Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
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.

It gets launched automatically on its historical turn. A TO would be pointless - it would always be optioned as soon as it became available. Waiting would only reduce the number of turns a favorable result could affect. And the scenario will not be decided by the result. If it hits, the Axis player will lose the "Desert Fox" advantage a little sooner than historically. His task will just become a little more difficult.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It gets launched automatically on its historical turn. A TO would be pointless - it would always be optioned as soon as it became available. Waiting would only reduce the number of turns a favorable result could affect.

Presumably, the loss of the LRDG unit in question would be of consequence.

And the scenario will not be decided by the result. If it hits, the Axis player will lose the "Desert Fox" advantage a little sooner than historically. His task will just become a little more difficult.

Isn't the advantage pretty massive? You mentioned a shock bonus and extra theatre recon.

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

Even so, it tends to be a really valuable target when located. Not the accompanying trucks, jeeps and infantry.
Are you suggesting that nowadays it is impossible to cripple a divisional-sized HQ with a "surgical" air attack?

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

Even so, it tends to be a really valuable target when located. Not the accompanying trucks, jeeps and infantry.
Are you suggesting that nowadays it is impossible to cripple a divisional-sized HQ with a "surgical" air attack?

I really have no idea.

However, I would suggest any results achieved against the Iraqi army would not be easily replicated against a modern opponent.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

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.

I don't really see how that's an argument against making command squads easier to kill. Anyway, formations can at least temporarily become immobile through the loss of command squads.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

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.

That's basically what I'm arguing for. Let the player design SOPs which represent his rules of engagement.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
However, in the modern era, communications equipment is just as mobile as the officers themselves.

It doesn't matter. It's incredibly easy to zero in on the source of an electronic communication and send a smart bomb to kill the originator/recipient of said communication. The Russians did this to Aslan Maskhadov in Chechnya. Why do you think Bin Laden doesn't allow phones around him?

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I don't really see how that's an argument against making command squads easier to kill.

My point was that the vaunted "Shock and Awe" concept is better modelled by events.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

It doesn't matter. It's incredibly easy to zero in on the source of an electronic communication and send a smart bomb to kill the originator/recipient of said communication. The Russians did this to Aslan Maskhadov in Chechnya. Why do you think Bin Laden doesn't allow phones around him?

A modern army would presumably have countless such sources. One for every squad and truck, in fact.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

That's basically what I'm arguing for. Let the player design SOPs which represent his rules of engagement.

There you are.

Mind you, making precision guided munitions more effective is going to generate a need to model potential countermeasures.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

It doesn't matter. It's incredibly easy to zero in on the source of an electronic communication and send a smart bomb to kill the originator/recipient of said communication. The Russians did this to Aslan Maskhadov in Chechnya. Why do you think Bin Laden doesn't allow phones around him?

A modern army would presumably have countless such sources. One for every squad and truck, in fact.

You're assuming that these are all of equal importance. They're not. Blowing up a divisional staff will have much more of an effect than blowing up the squad radioman.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

That's basically what I'm arguing for. Let the player design SOPs which represent his rules of engagement.

There you are.

Mind you, making precision guided munitions more effective is going to generate a need to model potential countermeasures.

Like what?

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

You're assuming that these are all of equal importance. They're not. Blowing up a divisional staff will have much more of an effect than blowing up the squad radioman.

I know, but if the missile or whatever is targeting a radio signal, it's going to view each as equivalent targets.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Like what?

No doubt there are some possibilities. Off the top of my head, actually destroying the projectile (not possible with artillery-type units in TOAW presently), or flooding the airwaves with information to achieve an effect similar to window (AKA chaff). Both to be attempted once the projectile is detected.

Mind you, making precision guided munitions more effective is going to generate a need to model potential countermeasures.

The fragility of command structure is illustrated by the number of command squads. Increase the number of command squads, and there you have the countermeasures.

I believe that today when the weapon has already been launched, there are no effective countermeasures. Certainly, however, the number of SAM sites, AA guns and enemy fighters is an important factor while performing an air strike - the best countermeasure is shooting down the aircraft before it makes it to the target.

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

The fragility of command structure is illustrated by the number of command squads. Increase the number of command squads, and there you have the countermeasures.

That works in the current system, but if you allow precision munitions to target them directly then it is going to be almost as easy to cripple a unit with 5 command groups as it is one with just one.

I believe that today when the weapon has already been launched, there are no effective countermeasures.

This isn't the case. I believe the system the Royal Navy uses is Phalanx. Designed specifically with the intention of shooting down guided missiles.

Certainly, however, the number of SAM sites, AA guns and enemy fighters is an important factor while performing an air strike - the best countermeasure is shooting down the aircraft before it makes it to the target.

What about other guided weapons systems.

That works in the current system, but if you allow precision munitions to target them directly then it is going to be almost as easy to cripple a unit with 5 command groups as it is one with just one.

True. But you can have as much as 999 command groups per unit. In the current system you rarely hit any of those.

This isn't the case. I believe the system the Royal Navy uses is Phalanx. Designed specifically with the intention of shooting down guided missiles.

Phalanx system is used on warships, where the lack of obstacles allows you to detect a low-flying missile from a range which gives the system some time to react. The unlucky HMS Sheffield did not have Phalanx, if I remember correctly.
I am not sure whether it is possible to target laser guided bombs with Phalanx, although one rarely uses those against warships. (Although the Argentinian pilots did sunk one British frigate near the Falklands with unguided bombs).

What about other guided weapons systems.

We don't have those in the current game, as opposed to aircraft with guided weapons capability. However, in the current game these aircraft tend to be less effective than the same number of B-29 bombers.

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

Phalanx system is used on warships, where the lack of obstacles allows you to detect a low-flying missile from a range which gives the system some time to react. The unlucky HMS Sheffield did not have Phalanx, if I remember correctly.

True. That was twenty-four years ago- technology has advanced somewhat since then.

What about other guided weapons systems.

We don't have those in the current game,

SSMs, etc? Anyway, they ought to be there.

The Royal Navy AA system at the time of the Falklands- the Seacat- was supposed to be able to destroy missiles like the Exocet. In this role and others, it was generally regarded as a failure and a disappointment. I would not place too much emphasis on an untested weapons system.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

The Royal Navy AA system at the time of the Falklands- the Seacat- was supposed to be able to destroy missiles like the Exocet. In this role and others, it was generally regarded as a failure and a disappointment. I would not place too much emphasis on an untested weapons system.

Well a) IIRC it was fine so long as it only had one target at a time and b) as I've said some twenty-four years have passed since then, and technology has advanced apace.