[Logged] Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (Full Version)

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



Message

Battelman2 -> [Logged] Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/4/2020 8:23:27 AM)

I was playing a scenario where I had my surface ships set to passive EMCON to minimize attack risk. I noticed that ships with SARH SAMs were, despite the EMCON state, lighting up their illuminators to fire their missiles- defeating the entire point of EMCON.

Save attached. Start the scenario, change WCS of D 89 to Free/Tight and enjoy.

Also notice that the Sensors window for D 89 indicates that the sensors should be respecting EMCON and active radars should be secured. Is this just wrong like I think it is or am I missing something?



Dimitris -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/4/2020 8:30:39 AM)

Hi,

This is actually by design. The EMCON behavior dictates the usage of active sensors during search/track. Once the commitment has been made to engage a target, EMCON restrictions take a backseat to the needs of proper weapon guidance.

You can observe the same effect in e.g. SAM sites who stay silent up to the very moment they begin launching missiles at you.



Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/4/2020 9:16:59 AM)

Hmmmm... I think I can agree with "Once the commitment has been made to engage a target, EMCON restrictions take a backseat to the needs of proper weapon guidance." but I don't think the commitment should be made in the first place. I would expect my ships not to fire any SARH weapons until I allow emissions, with the ONLY exception being self-defense (which would then follow the Ignore EMCON under attack" rule)

The fact that the decision for weapons release has no regard for EMCON seems absurd to me. There are times where I want to put my ship's WCS to Free/Tight and have it only use weapons that don't require emissions from the ship. Imagine as the captain the admiral telling you that there are hostile ASuW aircraft nearby and the fleet needs to set EMCON Alpha- and then suddenly your TAO goes "Hey look, a bogey! Let's energize our radar and shoot it!" just because the ship's SARH weapon had the longest anti-air range.



Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/4/2020 9:38:22 AM)

For example, let's say I have a Burke or Tico with RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 missiles. These have Active terminal guidance, so they don't use an illuminator. If I have a Hawkeye nearby, I don't necessarily have to use the ship's sensors to get a high quality track- as the Burke/Tico and Hawkeye are CEC compatible.

If I set the SM-6 WRA to 30nm, and on the same ship I set RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR WRA to 60nm, then the ship is going to illuminate and fire the SM-2MR at a bogey 45nm away- even though I have explicitly set passive EMCON. What I want is for the ship to pretend it doesn't even have the SM-2MR until I authorize active EMCON or it falls under attack. Until one of those two conditions occur, it should only use the SM-6 and not engage until 30nm range.



Dimitris -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/4/2020 9:46:23 AM)

I understand the concern, but you also have to consider the average player who assigns a unit to be "silent" but also with the expectation that it will reveal itself as necessary in order to strike.

Otherwise, you get into the following typical "bug report": "I assigned this SAM site to EMCON-passive in order to avoid the worst of HARM attacks, but now it won't fire even with enemy planes right on top of it!!! The AI should be smart enough to illuminate the minimum necessary for the weapons to guide!!! How retarded is this game?"

(The potential answer "Well, in that case you should change the EMCON state at the desired moment so that the unit is free to guide the missiles, and then turn it back to passive" is likely to lead to the reasonable retort: "So I have to micromanage the EMCON state of my units in order for them to effectively shoot at planes without becoming HARM-magnets?")

I think you are effectively asking for an additional EMCON state: "Passive - no exceptions". Does that sound correct?




Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/4/2020 7:59:02 PM)

Sure, I totally understand where you're coming from regarding the other end of the stick, where Passive could cause confusion.

I think you're right, maybe an additional EMCON state would be appropriate.

The US Navy adopts a few different tiers of EMCON- 3 or 4 depending on who you ask.

One article describes them like so:

• The first, and lowest level is EMCON Delta and is used
during normal operations. With Delta, there are no
emissions restrictions, with operations allowed to radiate
any sensor that is essential to accomplishing the mission.

• The second level is EMCON Charlie. Charlie allows the ship
to radiate and transmit from mission-essential equipment
and sensors, but it does require that sensors unique to that
type of vessel be shut down in order to prevent adversaries
from identifying the class of ship.

