Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: stilesw

emsoy & thewood1,

I absolutely believe this! I worked with the daily ATO process at Red/Green Flag (Nellis AFB) 1988-1997. The operations plans were created with a roomful of 12+ experienced air strike planners and an IBM mainframe cruncher (dinosaur now - today's PCs would have been great).

Developing the code for CMANO to do the same thing that involves fuel, AEW, OECM, loadouts, strike flight sizes, intelligence reports, hostile defensive ground units, etc, etc, etc would be far from a trivial or even moderate effort. And this was in a "peaceful" training environment. Doing it in the field during Desert Storm boggles the mind.

The beta AMP that has been created to date would have that whole staff green with envy (and heading for the O'Club).

Kudos for what I've seen to date.

-Wayne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lionheart

Is this the Excel Strike Planner devised by skorpio667?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4013929&mpage=1&key=Excel%2CStrike%2CPlanner�

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tango4

Just as a sidenote here, instead of answering the question "what do I need in and AMP", I'd like to just answer the "WHY do I need an AMP" and why I feel frustrated by its absence.
From the beginning, Command has been a very realistic game, and since its initial release, many features were added, including many details in order to simulate the specifics of modern combat systems. It has grown into an even more impressive game, allowing to reproduce very complex engagements.
Now in such engagements, the difference between success and a complete failure often lies in the details. To get the best military effect out of your modern assets, you usually need a good synchonization between all your assets, and careful planning. In the air part of Command, I feel frustated because I sometimes have a plan in my head, and basically feels that it is really difficult to realize not because it is not doable, but because I am limited by the tools at my disposal.
And moreover, I have the feeling that the process itself is not realistic. In real operations, you start by carefully preparing your strike (defining flight plans, synchonizing various assets and so on). And when in real time, you make adjustments to cope with the unexpected (which WILL happen almost everytime !). My biggest gripe with the air part of Command is that you have to make adjustments even before the unexpected happens because you cannot even pre plan the waypoints. So when a complex strike is starting, you have to catch every flight (sometimes difficult to distinguish when they depart in sequence), and manually plot each flight as they are already airborne. This is REALLY A LOT of micro management and feels discouraging to start all over and try a new strategy.
For me an advanced strike planner woud be an awesome addition, and would reveal the full potential of this game. If it is optional to use it or not depending on the mission, I don't see how it would render things more complex for begiiners. If done properly, it has the potential to really alleviate the real time workload in complex scenarii.

Now I do agree with lots of things that have been said above. Especially with the fact that I feel it is clearly a better idea to have "ideal AMP" target in mind, but start with a version 1.0 that would only have the most essential features (for me: ability to prepare a flight plan with levels and speeds, synchronize elements of a package and if possible tanker support) in order to see it come to fruition.

I really hope the dev team will decide it is worth their efforts.

Once again, thanks a lot to the dev team for at least allowing such an interesting discussion and taking the time to listen to our feedback. Whatever your decision, given the workload we are talking about, it will be perfectly respectable.

Charles

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

YES!

Very nice, this is exactly what an Advanced Mission Planner should do.

However it should probably be noted that setting up all the waypoints, timings, EMCON, etc, would require a bit of work for the player

If AMP v1.0 has this exact functionality, nothing more and nothing less, all would be good?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
My main concern is a full blowm military-grade planner will take a long time to code up and deliver. I would rather have something simpler, easier to use, and delivered faster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: c3k
Very well said.

Let me Pre-Plan the strike before launching the package. The ability to create ingress/egress routes for multiple flights; to have timing triangles built in; to have designated launch points with Time to Impact information; to have pop-up windows which will help guide me as to the best altitude and airspeed to launch the weapon against THAT target; to see how much fuel is required at each point to follow the route and RTB; to see if that is a shortfall in internal/external fuel; these are the details which allow for competent use of modern air assets and give a chance of success.

The crux is the ability to pause the game and pre-plane a coordinated strike.

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero


Something that may make life easier is the use of templates, defining statuses and/or actions at a waypoint. A template could define altitude, speed, EMCON, etc. These could be used to easily set the status of multiple flights arriving at a waypoint, instead of having to manage each one separately. For example, 3 flights could be set to TemplateX at WP5, while a 4th flight may have TemplateY at WP5.

A template could also include "time at", to help with coordination and sequencing, though there'd clearly need to be clever code under the hood to realistically make use of that.

An excel-like editor could create a template, and it could be cloned to create an (initially) identical one. Such a cloned template would allow small variations to be edited in, e.g. TemplateX and TemplateY differ only by altitude or TimeAt.

Another use of cloning would be to define subsequent waypoint states, e.g. TemplateA at WP6, and a modified TemplateB at WP7.

As well as defining states at a WP, it could also include actions such as commencing a sub-mission. For example, a tanker may commence serving local receivers, or a fighter may commence a BARCAP. A mud mover may commence its strike sub-mission. Clearly these sub-missions would need to created beforehand (include a create button in the AMP?) - the AMP & templates would coordinate their use.

In the AMP, any particular flight could have a sequence of "template instances", e.g. launch -> WP1:TemplateW -> WP2:TemplateX(refuel) -> WP3:TemplateY(Strike) -> WP2:TemplateZ -> Land.

Other flights could be coordinated to use some of the same waypoints for different purposes, such a a tanker having WP2:TemplateA(serve fuel), with TemplateX and TemplateA having the same TimeAt.

Such sub-missions would need an "exit mission" ability so as to return to the coordinating sequence; they'd otherwise be pretty similar to the existing missions.

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grazyn

If development is projected to take 7+ years as the devs said, they may as well do nothing at all. And I'd rather have something than nothing

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy
Which is why we need to split the project into manageable pieces. First up is basic flight planning in AMP v1.0. Then add targeteering, weaponeering, tanker stuff, etc, etc, in v2.0, v3.0, v4.0.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100
+1 on this question

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

We are not at liberty to discuss this ATM.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom


I have to agree with the post by tango4 above, an advanced strike planner is really necessary for this game. Whenever I try to schedule an airstrike, I feel like I'm fighting the game. It is incredibly frustrating having an idea in my mind and knowing that it is time prohibitive to execute it in game.

It basically makes playing larger scenarios impossible with limited playtime. Even scenarios - like the Korean Missile Crisis - where the strike scheduling is relatively straightforward. So my experience with the game has to be limited to scenarios with a few active aircraft at a time and limited air defense activity.

An advanced strike planner is a necessary to really explore Cold War / modern warfare. Otherwise, air warfare feels like you have to fight the game (instead of fighting the scenario) to get what you want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

We are not at liberty to discuss this ATM.

I have to agree with the post by tango4 above, an advanced strike planner is really necessary for this game. Whenever I try to schedule an airstrike, I feel like I'm fighting the game. It is incredibly frustrating having an idea in my mind and knowing that it is time prohibitive to execute it in game.

It basically makes playing larger scenarios impossible with limited playtime. Even scenarios - like the Korean Missile Crisis - where the strike scheduling is relatively straightforward. So my experience with the game has to be limited to scenarios with a few active aircraft at a time and limited air defense activity.

An advanced strike planner is a necessary to really explore Cold War / modern warfare. Otherwise, air warfare feels like you have to fight the game (instead of fighting the scenario) to get what you want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Absolutely not. I play scenarios all over the place where an AMP wouldn't even come into use. On some scenarios, an AMP might help. If enjoyment of this game is based on there being an AMP, you might be playing the wrong game or not playing this one the right way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

An advanced strike planner is a necessary to really explore Cold War / modern warfare. Otherwise, air warfare feels like you have to fight the game (instead of fighting the scenario) to get what you want.