RE: Air combat rework (Full Version)

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



Message

dillonkbase -> RE: Air combat rework (5/12/2014 12:23:55 AM)

I mean the hard part to really estimate is how the game should pull a specific target out of a group of like objects... I remeber the phone call I had in the middle of the night where a Lieutenant was trying to have me Id a house based on its color... I had to explain I was only able to use a thermal camera... hot or cold.. not red or black. So figuring out which barracks to bomb ect... can take time. Not sure what the answer is there.



Figeac -> RE: Air combat rework (5/12/2014 11:17:39 PM)

Good to know that all these issues are being discussed by players and devs. [:)] General air issues are the ones that I most want to see improved in Command.

The ideal world, in my humble opinion:

1) Enemy aircrafts flying at their loadout profile altitude (not always 40k ft) detect each other;

2) The one with best BVR weapons/sensors fires at the enemy one or two missiles, decided by the player as a doctrine (not as an always mandatory two per target);

3) The target detects the incoming missile and the game engine calculates the ETA for the missile from this point. This will be used to determine the "PH adjusted for distance" later (not the distance from the launching platform, but the distance from the missile at the time it was detected. The sooner the target detects the threat, the better for him);

4) The target begins to maneuver to avoid the missile(s). That means accelerate at the highest by using post-combustion and diving, changing altitude for speed (the game engine would have to consider energy/altitude balance, a fundamental principle in every air-to-air arena. By the way, in that case, it would make sense to patrol at the highest altitude possible. As it is now, high altitude doesn't mean any advantage beyond seeing farther, but also being detected earlier);

5) The target also tries to change its course to a perpendicular one from the missile trajectory, making it harder for the missile to reach/hit him and forcing the missile to turn continually and bleed energy. At that point, agility and pilot proficiency would be essential: the more agile/proficient an aircraft/pilot is, the faster it would turn and dive to gain speed;

6) As the missile approaches, the target start to use ECM. Their effectiveness would depend on the ECM system itself and also on the seeker of the missile;

7) If the ECM doesn't work, the missile get to the impact point and PH is calculated: From the base PH, some amount is deducted based on the distance from the target at the time the missile was detected (as above) and, most important, also from the difference, in knots, from the missile speed and the target speed, as well as the difference, in degrees, between the the missile and target trajectories. The bigger these speed difference is, and the closer the trajectory difference is to 90 degrees, the better for the target;

8) The final PH is determined and a dice is rolled, as usual.

I think that would be a very realistic system. If a missile is fired at 6 o clock to a target that doesn't sees it coming, no PH deduction would be made, as the target simply wouldn't maneuver. On the other side, if the target sees the missile way before and maneuver in such a way that the missile encounters the target at an almost 90 degrees route and diving at full speed, it would be a very difficult shot.

I know that this is much more complicated than the engine can do now, and I perfectly understand that. As I said before, I just wanted to tell what would be the perfect air-to-air Command world for me, with more real life physics involved and less luck. [:)]



ckfinite -> RE: Air combat rework (5/12/2014 11:33:17 PM)

quote:


1) Enemy aircrafts flying at their loadout profile altitude (not always 40k ft) detect each other;

Note that radars and sensors are much more fickle in real life than their manufacturers say they are, and this is not a given.
quote:


2) The one with best BVR weapons/sensors fires at the enemy one or two missiles, decided by the player as a doctrine (not as an always mandatory two per target);

A inferior sensor platform can get the first shot if, for example, they have GCI.
quote:


3) The target detects the incoming missile and the game engine calculates the ETA for the missile from this point. This will be used to determine the "PH adjusted for distance" later (not the distance from the launching platform, but the distance from the missile at the time it was detected. The sooner the target detects the threat, the better for him);

PH adjusted for distance is actually simulating the endgame kinetic energy of the missile, not the maneuvering of the target aircraft. You're thinking of the "maneuvering with" section of the probability. Long range detections should be used to notch or to run away and reduce endgame KE, not decrease instantaneous endgame PK. The game should do 3D kinematic modelling of missile flight to simulate this correctly, and take PH adjusted for distance from a estimate of terminal control authority.
quote:


4) The target begins to maneuver to avoid the missile(s). That means accelerate at the highest by using post-combustion and diving, changing altitude for speed (the game engine would have to consider energy/altitude balance, a fundamental principle in every air-to-air arena. By the way, in that case, it would make sense to patrol at the highest altitude possible. As it is now, high altitude doesn't mean any advantage beyond seeing farther, but also being detected earlier);

This isn't necessarily true. Lower altitudes also let you do things like dive below the Earth's curvature or terrain more effectively, especially given that even with modern aircraft maximum descent velocity is sharply limited. High altitude's only advantage is seeing farther in real life, as well as in the game, because of this.