• The third level, EMCON Bravo further limits the ship's
electronic emissions, but still allows for communication and
data transfer with others. Bravo limits what is authorized to
be radiated and transmitted from.

• The fourth level is EMCON Alpha, which is the most
restrictive form of emissions control and is called when an
operation requires absolute silence. During EMCON Alpha,
no emissions or radiations from any sensor are permitted.

I think CMO currently treats "Passive" as somewhere between Bravo and Delta, and "Active" as Delta or perhaps even less restrictive- considering that the unit will actively energize all sensors. What I am asking for would an equivalent to state Alpha where I am assured that the unit is strictly silent. (or maybe Bravo, I don't know how ELINT/COMINT detection works with respect to radio communications. I don't think I've ever noticed a ship being detected for communicating with other ships- if such communication is even simulated)

This kind of also ties into what I was saying in the "Submarines too underwhelming" thread regarding unit autonomy. Currently, the EMCON Active button is basically just an "energize everything" button. Ideally, if the units were smarter, I would be able to pick EMCON Delta and the ship would be intelligently selective about which sensors to energize. In this same scenario, an EMCON Passive or Alpha button would assure no emissions.

So, in short. The near-term solution would be to add an additional EMCON state for strict silence, and the longer-term solution would be to unify the Radar, Sonar, and OECM into one EMCON setting with three or four states and make units smarter about when to energize each of their sensors. I know the latter is a tall order, so I'd be content with the former until the devs decide that unit autonomy with smarter agents is a higher priority.



KnightHawk75 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/5/2020 5:44:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

quote:

I think you are effectively asking for an additional EMCON state: "Passive - no exceptions". Does that sound correct?


I do think that is needed now with I believe fairly recent change that accommodates the example bug report mentioned, for which I have no double there were plenty. The user in that case had a point as do those that want to have a unit act as they used too and actually maintain silence from the offensive perspective. I definitely support an additional EMCON state setting\checkbox and lua accessible setting, or a new doctrine setting 'unit obeys emcon (offensive)' yes|no, defaulting to no to preserve existing default behavior. Whatever is easier or more intuitive to implement.



SeaQueen -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/5/2020 11:42:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
I think you are effectively asking for an additional EMCON state: "Passive - no exceptions". Does that sound correct?


This could be achieved just by choosing the proper combination of EMCON state and WRA, though. If you set your SARH missiles to "Do not engage" the illuminators won't come on either, correct? No need for an extra feature, just being a little more shrewd about the interface and the systems.

That also has more flexibility, because you can tailor your tactics. For example, maybe it's worth lighting up for in incoming cruise missile but it's not worth lighting up for a fighter? All of that kind of nuance is important for a smart player.



thewood1 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/5/2020 12:01:36 PM)

I was wondering what was wrong with using WRA for this. The main issue for me right now is I literally need a checklist for all the options in ROE, WRA, withdrawal settings, etc. for each ship, group, and mission. I don't need more drop downs, menus, buttons, switches, whatever.

What I would like see and will put into the feature thread is a template feature. Either a separate feature that takes all those settings and saves them under user-specified name that can be saved. I can then just click on a unit and say apply template "littoral_contact-imminent_ASuW". Maybe it has a description. Then I can apply it to any group or unit. It might be part of the mission building framework, haven't thought that far ahead. It might even include paths and speeds. I've been thinking about this for a while. I think it would help new players to able to get templates for different missions and tasks that they can apply and watch the results.

edit...I think it works into this thread because the devs can add more options, but they can be hidden from users that don't need to see the details. It would be a massive planning tool also. Might be even more impactful than an AMP.



Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/5/2020 7:06:41 PM)

Sure, SeaQueen is correct that WRA can already do what I'm asking. The problem, as thewood1 alludes to, is that there is no master on/off switch for each weapon. In order to disable SARH weapons, I need to change multiple settings in WRA, and then change it back when I want to fire. If there were a master on/off switch in the WRA settings for each weapon, then this feature request wouldn't have as much weight as I'm arguing it does. That being said, even if there were a master switch for each weapon, it still wouldn't be as convenient as being able to disable all SARH weapons with one switch.

