[Logged] Idea For New Option---thoughts?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

[Logged] Idea For New Option---thoughts?

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 >> Tech Support >> [Logged] Idea For New Option---thoughts?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

[Logged] Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/17/2021 9:09:45 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Often, especially during the Cold War, air units were called on to "intercept" aircraft of their Cold War enemy, and then "escort them" (follow them) until the left the area. They weren't actually enemies (as of yet), and the interceptors certainly weren't allowed to attack them, but they did have to "stay with them" until they left.

In a couple of recent scenarios, I have had to "intercept" some aircraft like this. With the game and using a mission to perform the action, however, as soon as the interceptors identify the aircraft as being friendly (or at the minimum, non-enemy) they will leave them alone. The problem is that these planes could (and often do) suddenly turn into HOSTILE units and begin shooting at our friendly forces. After my "interceptors" have identified them non-enemy units, and subsequently left them alone, my interceptors are likely to be too far away to shoot any of them down before they unleash their ordinance.

What would be kind of nice, if possible, would be if the interceptors could be issued some kind of "follow" command. It could sort of be like the reference points that move with a designated unit. If your interceptor unit was given this order, then he would stay behind the group, and would be in position to attack it, if necessary. It would stay there until the aircraft departs the area, or the interceptors needs to RTB.

Right now, you have to manually take control of your interceptors to perform this task, and if you (as the game player) get distracted, they are suddenly way out of position. It seems like the computer could do a real bang-up job of following these planes in this type of situation if it existed.

Thoughts?

Doug

< Message edited by Rory Noonan -- 2/23/2021 6:02:58 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 1:10:43 AM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

I usually hate these kinds of scenarios because they strike me as a cheap device for a scenario designer to create a non-existent problem. It's bad wargaming cliche at its finest. In my opinion, it's a sucker punch by a lazy scenario designer, that they can use when they don't understand real tactical problems. It's more of a dramatic device than a real tactic, plucked squarely from the pages of cheesy 80s technothrillers. In real life, it'd be highly unlikely for a fight to start the way you described.

Don't be sucker punched! As the commander of my game, I consider "don't fire unless fire upon" instructions in the scenario designer's briefing to be indicative of hostile intent. My guys are cleared to engage. Weapons free. If it flies, it dies!

Seriously, though, it's really hard to make a good "transition to hostilities" scenario. I've never really seen it well done. Part of it is that the simulation's criteria for determining hostility is crude. It's basically a very strict definition of self defense, by default. You can make it a little more elaborate by using exclusion zones (which I highly recommend). Exclusion zones add a little bit more nuance to it, which helps the problem, but there's probably more to it than just "You came in my space, so you die!" although maybe not. If you're going to use them, I'd suggest the best way to do it is to layer them. For example, inside of 500NM you might intercept them, but if they break 150NM then they're hostile and you kill them. That's maybe a little more realistic. There was a Russian Su-24 that got shot down because the Turks didn't like him cutting across their border. It's still pretty crude.

A lot of what goes on in periods of tension is attempting to determine hostile intent. Typically, if the bad guys satisfy the criteria that they have hostile intent, then you can shoot first. This is where things get really complicated, though. The computer doesn't do a great job of determining intent unless it's fairly simple. With some LUA scripting you might be able to do a better job, but it's still complicated. There might be many possible criteria. They might try to warn off an aircraft before shooting by attempting to contact them on Guard. Communications are an important part of that, which Command doesn't really do. They might make close passes, and flare. They might illuminate their target with tracking radars. All of this would be happening well before anything was actually threatened. Certainly a weapons launch would be hostile intent, but they'd probably declare the bad guys hostile well before anyone actually shot.

Here's a really good public domain account of a contemporary example (the recent Su-22 shootdown by a Navy Rhino pilot):

https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2017/videos/162478715

They talk around some of the specifics, but they still capture the process.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 2

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 1:16:01 AM

boogabooga

Posts: 457
Joined: 7/18/2018
Status: offline

My thought would be to experiment with the mutual "unfriendly" (i.e. orange) side postures.

