Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second standalone expansion

[Gunner98]

Of course you can also make an IADS more resilient:

When Radar A is destroyed (and this one is deep in the defended zone and the only one radiating)

Radar B, EW jammer A, SAM A, B, C & D Turn ON - and hopefully they are behind the HARM shooter [8D]

[ColonelMolerat]

Gunner - now that's just CRUEL!!

Primarchx - from what I understand in that blog post is that any unit that loses comms will act as though it were on a different 'side' - it doesn't report its position (so you can only see it with radar, etc), you can't control it, and it only does what it was previously told to (eg, it will follow a mission it was given, but if it wasn't given a mission or waypoints, it will loiter uselessly).

[Primarchx]

ORIGINAL: ColonelMolerat

Gunner - now that's just CRUEL!!

Primarchx - from what I understand in that blog post is that any unit that loses comms will act as though it were on a different 'side' - it doesn't report its position (so you can only see it with radar, etc), you can't control it, and it only does what it was previously told to (eg, it will follow a mission it was given, but if it wasn't given a mission or waypoints, it will loiter uselessly).

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Looks like you as a player can suffer a complete soft kill if your comms go out. I assume units will continue missions (if assigned) and those under manual control will just continue on current course, speed and EMCON. There should be a standing order method that allows you to give an out-of-comms SOP to a unit/group (RTB, Join Mission X, etc).

[ParachuteProne]

Since cargo will allow us to transport supply trucks listed under Generic forces.
Will/can these units be used to resupply/arm ground forces ?

[ParachuteProne]

Since cargo will allow us to transport supply trucks listed under Generic forces.
Will/can these units be used to resupply/arm ground forces ?

Sorry double post - don't know how to delete so if a Mod can get rid of it thanks

[Dan109]

How will comms loss be affected for submarines, which typically will go deep when transiting to a patrol area? Will they go back to comms depth every so often? Even if they have the doctrine enabled to investigate a contact, I would think they would want to communicate that contact before proceeding (in case they are sunk). What about Patrol aricraft, they should periodically report in if they determine there is an area in which comms are jammed. This is a great and bold feature, I just see lots of problems with units going off the grid and dying like fools.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Dan109
How will comms loss be affected for submarines, which typically will go deep when transiting to a patrol area?

Lua scripting.

Will they go back to comms depth every so often? Even if they have the doctrine enabled to investigate a contact, I would think they would want to communicate that contact before proceeding (in case they are sunk).

Up to the scenario designer.

What about Patrol aircraft, they should periodically report in if they determine there is an area in which comms are jammed.

Again, it's up to the scen designer to dictate that behavior.

This is a great and bold feature, I just see lots of problems with units going off the grid and dying like fools.

Then it's a good thing we made it an optional feature, yes?

[Dan109]

You are answering in terms of the enemy AI, but I am interested from terms of the human player. Will there be additional doctrines that will be available for the player to define behavior when comms go out?

Let's take the submarine as a simple example. I set the course, in a simple one direction vector. I then manually tell the sub to go to max depth. At some point during the decent, the sub loses comms. So what happens? The sub continues to dive, going to that single way point I described, and just sits at the bottom of the ocean until the end of the scenario? Will I be forced to make an ascent back to comms way point every single time I move the sub deep??

Ok, so now let's take the ASu Naval Patrol. Currently, you can set the transit, Station, and attack depth. If I set all of them below comms depth, is the sub basically gone from my command forever, albeit continuing its mission for the rest of the game?

[CCIP-subsim]

Let's take the submarine as a simple example. I set the course, in a simple one direction vector. I then manually tell the sub to go to max depth. At some point during the decent, the sub loses comms. So what happens? The sub continues to dive, going to that single way point I described, and just sits at the bottom of the ocean until the end of the scenario? Will I be forced to make an ascent back to comms way point every single time I move the sub deep??

As Sunburn said, this is entirely up to the scenario designer. There are no preset conditions for out-of-contact units, except (as I understand it) damage that knocks out all of the unit's comms equipment - which for a submarine or ship is almost impossible (that is, you're far more likely to have the unit destroyed outright than have it lose all its comms systems first).

It is impossible for the sub to continue diving - units in CMANO will never exceed their altitude limits.