Again, as I said above, I simply want an EMCON state that truly restricts emissions. It's fine if there is an EMCON state that secures search/track radar but allows SARH illumination- but then I'd argue that there should also be an EMCON Alpha equivalent where my ships aren't going to energize anything unless under attack AND "Ignore EMCON under attack" is set to Yes.

So, SeaQueen is correct that there is no need for an extra feature, but QoL features with sufficient benefit shouldn't be ignored just because they're not necessary :)



Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/5/2020 7:18:34 PM)

I like thewood1's template idea, but even with such a feature I feel like this is a no-brainer. We already have an EMCON system, I don't feel like an additional state for true silence is asking too much.

In fact, the way I would have expected the EMCON system to work currently would be to have Active function similar to how Passive does currently- only energizing when necessary instead of all the time, and have Passive be true radio silence. I feel like Active EMCON shouldn't just be a master on switch for every sensor.

How often do you actually want your SAG to be constantly screaming its location for the world to hear? Doesn't it make more sense to keep the ships silent and use AEW displaced from the fleet? If I want my ship to constantly use its search/track radar then I think I should have to manually configure that in the sensors menu.

What would be more reasonable would be for me to set EMCON Active- which authorizes emissions but doesn't automatically enable everything- and then the ship periodically energizes for a short time to check for contacts (if no AEW present) and remain energized if there is a threat. The EMCON setting should be simply for authorizing emissions- not actually controlling which sensors are operating.

In any case I'll be following thewood1's template feature thread because it does sound beneficial for a wide range of situations well beyond the scope of this thread.



Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/5/2020 7:24:40 PM)

With respect to my last comment, what would also make sense in my opinion would be to have the sensors menu work for groups by sensor type. Currently the sensors menu only works for individual units- but I think it would make sense to be able to configure sensors by type for a group. For example, it would be great if I could enable/disable search/track radars for every vessel in a group in one menu. I think this might deserve its own feature request thread.



SeaQueen -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 12:33:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Battelman2
If there were a master on/off switch in the WRA settings for each weapon, then this feature request wouldn't have as much weight as I'm arguing it does.


Master Arm Off = "Do not use this weapon."
Master Arm On = Anything other than "Do not use this weapon."

Furthermore, with a few exceptions, WRA are organized hierarchically. That allows you to quickly flip your "Master Arm Switch" for the most part. I'd recommend slowing down or pausing the simulation while adjusting.

quote:

That being said, even if there were a master switch for each weapon, it still wouldn't be as convenient as being able to disable all SARH weapons with one switch.


I'm unclear that it's inconvenient. You just need to understand what controls what. CMO is a complicated game and it takes a little bit of practice and experience to really be competent at it. That's why I usually recommend that when people start playing the game, they restrict themselves to a small family of platforms that they are interested in, and learn how to fight them well. CMO has been described to me as "death by options." The interactions of the various options are often fairly complex. Part of learning to play the game is learning that.

quote:


Again, as I said above, I simply want an EMCON state that truly restricts emissions. It's fine if there is an EMCON state that secures search/track radar but allows SARH illumination- but then I'd argue that there should also be an EMCON Alpha equivalent where my ships aren't going to energize anything unless under attack AND "Ignore EMCON under attack" is set to Yes.


The EMCON A/B/C/D framework you outlined above is a purely American construct. Strictly speaking, there is no "EMCON A" in CMO because it's assumed that units that can exchange information will. Since there's no such thing as SIGINT in CMO, and ELINT can't pinpoint the source of communications exchanges, there's no downside to communications. CMO does not represent EMCON A. What CMO models is ultimately EMCON B. That being said, the EMCON A/B/C/D framework is also quite coarse. In real life, it'd almost always be refined further as part of various commander's daily intentions message or some other equivalent. The interface of CMO is designed to be "doctrine neutral," in the sense that it wasn't designed around any single nation's doctrine. It's one of the strong points of Command, in my opinion. Redesigning it around your perception of US doctrine would potentially compromise the doctrine neutrality of the interface, and it'd also likely be incorrect.

