Matrix Games Forums

Just out or curiosity are the proficiency levels set in the scenario making the Israeli's to be significantly better?If not this could be a way to get the result you would like.

Mike

Although it could have something to do with leadeship as well[:'(]

ORIGINAL: ryszardsh

Related note:

I do not have the nice data set prints as above, but I notice much the same sort of issue. E.G., play the Battle of the First Salvo scenario - and just watch the Syria/Israel air combat. Historically, in that time frame, the Israeli side routinely wipes up the Syrian Air Force - but in the simulation the Israelis lose several Eagles every time I run the scenario. Just struck me the last time I ran it that the on screen results should at least be near the ball park of real results.

RAS

The Israeli Bekaa Valley victory was achieved by thorough preparation, the Syrians playing right into their hands by just sending up fighters without any real purpose, and the Israelis doing repeated swoop-and-run attacks with extremely great skill and coordination.

To get anything like a similar result in Command you'd have to micro the Israelis extensively, and the computer ally doesn't do that.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Just out or curiosity are the proficiency levels set in the scenario making the Israeli's to be significantly better?If not this could be a way to get the result you would like.

Mike

Although it could have something to do with leadeship as well[:'(]

just checked to make sure, Israel set at veteran, Syria set at novice...and as to leadership, that was the AI running both Syria & Israel

Bummer. Well if you want us to do anything about it grab a log or something we can use to figure out what the issue is.

Mike

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Its good that people report issues but sometimes the way they report isn't so hot.

"It Broke" "Game Sucks"

And for anyone wondering what's wrong with that, try telling your doctor "I hurt, and it's your fault", without any further elaboration, and observing his reaction.

Our hope is that they realize we do respond and will make changes if needed.

Mike

The OP is becoming conspicuous, and suspect, with his absence.

ORIGINAL: ryszardsh
I do not have the nice data set prints as above,

Yes you do. It's the message log at the left side of your map. Learn to love it, and it will answer all (or most of) your questions.

but I notice much the same sort of issue. E.G., play the Battle of the First Salvo scenario - and just watch the Syria/Israel air combat. Historically, in that time frame, the Israeli side routinely wipes up the Syrian Air Force - but in the simulation the Israelis lose several Eagles every time I run the scenario. Just struck me the last time I ran it that the on screen results should at least be near the ball park of real results.

...and right there lies one of the biggest pitfalls for generic (ie. not battle/theater-focused) wargame/simulation engines: Over-specializing in order to closely match a specific historical result, at the expense of everything else.

Let's take another similar example to make the peril more obvious. Say we're developing a tactical land combat engine (think Steel Panthers), and our first litmus test is 73 Easting. We do some trial runs, and although US/UK forces trounce the Iraqi units as in RL, allied losses are usually higher than the minimal ones historically attained. This does not please our target audience (mil/gov or consumers, depending on the game) so we go back and endlessly tweak both data and algorithms until the game consistently recreates the absolute wipe-out of the real battle. Great job! Or we think so.

Now we take that engine and data and go to our next test, a WW3-CentFront scenario. We run it and NATO forces effortlessly shrug off massive Soviet attacks. Oops.

What happened? We overspecialized for 73 Easting's kill scores.

A simulation does not need to consistently recreate (in terms of bean-counting) a specific historical outcome in order to be realistic. The outcome must certainly be one of the possible results (otherwise you have a real problem) but the true litmus test is whether the game results are often close to the historical outcome. If Iraqi forces are rolling all over allied armor in 73 Easting then definitely something is wrong. If allied forces are dominating but taking losses here and there, it is probably realistic enough.

Let's say you're simulating the first night of Desert Storm. If the game flows pretty much like the historical route, the bulk of the Iraqi IADS should be neutralized; that right there is your authenticity criterion. If a few F-117s are lost does this mean there is a problem in the sim? It is possible (and you have to check the logs to determine that), but a more likely explanation is that the RL Nighthawk crews were simply very lucky. (Many F-117 pilots have openly stated exactly that, and the campaign planners in fact expected several losses). Can you tweak the models & data so that no F-117 ever gets lost? Sure. But then you'll probably never be able to recreate the Kosovo shootdown (and the second one that limped back to Aviano and was written off after crash-landing). Overspecializing again.

