National Proficiency Ratings?

[Mgellis]

Yes, this is the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks! If anyone has any other ratings, etc., please post them. Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Jakob Wedman

I think that Flight Leader (1986, Avalon Hill) has a balanced rating for the average quality of the nations' airmen from "A" to "F":
Soviet Union: "E" to early 1980s, "D" in mid 80s
United States: "A" through mid 50s, "B" to "C" through mid 70s, "C" since mid 70s except for F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 which are "B"
Belgium: "B" through the 70s, "C" in 80s
Canada: "C"
Denmark: "B" through the 70s, "C" in 80s
France: "B"
West Germany: "B" through the 70s, "C" in the 80s
Great Britain: "C"
Greece: "C"
Italy: "C"
Netherlands: "C"
Norway: "B" through the 70s, "C" in the 80s
Portugal: "C"
Spain: "C"
Turkey: "C"
Albania: "E"
Bulgaria: "D"
Czechoslovakia: "D"
East Germany: "D"
Hungary: "D"
Poland: "D"
Romania: "D"
Algeria: "E"
Egypt: "E" through 1970, "D" since 1970
Iran: "D" through 1979, "E" since 1979
Iraq: "E"
Jordan: "D"
Kuwait: "E"
Lebanon: "E" ghrough 1975, "F" and virtually non-existent since constant civil war has raged 1975 on
Libya: "E"
Morocco: "D"
Oman: "D"
Qatar: "D"
Saudi Arabia: "D" through 1980, "C" since 1980
Sudan: "E"
Syria: "E"
Tunisia: "E"
United Arab Emirates: "E"
North Yemen: "E"
South Yemen: "E"

[---]

Austria: "C"
Finland: "B"
Israel: "A"
Sweden: "B" [:)]
Switzerland: "C"
Yugoslavia: "D"

[thewood1]

So here is exactly the problem...why Sweden and Finland be B though out and US a "C" in the 80's. The US had a hardcore of air combat veterans and a world renowned combat fighter school. Why would two small countries that haven't seen combat in 50 years in one case and NEVER seen combat in the other (with the minor exception of small UN action)be rated higher overall.

So there is the point...no sources, only opinions that can be shot full of holes.

[jdkbph]

Jeez, we are going around in circles here.

Can I ask this... putting aside implementation mechanics for a moment, does everyone (anyone?) agree with the premise that the quality of the personnel that man the ships, fly the airplanes, and maintain and operate the equipment have a significant effect on the successful employment of the ships, planes and equipment at the scales represented by CMANO?

JD

[JCR]

The problem is that this human factor is hard to qualify, and this lack of substance is usually filled by ideology.
For example a cold war game of course had to have the Saudis (US allies) to be "better" than mindless communists
While human factor IS important, it is extremely hard to quantify in a wargame that is set in a hypothetical conflict.
In WW2 wargames, everybody knows the outcome and the human factor can be analyzed.

[jdkbph]

I understand the challenge. I'm just wondering if there's any sort of consensus regarding the relative importance of the "quality" factor.

JD

[thewood1]

My point is that I agree its not just hardware against hardware. But that throwing around hyperbole about how important soft factors are without any concrete backing is as bad as not having it.

[mrfeizhu]

I think most of the people who have been in the military will agree more with that experience counts more than no experience or less experience, the more you do some thing the better you get at it. ( at least hopeful) If experience does not count than every one who plays this game should win every time. Would you rather go to a doctor that was an intern, or a doctor that had 20 year experience. Its hard to assign a number to the human side just like its hard to assign a number to a weapon. I think weapons will work less than advertised. Regardless of every one opinion its good the developers of the game are willing to change things as it evolves. Also good is that there not selling extra content like some publishers do.

[thewood1]

But how much of that is built in already. Ph for a Sparrow missile in RL in Vietnam is a combination of a bunch of things, including experience and training. Is that accounted for in Command's Ph. I have looked at some RL missile engagement stats and they match fairly well with Command's results. Is that applied consistently across all countries. These are some of the questions that need to be considered.

[Mgellis]

I confess I don't know if it makes much different to have proficiencies for certain sides, but people can always get rid of them by opening up the scenario editor if they don't buy what the writer thought was appropriate. I'm glad the option is available in case I or someone else wants to use it. But you don't have to use it. Now I'm just looking for more information about how a country might be rated. So, please, keep 'em coming!

[ExMachina]

But how much of that is built in already. Ph for a Sparrow missile in RL in Vietnam is a combination of a bunch of things, including experience and training. Is that accounted for in Command's Ph.

Exactly, And it gets even more complicated than that since the Ph calculated from real world data is a a combination of both attacker proficiency and defender proficiency. But a/c dogfights are the exception in modern combat.

For the most part in modern engagments, technology is king. Technological asymmetry can both cause a inept aggressor to look competent and a well-trained force to look impotent.

