What info would a sub actually know?

[DWReese]

I'm playing a scenario whereby the designer has a sub set at 381 feet and creeping along at 5 kts, with no known targets in its path.

A friendly satellite passes over and positively identifies a group of ships as being the enemy, and even identifies each by name.

In the game, the information is provided to me, the game player, so I obviously know what is what, and I could change the course of the sub to intercept the enemy ships.

My question is, is there a way that the sub would realistically have this info, based on the fact that it is currently at 381 feet, and hasn't changed?

As a means of testing, I switched to the POV mode for the sub, and the location of the enemy ships is known, but is becoming dated because the satellite is no longer overhead. I believe that had I been playing from the sub's POV at the start, I wouldn't not have been provided with this information. Is that true? Obviously, this is the real question.

So, given the situation, would the sub actually have access to the info about the ships if it was at 381 feet?

Is there some kind of low frequency underwater transmission to provide this information? (I believe that I read that in a Larry Bond book.) How would that data even be transmitted, and by what unit? And, if that does exist, wouldn't the enemy also hear this transmission, thereby warning the ships that they had been spotted?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance for the sub help.

[tylerblakebrandon]

I would suggest playing with realistic sub comms on.

Most submarine comms at depth don't have high data bandwidth. It usually a message to come to periscope depth to obtain a detailed information from something like a LOS SATCOM transmission.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi ... submarines

[Nikel]

The low frecuency installations described in the wikipedia article are simulated/included in the game?

[tylerblakebrandon]

The low frecuency installations described in the wikipedia article are simulated/included in the game?

If you're playing with realistic sub comms it's basically modeled via a come to comms depth order.

[Nikel]

If you're playing with realistic sub comms it's basically modeled via a come to comms depth order.

OK, thanks.

[DWReese]

I read the article. Thank you. It was very informative.

With regard to the game, playing from the POV position does not seem to erase the knowledge attained from the overall perspective. In other words, let's assume that the satellite flies over and sees the group pf enemy ships. As the game player, you can see them, so you know that they are there. If you switch to the sub, and use the POV, the enemy ships are still there, even though they are no longer being updated because the satellite has gone away. That is obviously because the enemy was found before switching to the sib's POV.

If, however, you start with the sub's POV, then it never sees what the satellite exposes unless he surfaces. So, it sort of boils down to which unit is identifying them, and what view the sub has at the time.

This would likely be difficult to program because you would have two different sets of data, and it would be requesting that some of that data be eliminated.

It was stated that the communication would be simulated to have occurred. By that, I suppose that that means that the sub was summoned to go to shallow, receive the data, and then return to the deeper depth. While we don't see it happen, I suppose that it is a good work around.

[Nikel]

Thenewarea51, audio and video.

COST 43 (E-6B TACAMO) broadcasting a EAM on VLF over the North Atlantic this morning.

https://video-s.twimg.com/amplify_video ... NQZlWm.mp4


9 seconds of the sound in mp3 format, perhaps useful for scenario designers.

EAM on VLF.zip

(67.94 KiB) Downloaded 12 times

[DWReese]

That was cool

[Knightpawn]

I read the article. Thank you. It was very informative.

With regard to the game, playing from the POV position does not seem to erase the knowledge attained from the overall perspective.

You are right. The way I create "realism" for subs is by imposing the following discipline when I play the game:

1. I turn ON realistic sub comms. At the beginning I plot a reasonable long path for my submarine with reasonably long distances between waypoints and on each waypoint on the path I order it to go to shallow.
2. If at any time I go below shallow, then I don't allow my self to intervene until the next waypoint is reached. At that point the sub is again at shallow depth. Hence I am allowed to assume that it has the most current information about the theater of operations. At that point I can I either replot its path (applying 1 above) or order it to dive again an continue on its original path.

PS. There is a series of game called "Combat Mission", also sponsored by Matrix Games, that I used to play a lot in the past. They implement an amazing system whereby each unit has its own battle image depending on what information has been passed down to it though command and control and the communication devices the unit carries. That would be very nice to aspire to.

Best Regards

[thewood1]

"PS. There is a series of game called "Combat Mission", also sponsored by Matrix Games, that I used to play a lot in the past. They implement an amazing system whereby each unit has its own battle image depending on what information has been passed down to it though command and control and the communication devices the unit carries. That would be very nice to aspire to."

1) that only works in CM if you purposely play a certain way. Click off a unit and you instantly complete all spotting reports and the complex spot reporting goes away for the player. Steel Beasts, I think, does a better job of representing reporting and radio traffic.

2) Isn't that kind of how CMO works now. It doesn't have the multi-layered C&C that CM has, but it can easily represent it in scenario design. I use multiple sides for various groups like AD, recon, satellites, etc. to represent all the nets. This can all be done with just a little effort in the editor. If you just drop subs into a scenario with realistic comms, you get out of it what you put into it. Maybe ask designers to start doing that. But then the question becomes who wants to play it.

3) with realistic sub comms, its again how the designer sets it up. If you turn it on with the sub at comms depth, it will start with the existing picture that eventually fades. Just using the POV command really doesn't do much for you game-wise other than seeing what the unit had in its network at the time it was executed.

