Is the direct control unrealistic?

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

I'd say that direct control really deals with an AI problem and the real inaccurate element of CMANO simulation: the Perfect Data Link (tm).

Direct control makes sense in a situation where the unit AI does not behave as you'd expect but is very natural. An example of this is a fighter wing being vectored in to ambush enemy aircraft by an AWACs. An air superiority mission doesn't produce the realistic behavior. Now, you could just use the air superiority mission, but the unit behavior doesn't fully exploit the tactical situation.

In my opinion, the real issue is the perfect data awareness for all units. This produces unit behavior which is more optimal than reality. Again, return to the issue of fighter interception. The above scenario (AWACS + Fighters) exists in real life. In CMANO, the same behavior can be achieved with any ground based radar and fighters. So, a tactical SAM system, e.g. SA-6, can serve as a GCI for interceptors.

Now, that can be fixed by playing with the multiple sides, but perhaps there is another solution? Maybe an 'acquisition time' could be added to different units, to reflect the process required to detect a target. This acquisition time can be adjusted by having proper GCI / AWACs units in the region.

In a way, there would be a new type of datalink which affects the performance of a new parameter ('acquisition time'). Perhaps that can introduce some of the friction that would naturally exist in combat?

We dislike Borg hive-minds too. Stick around.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

I'd say that direct control really deals with an AI problem and the real inaccurate element of CMANO simulation: the Perfect Data Link (tm).

Direct control makes sense in a situation where the unit AI does not behave as you'd expect but is very natural. An example of this is a fighter wing being vectored in to ambush enemy aircraft by an AWACs. An air superiority mission doesn't produce the realistic behavior. Now, you could just use the air superiority mission, but the unit behavior doesn't fully exploit the tactical situation.

In my opinion, the real issue is the perfect data awareness for all units. This produces unit behavior which is more optimal than reality. Again, return to the issue of fighter interception. The above scenario (AWACS + Fighters) exists in real life. In CMANO, the same behavior can be achieved with any ground based radar and fighters. So, a tactical SAM system, e.g. SA-6, can serve as a GCI for interceptors.

Now, that can be fixed by playing with the multiple sides, but perhaps there is another solution? Maybe an 'acquisition time' could be added to different units, to reflect the process required to detect a target. This acquisition time can be adjusted by having proper GCI / AWACs units in the region.

In a way, there would be a new type of datalink which affects the performance of a new parameter ('acquisition time'). Perhaps that can introduce some of the friction that would naturally exist in combat?

We've got an OODA value that exists the game already.

Comms stuff is coming soon although have a pro version and a civ version and there are different feature sets for both.

I'll look forward to reading your expert opinion on it[:)]

Thanks!

Mike

[thewood1]

This thread also shows that some people don't really know the game well and its capabilities, as of now.

[ColonelMolerat]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This thread also shows that some people don't really know the game well and its capabilities, as of now.

All of your replies have been ways to script the solution in LUA. It's understandable that people want a simple, standardised and supported solution to their problem (assuming a solution is needed).

Interesting to see there's a new system coming up to deal with comms. I was on the fence about whether it needed doing - but it'll probably be one of those things I ever wonder how we lived without!

[thewood1]

No, its not. Again...not knowing. As I have said in several posts, it can be done simply without Lua for some basic scenarios. But you have to buld/change the scenario.

But why listen when you think you know everything. A comms model is not going to be something you turn on and off. Use of it has to be built in the scenario design phase. If you design a scenario without taking comms loss into account, the scenario will be completely cocked. If there is a potential for comms loss, all sides will have to have missions developed in detail to manage that. Designing a scenario for comms loss is no easy task. There are all kinds of issues with friendly fire, timing, etc. There are an immense number of unintended consequences that you and I can't even fathom yet. And the opposite is true. If a scenario is built with OOC on, not enabling OOC capability will make one side or the other much easier. It will screw up missions and objectives.

I'll give an example, in testing comms jamming with my methods, SAMs start shooting down friendlys in exclusion zones in modified existing scenarios. You can't just go in and change all the zones because it changes a lot of missions and victory settings. You can't just take a scenario like Op Bass Drum, with all of its patrol and exclusion zones and start killing comms. There are a hundred airplanes on patrol over airbases with SAMs. As soon as they go OOC, SAMs start killing them. Op Bass Drum will have to be heavily modified to support full OOC capabilities.

The devs can eventually enlighten you more on their plans, but even then, there is a good chance scenarios will have to be built with OOC capabilities enabled. And for the player, its no different than using Lua. Also, I suspect Lua will have to play a role somewhere.

What this shows is the naivety of players asking for features when they don't even know what the game is currently capable of or what this heaven-sent feature will even look like. But hey, its easy, you can just push a button to make it work.

The short of it, it been declared that X feature will make this game the best. It has been pointed out some simple Lua work, or even event manager. But players want a push button without even understanding what they are asking for.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: ColonelMolerat

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This thread also shows that some people don't really know the game well and its capabilities, as of now.

All of your replies have been ways to script the solution in LUA. It's understandable that people want a simple, standardised and supported solution to their problem (assuming a solution is needed).

Interesting to see there's a new system coming up to deal with comms. I was on the fence about whether it needed doing - but it'll probably be one of those things I ever wonder how we lived without!

In this case its good to listen to him as the solution for the entertainment product is going to be lua.[:'(]

Mike

[thewood1]

Ha!

[ColonelMolerat]

I concede this, but I'll get you next time, Gadget! Erm, TheWood! [:'(]

Still, good to know there's an official LUA implementation so it won't need learning scripting from the user's end, and will ensure consistency across missions.

[DrRansom]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
We dislike Borg hive-minds too. Stick around.

Sounds awesome, I'm excited to see what you come up with.

For OODA, I am curious, does that delay include the presence of nearby sensors? E.g. shorter OODA loop for a fighter if another radar detects a target?

On the question of comms, I guess that my idea would turn out to be a 'Comms-Lite' implementation. (Coding light is another matter altogether, the developers would know if it is feasible or not). A friendly appropriate radar bonus to OODA loops (for example) shouldn't require significant scenario rewrites. (as there's no downside and only upside)

[thewood1]

You can actually test OODA loops out pretty easily. Just look at counters on units during engagements. You can turn radars on and off to see the effect.

[AlGrant]

"It's not realistic that I can control my sub when it's dived"

Here's a comms feature update ......

"Not fair .... I couldn't give me sub an order and it got sunk!" [:'(]


Or as a 15th century monk once said: (later modified are repeated by Lincoln)
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”