True "proficiency" in modern warfare comes at the level of CIC and that is the role that CMAO is supposed to be giving to the player. So, I really really hope that the proficiency slider will never impact most events in CMANO.

[JCR]

There are some areas where crew proficiency can count in ships:

- CIC work in identifying and classifying and engaging threats, especially in non-AEGIS/other automated management ships.
The time delay between detection and response basically. And the right response.

- damage control, the "inner battle" of a warship.
This is something where crew drill is everything and can and will mean the difference between a damaged and a sunk ship.

However CIC work is not really something you can rate without having insight knowledge while damage control is basic seamanship unchanged since there are steel hulls. Every navy worth its name should be proficient in it, especially since training it requires neither much money nor much modern technology.
Also speaking from personal experience, you basically don't do anything else while at sea

[thewood1]

But there is a level of technical proficiency that comes with trianing and experience. Radar is not simple to interpret in many cases. Having significant training can be an equalizer in air combat.

[ExMachina]

Agreed, but where does crew/side proficiency begin and end? It seems like an question without a satisfying answer within the context of a game like CMANO.

For example, we know that perhaps the most proficient modern navy, using the most advanced radar and CIC technology of its day classified (with confidence) an Iranian airliner as a hostile and then shot it down. Does that mean that we want the AI crew to randomly mis-classify contacts and leave it up to us to sort out?--I don't think that anyone's arguing for that(yet?), but in terms of operational plausibility at the player's level of CIC, it is certainly more "realistic" than a lot of the stuff some folks here are speculating about.

[thewood1]

But, again, how much proficiency is built into the current dtection ranges, Ph, stealth, etc.

[jdkbph]

And don't forget the OODA loop. It's built in, and as far as I know, it's fixed for all sides. Not in any way dependent on side quality or experience (unless that was included as part of the recently added proficiency settings). Just by manipulating that one thing - in and of itself - could potentially make a measurable difference in many facets of the game.

JD

[Jakob Wedman]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Yes, this is the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks! If anyone has any other ratings, etc., please post them. Thanks.

OK, then I'll continue with the rest from Flight Leader [1986] [:)]

Angola: "E"
Congo (People's republic of): "F"
Ethiopia: "D" through 1976, "E" since 1976
Gabon: "E"
Guinea: "F"
Kenya: "F"
Madagascar: "E"
Mali: "E"
Mozambique: "F"
Nigeria: "E"
Somalia: "E"
South Africa: "B"
Tanzania: "E"
Uganda: "F"
Zaire: "E"
Zambia:
Zimbabwe: "B" through 1980, "E" since 1980
Afghanistan: "F"
Australia: "B"
Bangladesh: "E"
Burma: "E"
Cambodia: "F"
China: "E"
India: "D"
Indonesia: "E"
Japan: "C"
North Korea: "E"
South Korea: "C"
Laos: "F"
Malaysia: "E"
Mongolia: "E"
New Zealand: "E"
Pakistan: "C"
Philippines: "E"
Singapore: "C"
Sri Lanka: "F"
Taiwan: "C"
Thailand: "C"
Vietnam (North Vietnam until 1975): "D"
South Vietnamn: "D"
Argentina: "C"
Bolivia: "E"
Brazil: "D"
Chile: "D"
Colombia: "D"
Cuba: "E"
Dominican Republic: "E"
Ecuador: "D"
El Salvador: "E"
Honduras: "D"
Mexico: "E"
Peru: "E"
Uruguay: "F"
Venezuela: "D"

ORIGINAL: thewood1

So here is exactly the problem...why Sweden and Finland be B though out and US a "C" in the 80's. The US had a hardcore of air combat veterans and a world renowned combat fighter school. Why would two small countries that haven't seen combat in 50 years in one case and NEVER seen combat in the other (with the minor exception of small UN action)be rated higher overall.

So there is the point...no sources, only opinions that can be shot full of holes.

Use the Flight Leader rating if you like thewood1. Obviously we have different perspectives - my conclusion having read the ratings of Swedish and Finnish Air Forces was the game makers had done their research. (A correction: In 1986, when the game was made, it was 40 years since the Finnish Air Force saw combat with aces like Ilmari Juutilainen and Hans Wind.)

Edit: Changed 30 to 40 years.

[thewood1]

But even then, how would you be able to rate them higher...having seen no action or even deployment outside their own borders.

[Jakob Wedman]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

But even then, how would you be able to rate them higher...having seen no action or even deployment outside their own borders.

(That was fast, I was going to edit "30 years" to "40 years".)

Personally I don't know much about air warfare but I've got the impression that both Sweden and Finland had very skilled pilots and obviously the makers of Flight Leader though that too.

[navwarcol]

Nothing "skills" a person more, for combat, than combat itself.

[Jakob Wedman]

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

Nothing "skills" a person more, for combat, than combat itself.

Absolutely - like Iraqi Air Force in 1991 after eight years of war with Iran [:D]