quote:


5) The target also tries to change its course to a perpendicular one from the missile trajectory, making it harder for the missile to reach/hit him and forcing the missile to turn continually and bleed energy. At that point, agility and pilot proficiency would be essential: the more agile/proficient an aircraft/pilot is, the faster it would turn and dive to gain speed;

This maneuver, as well as maximizing DLOS, also serves to notch the incoming missile.
quote:


6) As the missile approaches, the target start to use ECM. Their effectiveness would depend on the ECM system itself and also on the seeker of the missile;

The ECM profile should be dependent on ROE and what the nature of the systems available on the aircraft are.
quote:


7) If the ECM doesn't work, the missile get to the impact point and PH is calculated: From the base PH, some amount is deducted based on the distance from the target at the time the missile was detected (as above) and, most important, also from the difference, in knots, from the missile speed and the target speed, as well as the difference, in degrees, between the the missile and target trajectories. The bigger these speed difference is, and the closer the trajectory difference is to 90 degrees, the better for the target;

DLOS is a much better metric for PK than a simple angular calculation, as 90 degree shots can be easily accomplished if DLOS = 0.



Figeac -> RE: Air combat rework (5/12/2014 11:59:48 PM)

Thanks for the quick thoughts!

1 - Agreed. But we need to work with the tools and information we have, right?

2 - That is true. I was simulating an air-to-air engagement with no support;

3 - That is also true. I haven't figured that.

4 - I don't agree that high altitude's only advantage is seeing farther in real life. Of course altitude and energy management were much more important in the old dogfight days, but they still are for the same reason: high altitude means that you have a lot of potential energy that can be converted in kinetic energy (speed) at any time, for example, to avoid a missile. I agree that by flying low, one could use the Earth's curvature or the relief to mask himself, but again, my intention was to point my view on a "pure", standard air-to-air engagement. Besides, would the AI be able to take the decision to mask its planes if they were flying low?

5 - By "notch" you mean to evade or something like that? (English is not my mother tongue...)

6 - Sure. I don't think there is any ROE regarding ECM (chaffs and flares) usage now (beyond the offensive ECM EMCON setting).

7 - Agreed. Just thought that it would simplify things.

Cheers!



Klahn -> RE: Air combat rework (5/13/2014 2:39:49 AM)

One thing that hasn't been noted is that you need to be careful when comparing to real world results because the real world results aren't necessarily the "average." To use Sunburn's 73 Easting example, we don't know whether the one-sided results were unavoidable due to the circumstances, or if the real world results were actually an outlier. We can run the sim 100 times to see what the average results are for the sim. We don't have that option with the real world.

I've seen this problem noted in a game that included the Battle of Midway. In the game, the Japanese usually did better than they did historically. After much studying, our conclusion was that if you fought the real battle a number of times, the historical results were pretty much the best result that was possible. The game was likely giving more realistic results than the actual battle did.



ckfinite -> RE: Air combat rework (5/13/2014 4:07:38 PM)


quote:


4 - I don't agree that high altitude's only advantage is seeing farther in real life. Of course altitude and energy management were much more important in the old dogfight days, but they still are for the same reason: high altitude means that you have a lot of potential energy that can be converted in kinetic energy (speed) at any time, for example, to avoid a missile. I agree that by flying low, one could use the Earth's curvature or the relief to mask himself, but again, my intention was to point my view on a "pure", standard air-to-air engagement. Besides, would the AI be able to take the decision to mask its planes if they were flying low?

The issue is the missile's kinematics. Both the target and the missile gain energy from reducing altitude, and modern missiles are able to approach aircraft for (at least instantaneous) maneuverability. It's better to try to avoid the missiles launch at all then try to evade it, and staying at high altitude without GCI or AWACS is a great way to get missile shot at you.
quote:


5 - By "notch" you mean to evade or something like that? (English is not my mother tongue...)

It may be a DCS only term, but what I mean by notching is attempting to exploit the doppler radars to cause them to lose track. If you are able to turn perpendicular to the emitter, the radar won't see any doppler shift, and will lose track. This is most effective against SARH missiles, where there is a single radar source from an already defined direction, but can also be used (to lesser effect) against ARH missiles.



Tomcat84 -> RE: Air combat rework (5/16/2014 6:30:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Figeac


4) [...] By the way, in that case, it would make sense to patrol at the highest altitude possible. As it is now, high altitude doesn't mean any advantage beyond seeing farther, but also being detected earlier);



Patrolling at the highest possible is not necessarily the logical thing to do. There are radar scan volume related tactical reasons not to always do so, and additionally, if you CAP at your very max altitude, you most likely have a rather low calibrated airspeed, making you a lot less maneuverable and making your CAP turns very wide or requiring a higher fuel flow than CAPing at medium altitude (depending on aircraft type). The game's current 40K ft CAPs are not necessarily realistic.