I've seen this following behavior with unfriendly contacts at some point, but whether that's still true in latest patch or intercept vs patrol mission type make a difference, I am not sure.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 3

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 2:33:51 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

SeaQueen,

You know that I value your opinion, but I would venture to say that there are other things to consider before casting your dispersion on the idea.

Consider this, every time a Soviet plane group launches and approaches the coast of Alaska and slides down the west coast of North America it draws "escorts" all the way down its path. While this group may not be the first to ever "pull a trigger", the responding US/Canada units must act like it might be, otherwise why intercept them in the first place?

Furthermore, every time that this happens, the Soviets learn a little bit more about how our defenses act, and react.

Finally, if this was a prelude to war, it could also be a means of dragging assets away from an area that the Soviets (in this example) hope to hit using other assets, now that the target area has lessened its defense.

I do believe that the tactic is probably performed 1000 times more each year than any actual fighting. Yet, given that "nothing ever happens" each time the intruding planes are intercepted, it merely appears to be a waste of time. So, I as k you, what's more real? Something that happens worldwide about 1000 times a year, or an actual battle?

A possible attack on Pearl Harbor was considered and evaluated by the US brass long before it actually occurred. In fact, it was rejected by the higher ups as being not feasible. Defense forces believed, no, knew, that Pearl was impervious to attack, so they were essentially in a total "peacetime mindset" when the unthinkable actually happened. All of this "lack of preparedness played into the success of the attack.

So, do you not react when Soviet or Chinese bombers launch and ride the coast because "they would never be so stupid" or do you launch your interceptors and follow them through the area waiting for them to inevitably make their U-turn and head home? You and I both know the answer.

Doug

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 4

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 5:55:51 AM

boogabooga

Posts: 457
Joined: 7/18/2018
Status: offline

So, yeah, what you describe is completely do-able right now in CMO. The key is to use the "Unfriendly" posture. Please see the attached save. Play as BlueFor and just let it play out. Notice your F-15s will indeed provide an "escort" for their "guest" until they hit BINGO. Default behavior for the F-15s seems to be to try to psedo-ram the Tu-95 from behind at full power. However, you can just tweak the throttle and altitude of the F-15 group to maintain formation with the Tu-95. Not too much micromanagement. I got them to follow for a long while.

Obligatory Cold War Tu-95 escort Tacview screenshot:

Developers did a wonderful job with this!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by boogabooga -- 2/18/2021 6:02:55 AM >

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 5

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 12:55:49 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

In terms of Exclusion Zones, would be nice if the scenario designer could turn 0n/off "Collective Responsibility" for the Zone and just mark units entering the zone, "Unfriendly" or "Hostile" in that zone as desired for the scenario. So for example, if the idea is we might have a full shooting conflict, but skirmishing occurs before the full engagement starts. Yeah you can change posture with a Lua script, but the option I suggest would add a lot of flexibility with some "Nested" exclusion zone triggering a full conflict others just skirmishing.

Nesting...

Outer Exclusion Zone, say ADIZ, Unit entering is "Unfriendly."
Middle Exclusion Zone, say Territorial Limit, unit entering is "Hostile."
Inner Exclusion Zone, say a Base Exclusion Zone, Side is now "Hostile" using "Collective Responsibility."

Again, yes this can be done with Lua but not everyone has the same comfort level with Lua scripting.

< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 2/18/2021 1:12:25 PM >

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to boogabooga)

Post #: 6

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 1:16:03 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
Consider this, every time a Soviet plane group launches and approaches the coast of Alaska and slides down the west coast of North America it draws "escorts" all the way down its path. While this group may not be the first to ever "pull a trigger", the responding US/Canada units must act like it might be, otherwise why intercept them in the first place?

