SeaQueen
Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: trevor999
Observations:
A. Why does it seem when there's a SAM launch every a/c in the area seems to evade, even those above the max altitude of the missile (usually MANPAD SAM)?
Because they're a little overly vigilant. Ships do the same thing, where vessels which are well clear of the ASCM try to evade the ASCM (mission already accomplished!).
quote:
B. Why do these non targeted a/c end up evading to an altitude below the maximum altitude of the SAM?
The automatic SAM evasion logic is very formulaic. That being said, the general logic isn't terrible. It's attempting to defeat the seeker head by forcing a "look down" situation, thus raising the level of both IR and radar clutter.
quote:
C. Why does the evading a/c not take the best route possible away from the SAM threat? Often they seem to go ot of their way to fly into a threat(s).
You mean drag and kinematicly defeat the missile? That's a possibility at some ranges and it works. Since CMO/CMANO doesn't do a great job of modeling the energy state of the weapon it doesn't work as well as it should in real life. That might change in the future. For now, though in CMO/CMANO missiles fly at constant speed over the entirety of their flyout. In real life, that's not true. None the less, if you want to do it you can assume manual control by changing "Ignore Plotted Course" to "False," and direct the aircraft to do it.
The existing algorithm is based on descriptions of Vietnam era SAM evasion where F-4 pilots would "turn into" the missile, attempting to defeat their guidance and control by out maneuvering the missile.
Real life SAM avoidance is a minefield of "it depends," and there's multiple possible tactics that could be employed given different systems in different situations. The best thing to do is make sure they never shoot.
quote:
D. Why does it seem in a 3+ a/c formation there always seems to be one plane that's off by itself, out of weapons launch range? Is the pilot a coward? A malingerer? I'm tired of seeing I have munitions left, but the a/c is out of weapons range.
I've read several posts on a/c SAM evasion but none of them really helped.
It depends. It could be that a single got separated off in an air to air engagement, or it could have been due to SAM evasion. I've seen both situations evolve. If you want to keep your aircraft tightly grouped, maybe you should better address the forces which oppose them.
quote:
An airbase creator tool in the Scenario Editor. Instead of adding each structure manually, a tool to add x# runways, x# access points, x# hangers etc would be nice. Sort of an box with a "fill in the blanks".
Which airbase needs to be created? There's already a huge (and expanding) library of .inst files for airports around the world.
quote:
A ground forces template/tool. Something like CMO meets Operational Art of War. Battalion, brigade, division; Infantry, mechanized, armored, artillery. Generic? Specific to nation? One that models supply, proficiency, C3I levels. Like the above, the tool would be "fill in the blanks". However I have feeling that modeling the above units (and sub-units) would slow the game down to a snail pace, if not a super computer requirement...
I'm not into it. The problem with the aforementioned tool is that it'd fall into the trap of modeling doctrine. In historical situations that works well but in near future and speculative scenarios that tends to be extremely limiting. One of the advantages of CMO/CMANO is that it's doctrine independent and that allows you to model many different force structures. Furthermore, CMO/CMANO is a tactical game, so trying to do things like model divisions is probably unwise, not so much for runtime issues, but because at that level a division commander isn't interested in platoon level maneuvers. That just wouldn't make sense. None the less, that is precisely the focus of Command. It's the old "too many hats" problem. In Command, you frequently represent a whole committee of officers. At some point it's just too many to even make sense.
What I would like to see is more .inst files for ground units. For example, I recently submitted a Russian Battalion Tactical Group .inst template, which I felt would help people build larger scenarios in many contemporary theaters.
quote:
Finally, a Time on Target tool.
Be careful what you ask for. Don't think a computer is going to do your thinking for you.
quote:
It would also be nice to at least have the system calculate launch times for multiple launches from a single platform dependent on missile launch time (x seconds between launches) and missile flight time/distance. For example, if I want to launch 30 cruise missiles from an Ohio class SSGN with the missiles manually or auto programmed for different flight paths, the system should be able to launch those missiles at specific intervals to the all approach/hit the target at the same time, even from different directions.
Doing a little trigonometry will reveal that you can fire them at the same interval and by changing their waypoints, have them all arrive at the same time. The last missiles go straight in. The first missiles need to add time to their time of flight so that the last missiles can catch up. If you figure it takes five seconds between the first shot and the last shot, the first missile needs to pick a waypoint so that it adds five seconds worth of flight time to the flyout.
It's not that hard. You should be able to do it in a spreadsheet. The interesting question is, how far out do you want the missile to turn in? Well... it depends. One possible way to pick them is to figure at which altitude the missile flies at, then figure the radar line of site to that altitude (AGL, remember, because it's probably terrain following). You can go at the target at an angle as long as it doesn't have a line of sight to you, but once it has a line of sight you need to worry about radar cross section. So you probably want to turn in and present the minimum radar cross section no closer to the target than the maximum radar line of sight distance.
All that thinking I just did, that's called tactics. I solved a problem for you. Go do some math and rock stuff with your awesome cruise missile strikes.
I guarantee that any built in tool you make is going to have a bunch of built in, hard coded assumptions that eventually you'll look at and take issue with (very much like... the SAM evasion logic!). Given that the guys are working on incomplete information, that kind of problem is inevitable. I really chafe at this stuff because in a certain sense you're asking the guys to do your thinking for you, and avoid the actual substance of the game, which is the development of your own tactics.
< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 10/13/2021 1:44:02 AM >
|
Printable Version
Observations/suggestions/ideas/wishful thinking - 
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