Figeac -> RE: Air combat rework (5/16/2014 7:03:38 PM)

quote:

Patrolling at the highest possible is not necessarily the logical thing to do. There are radar scan volume related tactical reasons not to always do so, and additionally, if you CAP at your very max altitude, you most likely have a rather low calibrated airspeed, making you a lot less maneuverable and making your CAP turns very wide or requiring a higher fuel flow than CAPing at medium altitude (depending on aircraft type). The game's current 40K ft CAPs are not necessarily realistic.


I totally agree. Actually, this standard 40k ft altitude is one of the most frustrating thing in this game for me, something that really kills the immersion. I said the above because, as it is now, there is no reason to keep the standard altitude, for any kind of mission, as the highest possible the aircraft can get. If there were any relation between altitude, speed and energy then there would be a reason to CAP at high altitude, but I agree with you, not the at the highest altitude possible. By the way, usually, AAW loadouts says "cruise at 36k ft", which I think would be much better. Unfortunately, the developers haven't implemented altitude profiles for every loadout yet, and I'm afraid that they wont, since this option has been erased from the game features pool.

Another option would be letting the player decide this altitude at the mission window itself. There is already a drop down menu for throttle settings on the patrol missions window, there could be another drop down menu for altitude settings (highest, high. medium, low, etc). Or even better, that standard altitude could be a doctrine that the player could set for the entire scenario, mission, group or unit.

These are just suggestions, I don't know how the devs sees this issue or how it is on their priority list. But I'm sure they are aware of it and maybe we can get a fix someday!



Tomcat84 -> RE: Air combat rework (5/16/2014 7:12:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Figeac
Another option would be letting the player decide this altitude at the mission window itself. There is already a drop down menu for throttle settings on the patrol missions window, there could be another drop down menu for altitude settings (highest, high. medium, low, etc). Or even better, that standard altitude could be a doctrine that the player could set for the entire scenario, mission, group or unit.




Request for this has been made in closed beta. Devs are aware of it and have it on their to do list. It's just a big to do list so we will have to be patient and see when they get there :)



Figeac -> RE: Air combat rework (5/16/2014 7:57:28 PM)

quote:

Request for this has been made in closed beta. Devs are aware of it and have it on their to do list. It's just a big to do list so we will have to be patient and see when they get there :)


I know and understand, I'm a beta tester too [:)]



Tomcat84 -> RE: Air combat rework (5/16/2014 8:01:53 PM)

Forgot about that :)



mikmykWS -> RE: Air combat rework (5/17/2014 3:31:56 AM)

Beta huh?

Yes still on the list. We'll get to it as soon as we can.

Thanks



Agiel -> RE: Air combat rework (6/25/2014 5:28:54 AM)

If you'll forgive me for bumping this thread, a blogpost on the Warfare Sims website gave me some food for thought in relation to some experiments I tried:

http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=2793

I found it relevant to a test I conducted for a "Patriot vs Scud, 1991" scenario I had stewing in my head. The tests I had conducted showed the Patriot PAC-1 (the system that would have been used in the defense of Israel and Saudi Arabia) enjoyed astounding success against the Iraqi Scuds against even fairly optimistic estimates of the most reasonable analysts (http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992_h/h920407z.htm), around 60% pK for the first interceptor fired. However, CMANO also has some limitations in regards to modeling this scenario as history remembers it. For instance, the Scuds Saddam Hussein used were heavily modified to be launched further into the atmosphere, resulting in some breaking up on re-entry and inadvertently creating decoys for the Patriot crews, not to mention the fact that the CEP of the Scud at that point was the size of a county. In fact, if one were to use the Scud as modeled in Command, he or she would have to re-locate it to Syria in order for it to reach a target in Israel!



mikmykWS -> RE: Air combat rework (6/25/2014 12:19:58 PM)

So you just want that variant? If so just pop a request in the db request string in mods and scenarios.

Thanks

Mike



Barleyman -> RE: Air combat rework (11/15/2014 4:43:23 PM)

Bit old thread but anyways. I don't get this adjusted for distance business. Why on earth does ARH missile lose 60% hit probability with distance? I mean, yeah, I can get ideal aspect ratio shot with target not having chance to evade being different story. But does it really matter if the AMRAAM is at 50% or 75% range.. The target has probably done all it can in either case.



ckfinite -> RE: Air combat rework (11/15/2014 4:45:36 PM)

It's an approximation of remaining kinetic energy. Command doesn't model the endgame perfectly, as they don't have full kinematic simulations of the missiles. To correct for this, they take off pk as the missile flies further and loses energy.



