jamming? (Full Version)

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



Message

Cik -> jamming? (1/6/2017 5:19:59 AM)

hi. i have been the victim of jamming on many occasions. it is pretty obnoxious honestly when a falcon-20 is sitting 400nm off your islands jamming every platform you have on the table.

however i have had no luck inflicting the annoyance on the AI. in fact, never have i seen the word "jammed" over an enemy installation. (does this show up for the player? i mean, jamming is pretty obvious from what i know)

despite applying some of the heaviest noise jammers in the world (ALQs 131, 184, 99X) to the worst platforms in the world (vietnam-era relics SA-2/3/4) they appear to be able to fire at me with no range reduction at all.

is this true? is it busted? am i doing it wrong? what mission(s) should i use for standoff jamming? SEAD patrol? support? CAP?

does "jammed" display for the player?

is the AI immune to it? is it busted? am i just overestimating the effects? it doesn't seem likely that SA-2 retains it's range against modern jammers. if that were the case they never would have been developed and thrown on the "useless technology" pile.




wild_Willie2 -> RE: jamming? (1/6/2017 5:49:34 AM)

Hi there,

The AI suffers just as much EW effects as yourself, up to the point that it wont shoot any more at all. You just cant see the word JAM superimposed over these systems as you can't actually see the enemy side unless you enable god mode (then you actually can b.t.w.). The effect of jamming is heavily dependent on the generation of jammer, jammer aspects to the target and target generation. You can easily test this yourself by setting up different generations of SAM systems in the editor and then see at which distance these systems actually fire at a jamming aircraft. Generally speaking, the bigger the generational difference between jammers and radar systems, the more effective the highest tier system will be against the other.



Rory Noonan -> RE: jamming? (1/6/2017 7:09:18 AM)

Post a save and we can probably help more.

Jamming works really well, it could be a small detail you're missing.



wild_Willie2 -> RE: jamming? (1/6/2017 8:28:00 AM)

you must also make a difference between autonomously and guidance radar guided missiles. The general location of A jamming AC is actually quite easily to determine by a radar system (It literally lights up on their scopes like a Christmas tree), this is however generally not enough to generate a target solution for a guidance radar missile. However, if the AI has autonomously guided weapons at its proposal (e.g. S400) then the AI will actually fire missiles at the target area in the hope that the missile radar will pick up the jamming AC from close range and kill it. This actually works quite well and is a shock when you first encounter it (even your jamming F35's fall out of the sky like flies).

The SA2 however does not have this capacity, but depending on the version it can have a non jamable tracking and guidance camera that can detect and engage a target from 40 miles out, especially when you are lighting yourself up like a Christmas tree.... To overcome these issues you will need a combination of either nap of the earth flying and distant jamming or distant jamming and stand of weapons to eliminate this threat.

This game is not easy and it takes some close cooperation of assets to fulfill a mission with minimal losses.

W.



DWReese -> RE: jamming? (1/6/2017 9:59:54 AM)

I have some basic jamming questions as well.

To simplify the conversation using some random numbers, if an attacking unit can see its target at 60 miles without the defending unit jamming, but he can't see it until 40 miles away with the unit jamming. Forget the numbers, I'm just trying to put it into perspective. So, the jamming reduces the distance. If that is the case, when the attacking unit is now capable of "seeing" its target, does the jamming do anything else, or is it now just useless?

Also, I notice many many ships have jammers that they turn on while under attack. Obviously, the ships are already under attack, so the attackers have already seen the ships, so if what I said in the first paragraph is true about the jammers no longer having any effect, then why would the ships have jammers at all? They have already been seen to be attacked, so what's the point?

I believe that if jammers have some kind of effect, beyond the scope of just blocking observation, then it should somehow be revealed during the attack (if you choose to watch the actual mathematical breakdown) so that you would "know" that it is working. This could be like the other modifications that you see like being reduced due to speed, or size. perhaps it could say that the results are denigrated by 5% due to jamming.