Everything else is up to how the scenario designers use the game's logic. Yes, a scenario designer can (in theory) do something silly and make a unit go out of contact, hide, and never return - but that's something they'd almost have to try to do on purpose. The default behaviour for a unit out of contact, as the description on the page says, is to continue with its current orders and/or mission. However, just like the unit can go out of contact based on parameters defined by a scenario creator - the scenario creator can also tell the unit what to do if it goes out of contact. The unit could, for example, be automatically told to change its depth, speed, etc. It can be set to automatically set course for base when losing contact. It could be automatically be assigned to a new mission; it can even be programmed to go silent and make a "check in" at either a pre-defined time, or once it reaches a specific area. It can be made to launch weapons and make all sorts of noise to draw attention. It can even be renamed "CRAZY IVAN", made to spawn a whale every 90 seconds, and then detonate in a 25mT nuclear blast after the 50th whale [:'(]

It's all literally up to the scenario designer. If the scenario designer knows what they're doing, it won't be difficult for them to predict and program the correct reaction for a unit going OOC, as the situation requires [:)]

[Dan109]

Sounds like a pretty hollow feature, if the scenario developer has to do 100% of the logic behind what happens when a unit goes out of comms, including units for the human player. So I take that the comms breaking therefore can't be used with older scenarios (including ones created by the devs) unless the scenario designer specifically coded it to handle this. That's a shame, I would fully expect a few doctrine options for a unit. Example, for a sub, to come back to comms depth every 2 hours. Things with reasonable defaults that are conservative so units are not lost foolishly. Yeah, now I see why there is an option to enable/disable this feature.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Dan109

Sounds like a pretty hollow feature, if the scenario developer has to do 100% of the logic behind what happens when a unit goes out of comms, including units for the human player. So I take that the comms breaking therefore can't be used with older scenarios (including ones created by the devs) unless the scenario designer specifically coded it to handle this. That's a shame, I would fully expect a few doctrine options for a unit. Example, for a sub, to come back to comms depth every 2 hours. Things with reasonable defaults that are conservative so units are not lost foolishly. Yeah, now I see why there is an option to enable/disable this feature.

To be fair your opinion may benefit from seeing what it does prior to passing judgement on its value. I find it really useful for modeling some cyber warfare stuff to dropping an AAA gun off an air defense network it may not have access to. In terms of behaviors the off network units follow their mission logic and existing ROE. They'll defend themselves etc with the constraint of not seeing what the rest see. If you're worried about ROE then set them up prior too if you expect to be dropped off the net add some lua to give the off network units some choices you would think they have.

Thanks

Mike

[JPFisher55]

Mike, will some instructions on how to have subs communicate every so often (in case the scenario designers forgets) be available for the average player
who is not familiar with LUA?

[mikmykWS]

Intermittent sub comms wasn't really part of the design spec but definitely doable. Lua is probably the easiest path for this and it should only be a couple lines. If the guys added anything UI at this point it will be an on and off switch. If after you see the feature and the lua and you still think it needs to be there please do add a request.

Thanks

Mike

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Dan109
Sounds like a pretty hollow feature, if the scenario developer has to do 100% of the logic behind what happens when a unit goes out of comms, including units for the human player.

You may want to re-phrase that.

There is a whole paragraph here ("...and Effects") explaining what happens when a unit goes off-grid and also what happens when the unit re-joins its parent side's comms network, including the very complex process of merging its private contact information. This is the mechanics side.

Now on the tactical/operational AI side, what you are asking about is that units should have built-in AI behaviors for how to operate in the absence of comms (e.g. your submarine example). What you are sidestepping is that this is not a simulation of a specific conflict in a specific place and time. What works for Falklands-82 doesn't work either for Desert Storm-91 or for Yom Kippur-73. Hell, even at the very same conflict different sides (even close allies) have different SOPs for dealing with such contingencies. Could we have coded built-in behaviors that would work for side-X at conflict-Y ? Sure, but they'd more or less break down for anyone else, anytime else. The much more flexible alternative? Give the scenario author the platform and the tools to tailor the behaviors he has in mind for the scenario he wants to put together.

