANO? If you watch closely, you can actually see that there are command and/or command execution delays hard wired into the game to represent OODA. I think they are actually identified as such somewhere in game... I can't remember where.

The player has no control over it. The game basically decides that whatever it is you want your forces to do, they simply can't do it NOW, but must wait for the "OODA timer" to expire.

Don't get me wrong... I don't think this is a bad thing. I just think it might be better if it were variable, based on something that makes sense.

Let me just throw one more thing out there to illustrate why I think this "force quality" thing is so important. This is something that really sticks in my mind when I look at two opposing forces in a comparative sort of way.

The USAF in Korea during the early 50s racked up a pretty lopsided kill rate in F-86 v MiG-15 combat. The numbers were relatively even and, by most accounts, the MiG was a marginally superior airplane - more or less depending on who you talk to... but the edge, slight though it might be, goes to the MiG. So how is this possible?

The explanation is pilot experience. This, specifically, is what Yeager was talking about when he said it's the man not the machine.

The kill ratios over that period actually varied greatly during those 3 years. If you plot the performance of the Sabre drivers against the nationality of the pilots flying the MiG, you can see a clear correlation (IMO). The Russian "advisors" sent in there with the first batch of MiGs fared very well... a draw by all credible accounts that I've seen. The Chinese, NK and later Russian pilots?... not so much. This is where the lopsided results come from.

So what caused this?

The US pilots/flight leaders were mostly highly trained WWII veterans with combat experience.

The Russian "advisor" pilots/flight leaders accompanying the first batch of MiGs were mostly highly trained WWII veterans with combat experience.

The Chinese, NK and later Russian pilots/flight leaders were (relatively) poorly trained and had no prior combat experience.

Fast forward to the late 60s. The US is flying combat over Vietnam. Most of the combat experienced pilots are retired, and the few that are left are in senior command or staff positions. There are many contributing ROE type factors in play here, but the results are predictable. That the services instituted programs like the Fighter Weapons Schools operated by the USN TOPGUN) and USAF is pretty clear evidence that they recognized the root cause.

So how effective are these training programs? According to Wiki...

During the halt in the bombing campaign against North Vietnam (in force from 1968 until the early 1970s), TOPGUN established itself as a center of excellence in fighter doctrine, tactics and training. By the time aerial activity over the North resumed, most Navy squadrons had a TOPGUN graduate. According to the USN, the results were dramatic. The Navy kill-to-loss ratio against the North Vietnamese Air Force (NVAF) MiGs soared from 3.7:1 (1965–1967) to 13:1 (after 1970), while the Air Force, which had not implemented a similar training program, actually had its kill ratio worsen for a time after the resumption of bombing, according to Benjamin Lambeth's The Transformation of American Airpower.

This is what convinced me that any wargame... and I stress wargame, as opposed to the type of military simulator that might be used for "war college" type training (which, BTW, would probably use live referees and have no AI)... needs to account for the human factor, some how, some way.

If you build this Korean air war scenario in CMANO however, my guess is you'll come out with something closer to the 1:1 result (draw) across the board, or possibly a result that favors the MiG, regardless of who is assumed to be manning the MiG cockpits. That's just not realistic, IMHO.

Although some of the suggestions I've seen up-thread resemble more of a "difficulty setting" type thing, I think they would serve the purpose in a very basic way if no other practical means to address this could be found.

JD

The lack of the human factor in game stops me from buying.

Here is my 2 cents worth. the human factor would be near impossible to incorporate into such a game. The reason I say this is that being former military I saw on a first hand basis how the human factor effects things, for example everyone is talking about level of training and experience, I bring to mind the movie Hunt for red October, who was in the sonar shack when the really important stuff was happening? The most experienced man of course. What captain would say "hey there is incoming, maybe you should take a coffee break and let this new guys just off the beach run the radar and see if he knows how it works". Yes you can maybe incorporate some type of National level of human factor but this game is scaled to individual units, so that means in an air wing with say 12 pilots each pilot would need a separate level of training, or on a ship if there are 2 gun mounts each gun crew would have different levels. I would agree there could be some way for "big picture" levels to be added but would still only be a weak attempt at the human factor.

There is another aspect and that is fatigue. Like munitions which run out during the course of the scenarios, so does human stamina.

