Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (Full Version)

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



Message

riflebrigade -> Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 12:58:17 AM)

I posted regarding having the ability to have a proficiency rating for each unit and was surprised there seems to be very little interest in having this ability provided for the game.

Without having some type of proficiency rating for each unit the game becomes a battle between equipment without the equally import factors of the persons using/maintaining the equipment.

One of the main issues in planning is to assign unit tasks with regard to a units training/ability/cohesion, has there ever been a battle where both sides or units of one side all have the same abilities?

Being able to have units of varied effectiveness would enable more balanced scenarios to be built, where better quality outnumbered forces would have a more realistic chance of winning.

If the ground warfare section of the game is expanded in more detail it will probably need proficiency ratings to enable the game to provide realistic outcomes.

Proficiency ratings could also be utilised to provide the possibility for equipment failures/breakdowns which are major factors in a battle.

Proficiency ratings for each unit could negate the problem of having to decide on a proficiency rating for each country which would be impossible as the proficiency rating of each countries units would probably cover from poor to excellent quality.



wodin -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 1:37:01 AM)

The human factor is missing from the game. I'd like to see the human element in game. It would add things like nation specific training..you could have an Ace in your flight for instance , or have to take down an Ace. I think say the extreme envelope of flight for a fighter jet should only be able to do it if the pilot is rated as an Ace. You could have Recruit, Green, Experienced, Veteran and then ACE..each band would have a modifier that would reduce the planes characteristics (not by loads) to replicate the skill of the pilot. The modifiers would effect accuracy, moral, and for a fighter say turning ability oh and finally skill at releasing decoys.

You could have this as an option for those who don't want that aspect in game.



mikmykWS -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 1:43:16 AM)

You guys do know you can give side's proficiency ratings right? This was implemented.

Mike



wodin -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 1:53:27 AM)

Whoops missed it..sorry.



VFA41_Lion -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 3:48:49 AM)

I think the OP wants a proficiency rating for each individual unit.



Blu3wolf -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 5:14:33 AM)

this is a tricky area, because the question becomes how much of the human factor do you want to model? Human factors are something I prefer to see relatively abstracted - have a mechanism for 'surprise' and perhaps one for 'morale' and leave it at that - and even the morale one is stretching it.



Dimitris -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 5:28:02 AM)

So far, we have implemented, tested and continuously improved:

* Side-wide proficiency levels: Already affecting air combat, air-ops turnaround, reaction times, damage control, contact classification/identification times and more.

* OODA values / reaction times (we finally have actual tactical surprise in a game like this!), affected by:
a) man-machine interface level,
b) Proficiency level
c) Command system integration level

* A whole doctrine settings & Rules of Engagement that reflect a unit's instructions and "ways of combat" (and also training-relevant factors such as fire discipline).

...and some folks still say Command doesn't feature the human element.

<D throws hands up in the air>

(This is not to say that more human-related factors cannot be included. They can, and we are examining what we can add and how (and how not to break existing stuff). But to say that Command currently lacks them altogether is, IMHO, unfair.)



Blu3wolf -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 5:55:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

The human factor is missing from the game. I'd like to see the human element in game. It would add things like nation specific training..you could have an Ace in your flight for instance , or have to take down an Ace. I think say the extreme envelope of flight for a fighter jet should only be able to do it if the pilot is rated as an Ace. You could have Recruit, Green, Experienced, Veteran and then ACE..each band would have a modifier that would reduce the planes characteristics (not by loads) to replicate the skill of the pilot. The modifiers would effect accuracy, moral, and for a fighter say turning ability oh and finally skill at releasing decoys.

You could have this as an option for those who don't want that aspect in game.


generally its not the plane's performance that is screwed up by a less than ace pilot, its the decisions on where to go and how to get there that stuff up the plane.

Then again, this would require a much more complicated model not really appropriate to something not a dedicated air combat simulator.



