Providing/Confirming ID on tracks

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Providing/Confirming ID on tracks

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Providing/Confirming ID on tracks

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Providing/Confirming ID on tracks - 1/2/2014 9:09:37 PM

Pergite!

Posts: 546
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: The temperate climate zone
Status: offline

I started to play the Django Wall (1991) scenario on build 481 and soon encountered a situation where my intercepting Japanese F-4 fighters are unable to ID two Chinese J-7:s. An initial ESM contact report gave the Chinese fighters away, but two F-4s circling them for 10 minutes, passing as close as 20m have not been able to provide a positive ID.
If I would manually mark them as hostile, my fighters would automatically engage (not allowed in the scenario since it its no war ongoing), so I had hoped that the automatic ID would provide an "unfriendly" status. Since the J-7:s aren't ID:d my interceptors will not leave them alone and can because of this not prosecute any other contacts in their assigned patrol area.

I initially wanted to post this in the Tech Support section as a bug, then it dawned upon me that the local time was 00:00 and it was night.

1.) Is there any good way to ID aircraft at night from aircraft that lacks both NVG and FLIR?

2.) It would be great to add the possibility to mark tracks as additional sides (allied/unfriendly) together with the newly implemented (thank you very much) manual options for neutral and friendly. The justification for such a request is described above, i.e the ability to manually classify a potential hostile (unfriendly) track without shooting it down.

< Message edited by Pergite! -- 1/2/2014 10:13:32 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Providing/Confirming ID on tracks - 1/2/2014 9:23:58 PM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

What you are describing is 'SUSPECT' (one step short of HOSTILE). Game terms it as unfriendly - so that would be a useful tag addition.

(in reply to Pergite!)

Post #: 2

RE: Providing/Confirming ID on tracks - 1/3/2014 7:24:58 AM

Pergite!

Posts: 546
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: The temperate climate zone
Status: offline

Another thing got to my attention yesterday concerning track ID. ESM sensors have the ability to provide classifications on tracks in regards of type of platform. For the scenario above I have a P3 Orion that was the first to ID the two J-7s as fighters, due to their particular air search radars. That particular radar only exists on different versions of J-7s, which should in theory make the crew on my P-3 narrow down their classification further, alternatively make me choose from the contact report drop down list (manually excluding the past the future as well as other parts of the world.

What I realized that I missed was a track-history function. This would be the ability to backtrack a particular tracks movement from first contact. In the scenario above, it would for example in a congested airspace be useful to confirm which U/K tracks originate from China, and give the higher priority to ID, than those coming from Korea.

For ESM provided ID I also would suggest that the computer don't name tracks as Civilians just because of the presence of a civilian navigation radar. The same types of radars exist on a multitude of military vessels. "Civilian" also labels the vessel as a non-combatant, which might not be the case in many scenarios. I however can't come up with a suggestion for a better name at the moment. It would however be interesting if you could add civilian navigational radars to military vessels, set up the EMCON to only use that, and see if things still get the "Civilian" ID from the AI.
Maybe I should tinker around with this and see what happens...

[EDIT] I just realized that I already raised the question regarding track history in another thread that just resurfaced above this one