Matrix Games Forums

I have a suspicion about what is going on.

Prior to v1.11, unguided bombs (and rockets) were aimed individually by aircraft during attacks on surface targets. So for example an F-16 dropping 12x Mk82 bombs was able to aim each bomb individually, either on the same single target or against multiple individual targets. In reality, this is a capability that only became feasible with INS/GPS guided weapons (like the JDAM family), and was hitherto possible only for MIRVs on ballistic missiles.

Unguided weapons, when employed in a salvo (multiple weapons per attack), are released in a "stick" pattern, with the "middle of the pack" typically aimed straight at the target aimpoint and the rest straddling it fore and aft. This gives a good probability that the target will be direct-hit or sufficiently near-missed by either the middle bomb or the immediately next or after. A classic example of stick bombing is the "Black Buck" attack on the Port Stanley runway:



(In this case the stick fell a bit short of the runway.)

Beginning with v1.11, to properly model this restriction of unguided weapons (otherwise why bother with JDAMs?) we applied a model of stick bombing, as described here: http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=2696

The practical effects of this on gameplay are twofold:

1) It becomes more firepower-efficient to perform multiple attacks on the same target(s) with fewer (or even single) weapons per attack, rather than dump all weapons on a single pass (since stick bombing is inherently inefficient). IIRC this can be configured via the WRA. Of course in a "hot" target area making multiple passes is an invitation to get shot down, just like in RL. (This BTW, along with all-weather & altitude-insensitive precision capability, was the main driver behind the development of JDAM)

2) The number of targets that can be effectively attacked with a finite number of unguided munitions is reduced, again because of the inherent inefficiency of stick bombing. Unless otherwise directed by WRA settings, the virtual pilots will naturally want to dump their loads and get out of dodge rather than stick around for repeated passes.

I suspect that the latter effect is what Mark experienced. Our dev team will check this. If this is indeed the cause, we may have to adjust the "destroy X number of targets" victory thresholds on scenarios that heavily rely on unguided munitions (this tutorial is one such example; "Down Town" also comes to mind), or update briefings with the instruction that multiple-pass attacks may become necessary to service mission targets.

Thanks.

Mike,

Since you unlocked. I am not angry. I provide feedback on every piece of software I own like utility software; especially small companies who listen. If I was angry, I wouldn't take the time.

(True story: I was trading stocks with an online brokerage using their advanced desktop. I had enough feedback on issues that they offered me a job. Sadly, I found out I am better at software than trading stocks!)

If I put some of my experience down, it is simply that you know who you are talking to. I know nothing about air/naval ops, but I am letting you know where I do have experience.

Emsoy,

Here is another thing I find is odd. If let them come straight in per ROE, they only score 4-5 buildings same target list. If I let them use the autoplanner to strike from different axis you get 10-12 as you see above. It should be noted, I have removed the air and SAM opposition. There is absolutely no defense. So, why should this matter?

Finally, I am going to try a manual attack:

(1) Dumb bomb flight bombs in line with buildings. One plane heading East hits #2 of 4 in the line. Another heading West hits #3 of 4 in the line. The idea is falling short or long does damage.

(2) The surviving buildings are picked off by precision weapons.

(3) Remaining precision weapons strike tight clusters; one weapon per building. Damage exceeds actual impact. Damaged buildings get hit by follow on strikes and you work out from the epicenter.

We will see how I do.

Thanks

Could you post savegames of the various observations please? Along with step-by-step instructions on how to reproduce? As we've taked about many times earlier there's a million ways to so stuff in the sim and I may not see the same as you because I may use a different method.

Here is what I have done. I have a script that changes your autosave (first one into a checkpoint); I don't use the save game feature. The script runs continuously in background. When it detects the archive bit flip, it copies and time stamps the autosave clearing the archive bit. In the checkpoint directory, I annotate time stamped saves of interest so that I can reload points of interest.

I can send you now. The scenario made that has no SAMS and no MIGS (just targets). I can send you the checkpoints with the latest illustrating my doctrine, WRA, and missions which correspond to the losses and expenditures above.

PM me an email address, and I will send you a zip.

Thanks.

Mark,

1) Thanks for your time on researching this possible issue on the air ops tutorial. Give a try to any of the 300+ other CMANO scenarios that relies less on unguided munitions (typically more recent-date ones). If my hunch is correct, you should not face this problem on them (at least to this extent).

2) "You only have one way to make micromanagement NOT to be the certain choice in all scenarios: That is that micromanagement will result in a performance penalty of some form such that the more micromanagement the greater the penalty. Thus, you reach a tipping point where the AI and high level routines are a better choice."

Agreed, and this is generally our goal as well. Your experience with the tutorial scenario is atypical, and as you yourself noted it doesn't match either Baloogan's video or the feedback we have been getting on this scenario from most beginner users (the story typically runs like "initially I tried to micromanage everything but was swamped with details, then I put missions to good use and it was a breeze"). If my suspicion about the cause of this issue (see above) is correct, this may explain why you are the first to notice it.