Pergite! -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 7:59:28 AM)

Put a little pilot portrait in he unit status window for aircrafts, together with a short text box for the pilots biography and you will have the all so crowd pleasing "human element". That also lets people import their own faces which enables them to bring even further "immersion" to the game.
Problem solved! [8|]

I however do support the OP idea of different proficiency ratings for different units within a side. Currently when trying to model this I have created several sides within a nation representing different units with for example different readiness states etc.


Anyway,

IMO The current proficiency ratings on OODA cover everything that is asked for above when it comes to modern air and naval engagements, which mostly are decided by capability of the employment of sensors, countermeasures and weapon systems. Its the computers that does the important work. The pilots job is just to bring them to the right place at the right time and back home again. [;)]


On the subject, is there a way to get a spread-sheet or something listing the different levels of proficiencies impact on some of the mentioned factors in order to share a better understanding of balancing scenarios. There must be some breaking point where for example good sensor capability outweighs pilot lack proficiency?





mcp5500 -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 11:45:51 AM)

Why not do it for the Fire crew of your carrier group. It is to big of a game for that but changing proficiencis on groups or individual objects would work and should be easily able to be done. Now these profisencies that you are asking for is more like an aviator for each proficance .that would work on aircraft but that is only one part of the game/sim. I am not a aircraft enthusiast but I like navel surface battles. We can't make a avatar for one ships sonarman so why do aircraft get that right. Pfoficance by groups is sufficient. It represents training levels of the group. I have a crack team of F14 pilots in my air group but the a6 group not so much. I't could be as part of the add ship/sub, platoon, aircraft group, sam site, radar, and so-on. That makes more sence, more manageable, and would only be single object in the database to add to each unit and remove the 5 tables for each side. An air base can be inaficient causing aircraft take-off times delays and longer ready times but a group of aircraft can be well trained. A ship would have reduced sensor, less weapon accuracy and longer reload and poor damage control. The same proficiencies that is used for each side. This setting iis only available in the editor when you add a object like a ship or when adding an airbase and group of aircraft when you add them to a base. Also profisencies would not change over the time of the scenario. If command where campaign base, that would be different.



jdkbph -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 1:15:19 PM)

The guys have really done a lot here already to integrates human factors into the game. Unfortunately it may not be obvious... or as obvious as it is in a game like WitP:AE where each individual pilot or leader has a set of ratings. But it's there and it's effective.

For those that agree that things like training, proficiency, etc, play a big role in combat outcomes and belong in a game like this (and I realize there are those that do not), I would argue that the next logical step would be to apply proficiency ratings to the specific forces (eg, air force, naval force, ground force) of each country or side represented, rather than individual units (ship, airplane, tank).

The method then for distinguishing between normal and elite forces within a given country's armed forces would be to use "allied" sides to represent them.

MHO

JD



mikmykWS -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 1:32:32 PM)

Will add a request for a way to add proficiency rating specific to a group or unit to our request list.

Right now we are working on mission logic specifically strike which is more important in terms of what players want and improving the AI. This is a much bigger win,

As far as the game vs simulation bit. Honestly I hope we've proven that you don't to need insult us or our game to get us to pay attention to stuff or be responsive. It would be great if some of you would adjust how you ask for things to reflect that.

Thanks



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 1:34:49 PM)

Sunburn, you shouldn't get upset, you guys should take some time and put together some sort of Readme file of the many detailed attributes this sim already simulates.

There's a lot going on under the hood so to speak, and few people really have an idea of how extensive the modelling is unless they get into these forums and read countless posts on the matter.

Even some of us here don't understand all the various things that are modeled unless an issue comes up and you guys took time to explain to us what was going on.


Hearing about some of the nuggets of info like you described only makes me appreciate the sim more.
[:)]




mikmykWS -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 1:45:04 PM)

Not a bad idea but not a good time right now as we need what hours we have to develop.

Mike








AlmightyTallest -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 1:48:29 PM)

No problem Mike, I understand you guys are pretty busy, even on your break times.




mikmykWS -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 1:54:03 PM)

I promise you'll like what we're up to now. Off axis attacks etc.

