Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:05 pm**

The problem with an advanced strike planner would be if it lacks the flexibility one requires to make smart decisions or it constrains you to the plan it arrives at, not the plan you want. What you don't want is a piece of software that asserts, "this is how things are done in real life," because they just don't know, when the real answer is really more in the "well, it depends," department. If you don't build those dependencies into the software, then it's more of a hinderance than a help. Could it handle a complicated low altitude ingress, zig-zagging through the mountains? Could it handle pre-emptive targeting, where you fire weapons into the target area, while other things force the targets to reveal themselves? What if something gets delayed? Can I spin some of the forces so that they remain synchronized or will that mess things up? The software already makes some conservative assumptions about midair refueling which aren't necessarily correct for longer strikes, forcing you to handle them manually. Are similar assumptions going to be baked in which limit the utility of it?

I don't know.

When people say it would help, they're making a lot of assumptions. They're assuming that something which does not exist meets their needs as they imagine them. Even if it meets their needs, it doesn't necessarily mean that it meets another person's needs.

It may be that the correct solution is to use a hypothetical advanced strike planner in some cases, but not others. There may still be some situations where you want to do things differently. I don't know. I think anything like that needs to be looked at as completely experimental, and there needs to be the flexibility built in to completely disregard it if you choose.

Posted: **Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:47 pm**

There was a long thread several years ago around the AMP and when asked to define what it was, there was very little comment. It mostly stopped at ToT. I think most people's view that know CMO relatively well is it lays a base that you can modify and add to. But I think people would be very disappointed with how much planning and paper/pencil decisions would still have to be made. You are talking being able to synchronize a variety of 10,000 weapons, 10,000 platforms, multiple sides in an infinite variety of terrain, weather, etc. to come up with a solution. I think what you would end up with would be so generic as to not be much more useful than doing it manually. But much less flexible.

Would it be useful? In some limited cases, yes. But you can't depend on it for a final solution. What if the launching aircraft are delayed by an unexpected enemy recon aircraft, but you already launched SEAD or a fighter sweep. Or even worse, you already launched cruise missiles. That nice AMP-generated plan is close to useless. Think of the resources the devs will have to invest into it and combine that with the expectations already set for it. Instead, invest in the simpler tools that just help me reduce the planning load. Like flight time calculators based on some basic planning inputs. A tanker calculator. Copy and paste features for missions. Embedding missions inside missions. Event management available in runtime, not just the editor. Formation templates. Emcom templates. There are some basic features that can help in planning, but don't require building a game within the game.

Posted: **Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:51 pm**

One of the comments that came out of one of the AMP discussion threads was that a lot of micromanagers think the AMP is a solution to micromanaging. My comment is people who micromanage will still micromanage and complain that the AMP is not detailed enough. It'll create a spiraling task for the devs to continuously monkey and tweak the AMP based on players wanting more and more detailed execution to fit their personal expectation of the AMP.

Posted: **Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:18 pm**

My comment is people who micromanage will still micromanage...

Yes, I'm guilty of that. I just find that the A/I Mission Manger just doesn't do what I want the aircraft to do, Say flying NAPE in the Beqaa Valley. So many times I just set up a "support mission" or AAW/ASuW patrol mission and then deploy the aircraft as I want them to ingress to the target (at least until the go into defensive mode and fly right into the SAMs in the name of "evasion" and never attack the target)!

I do agree with the discussion that people get too literal about mission designations. BUT I also think that some missions could benefit from a separate GUI/interface that better fits those mission specifics. AEW and ECM missions come to mind, I think an ECM Mission could benefit from being a separate mission function rather than an "Escort" with ranges to initiate jamming ingress altitudes, etc. I usually set up my own 'support missions" rather than including the jammers as escorts.

Posted: **Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:37 pm**

A well designed mission planner would be a very useful tool. The ability to accurately define complex routes, and determine the related distances, times, and fuel consumptions, would be enormously helpful, particularly when coordinating the activity from multiple airbases.

Here's my attempt to coordinate multiple tanking and strike events in Gunner98's PF#6 scenario.

It's a hot steaming mess, based on Ctrl-D distances, editing in placeholder units to use as F2 and cursor tools, and attempts to calculate fuel expenditure and fuel transfer rates in different load conditions. Despite my efforts, there's a whole lot of TLAR built in, and final accuracy of the plan turned out to be modest (particularly in coordinating with cruise missile timing). It took several evenings of play just for this planning stage. A proper suite of mission planning tools would have greatly increased the speed and accuracy of the process, and let me move from planning to execution a lot more quickly.

I can see a good mission planner being particularly attractive to the professional side of the business, where the logistical and scheduling side of the military equation are crucial. It would also be very helpful for scenario authors, who need to make their AI minions appear to operate in a coordinated and intelligent fashion. (This would probably be the biggest benefit, IMO.) The current missions are very much a 'blunt instrument', and improved mission planning could do a lot to make the scenarios more interesting and engaging. Since play experience strongly depends on the scenario, this can have a positive impact on the commercial side of the business, by allowing the creation of more attractive DLC content and community scenarios. And finally, it would help the player produce workable battle plans within a reasonable time-frame, which would help increase play enjoyment.