3) You are still CV-dropping. This is not a job interview. I have worked on financial systems with "money per second" that would pay over your life's-worth salary 10 times over. Mike here worked for years on medical systems where a software bug can literally _kill people_. Paul Bridge traded machine gun fire with Argie attack jets and had to scoop the blood of his mates from his frigate's deck (I won't even go into the gory details of his more recent counter-piracy tours). Ragnar works daily on stuff that he cannot talk about even to his wife, on pain of for-life jail. You are not impressing anyone.

Your arguments can have merit, so let them stand on their own.

4) "Having spent 10 years working on a premier operational title --" _SIGH_.

"Back when we were working on the Command Ops series, we found out that XYZ" <--- See how much better this goes? You don't have to annoy people to get your point accross.

5) "Feel free to delete my experience again" <--- Sorry, but I cannot think of any other word that better describes this than "trolling". Perhaps someone else with a better command of the English language can come up with a more appropriate definition. ("Passive agressive"...?)

6) Of everything that you posted in this thread, arguably the most helpful post was this: fb.asp?m=4097650 . You may want to reflect on why.

This is real life, not "House MD". To effect change, it's not enough to have a valid point.

Thanks.

-----

EDIT: Saw your last post while I was finishing this up. That's a step in the right direction.

Send me a PM. I will zip what you need.

Knowing peoples backgrounds, I like that. RDOA/HTTR/COTA/BFTB/CO2 (3 of 5 were Matrix projects before the Slitherine purchase). We had systems types, military types, historian types, ... it was the fusion of skills that make the result so much more than any individual could have.

I really meant no offense. Technically, I think I am still under a Beta agreement (legacy Matrix). But I think no one left here knows me but for Erik. (Also, my beta days are behind. I hear the clock ticking, and just want to play games.)

What I seek from CMANO is an operational experience on par with CO2, but with planes and ships as opposed to WWII ground forces.

Whatever regression issues there might be with this tutorial, I have learned a great deal of the game from monkeying around with it.

I hope we can get past any ill feelings. I want to enjoy the game. I would like to point out issues I spot (they will most likely be software and not content/simulation).

I have attached a zip if you prefer not to do emails. (It was small enough.)

By the way, this is how I changed your autosave into a game checkpointing facility.

WinTitle(WinName(), "SavCkpt(CMANO)")

; ----- Definitions ------

SourceFile="E:\Games\CMANO\Scenarios\Autosave.scen"
DestinationDir="E:\Games\CMANO\Scenarios\_CMANO Chkpt\"
Interval=1

; ----- Monitor Save Game Status -----

While @true
If FileExist(SourceFile) then ; wait for file to appear
Attr=FileAttrGet(SourceFile)
If StrSub(attr, 2, 1) == "A" Then GoSub CopySaveGame
End If
TimeDelay(Interval)
End While

; ----- Shut Down -----

Exit

Message("Debug", "Pause")

; ##### CopySaveGame #####

:CopySaveGame

; ----- Form file name -----

Delay(8); Stabilize
BaseName=FileTimeGetEx(SourceFile, 2)
ReplaceName=StrClean(BaseName, ":", "", @False, 1)
ReplaceName=StrSub(ReplaceName, 1, 14)
ReplaceName=StrCat(StrSub(ReplaceName, 1, 8), " ", StrSub(ReplaceName, 9, 6), ".scen")
TargetName=StrCat(DestinationDir, ReplaceName)
ErrorMode(@OFF)
FileCopy(SourceFile, TargetName, @False)
ErrorMode(@ON)
FileAttrSet(SourceFile, "a") ; clear the flag

Return

Actually, load:

20160614 022949 Revised WRA (1 on harderned).scen

and run.

Thanks for the file, will dig into tonight [8D]

These are my results with totally manual bombing attempting to always pick the most likely building not to survive the next strike:

SIDE: CVW-15
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
8x AGM-62B Walleye II ER/DL
16x GBU-10E/B Paveway II LGB [Mk84]
160x Mk82 500lb LDGP



SIDE: Red Side
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
4x A/C Hardened Aircraft Shelter (1x Medium Aircraft)
10x Building (Large)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------

No real quantitative difference between mission and manual.

Work is underway. Will need a few days, complex stuff. Thanks! [8D]

Will this satisfy your needs, you think?

Feedback and comments are always welcomed [8D]

The CEP calcs thows the stick of bombs 'off target' by a random distance and direction, in this case ca 15 short of the DPI.

Nice work Mr. Emsoy!

Mike

More, re-running the above setup (A-7E with 18x Mk82s at low altitude):

More, this time with a RAF Vulcan bomber, 21x 1000lb'ers from medium altitude [:D]

And of course... the B-52, our #1 fav! [&o]

I made one of those my desktop wallpaper. Awesome!

Curtis LeMay would definitely approve!

Thanks. A big improvement!

Let me mention a related difficulty in such "stick" bombing runs.

The game engine moves the bearing of the attack as the plane attempts to turn in even when the plane is 20-30 miles out. Instead the engine should get the user/commander's intent that I want it to maneuver to fly this particular profile; especially if I give it enough lead distance to make the corrects. But the engine, treats my profile as a desired point rather than a desired line.

Thanks again for your support and improvements!