[:)]



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 4:25:54 PM)

Thank you, that's awsome!! Now I can't wait!! [:)]



mcp5500 -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 5:27:34 PM)

Thanks Mike. Message received [:)]



SSN754planker -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 5:42:04 PM)

It is pretty easy already to add "aces" to a side. for example..say you want to create a libyan air force where there is one unit of aces and the other units would be of a lower proficiency.

All you have to do is create a Libya side for the regular units, and then create a side for the aces unit. then place them as you wish in the scenario editor.



thewood1 -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 6:11:51 PM)

People overlook the flexibility of having so many different sides available to them. I always go check out what I can do with various sides and settings before requesting new features.



ckfinite -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 6:30:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SSN754planker

It is pretty easy already to add "aces" to a side. for example..say you want to create a libyan air force where there is one unit of aces and the other units would be of a lower proficiency.

All you have to do is create a Libya side for the regular units, and then create a side for the aces unit. then place them as you wish in the scenario editor.


The issue with this approach is that it doesn't work well for human-controlled sides (though you can do it, if the player's in the editor). It would be nice to differentiate between, say, front-line and reserve forces within the player's side.



mcp5500 -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 7:17:29 PM)

That is interesting. You make the same sides as friendly.. Can you use the same name more then once?



thewood1 -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 9:13:22 PM)

I never tried using the same name twice...you don't need to. USA-1, USA-2, etc.

I don't understand why someone thinks it only works for AI. Can you explain?



thewood1 -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 9:20:36 PM)

I can see now. I always play in the editor. Never noticed before.



mcp5500 -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 9:22:27 PM)

The same name thing is more about how you look to the enemy. A human player my play a scenario a few times and see a group of USA A-6 intruders and the May know, when they identify them, they are USA-4 and know they are not that good.



vaalen -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 9:44:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

So far, we have implemented, tested and continuously improved:

* Side-wide proficiency levels: Already affecting air combat, air-ops turnaround, reaction times, damage control, contact classification/identification times and more.

* OODA values / reaction times (we finally have actual tactical surprise in a game like this!), affected by:
a) man-machine interface level,
b) Proficiency level
c) Command system integration level

* A whole doctrine settings & Rules of Engagement that reflect a unit's instructions and "ways of combat" (and also training-relevant factors such as fire discipline).

...and some folks still say Command doesn't feature the human element.

<D throws hands up in the air>

(This is not to say that more human-related factors cannot be included. They can, and we are examining what we can add and how (and how not to break existing stuff). But to say that Command currently lacks them altogether is, IMHO, unfair.)


Well, this post just convinced me to buy the game. I had been visiting time to time, and had been unable to make up my mind, because of the complaints that there was no human element. But what you just listed sounds great to me, and my last excuse not to buy is gone. So I am going to buy it now.

Great job of supporting the game,and it has got you this sale.



thewood1 -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/13/2014 10:52:55 PM)

The don't call them that. I would imagine having multiple groups could solve some of this along with some creative names. But it seems to only work in editor.



riflebrigade -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/14/2014 2:01:29 AM)

Good to see there is some interest in utilising proficiency ratings.

My post was submitted to encourage discussion to improve the game, it was not meant to upset anyone.

When writing my post I had no idea of the extent of existing implementations in the game which take proficiency into consideration.

I know proficiency ratings are implemented into the game on a country basis.

My post outlined possible ways to expand the use of proficiency ratings to provide a more accurate game including its use with regards to equipment maintenance/breakdown.

The people who purchase and play the games generally only get an insight into the mechanics of the game after relevant post questions have been asked and answered in the forum.

I feel the items nominated in my post could benefit the games, as to if they can be programmed or are deemed as appropriate for the game that is the programers decision.



mikmykWS -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/14/2014 2:17:51 AM)

Yes we got it.

Thanks!

Mike



Coiler12 -> RE: Do we want Command Modern Air / Naval Operations to be a game or more of a simulation? (4/14/2014 3:14:58 AM)

Is side proficiency affecting turnaround times in a dev build? Because I did a small test with a novice and ace sides with the same loadouts, and they took equal amounts of time to get ready.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.216797