RE: National Proficiency Ratings?

RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

Message

incredibletwo -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 4:38:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jdkbph quote: ORIGINAL: incredibletwo By the way, the Chinese entry into the Korean War caused the longest retreat in U.S. military history. I wouldn't rate that effort as "Cadet", considering the Eighth Army was led and manned by a large number of officers and soldiers with combat experience. Just sayin.. :) Well, I'm not the one who said cadet, but I don't think it's that far off. You're referring to Chosin Reservoir. The ChiComs out-numbered the US forces 2 to 1 (or upwards of 6 to 1 if you're counting committed forces), had the US forces completely encircled, cut off their supply lines, and the best they could do was force a withdrawl in good order? I think a competent force would have routed and annihilated the opponent... which BTW was the ChiCom goal. They failed. Retreat or not, it was not a slam dunk Chinese victory by any interpretation... in fact depending on who's doing the analysis, it's not clear that it was a Chinese victory at all. The casualty lists certainly leave that question open to debate. JD No JD, I was referring to the collapse of the Eighth Army down the western-side of the Korean Peninsula. :) Anyway, back on topic. Both Lerxt and Planker have good points. I do believe the most balanced approach to this would be to have a sliding scale (or call it what you will) for those designers that want to implement ratings for nations, but also let the player have the option to switch those ratings off if they so choose.

JCR -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 10:03:51 AM)
People start posting stuff about "the Chicoms" is exactly the reason national proficiency ratings are problematic. As soon as you enter asiatic horde territory you're screwed.

Lerxt -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 10:04:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SSN754planker The idea is NOT ridiculous. Think about this, the North Koreans have MiG-29's. It has been said that the pilots assigned to those planes fly maybe 4 times a year, if they're lucky. Do you think that the North Korean MiG is of the same quality as say a Russian MiG-29 whose pilot has a much better training regimen? Why cant we at least have the option to have this reflected in the sim, and available to the scenario designer? I agree that there are other things to work on, but i am glad this is implemented. Yes it is ridiculous. You are making assumptions about about the North Koreans, for example, where you use the justification "It has been said". How is quantitatively or empirically testable and comparable? Who said? How do you, or anyone here, have any measurable ideas about the quality of anyone's aircraft and training? You have no idea. The only reason to do this is to "massage" your own prejudices and assumptions based on nothing.

thewood1 -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 10:33:44 AM)
And the couple of posts above is why companies are reluctant to enter this fray.

CaptCarnage -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 11:24:44 AM)
It's nice it can be done but to be honest I don't like it much. We all know some soldiers are trained better than others but I'd rather face the best enemy possible. More gratifying and more useful for training.

thewood1 -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 11:43:24 AM)
Interestingly, from a website shown in another thread, North Korean pilots were admitted to have flown combat in Vietnam. So at least up to the 80's you probably had a core of experienced combat pilots in NK. Those are the little things that you have a hard time accounting for in setting any ratings... http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_345.shtml It noted more the half-way down the page in the caption for the Mig-21 picture. btw, that is an awesome site for historical and current information on some Asian air forces

jdkbph -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 1:21:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: incredibletwo This is already getting messy. Everyone wants something different, so it seems, but, like I keep saying, as long as it can be disabled if the player__so__chooses, and I don't mean having to go into the scen editor to effect changes, then that should keep everyone happy. Oh and I forgot to reply to this part... I don't think what I'm suggesting is any different that what we've been given so far... unless you chose to make it so. And by you I mean individual scenario designers and/or players. Everything I'm suggesting is based on the same country or side "rating" we've been given in the latest builds and defaulted all the way down through the OOB. The big difference between that and what I would like to see is that the default values can then be tweaked on the force level (and thereby pushed to the unit level), or applied directly at the unit level. All optional. And yeah, if that's not good enough for those who might not like the concept of force quality, I'd be all for a check box on the game options menu that shuts the whole thing off and resets everything back to the DB defaults for that game session (eg, setting preserved in the player's save game file, not in the scenario file). JD JD

jdkbph -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 1:37:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lerxt This whole idea is ridiculous. It's been done before in other very successful games. I'm not sure what exactly your objection is (other than you can't see a way to do it). Try looking at it this way.... We're sitting in a restaurant. I like steak, you like fish. We have a problem. Then the server brings... a menu! Problem solved. JD

jdkbph -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 1:39:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: incredibletwo I do believe the most balanced approach to this would be to have a sliding scale (or call it what you will) for those designers that want to implement ratings for nations, but also let the player have the option to switch those ratings off if they so choose. Agreed. JD

incredibletwo -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 5:04:24 PM)
It's all about options [8D]

