Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: SSN754planker

It is pretty easy already to add "aces" to a side. for example..say you want to create a libyan air force where there is one unit of aces and the other units would be of a lower proficiency.

All you have to do is create a Libya side for the regular units, and then create a side for the aces unit. then place them as you wish in the scenario editor.

The issue with this approach is that it doesn't work well for human-controlled sides (though you can do it, if the player's in the editor). It would be nice to differentiate between, say, front-line and reserve forces within the player's side.

That is interesting. You make the same sides as friendly.. Can you use the same name more then once?

I never tried using the same name twice...you don't need to. USA-1, USA-2, etc.

I don't understand why someone thinks it only works for AI. Can you explain?

I can see now. I always play in the editor. Never noticed before.

The same name thing is more about how you look to the enemy. A human player my play a scenario a few times and see a group of USA A-6 intruders and the May know, when they identify them, they are USA-4 and know they are not that good.

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

So far, we have implemented, tested and continuously improved:

* Side-wide proficiency levels: Already affecting air combat, air-ops turnaround, reaction times, damage control, contact classification/identification times and more.

* OODA values / reaction times (we finally have actual tactical surprise in a game like this!), affected by:
a) man-machine interface level,
b) Proficiency level
c) Command system integration level

* A whole doctrine settings & Rules of Engagement that reflect a unit's instructions and "ways of combat" (and also training-relevant factors such as fire discipline).

...and some folks still say Command doesn't feature the human element.

<D throws hands up in the air>

(This is not to say that more human-related factors cannot be included. They can, and we are examining what we can add and how (and how not to break existing stuff). But to say that Command currently lacks them altogether is, IMHO, unfair.)

Well, this post just convinced me to buy the game. I had been visiting time to time, and had been unable to make up my mind, because of the complaints that there was no human element. But what you just listed sounds great to me, and my last excuse not to buy is gone. So I am going to buy it now.

Great job of supporting the game,and it has got you this sale.

The don't call them that. I would imagine having multiple groups could solve some of this along with some creative names. But it seems to only work in editor.

Good to see there is some interest in utilising proficiency ratings.

My post was submitted to encourage discussion to improve the game, it was not meant to upset anyone.

When writing my post I had no idea of the extent of existing implementations in the game which take proficiency into consideration.

I know proficiency ratings are implemented into the game on a country basis.

My post outlined possible ways to expand the use of proficiency ratings to provide a more accurate game including its use with regards to equipment maintenance/breakdown.

The people who purchase and play the games generally only get an insight into the mechanics of the game after relevant post questions have been asked and answered in the forum.

I feel the items nominated in my post could benefit the games, as to if they can be programmed or are deemed as appropriate for the game that is the programers decision.

Yes we got it.

Thanks!

Mike

Is side proficiency affecting turnaround times in a dev build? Because I did a small test with a novice and ace sides with the same loadouts, and they took equal amounts of time to get ready.

Yes, you should see it on one of the forthcoming public releases.

My thoughts on this:

For me Command is a simulation of platforms vs platforms - answering what-if questions in fictional or based-on-reality scenarios.
In that case proficiency rating is really not that much interesting to me actually. It doesn't answer the question what a platform can really do.

Of course you could let a smaller sized navy fight against a badly trained and motivated US fleet or something, but then to me the question is: how realistic is this exactly?

ORIGINAL: Skyhigh
Of course you could let a smaller sized navy fight against a badly trained and motivated US fleet or something, but then to me the question is: how realistic is this exactly?

Some claim that this was roughly the situation when the Soviet Black Sea fleet stood off against the US 6th fleet in the Mediterranean during the '73 Yom Kippur conflict.

(Obviously, this depends on how much one believes that USN training & morale dipped during the 70s before the rebound of the 80s. Those who like to praise Lehman and the Maritime Strategy may argue that the Soviets were actually more competitive at the time; others claim that despite the dip the USN was still on top.)

The side proficiency as it is right now is good enough for me. The only other thing id like to see as far as the "human factor" is concerned is SAR missions for downed pilots. Like this:

When a plane gets shot down, the sim does a "die roll" to see if the pilot survived or not, and if so, marks the position on the map so the SAR mission could be implemented. Same i guess could happen for ship sinking...picking up survivors.