[Knightpawn]

1) that only works in CM if you purposely play a certain way. Click off a unit and you instantly complete all spotting reports and the complex spot reporting goes away for the player. Steel Beasts, I think, does a better job of representing reporting and radio traffic.

The beauty of the CM system is to me that, no matter what the player knows about the area of operations, a unit will react tactically based only on what the unit knows.

I have never tries Steel beasts unfortunately.

[thewood1]

1) that only works in CM if you purposely play a certain way. Click off a unit and you instantly complete all spotting reports and the complex spot reporting goes away for the player. Steel Beasts, I think, does a better job of representing reporting and radio traffic.

The beauty of the CM system is to me that, no matter what the player knows about the area of operations, a unit will react tactically based only on what the unit knows.

I have never tries Steel beasts unfortunately.

And isn't CMO the same way, even by default? And if the scenario is built properly, it can be even more fine tuned on FoW and comms siloes.

[DWReese]

The original point that I was trying to make is that you could have a sub on your side that is patrolling at a depth of 458 feet when a satellite flies over and reveals that a SAG is 200 miles away from the sub's position. As the game player, you can see it. As with all of your ships, they are instantly informed of this data. But, I doubt seriously that a sub at 458 feet would instantaneously be provided with that data. At least, that's my perspective.

Therefore, when the sub suddenly alters its course, and starts to proceed to the location of the enemy SAG, I have to assume that this info was relayed to the sub somehow. We all know that the knowledge of the existence of the SAG was provided by the satellite but, just like the title states, "What info would a sub actually know?"

I was thinking of setting up a scenario whereby the subs all operate as a separate entity (or side) and they don't share any info with its actual country (side). I don't know if this would work, but it might be something to play around with. That way they might not know everything that we know.

[thewood1]

But if you are using realistic sub comms, it doesn't head there. It knows nothing of the SAG unless you ping it. I used to use separate allied sides for subs all the time, but stopped when realistic comms came on the scene. I do the same thing for older recon platforms that require base processing of info and then dissemination.

[Tcao]

I'm playing a scenario whereby the designer has a sub set at 381 feet and creeping along at 5 kts, with no known targets in its path.

A friendly satellite passes over and positively identifies a group of ships as being the enemy, and even identifies each by name.

In the game, the information is provided to me, the game player, so I obviously know what is what, and I could change the course of the sub to intercept the enemy ships.

My question is, is there a way that the sub would realistically have this info, based on the fact that it is currently at 381 feet, and hasn't changed?

CMO is a great simulation game, but even a great simulation cannot simulate everything and needs some abstract element.

in this kind of situation, a COB should check the satellite pass timetable then remind the captain go to shallow at the certain time. Just like the voice line in the Dangerous Waters . "Captain, recommend to go to the communication depth."

Sub will change the depth , raise communication masts or deploy towed surface-floating transceiver antenna. Then dive back to the deep depth and continue the mission. The whole process may take about half hour but in CMO it is an instant process.

[Tcao]

1) that only works in CM if you purposely play a certain way. Click off a unit and you instantly complete all spotting reports and the complex spot reporting goes away for the player. Steel Beasts, I think, does a better job of representing reporting and radio traffic.

The beauty of the CM system is to me that, no matter what the player knows about the area of operations, a unit will react tactically based only on what the unit knows.

I have never tries Steel beasts unfortunately.

And isn't CMO the same way, even by default? And if the scenario is built properly, it can be even more fine tuned on FoW and comms siloes.

In CMO the information flow through different groups and branch instantly. This is something that can be tweaked in the future

Just image a scenario that a Search radar site detected a long range air-to-air missile flying towards an aircraft. In current CMO games, the targeted aircraft will instantly be warned about the incoming missile because the ground based search radar detect it. IRL, the radar site will have to establish a communication channel with the aircraft, it will take time to do so.

[thewood1]

"In CMO the information flow through different groups and branch instantly. This is something that can be tweaked in the future"

This is very doable today by the scenario designer. Using comms functions and/or multiple sides. I have built AD systems where the SAMs, search radars, observers, and interceptors are different sides that can be connected based on events. Once you do it a couple times, it becomes fairly easy to do. Where it starts to stretch the return on effort is in massive scenarios. But using exports and merges allows to templatize it.

[Blast33]

Very interesting thewood1

Would you be able to share an example maybe? That would help to get an idea which events you would have to make.

images.jpg (8.06 KiB) Viewed 99 times

[thewood1]

I haven't worked with any recently. But you should be able to build one quickly. Its pretty simple. When I get some time, I'll try to find some example ones I would feel OK sharing.

[thewood1]

I couldn't quickly find the one I wanted to post, but here is an IADS test. The point of the exercise is a side with SAM, a side with a search radar, and a side with a common comms node. I used friend/neutral/friend sides to force all comms through the comms node. The test is to let the radar detect the aircraft while watching the SAM side. You'll see the SAM gets only a VERY vague contact and never anything more solid than that until within visual. If you delete the comms node, the SAM never gets a clue until the aircraft is in visual. It opens up a lot of possibilities. It can be even more power with comms disruption, events, and lua. I don't use it on subs because subs have their own special setting already. I have played with it for recon aircraft before comms disruption was available. I might be able to track that one down.

It took some experimenting and posting to the devs a few issues a couple years ago to get it to work as I expected.