Nobody's suggesting a good mission planner will solve every problem, or be applicable in every circumstance. Of course the enemy will try and interfere with your plans - that's axiomatic. That's when you step in as the human to take charge and adapt. I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to use a mission planner at all times. But, at the moment the absence of a good suite of mission planning tools seems like an omission. Adding an advanced mission planner would be an overall advantage to Command.

Posted: **Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:55 pm**

I think the problem is that it's a false dichotomy between "micromanaging" and not. In practice, anyone who has seen my screenshots posted sees that I make extensive use of missions. I also engage directly with platforms where necessary. A good example might be B-2 strike from Diego. In order for that to execute smoothly and not turn around at inopportune times, you need to select a bunch of different options on the platform and manage it quite directly. That approach tends to lead to the most realistic results. In fact, the platforms I tend to spend the most time "micromanaging," are the strikers. That is precisely the focus of an AMP. It makes me nervous that there might be built in assumptions that might not be true in all cases, or even most cases. If I can't spin a bomber because it's running on railroad tracks to meet a schedule that is now no longer valid because there's fighters in the target area that need to be cleared, I've got a problem.

ORIGINAL: thewood1
One of the comments that came out of one of the AMP discussion threads was that a lot of micromanagers think the AMP is a solution to micromanaging. My comment is people who micromanage will still micromanage and complain that the AMP is not detailed enough. It'll create a spiraling task for the devs to continuously monkey and tweak the AMP based on players wanting more and more detailed execution to fit their personal expectation of the AMP.

Posted: **Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:46 pm**

Thats why some of the tools are good, especially ToT estimators, but the complexity of building and even using is going to be well beyond most of us to use. And I'm not so sure a defense group is going to find a full AMP that useful, based on public information on how they are using CMO.

Posted: **Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:57 am**

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Thats why some of the tools are good, especially ToT estimators, but the complexity of building and even using is going to be well beyond most of us to use. And I'm not so sure a defense group is going to find a full AMP that useful, based on public information on how they are using CMO.

It depends. If it's done right, it could come in handy. If it's done wrong, nobody will use it. The worst possible situation is to be forced to use it or be constrained by it. I guess the thing that makes me cringe is that the guys, out of necessity, must act with incomplete information. They can't be handed a bunch of documents and take a tour of an AOC, as well as play a few games with several different sets of patch wearers coming up with the plan. They've mostly never seen a sample AOD, ATO, SPINS, ACO, etc, nor have the watched real air battles or at least exercises. They're working off a combination of what they can find was done historically, and (worst of all) sometimes military fiction (the whole, "I want to do what they did in Red Storm Rising!" effect). This leads to potential hang ups. When I'm working with new analysts, sometimes they have to unlearn a lot of what they thought was true. If what you know about air war comes from TOP GUN and Iron Eagle, and a smattering of DCS, you've got a lot to learn. I don't mean to imply that the guys are that green (they're better than) but they do have a incomplete picture of air planning, so when people talk about this kind of feature, I get nervous.

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:31 pm**

ORIGINAL: AndrewJ

A well designed mission planner would be a very useful tool. The ability to accurately define complex routes, and determine the related distances, times, and fuel consumptions, would be enormously helpful, particularly when coordinating the activity from multiple airbases.

Here's my attempt to coordinate multiple tanking and strike events in Gunner98's PF#6 scenario.

It's a hot steaming mess, based on Ctrl-D distances, editing in placeholder units to use as F2 and cursor tools, and attempts to calculate fuel expenditure and fuel transfer rates in different load conditions. Despite my efforts, there's a whole lot of TLAR built in, and final accuracy of the plan turned out to be modest (particularly in coordinating with cruise missile timing). It took several evenings of play just for this planning stage. A proper suite of mission planning tools would have greatly increased the speed and accuracy of the process, and let me move from planning to execution a lot more quickly.

I can see a good mission planner being particularly attractive to the professional side of the business, where the logistical and scheduling side of the military equation are crucial. It would also be very helpful for scenario authors, who need to make their AI minions appear to operate in a coordinated and intelligent fashion. (This would probably be the biggest benefit, IMO.) The current missions are very much a 'blunt instrument', and improved mission planning could do a lot to make the scenarios more interesting and engaging. Since play experience strongly depends on the scenario, this can have a positive impact on the commercial side of the business, by allowing the creation of more attractive DLC content and community scenarios. And finally, it would help the player produce workable battle plans within a reasonable time-frame, which would help increase play enjoyment.

Nobody's suggesting a good mission planner will solve every problem, or be applicable in every circumstance. Of course the enemy will try and interfere with your plans - that's axiomatic. That's when you step in as the human to take charge and adapt. I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to use a mission planner at all times. But, at the moment the absence of a good suite of mission planning tools seems like an omission. Adding an advanced mission planner would be an overall advantage to Command.

Well said, AndrewJ. You're a much better salesman than I!

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:34 pm**

Well said, AndrewJ. You're a much better salesman than I!

Agree. Impressive work Andrew.

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2025 2:16 pm**

Was searching for something about the Ops Manager and stumbled across this thread. I remember the debates about the AMP. Was just wondering if the flight planning and ops manager lived up to the expectations and wants of this thread.

Matrix Games Forums

Mission logic

RE: Mission logic

RE: Mission logic

RE: Mission logic

RE: Mission logic

RE: Mission logic

RE: Mission logic

RE: Mission logic

RE: Mission logic

RE: Mission logic

RE: Mission logic

Re: Mission logic