Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

I agree with "golden delicious" that this should be handled intelligently by the TOAW combat resolution routine, not by the player.

For the life of me, I can't understand why. The high level officers that the player is usually understood to represent are the ones who design the rules of engagement, make the decisions to go after command and control, etc.

Why not just upgrade the "enchanced targeting" and "precision guided" routines if this is a problem? I don't usually play the modern scenarios so am not too familiar with how it works. However, if you are attacking a headquarter unit with B-2 bombers than the system should take into account you are going after command squads and not trucks or something. I agree with "golden delicious" that this should be handled intelligently by the TOAW combat resolution routine, not by the player.

If it worked, it would be good.

However, bear in mind that in the current version you actually have the option of choosing exactly what you want to attack, namely when attacking airfields and bridges. In case of airfields it was introduced to solve exactly the same problem I mentioned in my first post - dispersion of firepower between all the units on the hex, regardless of player's intentions.

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

I would certainly be in favor of adding dedicated 'Wild Weasel' aircraft with the ability to strike AD units, specifically ones equipped with SAMs (SEAD missions). That would be a major improvement for accurately simulating modern conflicts.

I think the capability exists (to a certain extent) as it is.

SEAD at an operational level first targets Command and Control. This includes a target subset of C&C facilities and early warning radars. Attacking these assets are meant to deny the enemy the ability to coordinate defenses. After one takes out the C&C system, fixed SAM and air defense (fighter) forces are targeted. I believe one could simulate this effort using TOAW. The addition of long ranged missiles (tomahawk) would definately enhance the simulation. The problem that TOAW encounters is that once the "fixed assets" have been destroyed, mobile assets cannot be targeted. This is where you have mobile SAM (SA-6) suppressors being targeted by "Iron Hand" aircraft using weapons like Harm. This would be very difficult to represent in any simulation as these are reactive attacks which occur when a mobile battery turns on its radars. The effects of jammers such as the EA-6B are also almost impossible to simulate in a game of this nature. You would have to add a new air mission (SAM suppression) which interacts between aircraft on ground support and/or interdiction missions and ground SAM and AAA units. That's a fairly difficult task to program and would be a major new feature to the game.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
They are on the map- the notoriously difficult to kill command squads. ln a Gulf War or Iraq 2003 scenario, command squads at all levels should be some of the easiest equipment to kill.

Even if you could kill those top-level command squads, the effect would be minimal. What one wants is a theatre option to target them which gives a % chance of various penalties for the entire force.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

For the life of me, I can't understand why. The high level officers that the player is usually understood to represent are the ones who design the rules of engagement, make the decisions to go after command and control, etc.

So let them design the 'rules of engagement'. Don't let them carry them out.

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

However, bear in mind that in the current version you actually have the option of choosing exactly what you want to attack, namely when attacking airfields and bridges. In case of airfields it was introduced to solve exactly the same problem I mentioned in my first post - dispersion of firepower between all the units on the hex, regardless of player's intentions.

Bridges and airfields are different, though. They tend to be dead easy to find and the blighters don't move. Not like commanders, who really ought to be moving around all day.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

British special forces (were they called LRDG?) attacked once Rommel's headquarters. Their aim was specifically one man - Rommel, yet the decision was made very high in the command structure. Would you call that excessive micromanaging?

I'd say the best way to model this sort of thing is by theatre option- the effect of killing the unit would not be sufficient in any case (it was LRDG, btw).

It's modeled by event in CFNA, with a 3% chance of success. Success impacts shock and recon awards that were in place.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

I agree with "golden delicious" that this should be handled intelligently by the TOAW combat resolution routine, not by the player.

For the life of me, I can't understand why. The high level officers that the player is usually understood to represent are the ones who design the rules of engagement, make the decisions to go after command and control, etc.

Isn't going after "command and control" a routine strategy in modern warfare? It would seem a waste to use all those smart bombs on engineer squads and the like.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It's modeled by event in CFNA, with a 3% chance of success. Success impacts shock and recon awards that were in place.