(As an aside, this is one of the reasons many wargame/sim designers prefer their releases to focus on a single battle or theater at a time. If all you have to worry about is 73 Easting or Medinah Ridge or Desert Storm in general, you're free to massage your models and data to consistently recreate historical outcomes. Fulda Gap? Simply re-tweak the engine for that on the next release.)

So, back to Bekaa. Like 73 Easting this is an unusual mismatch that tempts you to tweak your engine to closely match it, but we've seen the dangers of doing that. Let's break down the factors that enabled the IAF to dominate these engagements:

* Strong sensors jamming, particularly standoff radar jamming. Command supports this already.

* Very strong comms jamming, which effectively forced Syrian aircraft to rely almost exclusively on their own (usually inadequate) sensors instead of sharing a common tactical picture with the Syrian IADS. You can _sort of_ simulate this in Command right now by not having the big Syrian EW/GCI radars present (the end-user effect of not receiving cues from your IADS is the same one as the IADS not being there in the first place) but you still have the limitation of Syrian fighters freely communicating among themselves. We plan to model comms jamming better in the future.

* Sub-optimal placement of Syrian IADS elements (see here for elaboration: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Effectiveness.html). You can do this in Command already.

* Vast differences in pilot proficiency. Command supports this, but still allows a rookie pilot to pull the same tactical and evasive maneuvers as an ace (albeit with reduced evasion benefit). This is crucial, because in Bekaa many Syrian aircraft were attacked and destroyed while literally flying straight and level. Now, could we modify the code so that "advanced" evasion techniques are available only to highly proficient crews? We could, and fairly easily so, but this would then create a very strong incentive for a player handling the Syrian side to micromanage (e.g. "my pilots are not beaming by themselves so I'll do it manually for them"). This runs contrary to one of our chief design tenets of Command: the player should not have to micromanage to win. So it's a bind.

* Substantial differences in pilot visibility. This doesn't matter much if a fighter has good onboard sensors and solid communication with the IADS, but when (a)your sensors are crap and/or jammed, (b)you are cut off from anyone else on your side because your comms are solid static and (c)your limited side- or rear- visibility prevents you from seeing the IAF fighter coming up on you under his own perfectly working IADS guidance, you end up exactly in the situation of being attacked and killed while flying straight and level. (As Coiler correctly pointed out, most IAF kills were the result of surprise slashing hit-and-run atacks, not artful dogfights). Command currently assumes a JSF-like 360-deg visibility for all aircraft and it is definitely something we want to improve (our DB master cries for mercy).

* Superior hardware and weapons (particularly AIM-9L vs AA-2). Nothing much to say about this, Command of course already models this.

* Superior grand-tactical/operational management of air assets. This is pretty much what Command expects of you, as the player, to achieve. Manouvering your aircraft to get in optimal engagement positions while preventing the enemy from doing the same, selecting the most suitable weapons for the task, reacting on-the-fly to changes in the tactical situation etc. The AI does a reasonable job at this (most of the time) but human intuition is still hard to beat, and AI vs AI clashes cannot reproduce the imbalance of skill that characterized Bekaa.

So, as you can see there is a whole range of factors that have to be taken into account when considering mismatches like Bekaa, and very few of them have to do with the weapon endgame interactions that the OP was inquiring about.