Mgellis -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 9:31:58 PM)
Yes, this is the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks! If anyone has any other ratings, etc., please post them. Thanks. quote: ORIGINAL: Jakob Wedman I think that Flight Leader (1986, Avalon Hill) has a balanced rating for the average quality of the nations' airmen from "A" to "F": Soviet Union: "E" to early 1980s, "D" in mid 80s United States: "A" through mid 50s, "B" to "C" through mid 70s, "C" since mid 70s except for F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 which are "B" Belgium: "B" through the 70s, "C" in 80s Canada: "C" Denmark: "B" through the 70s, "C" in 80s France: "B" West Germany: "B" through the 70s, "C" in the 80s Great Britain: "C" Greece: "C" Italy: "C" Netherlands: "C" Norway: "B" through the 70s, "C" in the 80s Portugal: "C" Spain: "C" Turkey: "C" Albania: "E" Bulgaria: "D" Czechoslovakia: "D" East Germany: "D" Hungary: "D" Poland: "D" Romania: "D" Algeria: "E" Egypt: "E" through 1970, "D" since 1970 Iran: "D" through 1979, "E" since 1979 Iraq: "E" Jordan: "D" Kuwait: "E" Lebanon: "E" ghrough 1975, "F" and virtually non-existent since constant civil war has raged 1975 on Libya: "E" Morocco: "D" Oman: "D" Qatar: "D" Saudi Arabia: "D" through 1980, "C" since 1980 Sudan: "E" Syria: "E" Tunisia: "E" United Arab Emirates: "E" North Yemen: "E" South Yemen: "E" [---] Austria: "C" Finland: "B" Israel: "A" Sweden: "B" [:)] Switzerland: "C" Yugoslavia: "D"

thewood1 -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 10:01:39 PM)
So here is exactly the problem...why Sweden and Finland be B though out and US a "C" in the 80's. The US had a hardcore of air combat veterans and a world renowned combat fighter school. Why would two small countries that haven't seen combat in 50 years in one case and NEVER seen combat in the other (with the minor exception of small UN action)be rated higher overall. So there is the point...no sources, only opinions that can be shot full of holes.

jdkbph -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 10:19:23 PM)
Jeez, we are going around in circles here. Can I ask this... putting aside implementation mechanics for a moment, does everyone (anyone?) agree with the premise that the quality of the personnel that man the ships, fly the airplanes, and maintain and operate the equipment have a significant effect on the successful employment of the ships, planes and equipment at the scales represented by CMANO? JD

JCR -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 10:23:47 PM)
The problem is that this human factor is hard to qualify, and this lack of substance is usually filled by ideology. For example a cold war game of course had to have the Saudis (US allies) to be "better" than mindless communists :D While human factor IS important, it is extremely hard to quantify in a wargame that is set in a hypothetical conflict. In WW2 wargames, everybody knows the outcome and the human factor can be analyzed.

jdkbph -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/22/2013 11:51:51 PM)
I understand the challenge. I'm just wondering if there's any sort of consensus regarding the relative importance of the "quality" factor. JD

thewood1 -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/23/2013 12:22:33 AM)
My point is that I agree its not just hardware against hardware. But that throwing around hyperbole about how important soft factors are without any concrete backing is as bad as not having it.

mrfeizhu -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/23/2013 12:33:18 AM)
I think most of the people who have been in the military will agree more with that experience counts more than no experience or less experience, the more you do some thing the better you get at it. ( at least hopeful) If experience does not count than every one who plays this game should win every time. Would you rather go to a doctor that was an intern, or a doctor that had 20 year experience. Its hard to assign a number to the human side just like its hard to assign a number to a weapon. I think weapons will work less than advertised. Regardless of every one opinion its good the developers of the game are willing to change things as it evolves. Also good is that there not selling extra content like some publishers do.

thewood1 -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/23/2013 1:19:19 AM)
But how much of that is built in already. Ph for a Sparrow missile in RL in Vietnam is a combination of a bunch of things, including experience and training. Is that accounted for in Command's Ph. I have looked at some RL missile engagement stats and they match fairly well with Command's results. Is that applied consistently across all countries. These are some of the questions that need to be considered.

Mgellis -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/23/2013 2:48:38 PM)
I confess I don't know if it makes much different to have proficiencies for certain sides, but people can always get rid of them by opening up the scenario editor if they don't buy what the writer thought was appropriate. I'm glad the option is available in case I or someone else wants to use it. But you don't have to use it. Now I'm just looking for more information about how a country might be rated. So, please, keep 'em coming! :)

ExMachina -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/23/2013 3:45:37 PM)
quote: But how much of that is built in already. Ph for a Sparrow missile in RL in Vietnam is a combination of a bunch of things, including experience and training. Is that accounted for in Command's Ph. Exactly, And it gets even more complicated than that since the Ph calculated from real world data is a a combination of both attacker proficiency and defender proficiency. But a/c dogfights are the exception in modern combat. For the most part in modern engagments, technology is king. Technological asymmetry can both cause a inept aggressor to look competent and a well-trained force to look impotent. True "proficiency" in modern warfare comes at the level of CIC and that is the role that CMAO is supposed to be giving to the player. So, I really really hope that the proficiency slider will never impact most events in CMANO.