Interesting. Don't you find this unbalancing? For such major factors to be dependent on a random chance is a real downer for players.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
They are on the map- the notoriously difficult to kill command squads. ln a Gulf War or Iraq 2003 scenario, command squads at all levels should be some of the easiest equipment to kill.

Even if you could kill those top-level command squads, the effect would be minimal. What one wants is a theatre option to target them which gives a % chance of various penalties for the entire force.

It wasn't minimal in the Gulf War. It wasn't just top level command and control we went after- we eviscerated Iraqi C&C at every level.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

For the life of me, I can't understand why. The high level officers that the player is usually understood to represent are the ones who design the rules of engagement, make the decisions to go after command and control, etc.

So let them design the 'rules of engagement'. Don't let them carry them out.

? What's the distinction that you're making? I'm simply saying that it would be more realistic to allow the player to set targetting priorities instead of being forced into the default.

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

I agree with "golden delicious" that this should be handled intelligently by the TOAW combat resolution routine, not by the player.

For the life of me, I can't understand why. The high level officers that the player is usually understood to represent are the ones who design the rules of engagement, make the decisions to go after command and control, etc.

Isn't going after "command and control" a routine strategy in modern warfare? It would seem a waste to use all those smart bombs on engineer squads and the like.

Yes, exactly. In TOAW, an aircraft would rather use its multi-million dollar smart munitions against an infantry squad or a POS Russian tank from the 60s than on an important command bunker.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms




For the life of me, I can't understand why. The high level officers that the player is usually understood to represent are the ones who design the rules of engagement, make the decisions to go after command and control, etc.

Isn't going after "command and control" a routine strategy in modern warfare? It would seem a waste to use all those smart bombs on engineer squads and the like.

Yes, exactly. In TOAW, an aircraft would rather use its multi-million dollar smart munitions against an infantry squad or a POS Russian tank from the 60s than on an important command bunker.

OK, let's fix it. Someone who knows about these things can come up with the exact formula but the basic thing is that the "command and control" items should be at the top of the target list.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Interesting. Don't you find this unbalancing? For such major factors to be dependent on a random chance is a real downer for players.

Then reality must be a downer for them. There really was a "Raid on Rommel". It had a non-zero chance of success.

Bridges and airfields are different, though. They tend to be dead easy to find and the blighters don't move. Not like commanders, who really ought to be moving around all day.

Yes, of course. Yet I do very much believe, that in the case of HQs, the primary target are not the officers, but their communication equipment.

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

Bridges and airfields are different, though. They tend to be dead easy to find and the blighters don't move. Not like commanders, who really ought to be moving around all day.

Yes, of course. Yet I do very much believe, that in the case of HQs, the primary target are not the officers, but their communication equipment.

As a former enlisted man, I find that hard to believe.[;)]

Seriously, with today's electronics, I would think that it should be relatively eay to find the HQs, or at least cripple their communications. There's only so much you can do with jamming and relays.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
It wasn't minimal in the Gulf War. It wasn't just top level command and control we went after- we eviscerated Iraqi C&C at every level.

That's all well and good, but if we look at what happens when you do take out that central command, the effect is much more severe in real life than in TOAW.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

? What's the distinction that you're making? I'm simply saying that it would be more realistic to allow the player to set targetting priorities instead of being forced into the default.

I'm saying that's done at the force level rather than per combat.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Then reality must be a downer for them. There really was a "Raid on Rommel". It had a non-zero chance of success.

Yeah, I know. Does it always get launched or is it by TO? I'm just not too keen on the possibility of an entire scenario (especially one as large as yours) being decided by one % chance.

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

Yes, of course. Yet I do very much believe, that in the case of HQs, the primary target are not the officers, but their communication equipment.

However, in the modern era, communications equipment is just as mobile as the officers themselves.

At least, it is in real armies. Not the sort of rabble that the US has been fighting recently.