Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation?

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 >> Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be ... - 4/13/2014 12:58:17 AM

riflebrigade

Posts: 95
Joined: 8/1/2005
From: Australia
Status: offline

I posted regarding having the ability to have a proficiency rating for each unit and was surprised there seems to be very little interest in having this ability provided for the game.

Without having some type of proficiency rating for each unit the game becomes a battle between equipment without the equally import factors of the persons using/maintaining the equipment.

One of the main issues in planning is to assign unit tasks with regard to a units training/ability/cohesion, has there ever been a battle where both sides or units of one side all have the same abilities?

Being able to have units of varied effectiveness would enable more balanced scenarios to be built, where better quality outnumbered forces would have a more realistic chance of winning.

If the ground warfare section of the game is expanded in more detail it will probably need proficiency ratings to enable the game to provide realistic outcomes.

Proficiency ratings could also be utilised to provide the possibility for equipment failures/breakdowns which are major factors in a battle.

Proficiency ratings for each unit could negate the problem of having to decide on a proficiency rating for each country which would be impossible as the proficiency rating of each countries units would probably cover from poor to excellent quality.

Post #: 1

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 1:37:01 AM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

The human factor is missing from the game. I'd like to see the human element in game. It would add things like nation specific training..you could have an Ace in your flight for instance , or have to take down an Ace. I think say the extreme envelope of flight for a fighter jet should only be able to do it if the pilot is rated as an Ace. You could have Recruit, Green, Experienced, Veteran and then ACE..each band would have a modifier that would reduce the planes characteristics (not by loads) to replicate the skill of the pilot. The modifiers would effect accuracy, moral, and for a fighter say turning ability oh and finally skill at releasing decoys.

You could have this as an option for those who don't want that aspect in game.

< Message edited by wodin -- 4/13/2014 2:39:47 AM >

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to riflebrigade)

Post #: 2

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 1:43:16 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

You guys do know you can give side's proficiency ratings right? This was implemented.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 3

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 1:53:27 AM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

Whoops missed it..sorry.

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 4

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 3:48:49 AM

VFA41_Lion

Posts: 228
Joined: 1/30/2014
Status: offline

I think the OP wants a proficiency rating for each individual unit.

_____________________________

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 5

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 5:14:33 AM

Blu3wolf

Posts: 198
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: Western Australia
Status: offline

this is a tricky area, because the question becomes how much of the human factor do you want to model? Human factors are something I prefer to see relatively abstracted - have a mechanism for 'surprise' and perhaps one for 'morale' and leave it at that - and even the morale one is stretching it.

< Message edited by Blu3wolf -- 4/13/2014 6:53:40 AM >

_____________________________

To go up, pull back on the stick.
To go down, pull back harder...

Speed is life. Altitude is life insurance.

(in reply to VFA41_Lion)

Post #: 6

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 5:28:02 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

So far, we have implemented, tested and continuously improved:

* Side-wide proficiency levels: Already affecting air combat, air-ops turnaround, reaction times, damage control, contact classification/identification times and more.

* OODA values / reaction times (we finally have actual tactical surprise in a game like this!), affected by:
a) man-machine interface level,
b) Proficiency level
c) Command system integration level

* A whole doctrine settings & Rules of Engagement that reflect a unit's instructions and "ways of combat" (and also training-relevant factors such as fire discipline).

...and some folks still say Command doesn't feature the human element.

<D throws hands up in the air>

(This is not to say that more human-related factors cannot be included. They can, and we are examining what we can add and how (and how not to break existing stuff). But to say that Command currently lacks them altogether is, IMHO, unfair.)

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 4/13/2014 7:02:42 AM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Blu3wolf)

Post #: 7

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 5:55:36 AM

Blu3wolf

Posts: 198
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: Western Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

The human factor is missing from the game. I'd like to see the human element in game. It would add things like nation specific training..you could have an Ace in your flight for instance , or have to take down an Ace. I think say the extreme envelope of flight for a fighter jet should only be able to do it if the pilot is rated as an Ace. You could have Recruit, Green, Experienced, Veteran and then ACE..each band would have a modifier that would reduce the planes characteristics (not by loads) to replicate the skill of the pilot. The modifiers would effect accuracy, moral, and for a fighter say turning ability oh and finally skill at releasing decoys.

You could have this as an option for those who don't want that aspect in game.

generally its not the plane's performance that is screwed up by a less than ace pilot, its the decisions on where to go and how to get there that stuff up the plane.

Then again, this would require a much more complicated model not really appropriate to something not a dedicated air combat simulator.

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 8

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 7:59:28 AM

Pergite!

