Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

While playing virtually all of the modern scenarios in scale 10 or more km/hex, I found it very annoying, that despite having loads of precision guided weapons, still I could not choose what I want to destroy.

Especially in a scenario depicting the fictional Korean war in 2000+, I could not destroy the massive enemy artillery with my F-15E, F-16, F-117 and so on, because the artillery units were stacked with other units, and the firepower was distributed between them, as if I was performing carpet bombing with unguided munitions.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I don't think it's appropriate in an operational game for the player to be micromanaging precision weapon strikes...

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I think there's a pretty good argument for it in the timeframe that he's talking about.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I think there's a pretty good argument for it in the timeframe that he's talking about.

This gets back to the argument you and I had elsewhere about who the player is. Under your definition, with the player as some sort of Borg-like collective consciousness, it's fine and dandy for the player to be making every little decision. Under mine- where I view the player as sort of an abstraction of the commanding staff- it doesn't make any sense at all.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I think there's a pretty good argument for it in the timeframe that he's talking about.

This gets back to the argument you and I had elsewhere about who the player is. Under your definition, with the player as some sort of Borg-like collective consciousness, it's fine and dandy for the player to be making every little decision. Under mine- where I view the player as sort of an abstraction of the commanding staff- it doesn't make any sense at all.

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

I have mixed feelings about this. While I agree with golden delicious about the operational scale of the game and what level of the chain of command the player represents, the issue Rhetor raises merits some discussion.

Interestingly, as precision guided weapons become more pervasive in the US military decisions on their use, particularly against certain specific 'strategic' targets, may be occurring at higher levels of command than previously. I would be surprised if the targetting decisions leading to the [unsuccessful] precision strikes against Saddam's suspected hiding spots during the 'hot' phase of OIF weren't made at the highest levels.

What Rhetor seems to be asking for is more 'discrimination' in precision airstrikes. If I'm striking a hex containing a stack of units, let me select which unit or units the strike will affect. That may not be unreasonable if we're talking about a stack containing SSMs, or HQ units.

I would certainly be in favor of adding dedicated 'Wild Weasel' aircraft with the ability to strike AD units, specifically ones equipped with SAMs (SEAD missions). That would be a major improvement for accurately simulating modern conflicts.

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

Interestingly, as precision guided weapons become more pervasive in the US military decisions on their use, particularly against certain specific 'strategic' targets, may be occurring at higher levels of command than previously. I would be surprised if the targetting decisions leading to the [unsuccessful] precision strikes against Saddam's suspected hiding spots during the 'hot' phase of OIF weren't made at the highest levels.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I think it would be reasonable to allow the player to set SOPs which would cause aircraft, for example, to target artillery over armor or vice versa. You'd be designing the rules of engagement, so to speak.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I think it would be reasonable to allow the player to set SOPs which would cause aircraft, for example, to target artillery over armor or vice versa. You'd be designing the rules of engagement, so to speak.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I think it would be reasonable to allow the player to set SOPs which would cause aircraft, for example, to target artillery over armor or vice versa. You'd be designing the rules of engagement, so to speak.

One could certainly set general rules. So long as the player doesn't find himself selecting individual targets.

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

You would concede an exception for SEAD strikes (as described in my post above) wouldn't you?

Peter Szabo handled this problem in an innovative way in his Lebanon 82 scenario, but lack of a true SEAD capability is a real gap for those of us who design modern-era scenarios.

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

Such "rules of engagement" is exactly what I was thinking about.

I welcomed very much the introduction of command squads. Yet every time I've tried to pick off enemy HQs with most advanced aircraft available, usually I would destroy MP squads, trucks, jeeps - virtually everything, save the target I was looking for, namely those two tiny command squads in a divisional HQ.

Limiting HQs only to command squads doesn't help either, because such HQs usually are stacked with other units.

The only solution was to target the hex with all available firepower (artillery and heavy bombers) and obliterate it with massive barrage.

Therefore if I could select some target priority, it would very much improve the game. Maybe I am proposing too much, but such idea could also be introduced to the most advanced artillery systems available (later MLRS and classic artillery firing guided shells...)

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

This is an excellent example, given the emphasis that the US places on precision strikes against enemy command and control.

Again, though, the things that are being targetted in this instance aren't represented with units on the map. Does Saddam's Final Gamble have a 'Ministry of Information' unit in central Baghdad?

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

British special forces (were they called LRDG?) attacked once Rommel's headquarters. Their aim was specifically one man - Rommel, yet the decision was made very high in the command structure. Would you call that excessive micromanaging?

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

This is an excellent example, given the emphasis that the US places on precision strikes against enemy command and control.

Again, though, the things that are being targetted in this instance aren't represented with units on the map. Does Saddam's Final Gamble have a 'Ministry of Information' unit in central Baghdad?