"
* Vast differences in pilot proficiency. Command supports this, but still allows a rookie pilot to pull the same tactical and evasive maneuvers as an ace (albeit with reduced evasion benefit). This is crucial, because in Bekaa many Syrian aircraft were attacked and destroyed while literally flying straight and level. Now, could we modify the code so that "advanced" evasion techniques are available only to highly proficient crews? We could, and fairly easily so, but this would then create a very strong incentive for a player handling the Syrian side to micromanage (e.g. "my pilots are not beaming by themselves so I'll do it manually for them"). This runs contrary to one of our chief design tenets of Command: the player should not have to micromanage to win. So it's a bind. "

So when I look at the log, or watch the display its hard to tell what evasive act my pilot is taking. Are they Beaming(I'm not even to sure what this is) or are they trying a split S(not really sure what this is either, but I'm pretty sure airplanes do it?) I ask because sometimes when my planes go defensive their behavior is hard for me to understand, I think gee wiz, why aren't you turning tail, diving, and getting lost in the terrain clutter? If I turn off automatic evasion turn tail and hit the burner, what does that do to my odds?

Sometimes evasion turns into a dogfight instead of an attempt to extend... is there any way to give us options for evasive logic? Is there a way to command evasive actions instead of always changing the ROE?

1. I would agree that chaff effectiveness is too high, slightly situation dependent but for example the following situation was 6 Flanker Bravos approaching a 2014 F-15C. Each target got a single AIM-120D. The Flankers were non maneuvering and kept flying straight at the missiles

Now in the log you see this:

8:03:49 - F-15C Eagle is dropping BOGEY #7 from its target list (Reason: The target is not auto-targeted, and no outstanding weapons or assignments against it exist).
8:03:49 - Defensive jammer (SPS-171/172 Sorbtsiya [L-005]; Tech: Early 1980s) is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker(Tech: Late 2000s)(Of: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #27). Final probability: 5%. Die Roll: 49 - FAILURE
8:03:49 - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Late 2000s)(Guiding weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #27). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 2 - SUCCESS
8:03:40 - F-15C Eagle is dropping BOGEY #6 from its target list (Reason: The target is not auto-targeted, and no outstanding weapons or assignments against it exist).
8:03:40 - Defensive jammer (SPS-171/172 Sorbtsiya [L-005]; Tech: Early 1980s) is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker(Tech: Late 2000s)(Of: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #26). Final probability: 5%. Die Roll: 18 - FAILURE
8:03:40 - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Late 2000s)(Guiding weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #26). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 16 - SUCCESS
8:03:33 - F-15C Eagle is dropping BOGEY #5 from its target list (Reason: The target is not auto-targeted, and no outstanding weapons or assignments against it exist).
8:03:33 - Weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #25 is attacking Su-27SM Flanker B with a base PH of 95%. PH adjusted for distance: 92%. Su-27SM Flanker B is maneuvering with agility: 3.6 (Nominal: 4.5 - Proficiency: Regular)(-36%). Final PH: 56%. Die Roll: 58 - MISS
8:03:33 - Defensive jammer (SPS-171/172 Sorbtsiya [L-005]; Tech: Early 1980s) is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker(Tech: Late 2000s)(Of: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #25). Final probability: 5%. Die Roll: 24 - FAILURE
8:03:33 - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Late 2000s)(Guiding weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #25). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 38 - FAILURE
8:03:30 - Weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #24 is attacking Su-27SM Flanker B with a base PH of 95%. PH adjusted for distance: 90%. Su-27SM Flanker B is maneuvering with agility: 3.6 (Nominal: 4.5 - Proficiency: Regular)(-36%). Final PH: 54%. Die Roll: 51 - HIT
8:03:30 - Defensive jammer (SPS-171/172 Sorbtsiya [L-005]; Tech: Early 1980s) is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker(Tech: Late 2000s)(Of: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #24). Final probability: 5%. Die Roll: 98 - FAILURE
8:03:30 - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Late 2000s)(Guiding weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #24). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 42 - FAILURE
8:03:27 - Weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #23 is attacking Su-27SM Flanker B with a base PH of 95%. PH adjusted for distance: 88%. Su-27SM Flanker B is maneuvering with agility: 3.6 (Nominal: 4.5 - Proficiency: Regular)(-36%). Final PH: 52%. Die Roll: 21 - HIT
8:03:27 - Defensive jammer (SPS-171/172 Sorbtsiya [L-005]; Tech: Early 1980s) is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker(Tech: Late 2000s)(Of: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #23). Final probability: 5%. Die Roll: 64 - FAILURE
8:03:27 - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Late 2000s)(Guiding weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #23). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 91 - FAILURE
8:03:23 - Weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #22 is attacking Su-27SM Flanker B with a base PH of 95%. PH adjusted for distance: 87%. Su-27SM Flanker B is maneuvering with agility: 3.6 (Nominal: 4.5 - Proficiency: Regular)(-36%). Final PH: 51%. Die Roll: 21 - HIT
8:03:23 - Defensive jammer (SPS-171/172 Sorbtsiya [L-005]; Tech: Early 1980s) is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker(Tech: Late 2000s)(Of: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #22). Final probability: 5%. Die Roll: 93 - FAILURE
8:03:23 - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Late 2000s)(Guiding weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #22). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 53 - FAILURE