Barleyman -> RE: Air combat rework (11/15/2014 4:54:00 PM)

I still don't get it. Why does it matter how much energy/fuel does the missile have left at the time of interception? If the missile makes it to the plane there was enough energy. If not, then not. AAM do not have "retry" capability AFAIK. At least not medium range.



ckfinite -> RE: Air combat rework (11/15/2014 5:02:24 PM)

Missile endgame is typically characterized by the missile maneuvering to the intercept with an aircraft that is also maneuvering. The amount that the missile can turn is dictated by the amount of energy the missile has entering the endgame phase. If the motor is still running, then the energy is constant (e.g. the area where PK is not reduced in Command). If the motor has burned out, than the KE of the missile is decreasing as it flies further.

Fundamentally, unless you're shooting at airliners and UASs, the target is going to turn, and thus the missile has to turn as well. The intercept you are describing is one where the target is flying straight and level, a circumstance that doesn't happen much against tactical fighters.



Barleyman -> RE: Air combat rework (11/15/2014 6:23:02 PM)

Hmm.. I kind of presumed the missile is still under power.. I kind of dismissed the whole "intercept after engine off" business. I thought the "ran out of energy and self destructed" meant it's out of juice. In any case I don't think I've seen the missile losing speed just before interception but I may have to recheck.

In any case wouldn't that then make it much more likely to score a kill if you only launch within burn distance?



ckfinite -> RE: Air combat rework (11/15/2014 7:06:16 PM)

Yes, that's the region where no penalty is applied. Command's kinematic model doesn't include the slowdown, so you can't see it on the map.



Barleyman -> RE: Air combat rework (11/15/2014 8:27:12 PM)

That would suggest "pessimistic" weapons usage should only launch missiles where the missile is still under burn at interception, no?

IRL how is this done? Launch at range and hope the ballistic missile will make it or get closer and risk counterfire?



ckfinite -> RE: Air combat rework (11/15/2014 8:32:35 PM)

Depends on ROE and what the tactical situation dictates. This is one of the fun bits of AAW :).



Barleyman -> RE: Air combat rework (11/15/2014 8:40:01 PM)

Hmh. That would mean there is NO WAY to make AI use weapons only at "optimal" ie under power range? So if you want AMRAAMs to have decent hit chance you have to.. wait for it.. baby sit your fighters and manually open fire at the "last moment"?

My head hurts. [:(]



ckfinite -> RE: Air combat rework (11/15/2014 8:42:18 PM)

You can make some estimates based on the geometric probability distribution and a little knowledge of the Command PK model, but this is one of the things in Command that makes microing so effective.



mikmykWS -> RE: Air combat rework (11/16/2014 4:37:20 AM)

We're working on some logic allowing players some more options in terms of salvo logic although optimum firing parameters can be subjective.

Mike






Tomcat84 -> RE: Air combat rework (11/16/2014 7:07:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barleyman

Hmh. That would mean there is NO WAY to make AI use weapons only at "optimal" ie under power range? So if you want AMRAAMs to have decent hit chance you have to.. wait for it.. baby sit your fighters and manually open fire at the "last moment"?

My head hurts. [:(]



If you're using a patrol mission you could give them a prosecution area that is less than max kinematic range in order to stimulate higher Pk shots if you really want to be hands-off.
And real life it depends, as ck said.



Dimitris -> RE: Air combat rework (11/16/2014 8:25:04 AM)

In the vast majority of RL air engagements, pilots shoot immediately once they are within DLZ parameters. Even if the first shot misses, it puts the target into the defensive and hands the initiative to the shooter for either a follow-up attack or disengagement.
I cannot recall any account of an engagement (at least against an opponent able of shooting back) where the pilot willingly delayed the shot in order to maximize endgame energy.



Barleyman -> RE: Air combat rework (11/16/2014 10:49:58 AM)

You could always order the pilots to do something in most militaries.. In any case, yes, on defensive is good. However the AAW patrol guys run away to maintain stand-off range instead of closing in for a shot. Can I actually just change the relevant doctrine to make the planes get closer after 1st shot?



Barleyman -> RE: Air combat rework (11/18/2014 11:52:04 AM)

Yes, it seems un-ticking "maintain stand-off" indeed does make the planes close in after 1st shot, reducing the need to micromanage.



mikmykWS -> RE: Air combat rework (11/18/2014 11:31:33 PM)

Maintain stand-off is meant for ships. No impact on aircraft as they really don't fight the same.

Thanks!

Mike



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.562012