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

Put a little pilot portrait in he unit status window for aircrafts, together with a short text box for the pilots biography and you will have the all so crowd pleasing "human element". That also lets people import their own faces which enables them to bring even further "immersion" to the game.
Problem solved!

I however do support the OP idea of different proficiency ratings for different units within a side. Currently when trying to model this I have created several sides within a nation representing different units with for example different readiness states etc.

Anyway,

IMO The current proficiency ratings on OODA cover everything that is asked for above when it comes to modern air and naval engagements, which mostly are decided by capability of the employment of sensors, countermeasures and weapon systems. Its the computers that does the important work. The pilots job is just to bring them to the right place at the right time and back home again.

On the subject, is there a way to get a spread-sheet or something listing the different levels of proficiencies impact on some of the mentioned factors in order to share a better understanding of balancing scenarios. There must be some breaking point where for example good sensor capability outweighs pilot lack proficiency?

< Message edited by Pergite! -- 4/13/2014 11:54:03 AM >

(in reply to Blu3wolf)

Post #: 9

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 11:45:51 AM

mcp5500

Posts: 143
Joined: 2/2/2014
Status: offline

Why not do it for the Fire crew of your carrier group. It is to big of a game for that but changing proficiencis on groups or individual objects would work and should be easily able to be done. Now these profisencies that you are asking for is more like an aviator for each proficance .that would work on aircraft but that is only one part of the game/sim. I am not a aircraft enthusiast but I like navel surface battles. We can't make a avatar for one ships sonarman so why do aircraft get that right. Pfoficance by groups is sufficient. It represents training levels of the group. I have a crack team of F14 pilots in my air group but the a6 group not so much. I't could be as part of the add ship/sub, platoon, aircraft group, sam site, radar, and so-on. That makes more sence, more manageable, and would only be single object in the database to add to each unit and remove the 5 tables for each side. An air base can be inaficient causing aircraft take-off times delays and longer ready times but a group of aircraft can be well trained. A ship would have reduced sensor, less weapon accuracy and longer reload and poor damage control. The same proficiencies that is used for each side. This setting iis only available in the editor when you add a object like a ship or when adding an airbase and group of aircraft when you add them to a base. Also profisencies would not change over the time of the scenario. If command where campaign base, that would be different.

< Message edited by mcp5500 -- 4/13/2014 1:24:00 PM >

(in reply to Pergite!)

Post #: 10

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 1:15:19 PM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

The guys have really done a lot here already to integrates human factors into the game. Unfortunately it may not be obvious... or as obvious as it is in a game like WitP:AE where each individual pilot or leader has a set of ratings. But it's there and it's effective.

For those that agree that things like training, proficiency, etc, play a big role in combat outcomes and belong in a game like this (and I realize there are those that do not), I would argue that the next logical step would be to apply proficiency ratings to the specific forces (eg, air force, naval force, ground force) of each country or side represented, rather than individual units (ship, airplane, tank).

The method then for distinguishing between normal and elite forces within a given country's armed forces would be to use "allied" sides to represent them.

MHO

JD

(in reply to mcp5500)

Post #: 11

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 1:32:32 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Will add a request for a way to add proficiency rating specific to a group or unit to our request list.

Right now we are working on mission logic specifically strike which is more important in terms of what players want and improving the AI. This is a much bigger win,

As far as the game vs simulation bit. Honestly I hope we've proven that you don't to need insult us or our game to get us to pay attention to stuff or be responsive. It would be great if some of you would adjust how you ask for things to reflect that.

Thanks

_____________________________

(in reply to jdkbph)

Post #: 12

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 1:34:49 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

Sunburn, you shouldn't get upset, you guys should take some time and put together some sort of Readme file of the many detailed attributes this sim already simulates.

There's a lot going on under the hood so to speak, and few people really have an idea of how extensive the modelling is unless they get into these forums and read countless posts on the matter.

Even some of us here don't understand all the various things that are modeled unless an issue comes up and you guys took time to explain to us what was going on.

Hearing about some of the nuggets of info like you described only makes me appreciate the sim more.

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 4/13/2014 2:36:48 PM >

(in reply to jdkbph)

Post #: 13

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 1:45:04 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Not a bad idea but not a good time right now as we need what hours we have to develop.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 14

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 1:48:29 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

No problem Mike, I understand you guys are pretty busy, even on your break times.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 15

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 1:54:03 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

I promise you'll like what we're up to now. Off axis attacks etc.

_____________________________

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 16

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 4:25:54 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

Thank you, that's awsome!! Now I can't wait!!

