Accidents? (Full Version)

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



Message

JCR -> Accidents? (11/23/2013 6:38:26 PM)

Naval aviation is inherently dangerous, so how about modelling accidents.
With crew proficiency, this could be an interesting factor. Like someone crashes on landing and fouls the deck for 10 minutes. Maybe depending on sea state, especially for smaller vessels and helicopters.
Some planes could be more inherently unsafe than others, I especially though about the DASH drone helicopter, which is far too useful in CMANO. It should crash often...



CaptCarnage -> RE: Accidents? (11/23/2013 8:04:02 PM)

Flying at min altitude at night is a good opportunity for crashes.



navwarcol -> RE: Accidents? (11/23/2013 8:08:00 PM)

I think this sounds like a great idea also, but it risks becoming very deep very fast. Once you put in accidents to aviation, you have to also consider accidents to the ships themselves, and also various other things that can happen to take an airframe, or a ship, or parts of a ship, offline for extended amounts of time.



CaptCarnage -> RE: Accidents? (11/23/2013 8:21:53 PM)

Well one step at a time I suppose... :)

To me the low alt flying should nit be possible for long stretches at night so if you try that there should be a risk involved IMHO. otherwise it's an unfair tactic.



JCR -> RE: Accidents? (11/23/2013 8:22:17 PM)

Collisions could be simulated, everything else is too much and unusual anyway



navwarcol -> RE: Accidents? (11/24/2013 8:44:04 AM)

ATM the low level flight is not even allowed by the game (by that, I mean REAL low level flight) I think the game engine enforces a 50meter hard deck. I have seen talk on these threads that some want that changed to account for real life strike profiles that often will go below that for a brief leg of the ingress. If that restriction is lifted in-game, I definitely agree with you that it should come with a risk of accident to make sure it is only used for a short time, and as part of a trade-off between early detection of the inbound raid, and risk of accident, which itself can then be mitigated somewhat by the skill level of the strike side.



CaptCarnage -> RE: Accidents? (11/24/2013 10:58:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

ATM the low level flight is not even allowed by the game (by that, I mean REAL low level flight) I think the game engine enforces a 50meter hard deck. I have seen talk on these threads that some want that changed to account for real life strike profiles that often will go below that for a brief leg of the ingress. If that restriction is lifted in-game, I definitely agree with you that it should come with a risk of accident to make sure it is only used for a short time, and as part of a trade-off between early detection of the inbound raid, and risk of accident, which itself can then be mitigated somewhat by the skill level of the strike side.


Yep +1

If there would be accidents in CMANO I think they should be "player-dependent": behaviour of player causes risk of accidents. You can have maintenance-related failures (engine failure on a ship) but there is nothing a player could do to avoid that.
Perhaps you could throw in a chance of failure of am asset and players have to make it part of their ops plan - but then I would like to kow those failure rates beforehand (like a state of maintenance, when was the last refit etc.) otherwise there is really no solid ops planning to do and that would perhaps overcomplicate issues.



ExMachina -> RE: Accidents? (11/24/2013 12:24:13 PM)

quote:

Collisions could be simulated, everything else is too much and unusual anyway


This should be pretty far down the road (if at all)--the current AI is still court marshal-able when it comes to such basic things as steering around coast lines [:D].



JCR -> RE: Accidents? (11/24/2013 1:44:57 PM)

Ship collisions are really not that necessary, however landing accidents are a very common occurence with carrier aviation



mikmykWS -> RE: Accidents? (11/24/2013 5:20:01 PM)

It something we should definitely look at in the future. Logged.

Mike



bsq -> RE: Accidents? (11/24/2013 5:30:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

ATM the low level flight is not even allowed by the game (by that, I mean REAL low level flight) I think the game engine enforces a 50meter hard deck. I have seen talk on these threads that some want that changed to account for real life strike profiles that often will go below that for a brief leg of the ingress. If that restriction is lifted in-game, I definitely agree with you that it should come with a risk of accident to make sure it is only used for a short time, and as part of a trade-off between early detection of the inbound raid, and risk of accident, which itself can then be mitigated somewhat by the skill level of the strike side.