It's just a thought.

Doug



Sardaukar -> RE: jamming? (1/6/2017 10:16:43 AM)

Also note that many jammers cannot jam all frequencies.



mikmykWS -> RE: jamming? (1/6/2017 11:08:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik

hi. i have been the victim of jamming on many occasions. it is pretty obnoxious honestly when a falcon-20 is sitting 400nm off your islands jamming every platform you have on the table.

however i have had no luck inflicting the annoyance on the AI. in fact, never have i seen the word "jammed" over an enemy installation. (does this show up for the player? i mean, jamming is pretty obvious from what i know)

despite applying some of the heaviest noise jammers in the world (ALQs 131, 184, 99X) to the worst platforms in the world (vietnam-era relics SA-2/3/4) they appear to be able to fire at me with no range reduction at all.

is this true? is it busted? am i doing it wrong? what mission(s) should i use for standoff jamming? SEAD patrol? support? CAP?

does "jammed" display for the player?

is the AI immune to it? is it busted? am i just overestimating the effects? it doesn't seem likely that SA-2 retains it's range against modern jammers. if that were the case they never would have been developed and thrown on the "useless technology" pile.




We do burn through and account for frequency and aspect. If you see something marked Jammed its detecting the jamming and may or may not be impacted directly. Jam is the thing doing the jammer.

Try viewing an engagement in the scenario editor and see what goes on from both sides. It really is one the best ways to learn and see what's going on.

As far as somethings that could be going in terms of being fired on while jamming.

Jamming is a datum.
Many SAM systems might have alternative guidance methods
Some missiles have home on Jam.

Part of the game is actually coming up with strategies to deal with these kinds of issues.



mikmykWS -> RE: jamming? (1/6/2017 11:09:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

you must also make a difference between autonomously and guidance radar guided missiles. The general location of A jamming AC is actually quite easily to determine by a radar system (It literally lights up on their scopes like a Christmas tree), this is however generally not enough to generate a target solution for a guidance radar missile. However, if the AI has autonomously guided weapons at its proposal (e.g. S400) then the AI will actually fire missiles at the target area in the hope that the missile radar will pick up the jamming AC from close range and kill it. This actually works quite well and is a shock when you first encounter it (even your jamming F35's fall out of the sky like flies).

The SA2 however does not have this capacity, but depending on the version it can have a non jamable tracking and guidance camera that can detect and engage a target from 40 miles out, especially when you are lighting yourself up like a Christmas tree.... To overcome these issues you will need a combination of either nap of the earth flying and distant jamming or distant jamming and stand of weapons to eliminate this threat.

This game is not easy and it takes some close cooperation of assets to fulfill a mission with minimal losses.

W.


Exactly.[:)]

Mike



mikmykWS -> RE: jamming? (1/6/2017 11:45:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

I have some basic jamming questions as well.

To simplify the conversation using some random numbers, if an attacking unit can see its target at 60 miles without the defending unit jamming, but he can't see it until 40 miles away with the unit jamming. Forget the numbers, I'm just trying to put it into perspective. So, the jamming reduces the distance. If that is the case, when the attacking unit is now capable of "seeing" its target, does the jamming do anything else, or is it now just useless?

Also, I notice many many ships have jammers that they turn on while under attack. Obviously, the ships are already under attack, so the attackers have already seen the ships, so if what I said in the first paragraph is true about the jammers no longer having any effect, then why would the ships have jammers at all? They have already been seen to be attacked, so what's the point?

I believe that if jammers have some kind of effect, beyond the scope of just blocking observation, then it should somehow be revealed during the attack (if you choose to watch the actual mathematical breakdown) so that you would "know" that it is working. This could be like the other modifications that you see like being reduced due to speed, or size. perhaps it could say that the results are denigrated by 5% due to jamming.

It's just a thought.

Doug


Hi Doug

Effects of Ship jamming on weapons here in the log:

quote:

12:31:24 PM - All weapon seekers were spoofed - weapon missed target
12:31:24 PM - Defensive jammer (FL 1800SII [ECM]; Tech: Late 1990s) on F 207 Bremen [Type F122] is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker(Tech: Late 1970s)(Of: AM.39 Exocet Blk I #10). Final probability: 35%. Result: 19 - SUCCESS


Note we do account for multiple guidance types so totally possible to spoof the radar guidance of the weapon and get nailed by another. It depends on the brilliance of the weapon.

We'll likely never actually display jamming percentages mostly for several reasons.

1) Player would never really have an understanding of the degree they're being jammed with great accuracy. In many cases its just known if they are are aren't being jammed although they many know enough to think heavy or light. This info is actually handled in the text datablock of the jamming unit.

2)We don't want the player to start solving sim or gaming problems strictly by gaming the system. Fog of war is an important reality. In this case though there is actually a science behind EW and warfighters might actually do some calculations based on what their sensors tell them but not to the extent of having the crystal ball that displaying calcs would provide.

3)We get enough complaints about our UI to add about a 1000 more lines a gaming session on this. This game is very complex and we have to be really careful about information overload. I'm starting to sense its time to migrate to C2 soon anyways.

All this being said there might be some value for a scenario editor. Thing is though you can totally set up a test and watch in editor mode. We've even provided replay via the recorder to try different things etc. So its not really a murky mystery if you're looking to invest the time into looking.

Anyways hope this covers your questions.

Mike






DWReese -> RE: jamming? (1/6/2017 10:06:13 PM)

Thanks, Mike, for the detailed explanation. I find the EW aspect of the game to be truly fascinating.

Doug



DrRansom -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 12:21:51 AM)

Mike, some people here mentioned that certain jammers only affected certain wavelengths. Is this true in game? If so, from what I remember of the jammer entries in the database, there is no description of what wavelengths the jammers are effective against.

If certain jammers are restricted to certain wavelength bands, would you be open to adding that to the database? With that info missing, I don't know if jamming can have any affect.

Also, do jammers have preferential aircraft flight directions? If so, could that also be shown in the game? Certain aircraft seem like broadside EW direction makes more sense, e.g. EC-130, while others seem like forward / aft direction is better, e.g. EF-111. But, afaik, there is no tool tip showing which is best.

These might make optimal employment easier without allowing any gaming of the system.

Thanks!



mikmykWS -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 4:44:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

Mike, some people here mentioned that certain jammers only affected certain wavelengths. Is this true in game? If so, from what I remember of the jammer entries in the database, there is no description of what wavelengths the jammers are effective against.

If certain jammers are restricted to certain wavelength bands, would you be open to adding that to the database? With that info missing, I don't know if jamming can have any affect.

Also, do jammers have preferential aircraft flight directions? If so, could that also be shown in the game? Certain aircraft seem like broadside EW direction makes more sense, e.g. EC-130, while others seem like forward / aft direction is better, e.g. EF-111. But, afaik, there is no tool tip showing which is best.

These might make optimal employment easier without allowing any gaming of the system.

Thanks!


If you could please add these to the wish list strings so we can see how popular they might be.

Thanks

Mike



Gunner98 -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 10:02:16 AM)

quote:

there is no description of what wavelengths the jammers are effective against.


Although it's not universal, descriptions are starting to show up in the DB entries:



[image]local://upfiles/16451/E2B0C9CB62104CBBAC5807FF15A4C53C.jpg[/image]



Sardaukar -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 1:16:57 PM)

Baloogan's wiki has some extra info:

https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataSensorList#OECM.2C_Offensive_ECM

E.g. https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataSensor?ID=1000948

ECMBandwidth: 500000
ECMNumberOfTargets: 2

Or:

https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataSensor?ID=5170

FrequencyUpper: 12000000000
FrequencyLower: 8000000000
ECMBandwidth: 1000000
ECMNumberOfTargets: 6

Or:

https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataSensor?ID=518

FrequencyUpper: 11000000000
FrequencyLower: 64000000
ECMBandwidth: 500000
ECMNumberOfTargets: 4

So, you can see that middle one works on frequences 8Gh - 12 Ghz and that means it is generally effective against illuminating/targeting radars. Last one works from 64Mhz - 11 Ghz and has lot more coverage (being dedicated EA-6 Prowler jammer pod).

It could be great if info about radar and jammer wavelengts would show in database viewer. That would help to determine if your jammer would be effective against certain radar.



DrRansom -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 1:42:36 PM)

Wait, jammers have a set number of targets? I didn't know that.

How are those targets allocated?



mikmykWS -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 2:40:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

Wait, jammers have a set number of targets? I didn't know that.

How are those targets allocated?

The assumption is the crew handles that detail. The scope of the game isn't there yet and not sure it really should be.

Thanks!

Mike



mikmykWS -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 2:45:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

It could be great if info about radar and jammer wavelengts would show in database viewer. That would help to determine if your jammer would be effective against certain radar.


Thanks! This one is probably pretty actionable. Added to our list to things.

Mike



DrRansom -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 3:12:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
The assumption is the crew handles that detail. The scope of the game isn't there yet and not sure it really should be.

Thanks!

Mike


I understand. On a general level, is there a priority list they move down? Perhaps it might be helpful in some situations for the player to be able to set the priority listing? E.g. jamming fighter radars vs. AWACS vs. targeting.





Dimitris -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 3:23:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
The assumption is the crew handles that detail. The scope of the game isn't there yet and not sure it really should be.

Thanks!

Mike


I understand. On a general level, is there a priority list they move down? Perhaps it might be helpful in some situations for the player to be able to set the priority listing? E.g. jamming fighter radars vs. AWACS vs. targeting.


Yeah because we don't have enough complaints about micromanagement already.



Dimitris -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 3:24:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom
Mike, some people here mentioned that certain jammers only affected certain wavelengths. Is this true in game?


Yes.

quote:


If so, from what I remember of the jammer entries in the database, there is no description of what wavelengths the jammers are effective against.

If certain jammers are restricted to certain wavelength bands, would you be open to adding that to the database? With that info missing, I don't know if jamming can have any affect.


You don't know it in RL either.



Dimitris -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 3:28:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
2)We don't want the player to start solving sim or gaming problems strictly by gaming the system. Fog of war is an important reality. In this case though there is actually a science behind EW and warfighters might actually do some calculations based on what their sensors tell them but not to the extent of having the crystal ball that displaying calcs would provide.


This.

The radar detection pipeline is long and complex. You have initial nominal values, then you begin throwing in actual platform signatures, and jamming sources, and effects of terrain, and effects of weather (rain), and and and.

You think picking out the locations and characteristics of jamming emitters and listing them on the screen will tell you something?

Let me save you the suspense. It won't tell much - for the simple reason that it will be presented completely out of context.



mikmykWS -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 3:35:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
The assumption is the crew handles that detail. The scope of the game isn't there yet and not sure it really should be.

Thanks!

Mike


I understand. On a general level, is there a priority list they move down? Perhaps it might be helpful in some situations for the player to be able to set the priority listing? E.g. jamming fighter radars vs. AWACS vs. targeting.





Yeah D hit the nail on the head and its a wall we hit with our own tastes often. We have to account that the game has to be approachable to all so we can't flood them with screens of minutae. Much can be said too for thinking about as a designer what you're trying to accomplish. At a high level are you modeling an aspect or pushing a button?

Speaking off. One thing I notice with flight sims is you have all these functions for your fighters but for some reason your AWACS etc. are never jammed. You get bullseye calls even when you're jammed.So perhaps we're not the only one's locked into a scope challenge?

We've been entertaining this but you're not gonna generate work just to give us a hard time about forum conversations. If we're going to take on anything its got to be valuable to our project and players. So I'd ask before you start rattling off things we should do consider the value to the group as a whole and the overall model. Believe me we understand the angst at level of detail but we've got to stay in business too!

Thanks

Mike



ExNusquam -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 4:08:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Thanks! This one is probably pretty actionable. Added to our list to things.


Can you expose the radar frequencies/power as well? I always just went to Baloogan's wiki, but it would be great to have in game.



mikmykWS -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 4:20:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Thanks! This one is probably pretty actionable. Added to our list to things.


Can you expose the radar frequencies/power as well? I always just went to Baloogan's wiki, but it would be great to have in game.


What would you do with it?

Mike



Sardaukar -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 4:54:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Thanks! This one is probably pretty actionable. Added to our list to things.


Can you expose the radar frequencies/power as well? I always just went to Baloogan's wiki, but it would be great to have in game.


What would you do with it?

Mike



Well...having the frequencies (both radars and jammers) would definitely lessen frustration by knowing if I am using wrong jammer for task. [8D] It'd also be useful for scenario designers for that same reason.

Knowing power is bit less important...but it'd give an idea of jammer's...well...power.



mikmykWS -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 5:07:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Thanks! This one is probably pretty actionable. Added to our list to things.


Can you expose the radar frequencies/power as well? I always just went to Baloogan's wiki, but it would be great to have in game.


What would you do with it?

Mike



Well...having the frequencies (both radars and jammers) would definitely lessen frustration by knowing if I am using wrong jammer for task. [8D] It'd also be useful for scenario designers for that same reason.

Knowing power is bit less important...but it'd give an idea of jammer's...well...power.


Frequency I agreed with. Power is a little misleading unless you know a few other things.

Anyways we'll talk and figure out the best way to handle this. We see people want more which is cool but we've got to make sure we're not giving TM useless I.

Thanks

Mike



DannyJim_slith -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 6:51:44 PM)

TBH I think that we could go too far quite quickly here. This is an operational simulation. I want the abstract of trusting platform crews to do their jobs not control of all stations on all platforms.



DrRansom -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 7:57:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
Yeah because we don't have enough complaints about micromanagement already.


Ok, no problem there. You are the devs and you make the call. Anyway, your game is basically the only thing I play now, it is really awesome.

The only two serious requests I have is: Database entry showing jammer frequency band and knowing which direction a jammer can work. That'll help when I try to set jamming support missions.

Thanks



Drivingguy -> RE: jamming? (1/7/2017 9:24:49 PM)

I know this is very simplistic but I play another game and they model jamming with a simple 1-5 scale. 1 being light jamming to 5 being completely jammed. They then model ECCM and burn through affects with a simple minus number.

I find its a easy way to see how effective the jamming is.




DWReese -> RE: jamming? (1/8/2017 1:32:20 AM)

I wouldn't mind a simple approach, either, as long as you knew that the systems were actually having some effect. Not knowing enough about EW, it would seem that a jamming platform's effectiveness would dissipate the further that the jammer was from unit being jammed. But, the game limits you to just "jammed" or not being jammed. So, you really don't know to what degree the platform is really being jammed.

As the platform gets closer to the jammer you would think that at some point it would "burn through" and that the jammer would no longer be working. But, the jammer still continues to have the "Jamming" designation. I get that it is hard to say that the unit is jamming this unit, but not that unit. That would be impossible to keep up with. So, each unit should have some kind of approximation provided to them (at least in Scenario Editor) to let them know to what degree the jamming is effective. I'm not talking about battle engagements. What I am primarily talking about is surveillance type calculations. A simple note that would indicate that the sensor could reach X far under the given weather conditions, but the sensor is currently being jammed by a unit originating from 232 degrees, which is currently degrading the effectiveness of this sensor. Just something to let you know that it is there, and that it is really working. Something like that, perhaps. It's just a thought.

Doug

Doug



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.1875