Well... sort of. The thing is that there's a bigger picture than just the Soviet planes and the American fighters. There is more information than just that. An attack would look different than the kinds of intelligence gathering excursions that these kinds of events represent. Those little outings are intended specifically to NOT be provocative. They'll design them so that they do things like remain well clear of the 12NM limit. They DON'T want to provoke a hostile response. The American or Canadian fighters are there really to just monitor them, and gather intelligence of our own. We look at them, they look at us. Just keeping an eye on stuff. It's cool.

quote:

Furthermore, every time that this happens, the Soviets learn a little bit more about how our defenses act, and react.

Sort of... not really... They learn stuff, but not generally the kinds of things I think you think they're learning. You wouldn't treat every single limited recon-bomber incursion like it might be the start of World War III. The start of World War III would look different.

quote:

Finally, if this was a prelude to war, it could also be a means of dragging assets away from an area that the Soviets (in this example) hope to hit using other assets, now that the target area has lessened its defense.

Yeah no. That's not how DCA works.

quote:

I do believe that the tactic is probably performed 1000 times more each year than any actual fighting. Yet, given that "nothing ever happens" each time the intruding planes are intercepted, it merely appears to be a waste of time. So, I as k you, what's more real? Something that happens worldwide about 1000 times a year, or an actual battle?

Not that often, but often enough. 1000 times / year is almost 3 times / day. It's more like once every few months. God... I hope it doesn't happen that often. We'd need new engines in every aircraft before long!

quote:

A possible attack on Pearl Harbor was considered and evaluated by the US brass long before it actually occurred. In fact, it was rejected by the higher ups as being not feasible. Defense forces believed, no, knew, that Pearl was impervious to attack, so they were essentially in a total "peacetime mindset" when the unthinkable actually happened. All of this "lack of preparedness played into the success of the attack.

Yeah... that's a myth. I'd argue that Pearl Harbor had been fought many times on the floor of the Naval War College. The issues there were administrative. Think about what the Pearl Harbor strike force looked like: It wasn't a few bombers unescorted. They were coming in WAY heavier. There were 6 Japanese aircraft carriers, 2 battleships, 2 heavy cruisers, 1 light cruiser, 9 destroyers, 8 oilers, 28 submarines, and 414 aircraft of which 353 actually took part in the raid. That kind of strike is heavy. It doesn't look the same as a little recce flight trying to get a sniff of your radars.

quote:

So, do you not react when Soviet or Chinese bombers launch and ride the coast because "they would never be so stupid" or do you launch your interceptors and follow them through the area waiting for them to inevitably make their U-turn and head home? You and I both know the answer.

You react proportionally to the threat presentation you see. You might launch a couple fighters to monitor them. Unless your sensor picture suggests that this is the day (i.e. they come in heavy) you're not going to react the same was as if it was the start of World War III. Sorry, but the world isn't on a hair trigger all on the time. It just doesn't work that way.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 7

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 1:44:54 PM

thewood1

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

A better scenario is the chance some knucklehead pulls a trigger on a recon/intelligence flight and then having to decide whether escalate or prepare your defense.

So maybe a 10% chance someone shoots by accident, then a 30% chance Red decides on a limited retaliation, or maybe a 10% chance they just send another recon flight, or a 60% chance its a full war scenario. Then you, as the player have to decide how to arm your aircraft, where to sortie surface forces and subs. A key part of that is what parameters to give missions. You have to send recon flights to see if you can figure out what the enemies plans are.

And that's just a simple version. This can get complicated and strategic very quickly. That's not what CMO is built to do. CMO is built to that in parts. Now a full campaign could probably be built, with branches for decisions. But that is an immense amount of work. And I still think you are on the edge of what CMO is built to do.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 8

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 2:22:12 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

SeaQueen,

I never said that the world was on a hair trigger, or that any conflict is actually going to happen.

I just said that every action (similar to what I described) results in some kind of reaction. Obviously if 353 planes were headed your way, your response would be different than if 2 planes were headed your way. My point was, either way, you would respond. And, you would ride the wave out until they departed because that's what you do, and has been done.