1 to 2 minutes 'on the deck' is not as risky as you might think. It will be planned and practiced. On the other hand, 1 - 2 mins inside a MEZ and closing in on a firing unit is likely to result in a pretty terminal accident as a head on impact with a SAM tends to do that to you.



chemkid -> RE: Accidents? a future feature? (5/21/2015 10:13:33 AM)

.



NakedWeasel -> RE: Accidents? a future feature? (5/21/2015 4:49:07 PM)

I would like it. There's already malfunctions included in the terminal events of a weapon engagement, so there's a precedent. It's certainly realistic. But along with that realism, there is also the real possibility of airborne rescue. I'd like that to be developed on a parallel leg of development. Everything I've been wanting, (and more!) is already being added. Personally, I'm extremely happy with the speed that the game is progressing. But of course, there's nothing wrong with dreaming out loud for right now.



ExNusquam -> RE: Accidents? a future feature? (5/21/2015 6:20:44 PM)

I'm not really sure how I feel about accidents/system failures. On one hand, it would definitely increase the immersion, and would require players to actually account for things like deck spares in their ops plans. On the other hand, it would have to be realistic enough that it wasn't infuriating (anybody remember cold cats in Fleet Command?). Furthermore, most modern systems are designed to be fail operational, so no single failure will impact mission readiness.



chemkid -> RE: Accidents? a future feature? (5/21/2015 6:44:47 PM)

.



SeaQueen -> RE: Accidents? (5/21/2015 7:39:03 PM)

I don't like it. You get into all kinds of things when you're modeling accidents, which don't necessarily provide insight into the things driving decision makers in warfare. If the goal of the game is to provide some kind of insight into what kinds of decisions people are faced with in warfare, accidents probably isn't a great place to focus your effort.

Yes, naval aviation is dangerous. It is certainly more dangerous than land based aviation. That being said, how dangerous is it actually? If it was so dangerous that accidents were frequent enough that they actually drove war planners to factor them into the casualty rates, then naval aviation wouldn't be an operational capability and would be some sort of highly experimental new technology. In short, it wouldn't be actually deployed because it'd be too unreliable. If I'm the commander of a CSG, or even a 2 DDG SAG, I assume that the pilots at my disposal are sufficiently skilled that devastating accidents aren't going to happen very often. This isn't to say they don't happen, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying about them. If I was really concerned about lots of crippling accidents, I wouldn't deploy.

You also get into questions such as, "What is the time frame of the scenario?" If each platform had some sort of "mean time between failure" rate then in any realistic case, would occur in only a very small number number of cases. This is partially due to the short duration and limited scope of most scenarios. Sure accidents occur, but what is their effect? Well... the typical effect is to take a platform out of the scenario. Then maybe you shouldn't play that platform. Put those aircraft in "maintenance." I do that all the time. I might put 12 helos on an LHD, but only play 8 for instance. The remaining ones are out of the game, for whatever reason. For sure, in the real world over the course of many days, different aircraft will pass into and out of operational capability for a wide range of reasons (accidents, mechanical failures, accidents due to mechanical failures, scheduled maintenance) but the net effect is that on average, it just takes a few aircraft out of the game.



StellarRat -> RE: Accidents? (5/21/2015 7:48:47 PM)

As long as it's something that can be turned off or on and it's configurable I'm fine with it.



CV60 -> RE: Accidents? (5/22/2015 12:19:19 PM)

I think it should be included. IMHO, the chance of accidents should be effected by training, terrain, speed, weather, and equipment. Such a inclusion would allow the players to better explore different tactical concepts such as the RAF's low level bombing vs. US High level PGM bombing concept. Also, since the game models a 70+ year time period, it could be used to highlight the importance of terrain avoidance equipped units, etc.
quote:

I'm not really sure how I feel about accidents/system failures. On one hand, it would definitely increase the immersion, and would require players to actually account for things like deck spares in their ops plans. On the other hand, it would have to be realistic enough that it wasn't infuriating (anybody remember cold cats in Fleet Command?). Furthermore, most modern systems are designed to be fail operational, so no single failure will impact mission readiness.



Casinn -> RE: Accidents? (5/23/2015 2:33:54 AM)

I like the idea, but it would probably require retooling of some scenarios that we have now. I think a few would be tough to win with a couple of accidents taking out prime assets.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.859375