Matrix Games Forums

We have all been watching the same thing for months now. Russia has clearly under-performed in every aspect on the battlefield. Navy? Embarrassed. Ground Forces? Very poorly managed at best. Air Force? Cannot gain superiority against a weaker foe...for over 3 months!

Is something in the works to bring their game capabilities more in line with demonstrated reality?

I think thats a pretty big overstatement. Most of what appears to ail the Russian war machine can be accounted for in how scenarios are designed and tactics are executed. Even my statement is probably too generalized. Actual usage shows weaknesses in any military system.

An example is the Moskva sinking. A number of us have shown that plain old poor training and alertness can account for that disaster. And not executing proper SEAD can most likely account for a lot of air losses.

Also keep in mind that CMO covers 1948 to 2025. Would it be only the last 10 years?

"Fair statement? Russia's database needs a complete update"

This is incorret thinking. The individual weapon can be ok and thus correct in database* but the issue is if it was deployed (how can we tell Su-57 performance if it was not used) and how it was deployed (tactics matter**).

* They are things to be improve in database but it should not be based on feelings.

** If you launch 10 missiles against one target and the target is hit does it mean that one missile has just 10 % chance of hitting that target?

Then clearly the OODA loops are out of whack. Performance of nearly every system is based on technology and human combined capabilities.

Further than that, I am sure many of their systems will have been over-rated by the west because fear sells.

Overrated or not OODA can be adjusted and alert levels can be dynamically set to hobble the use of any technology.

Scenario designer can and shoud set training levels.

In database some soviet/russian weapons in my opinion are overrated and some are underrated. If you have concrete data and time you can start a case for change.

What is the point of statement that some not specified group of data are not correct without going into details. Do you expect that somebody will start to go through thousands of items in database because of your unclear statement?

Try finding concrete details like MiG-23BN, in database it has chaff/flare dispenser and could carry maximum of 3 metric tons of ordnance. See, here you have overrated soviet equipment in database. Was this concrete example of soviet overrated weapon in your mind?

I've commented on this dead horse again and again and AGAIN. Frankly, by now you're late to the party.

Here's a taste: https://www.reddit.com/r/CMANO/comments ... he_moskva/

As for OODA values.... stick around.

Sorry, I am late to the party.

I am just so giddy over just how terrible a conventional fighting force Russia has that I giggle to myself sometimes. As a conventional army, they are 3rd tier.

Being a baby boomer American, what can I say?

Dimitris wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:23 pm I've commented on this dead horse again and again and AGAIN. Frankly, by now you're late to the party.

Here's a taste: https://www.reddit.com/r/CMANO/comments ... he_moskva/

As for OODA values.... stick around.

IMHO, (and as I believe Dimitris is alluding to) the answer is to adjust the OODA values and/or doctrine settings. CMO is a sandbox game. As such, the weapon performances should be "as advertised". That allows the player to examine how the weapon systems would work if properly employed (or if employed in a creative fashion). Incidentally, for the professional users, that is what they also likely want: How does a hostile system work under optimal conditions/best case (for RED), because that what they BLUE has to plan for. Therefore, if a player wants to examine how a system operates under real world conditions, making adjustments to the OODA loop or doctrine settings would be the best way to achieve it.

PN79 wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:30 pm Try finding concrete details like MiG-23BN, in database it has chaff/flare dispenser and could carry maximum of 3 metric tons of ordnance. See, here you have overrated soviet equipment in database. Was this concrete example of soviet overrated weapon in your mind?

What a problem with characteristics of MiG-23BN? Efim Gordon is their book give same data for MiG-23BN.

Rondor11 wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:56 am

Assuming that data distortions are evenly distributed, we should not fixate lopsidedly on overestimated Russian techniques, but rather recognize that it is just as likely that overestimation (as underestimation) applies to any record in the database, regardless of its national relevance.