When I mentioned 1000 times a year, I was talking about "worldwide", not just the US coast. I do believe that any time a ship is approached jets may be scrambled. I believe that any time unfriendly, or unknown units get to close to a military ship/plane/installation/country, then some kind of reaction will occur. If I fly my Cessna too close to an aircraft carrier, then there will be a reaction. I I veer off course in Virginia and start heading for Washington DC, and don't respond to the radio then there will be a reaction. Am I a terrorist? Am I an enemy agent? Am I the beginning of World War III (as depicted in a Tom Clancy Book), or am I just some fool behind the controls of a plane and out sightseeing? I'm sure that the news doesn't carry these events, but if it were to occur in any fashion, then there would be a response. 1000 times a year worldwide is probably about right when you consider everything.

I wasn't creating a WW III situation. I was creating the type of scenario that YOU don't like, that being one where planes move around, do stuff, but no shots are fired, and no one dies. I know that you aren't into that. That's okay. I was just looking for a way to create a situation whereby a response to that type of behavior occurred.

To me, I was looking for a way to have them "intercept them" and stick with them, without shooting them down.

Doug

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 9

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 2:25:57 PM

Grazyn

Posts: 180
Joined: 10/24/2016
Status: offline

Change the contact to unfriendly and it will do exactly that

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 10

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 2:28:20 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

So, you are saying that if I were to mark them as UNFRIENDLY, then the units will intercept them and continue to follow them as you have described? In my experience, they will, indeed, go and investigate, but when they determine that the intruders are not HOSTILE, then they bug out. They don't seem to ever stay with them.

Now, if you have done something else to make it happen, please let me know. I have tried what you said, and the planes (or ships) just don't stay with them. So, unless I'm misunderstanding something, how do you do it? What parameters did you set?

Thanks in advance.

Doug

(in reply to boogabooga)

Post #: 11

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 2:49:26 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

I didn't realize that you had a save attached. I thought that it was just your image. I did try it, and it did work. It stayed with it for about 200 miles before it bugged out due to fuel.

I will have to explore it a little further. It was my observation that some bug out even before fuel becomes an issue.

Thanks for your effort. That was a great example.

Doug

(in reply to boogabooga)

Post #: 12

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 3:23:04 PM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

Since Pearl and wargaming came up, I figured I�d post this dissertation on Naval War College wargaming before WW2. The table in the appendix tries to list all the wargames conducted. If I read the table correctly, it looks like an aerial attack on Pearl Harbor was wargamed once by the class of 1927. Would be interesting to find the details of that wargame i.e. what current of future technologies were simulated. This is an interesting read overall if you have not come across it before:

http://mars.gmu.edu/jspui/bitstream/handle/1920/8747/Lillard_gmu_0883E_10462.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Maybe Wayne can add it to his ever growing database if it's not there already.

< Message edited by kevinkins -- 2/18/2021 3:39:06 PM >

_____________________________

�The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.�
― Alfred Thayer Mahan

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 13

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 3:41:59 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
To me, I was looking for a way to have them "intercept them" and stick with them, without shooting them down.

Declare them "Unfriendly" in the game, and call it a day.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 14

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/18/2021 3:46:28 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
In terms of Exclusion Zones, would be nice if the scenario designer could turn 0n/off "Collective Responsibility" for the Zone and just mark units entering the zone, "Unfriendly" or "Hostile" in that zone as desired for the scenario. So for example, if the idea is we might have a full shooting conflict, but skirmishing occurs before the full engagement starts. Yeah you can change posture with a Lua script, but the option I suggest would add a lot of flexibility with some "Nested" exclusion zone triggering a full conflict others just skirmishing.