The chaff has a 20% chance and the jammer only 5%. It's an old jammer but I would still expect the jammer to have a slightly better chance than chaff. Especially because the AMRAAM and the F-15 have doppler radars which really don't care very much about chaff in a head on situation. Of course this is one of those things where it's one specific situation so it's hard to model everything, I understand that.

But I agree that 20% in this case, is high for chaff. And in many other cases too I think the chaff effectiveness is on the high side.

2. DECM effectiveness I think is on the correct side. In some cases I think it might be too low. Again there is an extremely wide range of combos but I think this is more in the ballpark than chaff right now

3. Agreed. Also maybe also loadouts, at least jammer wise, if I take a 2013/14 SU-35S or SU27SM it gets a 1980s SPS-171/172 Sorbtsiya [L-005]; Tech: Early 1980s) jammer? I would expect these guys to have something more modern, maybe DRFM capable ? Of course if there is no data it's tough.


Lastly, I think two other contributing factors are:
- still agility effect on missile PH. I know it can be adjusted with proficiency, but that also affects things like OODA loop correct? Also the big thing is it does not take aspect, airspeed or loadout into effect.
A heavily laden F-16 should have a worse evasion than a clean one, and after one evasion the airspeed should be bled down and it should have a reduced effect against a second missile that is quickly following up

- also there is the evasion logic. The AI always seems to want to go to the notch, which is not always the smart thing to do. At long range a drag maneuver might be way more efficient, which is why I always turn auto evasion off and manually control them. Also to me it does not seem like the fact that a fighter is in the notch changes the PH numbers compared to a head/tail on fighter? I may be wrong on that though.


Always room for improvement: but if there is no or little data or something is very specific (or classified), I understand it can be hard to do it Keep up the good work guys. I'm glad you're listening

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Okay think maybe we should make some adjustments.

1. Chaff effectiveness is too high
2. DECM effectiveness is probably also too high
3. Seeker gen needs to be reviewed (should probably check all of them)

I'll send some suggestions to Dimitris. Please have patience with us, we're not in sprint mode so making changes take longer than what they used to.

Thanks for your feedback guys [8D]

could explain the whole notch thing versus the drag thing?

ORIGINAL: Sunburn


... A simulation does not need to consistently recreate (in terms of bean-counting) a specific historical outcome in order to be realistic. The outcome must certainly be one of the possible results (otherwise you have a real problem) but the true litmus test is whether the game results are often close to the historical outcome. If Iraqi forces are rolling all over allied armor in 73 Easting then definitely something is wrong. If allied forces are dominating but taking losses here and there, it is probably realistic enough.

Let's say you're simulating the first night of Desert Storm. If the game flows pretty much like the historical route, the bulk of the Iraqi IADS should be neutralized; that right there is your authenticity criterion. If a few F-117s are lost does this mean there is a problem in the sim? It is possible (and you have to check the logs to determine that), but a more likely explanation is that the RL Nighthawk crews were simply very lucky. (Many F-117 pilots have openly stated exactly that, and the campaign planners in fact expected several losses). Can you tweak the models & data so that no F-117 ever gets lost? Sure. But then you'll probably never be able to recreate the Kosovo shootdown (and the second one that limped back to Aviano and was written off after crash-landing). Overspecializing again.