JCR -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/23/2013 4:10:19 PM)
There are some areas where crew proficiency can count in ships: - CIC work in identifying and classifying and engaging threats, especially in non-AEGIS/other automated management ships. The time delay between detection and response basically. And the right response. - damage control, the "inner battle" of a warship. This is something where crew drill is everything and can and will mean the difference between a damaged and a sunk ship. However CIC work is not really something you can rate without having insight knowledge while damage control is basic seamanship unchanged since there are steel hulls. Every navy worth its name should be proficient in it, especially since training it requires neither much money nor much modern technology. Also speaking from personal experience, you basically don't do anything else while at sea :D

thewood1 -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/23/2013 4:11:23 PM)
But there is a level of technical proficiency that comes with trianing and experience. Radar is not simple to interpret in many cases. Having significant training can be an equalizer in air combat.

ExMachina -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/23/2013 4:45:49 PM)
Agreed, but where does crew/side proficiency begin and end? It seems like an question without a satisfying answer within the context of a game like CMANO. For example, we know that perhaps the most proficient modern navy, using the most advanced radar and CIC technology of its day classified (with confidence) an Iranian airliner as a hostile and then shot it down. Does that mean that we want the AI crew to randomly mis-classify contacts and leave it up to us to sort out?--I don't think that anyone's arguing for that(yet?), but in terms of operational plausibility at the player's level of CIC, it is certainly more "realistic" than a lot of the stuff some folks here are speculating about.

thewood1 -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/23/2013 5:15:23 PM)
But, again, how much proficiency is built into the current dtection ranges, Ph, stealth, etc.

jdkbph -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (11/23/2013 9:28:43 PM)
And don't forget the OODA loop. It's built in, and as far as I know, it's fixed for all sides. Not in any way dependent on side quality or experience (unless that was included as part of the recently added proficiency settings). Just by manipulating that one thing - in and of itself - could potentially make a measurable difference in many facets of the game. JD

Jakob Wedman -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (12/20/2013 7:20:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mgellis Yes, this is the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks! If anyone has any other ratings, etc., please post them. Thanks. OK, then I'll continue with the rest from Flight Leader [1986] [:)] Angola: "E" Congo (People's republic of): "F" Ethiopia: "D" through 1976, "E" since 1976 Gabon: "E" Guinea: "F" Kenya: "F" Madagascar: "E" Mali: "E" Mozambique: "F" Nigeria: "E" Somalia: "E" South Africa: "B" Tanzania: "E" Uganda: "F" Zaire: "E" Zambia: Zimbabwe: "B" through 1980, "E" since 1980 Afghanistan: "F" Australia: "B" Bangladesh: "E" Burma: "E" Cambodia: "F" China: "E" India: "D" Indonesia: "E" Japan: "C" North Korea: "E" South Korea: "C" Laos: "F" Malaysia: "E" Mongolia: "E" New Zealand: "E" Pakistan: "C" Philippines: "E" Singapore: "C" Sri Lanka: "F" Taiwan: "C" Thailand: "C" Vietnam (North Vietnam until 1975): "D" South Vietnamn: "D" Argentina: "C" Bolivia: "E" Brazil: "D" Chile: "D" Colombia: "D" Cuba: "E" Dominican Republic: "E" Ecuador: "D" El Salvador: "E" Honduras: "D" Mexico: "E" Peru: "E" Uruguay: "F" Venezuela: "D" quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 So here is exactly the problem...why Sweden and Finland be B though out and US a "C" in the 80's. The US had a hardcore of air combat veterans and a world renowned combat fighter school. Why would two small countries that haven't seen combat in 50 years in one case and NEVER seen combat in the other (with the minor exception of small UN action)be rated higher overall. So there is the point...no sources, only opinions that can be shot full of holes. Use the Flight Leader rating if you like thewood1. Obviously we have different perspectives - my conclusion having read the ratings of Swedish and Finnish Air Forces was the game makers had done their research. (A correction: In 1986, when the game was made, it was 40 years since the Finnish Air Force saw combat with aces like Ilmari Juutilainen and Hans Wind.) Edit: Changed 30 to 40 years.

thewood1 -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (12/20/2013 7:26:34 PM)
But even then, how would you be able to rate them higher...having seen no action or even deployment outside their own borders.

Jakob Wedman -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (12/20/2013 7:40:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 But even then, how would you be able to rate them higher...having seen no action or even deployment outside their own borders. (That was fast, I was going to edit "30 years" to "40 years".) Personally I don't know much about air warfare but I've got the impression that both Sweden and Finland had very skilled pilots and obviously the makers of Flight Leader though that too.

navwarcol -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (12/20/2013 8:03:35 PM)
Nothing "skills" a person more, for combat, than combat itself.

Jakob Wedman -> RE: National Proficiency Ratings? (12/20/2013 9:09:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: navwarcol Nothing "skills" a person more, for combat, than combat itself. Absolutely - like Iraqi Air Force in 1991 after eight years of war with Iran [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

8.125