We seem to have a philosophical problem of perceiving the world.
Each of us sees not the real situation, but only a distorted picture. Distortions are introduced by personal perception (a baby boomer giggling over the "weakness" of the Russian army), the news (the rare media can be called at least not heavily lying), and the environment - forums, socializing. In most cases people are not able (do not know how, do not whan to know) to analyze the situation comprehensively, and to analyze it abstractly, to break it down into separate parts. It is difficult for a non-specialist to perceive and evaluate a joint combat. "The Russians are slowly advancing", "the Russians are retreating", "the Russians are suffering terrible losses" - this is the picture of the world in Rondor11's eyes. He is not interested in how it corresponds to reality. He is only interested in fixing the imaginary humiliation of the Russians in the database. If Kiev is still not captured and not all of the American advisors are hung on lanterns, it means that the characteristics of the Russian equipment are wrong. " Excellent" logic.
But it is encouraging to see that most of us are educated enough to understand that the characteristics of the equipment are only a small component in the overall picture of combat operations. And of far greater importance are poorly developed features in CMO such as communication, reconnaissance, tactics in general and tactical techniques in particular, and the interaction of branches of the armed forces.

Rondor11
It is not millimeters of caliber, armor, or kilometers per hour that are at war, but command structures and tactics. Realizing this simple principle will make your perception of the world much easier.

What Filitich wrote in his posts should be set in stone.

MiG-23BN in game has loadouts with 8 FAB-500 which is too much. Also unmodernized ones did not have chaff/flares dispensers - that become standard only on MiG-27. But it is not big deal just an example.

Obligatory plug here that if you're aware of (concrete, verifiable) issues in the DB you can submit a ticket in the public DB requests GitHub.

Filitch wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:05 pm We seem to have a philosophical problem of perceiving the world.

Yes. Most figured out the guy was trolling in the subject line, shrugged, and went about their day.

Mike

BDukes wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 4:23 pm

Filitch wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:05 pm We seem to have a philosophical problem of perceiving the world.

Yes. Most figured out the guy was trolling in the subject line, shrugged, and went about their day.

Mike

Agreed 100%.
I would dare to think that the Russians are rather pretty well handling the campaign, with an economy of forces and avoiding hitting civilians, which contradicts any of Zhukov's doctrine. Errors are made. lessons are learnt too, plans get adapted.
UKR keeps lowering the age of draft, when the toddlers hit the front, Russia will have to fold I guess?
I fear that the Russians options are being few, and cornered, we (the West) are pushing them to some extremes that we may regret.

As much as I prefer to not take the bait, ditto what FrancoisX5 mentioned and quoted.

Pygmalion wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:44 pm Obligatory plug here that if you're aware of (concrete, verifiable) issues in the DB you can submit a ticket in the public DB requests GitHub.

I know, this is on me. You know playing, slowly trying to continue with my orbat "scenario" and then no time left to create DB request with at least some level of quality.

CV60 wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:06 pm IMHO, (and as I believe Dimitris is alluding to) the answer is to adjust the OODA values and/or doctrine settings. CMO is a sandbox game. As such, the weapon performances should be "as advertised". That allows the player to examine how the weapon systems would work if properly employed (or if employed in a creative fashion). Incidentally, for the professional users, that is what they also likely want: How does a hostile system work under optimal conditions/best case (for RED), because that what they BLUE has to plan for. Therefore, if a player wants to examine how a system operates under real world conditions, making adjustments to the OODA loop or doctrine settings would be the best way to achieve it.

Would it be possible, in the future, to be able to select a "difficulty" level, by increasing / decreasing the adversary training level by 1. Could increase the replayability of the scenarios, and it would not mean that the scenario designers / players redo the scenarios through the editor?

I almost always set Russian proficiency lower than Western units. I use a random number generator for each unit and a sliding scale based on my view of the nation. Generally for Russia...

00-09% Novice
10-39% Cadet
40-80% Regular
81-95% Veteran
96-99% Ace

Most Western Nations

00-09% Novice
10-19% Cadet
20-49% Regular
50-89% Veteran
90-99% Ace

Sounds good. Do your scenarios use the random generator every time you start one, or did you use it for when you set up the base scenario?

kch wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:48 am Sounds good. Do your scenarios use the random generator every time you start one, or did you use it for when you set up the base scenario?

It's hard wired into the scenario OOB. Would be a lot of Lua work to set up a random proficiency for every unit at load, unless it was a very small scenario. I'm not great with Lua!!!! Other than my early scenarios, before I caught onto this capability, every unit in my scenarios has an independent proficiency. So it's not a base "side" proficiency across the board. Almost all "Facilities (airbases) have a "Novice" rating. But ships, air units, TELs, etc. all have a proficiency assigned as described above.