(As an aside, this is one of the reasons many wargame/sim designers prefer their releases to focus on a single battle or theater at a time. If all you have to worry about is 73 Easting or Medinah Ridge or Desert Storm in general, you're free to massage your models and data to consistently recreate historical outcomes. Fulda Gap? Simply re-tweak the engine for that on the next release.)

So, back to Bekaa. Like 73 Easting this is an unusual mismatch that tempts you to tweak your engine to closely match it, but we've seen the dangers of doing that. Let's break down the factors that enabled the IAF to dominate these engagements:

Quite right, and good insight as well. Essentially, you have to model things without an eye to the die roll.

Run a simulation a million times, and see if the "expected" results happen frequently enough -- then you are on the mark.

Too often, folks don't realize the great dice-god is playing games with them!

Regards,
Feltan

Sunburn, what you wrote, make sure that's the first page of the new manuals for this sim. [:)]

Explained the reasoning beautifully, and glad to hear you guys are cooking up some new logic and goodies for us.

Another chaff issue, in a Rafale vs. MiG-29 scenario:

5:40:12 PM - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: SARH Seeker (Tech: Early 1980s)(Guiding weapon: AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH] #222). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 56 - FAILURE

I remembered the percentages and put an F-22 in against the same type of target:

5:45:22 PM - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Late 2000s)(Guiding weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #226). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 82 - FAILURE

Same chance of success despite the technological difference.

That is a multivariate issue. Tech era is different and the type of missile is completely different. And I would imagine each missle might have its own number. So you have at least three variables.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

That is a multivariate issue. Tech era is different and the type of missile is completely different. And I would imagine each missle might have its own number. So you have at least three variables.

MICA EM, late 1990s, same target:

7:32:34 PM - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Late 1990s)(Guiding weapon: MICA EM #14). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 48 - FAILURE

Couldn't actually find any more advanced tech levels for purely SARH AAMs, but the others got me the same probability.

7:38:34 PM - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2000s)(Guiding weapon: V4A R-Darter [Derby] #24). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 4 - SUCCESS

7:35:06 PM - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: SARH Seeker (Tech: Early 1980s)(Guiding weapon: Super R.530D #22). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 29 - FAILURE

7:34:14 PM - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: SARH Seeker (Tech: Early 1980s)(Guiding weapon: AIM-7M Sparrow III #18). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 52 - FAILURE

7:26:17 PM - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Grave Stone [92N2E] (Tech: Early 2000s)(Guiding weapon: SA-21a Growler [48N6DM] #5). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 92 - FAILURE

7:39:29 PM - Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: NotApplicable) is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Late 2000s)(Guiding weapon: SA-21b Growler [40N6] #27). Final probability: 20%. Die Roll: 77 - FAILURE

(The last one was an SA-21b)

It looks like the point is that Chaff makes it a final hit % of 20% no matter what else is going on.

Is there any way to see what happens without chaff. I'll try that in the editor tonight.

No, the "Final probability" wording refers specifically to the chaff seduction attempt, not to the overall engagement.

I thought the sample engagement logs I initially posted, had made that clear.

So that whole line is only for the chaff, not the entire engagement...correct?

What is weird though is that chaff seems to have a 20% probability of seducing almost any air to air missile, no matter if it's an AA-10A or an AIM-120D

That was my point too.

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest

Sunburn, what you wrote, make sure that's the first page of the new manuals for this sim. [:)]

Explained the reasoning beautifully, and glad to hear you guys are cooking up some new logic and goodies for us.

Amen - explained things I had not thought through before - really should be included in manual to explain the design process/goal - whichdoes make a lot of sense...Thanx Sunburn

RAS