A decay of response and ready times during the course of a scenario could be emulated by a simple percentage applied to the detection, combat, maintenance and ready time values for various platform assets. Currently this percentage is 100% across the board, lets call it the Effectiveness Percentage (EF). Emulation might follow something along the lines of:

For aircraft, each hour aloft reduces EF by x%, perhaps each minute (or part thereof) of combat (attack/defense) reduces EF by y% - thus more passive roles - tanker/AWACS etc... would be less affected.
For aircraft, each hour spent not active increases EF by z% to a maximum of 100%

Ships/Subs are a bit harder and have more of a "buffer" with larger crews to spread the pain around, but like aircraft could be affected by combat (attack/defense) or perhaps even hostile/unknown contacts reducing their EF, while quiet sailing would restore EF.

This would add an interesting dimension to the simulation and could be also used as a readiness factor to emulate different countries readiness, crewing policies, crew facilities (faster or slower recovery rates), long scenario fatigue management as well as allowing scenario designers to set scenario fatigue (start EF, max EF, loss and recovery rates) if they wish to simulate a "mid war" battle.

There are sophisticated fatigue models out there, but as a start a simple "fatigue" engine that adds a one line factor (EF) to a platform's combat die roll, or the rearm/recovery/maintenance rate may be a start. The fatigue "engine" can then be further developed if desired. Note too that this does not affect the db, although from a scenario perspective it would be nice to be able to apply specific fatigue parameters to a platform type...much like weapons can be added.

Just some further food for thought.

I like this idea. Particularly for the longer scenarios one might envision as an alternative to a formal linked mission "campaign" system.

JD

Fatigue should be implemented. I got a cap flying round the clock and has done several trips to the tanker already. I think he's terribly bored.

I had NOT been aware of this... if so, it is actually a very cool thing, but you are correct then, if it is in there, playing a part already, there probably should be something about it that varies. There would not be any reason to even have an "OODA Loop" if it was all the same, anyway. The entire term is actually meant as a way to define the differences that were noted by Col. Boyd in many of the air-to-air stats you mention. So, yes, if it is already "in game" so to speak, you have just sold me on the necessity of providing some variables to affect it.

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

I think I may see the problem. [:)]

Are you aware that the OODA stuff is actually built into CMANO? If you watch closely, you can actually see that there are command and/or command execution delays hard wired into the game to represent OODA. I think they are actually identified as such somewhere in game... I can't remember where.

The player has no control over it. The game basically decides that whatever it is you want your forces to do, they simply can't do it NOW, but must wait for the "OODA timer" to expire.

.....JD

ORIGINAL: wodin

The lack of the human factor in game stops me from buying.

Its comming in the next patch. [:D]

Cant wait!

Putting the "human factor" into a game could be very challenging from a game design point of view. This type of stuff is really hard to quantify. Everyone knows that training and experience make a HUGE difference in effectiveness, but how do you put that into a detailed tactical level game? A strategic level game is pretty easy because you can just up the attack factor of a unit or something similar. It will be interesting to see how this is implemented, if it's implemented.

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

Putting the "human factor" into a game could be very challenging from a game design point of view. This type of stuff is really hard to quantify. Everyone knows that training and experience make a HUGE difference in effectiveness, but how do you put that into a detailed tactical level game? A strategic level game is pretty easy because you can just up the attack factor of a unit or something similar. It will be interesting to see how this is implemented, if it's implemented.

Difficult yes ..... But not even trying to address it isn't the answer either. Give it your best shot and take your beatings as you go ..... [;)]

ORIGINAL: scout1
Difficult yes ..... But not even trying to address it isn't the answer either. Give it your best shot and take your beatings as you go ..... [;)]

I understand what you're saying. I'm just wondering if it's practical to implement correctly (Is there a correctly?). I can think of dozens of "factors" that would make an experienced pilot "better" than a novice or poorly trained pilot, but none of them will actually change the characteristics of his AC. Just off the top of my head: quicker lockons, better ability to dodge incoming fire and missiles, ability to out manuever his opponents even in an inferior performing AC, quicker recognition of enemy AC in both radar and visual environments, better fuel management, ability to deal with damaged AC, better teamwork, etc.... And that's only one platform!

Guys, allow me to say it again.

It's in. Beginning from Build 455. (Check the build roll thread).

And first application is aircraft turn rates and missile evasion, with lots more applications of it to follow.