Note that we did implement sanity checks for the AI so that units that suddenly become isolated don't start shooting at everything in sight. These are common-sense behaviors that make sense for almost every such circumstance. But dictating how often the sub will come up to antenna depth to update? You'll have to write that.

Thanks.

[JPFisher55]

Ok, but may I suggest a default period of 2 hours for a sub to rise to communications depth if it submerges and is out of contact; in case the scenario designer does not add in some communications time.
If subs lose contact when they submerge below a certain depth, then a player of many older scenarios are going to lose contact with their subs without some default; unless the sub is told never to submerge below its communications depth.

OTOH, you might want to post simple instructions on how to write a LUA for such doctrine, so the player can add it in older scenarios.

[mikmykWS]

Sure don't mind helping you out if you want to do this.

Mike

[Cik]

maybe this is a stupid request, but could we get a "flag" flag...?

that is to say, so that you can set where the player physically is?

so for a sub, you could set the "flag" flag on the sub, and every time it submerges you lose contact with everything, or you could set the flag flag on another thing and you would lose contact with the sub every time it drops below antenna depth?

i mean..

am i thinking about this in the wrong way?

i suppose it depends on how deep you're going to go, but i think it might be cool to have actual datalinking, that is carrier ---> AEW/relay AC ---> fighter: if flag is on the carrier and the carrier's comms stuff is damaged, you lose track of everything; if the fighter's is damaged you maintain contact with the AEW etc.

is this sort of thing on the table?

[Dan109]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: Dan109
Sounds like a pretty hollow feature, if the scenario developer has to do 100% of the logic behind what happens when a unit goes out of comms, including units for the human player.

You may want to re-phrase that.

There is a whole paragraph here ("...and Effects") explaining what happens when a unit goes off-grid and also what happens when the unit re-joins its parent side's comms network, including the very complex process of merging its private contact information. This is the mechanics side.

Sure, I'll rephrase it, as I had already read the feature description you described. This is an incomplete feature from the human player's point of view. The human is supposed to be in "command", and that includes being able to give specific guidelines to units who lose communications with HQ. The feature is missing the most trivial type of "behavior" change of losing comms, such as trying to re-establish communications if it is the case of aircraft being jammed or depth too deep for a sub. The only option I have as a player it would seem to make manual way points for all of these missions. On the sub side, have them rise to a certain depth (subs for a long time haven't had to rise to antenna depth, they have VLF satellite communications, but still it works only at a certain depth) every X hours or Y Nm. On the aircraft side, I would have to create loops so they roll back to more friendly airspace every so often. What an arse pain.

Now from the scenario developer side, it sounds like all contingencies can accounted for with a good design. This is great if you are making a scenario for the AI to play itself like those using the professional edition, or if you want to play your own created scenario. But if I play someone else's scenario and enable this feature, 1) they must code in specific behavior for this feature, else it will have undesired consequences 2) I have to play by the scenario designer's communication loss doctrine.

Issue #1 tells me that many scenarios will be unplayable with this feature, waiting for the scenario designer to get around to adding in specific behavior when comms goes out. But every scenario will have different behaviors due to different designers. Will the scenarios provided with this update have pre-built behavior? What about the original scenarios and Northern Inferno scenarios? Will the developers go back to add LUA scripts for these scenarios? Maybe, maybe not.

This brings me to issue #2, having to use the scenario developer's doctrines. The game is about choices, and there is no choice for this feature, besides enabling it or disabling it (and if I decide to disable it for all scenarios, one less reason to buy the expansion). I'll have to figure out if the scenario has been updated to a) support the feature in anyway b) if I agree with their approach. Based on that I will decide to enable or disable the feature. What I have loved about CMANO are the choices given in the doctrines section. Sure, I have been frustrated with my unit's behavior while I continue to learn the game, but in many cases discovered it was a doctrine choice issue. Now maybe 6 months from now, you can look at all of the scenario developers' implementations of lack of comms behavior. I'm sure for each mission type, and the three arch-types of units, there will be a handful of good ides. Eventually, I would expect the devs to implement these choices for the human player, in the doctrines window.

I'm just surprised that some basic choices were not given with the initial release of this feature.

[Dimitris]

Thank you for your feedback.

[mikmykWS]

Yeah thanks man. Great feedback.

Mike