SeaQueen
Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
|
Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of a lot of pre-hostilities/D+0 scenarios partially because of things like you mentioned. In a realistic scenario, these things aren't determined by random chance. They're planned. It's not like every time an IRGC speedboat does something goofy with a US DDG and warning shots are fired, there's a 50/50 (80/20?, 70/30?) chance of going to war. It's a show of force. The warning shots are less about whether they're scared away or not, and more about providing a tool for the US commander to determine if it's a show of force or the start of something else. It's about gauging intentions. The day that they actually start hostilities and don't turn around, it isn't because of a random chance, it's because it was pre-planned, scripted, and resourced with enough forces to be a credible threat.
Given that, what is the "aggression" metric really capturing? How would your tactics change as a result of adding warning shots? Wouldn't there also be other indications and warnings that would help one distinguish between the real thing and a show of force? Certainly that would probably influence the rules of engagement as well. From a tactical point of view, as far as I can tell, the only real effect of warning shots, besides aiding in the decision making process is to use up a shot that might be used once they've been declared hostile.
How would a scenario like that replay? If the goal is to capture a "typical period of heightened tensions," there'd have to be only a small chance that the scenario would actually turn hot.
What is victory? That the enemy boats/ships turned around or stopped? Then your chance of winning is basically determined not by your tactical prowess but by the random chance of them turning around/stopping. That's kind of lame. You'd have essentially two scenarios 1) enemy turns around or stops 2) enemy doesn't turn around or stop, with different victory conditions for both. So up front, the scenario would need to determine what the true set victory conditions was, along with whether or not they're going to turn around, but you CAN'T tell the player what the actual set of victory conditions are. Somehow, you need to tell them what to do in the briefing, though.
I'm just brain storming about what a pre-hostilities/D-Day scenario would look like and how it would work in order for it to be interesting. I think it could be done, but not using the "aggressiveness" metric you described. It'd be best done in LUA, I think. You could make warning shots a special action. Deduct a shot every time you use it (5'/54? 7.62mm? 0.50cal? you could have special actions for all of them). You could also add other non-lethal options in a continuum of force as special actions. Those are your tools for deciding when to start shooting.
At the scenario start, you could set the appropriate random variables. Is the opposing force hostile or just unfriendly? There should be only a small chance of them being actually hostile, but just enough to make for a certain amount of uncertainty. If they're unfriendly, then they follow a plan where they stop or turn around. There might be several different plans. Plan A assigns the forces to the plan where they turn around at when they honk the horn. Plan B assigns them to turn around following warning shots. If they're hostile then they follow a plan where they don't you might have a few of them as well.
I think that's the best solution. It'd make for the most immersive scenario and it can be done using the existing software, no modifications required.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Peacemaker32
Would it be possible to implement an option for the use of warning shots/"shot across the bow" as distinct from standard engagement orders? Currently, this aspect is not modelled in Command; this leads to situations in which warning shots would normally be used in real life, but for which doing so in-game would lead to instant "Hostile" status.
This could possibly involve a selectable option (similar to what currently exists for nuclear weapons in choosing high-altitude vs. surface burst) which would communicate the appropriate message to the AI. That is, the player could select either standard manual engagement (Shift + F1 or F1) or the "warning shot" option under their weapons panel; if a warning shot were to be fired, it would not result in the player being marked as hostile, but only in suitable action on the part of the AI. An "aggression" metric could vary the chance of AI-controlled forces breaking off an attack versus continuing to prosecute it, adding an element of unpredictability to scenarios.
Thoughts on this are very much appreciated.
< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 6/7/2019 1:17:13 PM >
|
Printable Version
"Warning shots" functionality in CMANO? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread