Non-Realistic Military Strength? (Full Version)

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



Message

madavid0 -> Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/19/2020 12:48:41 PM)

Alright guys, military strength of combatants in scenarios. Many times in a given a scenario one or both sides of a conflict are given greatly inflated capabilities. For example, Iran in Black Tiger is given a bunch of modern Russian fighter jets and AWACSs, planes which they do not have in reality, and certainly not in the 2015 timeframe the scenario takes place. I can understand why, especially if playing as Iran -- it wouldn't be fun trying to fight Super Hornets with F-4s and a few old F-14s shooting modified I-Hawks. But on the other side of the coin, wouldn't massively upgrading the Iranian military like that feel like you're not fighting with Iran but some other country?

So the question is, what's your view of fun vs immersion/accuracy? Is a matter of a scale -- ie, it's not far-fetched that Iran bought a bunch of Russian fighters and Chinese missile systems so it's okay, but some small African nationm armed with 3 squadrons of Typhoons and S-400 battalions is too fantastical?



kevinkins -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/19/2020 1:03:35 PM)

I like realistic orders of battles and keeping the battle short of WW3. Researching the OOBs is a lot of fun and instructive. But the game allows for many other types of scenarios which is great for players who like to sim major conflicts. My preference is modern or a few years out. It's OK to arm smaller nations with first class equipment if you set the geopolitical stage to be not too far fetched. It helps to go out 5 or more years as geopolitics is imperfect.

Kevin



ParachuteProne -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/19/2020 1:06:28 PM)

I myself prefer realistic force structures. Even a weaker Nation could have local superiority to make a scenario interesting.
I feel much the way you do, however the only person who's opinion really matters is the person who has spent their time working on the scenario.
I make small number of my own scenarios (Small ones with no briefings etc. - just for me) simply because they are a lot of work.
Or download ones that seem to be realistic. Other people might prefer the "Nation X just sold" type of scenarios.
I also like scenarios that loosely hinge around recent events/ tensions so you can try the "what if".

Might make an interesting poll.




Coiler12 -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/19/2020 1:36:44 PM)

It depends a lot on the circumstances. For the specific case, Black Tiger I didn't mind because it clearly felt like a "technothriller in-game" and was aiming to do stuff you couldn't do with realistic orders of battle. I can understand the issue, though, to the point where I even came up with the term "bear-masks" to describe someone just getting a ton of top-line Russian equipment.

It's a lot easier to balance a scenario against a weaker opponent than it is to balance it with (in the sense of even posing a slight conventional challenge to)the US. And this has been a problem with written technothrillers as well-just look at how the genre flailed around after 1991, using everything from surplus Soviet equipment to superweapon Macguffins to some kind of restraint or limited forces to pose a credible challenge.



SeaQueen -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/19/2020 2:24:24 PM)

Within limits I think it's cool. One thing that annoys me is if I'm not told that an opposing nation has a capability that I can't plan around, but part of the game is making fun speculation about what might be out there. The truth is that in the real world there's sometimes considerable uncertainty about exactly what the enemy has, and the further out in the future you're looking the more uncertainty exists.

In 1988 people thought the Soviet Union was going to go on forever. Ten years later, 1998, they were celebrating the post-Cold War era. Russia was weak, and global security gurus were trying to figure out how to confront the new threat of ethnic unrest and genocide which consumed the world as self serving politicians sought to fill the void left in the post-Soviet world. You see what I'm saying?

Iran having some advanced missiles or aircraft 10+ years in the future could be cool provided it's layered on top of the legacy stuff that's already there. They'd be unlikely to entirely replace everything all at once. That actually makes for an interesting problem on both sides, because bear in mind, you also have to integrate the new stuff with the obsolete stuff. What would Iranian tactics look like then?

The problem is similar to the small African country, but maybe less pronounced? In a real sense, it's all speculative so one could take the perspective that the politics and economics of every country is irrelevant, and it's all just a sandbox to play in. Part of the fun of the game, though, is taking an interest in current events and international politics, so in the interest of appealing to that, it's not a bad thing to not make things too out there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: madavid0
But on the other side of the coin, wouldn't massively upgrading the Iranian military like that feel like you're not fighting with Iran but some other country?

So the question is, what's your view of fun vs immersion/accuracy? Is a matter of a scale -- ie, it's not far-fetched that Iran bought a bunch of Russian fighters and Chinese missile systems so it's okay, but some small African nationm armed with 3 squadrons of Typhoons and S-400 battalions is too fantastical?




Primarchx -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/19/2020 2:24:59 PM)

I'd say different strokes for different folks. If you want scenarios true to their contemporary reality, they're out there. If you want to play with all the wonderful toys, we've got you covered there, too. In my mind this sort of 'wrong fun' criticism just keeps potential authors from creating new scenarios because they're afraid of community ridicule. No one's making you play any of the player-created content, after all. My recommendation is to chil-lax and play (or even better, create) scenarios you want to play.



serjames -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/19/2020 3:18:58 PM)

I agree with SeaQueen here, it all depends on the backstory imo... You can always provide a good reason for better kit suddenly being available. Perhaps a mercenary fleet. Joint Training, leased equipment following a political agreement. AS long as it's not too crazy a scenario... e.g. Tonga suddenly running a CVBG... lol. Then I'm happy to use my imagination. I say go for it.



Randomizer -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/19/2020 8:53:53 PM)

Since the OP is so very unhappy with the scenarios provided by the developers and the Community, perhaps he might want to show the poor, inaccurate, exaggerating scenario authors how it's done and upload some of his own work. I would love to see his hyper-accurate scenarios where absolutely aspect is referenced to some probably non-existent, ethereal and Capital "T" Truth. Actually, it sounds pretty awful to me...

Gaming immersion is a huge Red Herring. The concept is different for everybody and even varies with different games being played by the same person. If you state that something is immersive, it may be for you but almost certainly will not be immersive for others, let alone everybody. Anything with a useful definition so broad is essentially meaningless except for a particular individual at one moment in time under one specific situation.

-C



TheCabal -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/19/2020 9:38:09 PM)

Well, I dislike unbalanced powers except if it's in historical scenarios with a battle that happened in rl or if it's a historical moment from where I take over in somekind of "what if"-scenario. Others can be fictional, because its all about strategy and tactics isn't it?



magi -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/20/2020 1:34:47 AM)

i personally like more plausible scenarios as being more educational... however saying that there are some very engaging scenarios that the background are ridicules... canaries cage first comes to my mind here... great little scenario though....
generally i stay away from silly whatif stuff.....



SeaQueen -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/20/2020 2:42:41 AM)

quote:

For example, Iran in Black Tiger is given a bunch of modern Russian fighter jets and AWACSs, planes which they do not have in reality, and certainly not in the 2015 timeframe the scenario takes place. I can understand why, especially if playing as Iran -- it wouldn't be fun trying to fight Super Hornets with F-4s and a few old F-14s shooting modified I-Hawks. But on the other side of the coin, wouldn't massively upgrading the Iranian military like that feel like you're not fighting with Iran but some other country?


In the 2000s when that scenario was probably written, it seemed speculative and fun. Now a days, it seems a little dated, but could probably be reworked in order to push the date further out in the future, and maybe incorporate the technologies Iran actually has developed or acquired, in addition to new speculation on what might happen in the future.

The problem with putting dates on scenarios is that essentially, you're putting an expiration date on it. If you breeze past that date, and it hasn't come true yet, then your scenario becomes silly. That's why ideally scenarios should be updated and reworked periodically. That doesn't always happen, though.



kevinkins -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/21/2020 2:36:33 PM)

Not sure if this is on topic, but I have never seen a reference to Cuba getting S-400 from Russia. I guess it's possible and might be interesting to sandbox.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-a-theoretical-s-400-deployment-to-cuba-would-not-pose-a-credible-threat-to-us-combat-planes/



KnightHawk75 -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/21/2020 3:19:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I'd say different strokes for different folks. If you want scenarios true to their contemporary reality, they're out there. If you want to play with all the wonderful toys, we've got you covered there, too. In my mind this sort of 'wrong fun' criticism just keeps potential authors from creating new scenarios because they're afraid of community ridicule. No one's making you play any of the player-created content, after all. My recommendation is to chil-lax and play (or even better, create) scenarios you want to play.


^This entirely.
Personally, depends on my mood, but generally prefer more on the side of fun\whatif's, than absolute realism. There is plenty of room for both.



Primarchx -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/21/2020 5:04:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

Not sure if this is on topic, but I have never seen a reference to Cuba getting S-400 from Russia. I guess it's possible and might be interesting to sandbox.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-a-theoretical-s-400-deployment-to-cuba-would-not-pose-a-credible-threat-to-us-combat-planes/


I think Havana Daydreamin' does this. Makes it real PITA to do ANYTHING as the US over the Florida Straits.



BrianinMinnie -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/21/2020 6:21:28 PM)

Could a temporary or portable Jamming system of some type be placed in the Keys, facing south to prevent the locking of targets north, against that system(S-400) nowadays? One that the 400 couldn't burn through?



Primarchx -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/21/2020 9:46:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianinMinnie

Could a temporary or portable Jamming system of some type be placed in the Keys, facing south to prevent the locking of targets north, against that system(S-400) nowadays? One that the 400 couldn't burn through?


It's been awhile but I recall that even an EA-18G didn't prevail in close escort jamming over Key West.



BeirutDude -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/25/2020 12:38:25 AM)

For what its worth I usually design with units the county has, or is looking to procure, within the time frame of the scenario. If, for example, I'm working on a Persian Gulf scenario (which I am) I try to find squadrons and ships that are or have recently been there. I try to look up the actual radio call sign for the squadron. So unless it is a purely speculative scenario (Incirlik, 2021) I try for the OOB that exists.



Coiler12 -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/25/2020 1:42:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

For what its worth I usually design with units the county has, or is looking to procure, within the time frame of the scenario. If, for example, I'm working on a Persian Gulf scenario (which I am) I try to find squadrons and ships that are or have recently been there. I try to look up the actual radio call sign for the squadron. So unless it is a purely speculative scenario (Incirlik, 2021) I try for the OOB that exists.


I tend to have the opposite approach (I'm not saying yours is wrong, it's just a matter of my personal taste) where unless it's meant to explicitly feature real units, I tend to use fictional ship/squadron names.

(It's in part because I like thinking them up and in part to preempt any "no, this carrier was in the Atlantic at that time" issues)



tjhkkr -> RE: Non-Realistic Military Strength? (1/26/2020 6:06:13 PM)

Neat discussion!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.764954