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 4/13/2014 5:28:05 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 17

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 5:27:34 PM

mcp5500

Posts: 143
Joined: 2/2/2014
Status: offline

Thanks Mike. Message received

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 18

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 5:42:04 PM

SSN754planker

Posts: 448
Joined: 10/2/2013
Status: offline

It is pretty easy already to add "aces" to a side. for example..say you want to create a libyan air force where there is one unit of aces and the other units would be of a lower proficiency.

All you have to do is create a Libya side for the regular units, and then create a side for the aces unit. then place them as you wish in the scenario editor.

_____________________________

MY BOOK LIST
ST1/SS SSN 754

(in reply to mcp5500)

Post #: 19

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 6:11:51 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

People overlook the flexibility of having so many different sides available to them. I always go check out what I can do with various sides and settings before requesting new features.

(in reply to SSN754planker)

Post #: 20

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 6:30:56 PM

ckfinite

Posts: 377
Joined: 7/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SSN754planker

It is pretty easy already to add "aces" to a side. for example..say you want to create a libyan air force where there is one unit of aces and the other units would be of a lower proficiency.

All you have to do is create a Libya side for the regular units, and then create a side for the aces unit. then place them as you wish in the scenario editor.

The issue with this approach is that it doesn't work well for human-controlled sides (though you can do it, if the player's in the editor). It would be nice to differentiate between, say, front-line and reserve forces within the player's side.

(in reply to SSN754planker)

Post #: 21

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 7:17:29 PM

mcp5500

Posts: 143
Joined: 2/2/2014
Status: offline

That is interesting. You make the same sides as friendly.. Can you use the same name more then once?

(in reply to ckfinite)

Post #: 22

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 9:13:22 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I never tried using the same name twice...you don't need to. USA-1, USA-2, etc.

I don't understand why someone thinks it only works for AI. Can you explain?

(in reply to mcp5500)

Post #: 23

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 9:20:36 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I can see now. I always play in the editor. Never noticed before.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 24

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 9:22:27 PM

mcp5500

Posts: 143
Joined: 2/2/2014
Status: offline

The same name thing is more about how you look to the enemy. A human player my play a scenario a few times and see a group of USA A-6 intruders and the May know, when they identify them, they are USA-4 and know they are not that good.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 25

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 9:44:35 PM

vaalen

Posts: 387
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

So far, we have implemented, tested and continuously improved:

* Side-wide proficiency levels: Already affecting air combat, air-ops turnaround, reaction times, damage control, contact classification/identification times and more.

* OODA values / reaction times (we finally have actual tactical surprise in a game like this!), affected by:
a) man-machine interface level,
b) Proficiency level
c) Command system integration level

* A whole doctrine settings & Rules of Engagement that reflect a unit's instructions and "ways of combat" (and also training-relevant factors such as fire discipline).

...and some folks still say Command doesn't feature the human element.

<D throws hands up in the air>

(This is not to say that more human-related factors cannot be included. They can, and we are examining what we can add and how (and how not to break existing stuff). But to say that Command currently lacks them altogether is, IMHO, unfair.)

Well, this post just convinced me to buy the game. I had been visiting time to time, and had been unable to make up my mind, because of the complaints that there was no human element. But what you just listed sounds great to me, and my last excuse not to buy is gone. So I am going to buy it now.

Great job of supporting the game,and it has got you this sale.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 26

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/13/2014 10:52:55 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

The don't call them that. I would imagine having multiple groups could solve some of this along with some creative names. But it seems to only work in editor.

(in reply to vaalen)

Post #: 27

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/14/2014 2:01:29 AM

riflebrigade

Posts: 95
Joined: 8/1/2005
From: Australia
Status: offline

Good to see there is some interest in utilising proficiency ratings.

My post was submitted to encourage discussion to improve the game, it was not meant to upset anyone.

When writing my post I had no idea of the extent of existing implementations in the game which take proficiency into consideration.

I know proficiency ratings are implemented into the game on a country basis.

My post outlined possible ways to expand the use of proficiency ratings to provide a more accurate game including its use with regards to equipment maintenance/breakdown.

The people who purchase and play the games generally only get an insight into the mechanics of the game after relevant post questions have been asked and answered in the forum.

I feel the items nominated in my post could benefit the games, as to if they can be programmed or are deemed as appropriate for the game that is the programers decision.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 28

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/14/2014 2:17:51 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Yes we got it.

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to riflebrigade)

Post #: 29

RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to... - 4/14/2014 3:14:58 AM

Coiler12

Posts: 1203
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

Is side proficiency affecting turnaround times in a dev build? Because I did a small test with a novice and ace sides with the same loadouts, and they took equal amounts of time to get ready.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>