Totally! It'd make it easier to do a lot of very topical things like declare a "No Fly" zone and enforce it, or a Maritime Exclusion Zone. Instead of "One guy violated the no fly zone now ALL OF IRAQ MUST DIE!" it becomes, "This guy violated the no fly zone, no HE must die." It adds nuance to the game.

quote:

Again, yes this can be done with Lua but not everyone has the same comfort level with Lua scripting.

100%

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 15

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/19/2021 8:34:13 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Okay, I tested this by marking them as UNFRIENDLY as you (and others) suggested. If you perform a test, as was demonstrated, it can work that way.

But, it doesn't work well when you have more than just a handful of units on the map. Your Intercept aircraft fly all over the place, for as long as they can, and things suddenly look like a mess if you allow the AI to handle it from the computer's side. Every UNFRIENDLY unit on the map is suddenly followed to the end of the world by doing this.

If you manually assign it to a specific unit-to-unit assignment, then it will work. But, otherwise, it's not so good.

I do believe that assigning an Intercept/follow mission of some kind would make more sense.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

Doug

< Message edited by DWReese -- 2/19/2021 8:36:24 AM >

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 16

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/19/2021 8:57:25 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Here's another example of an Intercept/Follow-type of situation that occurs more often than we know. This one involves ships where they purposely collided in the Black Sea. Neither nation was at war. It was just two unfriendly nations exercising their freedom of navigation rights.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bumping-incident-33-years-ago-153247587.html

...and here's one from just a few days ago in the South China Sea:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/another-us-navy-destroyer-challenged-135418420.html

Obviously, these units are being "intercepted ad followed" without being nations at war. Now, in the case of the SCS, all of the nations would be listed as UNFRIENDLY to China, therefore the Chinese would intercept EVERYTHING that travels through the SCS that was UNFRIENDLY. Soon, units would be everywhere simply because they were UNFRIENDLY.

I do believe that these types of situations occur more frequently than we hear about. And, they could occur in the air or sea. They probably occur a lot more than we know.

One of my favorite movies, "The Bedford Incident", fictionally occurred when a US Destroyer and a Soviet sub played a game of cat and mouse before a "mistake" was made that caused the destruction of both. So, many of these "events"---especially during the Cold War---occur much more frequently than is known.

So, while marking them as being UNFRIENDLY may work on a really small scale, in an operational-type of setting, it's a little bit problematic.

Like I said, it's jut a thought.

Doug

Here a link to the "Bedford Incident" (if you are incident) which is allegedly based on two actual incidents that occurred. It's a really good movie, even if it is old:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bedford_Incident

< Message edited by DWReese -- 2/19/2021 9:01:06 AM >

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 17

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/19/2021 2:48:46 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

The unfriendly posture was kind of designed for this IIRC.

I think another helpful thing for modeling this kind of stuff would be to make reference points anchorable (in reference to) to an unfriendly or hostile side's units. That would let the designer set a range to follow at and kind of play the role of a tail a bit better. The intercept behavior is more like a gnat (once intercepted buzzes around etc) than a true tail.

Logic issues are what happens when that contact is destroyed/lost/lands or even crosses into an area that the interceptor shouldn't go? In the first three cases drop the reference point type to a normal reference point where the contact was lost. In the last case just make sure no-fly zones are enforceable (maybe more scenario author thing).

Mike

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 18

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/19/2021 8:37:46 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Thanks for the tip, Mike.

(in reply to BDukes)

Post #: 19

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/19/2021 9:09:42 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Thanks for the tip, Mike.

No problem. Nice dance around the gatekeepers. Keep it up! Creative ideas help build better scenarios.

Mike

< Message edited by BDukes -- 2/19/2021 9:10:46 PM >

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 20

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/23/2021 5:09:16 AM

WSBot

Posts: 182
Joined: 1/17/2021
Status: offline

0014416

(in reply to BDukes)

Post #: 21

RE: Idea For New Option---thoughts? - 2/25/2021 10:49:17 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Here is a recent example of what we were discussing last week.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-bombers-us-coast-jets-1432661

Doug