You can get all of the effects you described in CMO. You just need to know how to operate the software better.



Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 1:03:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Battelman2
If there were a master on/off switch in the WRA settings for each weapon, then this feature request wouldn't have as much weight as I'm arguing it does.


Master Arm Off = "Do not use this weapon."
Master Arm On = Anything other than "Do not use this weapon."

Furthermore, with a few exceptions, WRA are organized hierarchically. That allows you to quickly flip your "Master Arm Switch" for the most part. I'd recommend slowing down or pausing the simulation while adjusting.


Yes, as I said, WRA does allow for this functionality. But this is not a master arm switch- this is literally a selective arm switch. If I want to disable a weapon, I have to select "Do not use this weapon" for unspecified contacts and make sure it cascades down to every single specific unit type. There is no master arm switch. Toggling a weapon shouldn't take more than 5 seconds, and really it should take closer to 3. If the weapon has non-system-default salvo configurations: I have to set each of them individually to "Inherited" and then restore those settings one-by-one when I re-enable it. It's possible. I've done it numerous times. You cannot convince me that it is convenient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Battelman2
That being said, even if there were a master switch for each weapon, it still wouldn't be as convenient as being able to disable all SARH weapons with one switch.


I'm unclear that it's inconvenient. You just need to understand what controls what. CMO is a complicated game and it takes a little bit of practice and experience to really be competent at it. That's why I usually recommend that when people start playing the game, they restrict themselves to a small family of platforms that they are interested in, and learn how to fight them well. CMO has been described to me as "death by options." The interactions of the various options are often fairly complex. Part of learning to play the game is learning that.


I do understand what controls what- that's why I have repeatedly said that this behavior is already achievable. I've played CMO and CMANO before it a fair bit. I'm not a pro, but I confidently know my way around the vast majority of the settings. I'm arguing that it is not convenient to toggle a weapon wholesale, and if you disagree with that then that's just something we're not going to see eye-to-eye on and I doubt we'll be able to change the other's mind about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Battelman2
Again, as I said above, I simply want an EMCON state that truly restricts emissions. It's fine if there is an EMCON state that secures search/track radar but allows SARH illumination- but then I'd argue that there should also be an EMCON Alpha equivalent where my ships aren't going to energize anything unless under attack AND "Ignore EMCON under attack" is set to Yes.


The EMCON A/B/C/D framework you outlined above is a purely American construct. Strictly speaking, there is no "EMCON A" in CMO because it's assumed that units that can exchange information will. Since there's no such thing as SIGINT in CMO, and ELINT can't pinpoint the source of communications exchanges, there's no downside to communications. CMO does not represent EMCON A. What CMO models is ultimately EMCON B. That being said, the EMCON A/B/C/D framework is also quite coarse. In real life, it'd almost always be refined further as part of various commander's daily intentions message or some other equivalent. The interface of CMO is designed to be "doctrine neutral," in the sense that it wasn't designed around any single nation's doctrine. It's one of the strong points of Command, in my opinion. Redesigning it around your perception of US doctrine would potentially compromise the doctrine neutrality of the interface, and it'd also likely be incorrect.


In that exact post I explicitly said that this behavior emulates either Alpha or Bravo, depending on how CMO simulates COMINT if at all, so please don't ignore that. I also explicitly said it was a US Navy construct (and that even within the USN you will find varying specifications) not some international standard. Also, I never suggested that the USN EMCON tiers would be a good fit in Command. I only brought it up to compare how Active and Passive currently work in CMO, and why an additional doctrine-neutral state would make sense in my opinion. I don't want to sound rude but it kind of seems like you're only reading half of what I write.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
You can get all of the effects you described in CMO. You just need to know how to operate the software better.


I don't know how else to say this. Yes. You can get all of the desired effects with current functionality, but just because it's possible doesn't mean it's optimal. I know how to operate all but the most advanced features in CMO, and I'm a software engineer by trade- so I take a particular interest in picking apart UI and UX. Please don't belittle or dismiss me- I don't think that's your intention but that's how I felt reading it.



Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 1:28:33 AM)

The other problem with using WRA to control emissions is that unless you've memorized the relevant specs for each weapon you're using, you have to repeatedly refer to the database to determine which weapons to disable. WRA doesn't tell you which weapons require the firing unit to energize sensors for, so I have to double check which standard missiles, for example, require illumination and that adds a significant amount of time to the process. This would be less of an issue if WRA had some little symbol or something that indicates weapons that require active guidance.

I have memorized the relevant specs for many of the weapons I use most commonly, but if there is even a hint of self-doubt them I'm going to make sure. I'm opening the DB again. I'm not disabling the weapons just for fun, misconfiguration could cause damage to or loss of the unit- so you bet I'm frequently spending time consulting the DB.

I want my SM-6 in play because there is an E-2 nearby to guide it while the ship stays silent, but if I neglect to disable any one of the many SM1/2 variants, Sea Darts, Crotales, etc... well... RIP. This is where a silent (or whatever you want to call it) EMCON state makes sense IMHO.



Rory Noonan -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 2:52:13 AM)

Logged for investigation.

0014242



SeaQueen -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 11:57:23 AM)

Oh! That's rough! You have to actually know something! Heaven forbid! Poor thing.

Wouldn't it be lovely to live in a world where all your decisions are made for you? Or you could make decisions in complete ignorance?

It's a game. It's complicated. It requires some skill and knowledge to play well, but there's no real consequences. If something doesn't happen the way you think it ought to, take it as a learning experience, figure out what didn't happen the way you expected, adjust yourself, and get better. Command has a steep learning curve and the default settings are probably not the best thing to do in all situations. At best they're a guideline and at worse they're a total SWAG. Adding redundant layers of controls just makes the game even more complicated and more prone to unexpected behaviors. Imagine the whining if someone actually implements your "Illuminators never light up" button. I can hear it now:

"This simulation sucks! My ships never exercise their right to self defense!"



Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 5:55:22 PM)

I'm not sure what I said to get you so worked up, but you seem to be blowing this well out of proportion. I explained my sincere belief that the current EMCON system is misleading and sought to improve it. I don't know why you've entrenched yourself in the "just learn to play better" camp. I have no problem with you disagreeing, of course, that's the whole point of an internet forum like this. But if you're not going to offer any constructive discourse to this thread then I'm going to stop acknowledging you. I'm not sure why you get so much praise around here if this is how you behave when you disagree with someone, it's almost troll-like how you fabricate my responses to your comments into a personal attack and come back with snarky sarcasm that obviously isn't going to do anyone any good.



KnightHawk75 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 8:04:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Battelman2

The other problem with using WRA to control emissions is that unless you've memorized the relevant specs for each weapon you're using, you have to repeatedly refer to the database to determine which weapons to disable. WRA doesn't tell you which weapons require the firing unit to energize sensors for, so I have to double check which standard missiles, for example, require illumination and that adds a significant amount of time to the process. This would be less of an issue if WRA had some little symbol or something that indicates weapons that require active guidance.

I have memorized the relevant specs for many of the weapons I use most commonly, but if there is even a hint of self-doubt them I'm going to make sure. I'm opening the DB again. I'm not disabling the weapons just for fun, misconfiguration could cause damage to or loss of the unit- so you bet I'm frequently spending time consulting the DB.

I want my SM-6 in play because there is an E-2 nearby to guide it while the ship stays silent, but if I neglect to disable any one of the many SM1/2 variants, Sea Darts, Crotales, etc... well... RIP. This is where a silent (or whatever you want to call it) EMCON state makes sense IMHO.


Yup, and that's from the human-player-gui perspective, now try scripting that, can't even do it exactly because you can't query weapon details to know which would be the ones you need to change, so now you need a static list to check against, again kind of doable but you just introduced at lot more unneccessary complexity. Used to just be able to flip emcon to passive and be assured the unit wouldn't fire if emissions were needed to do so, simple and ~3 lines of code. Not so much now, and just like you I noticed this the most with wanting silent ddg's with sm-6 being driven by e-2d's, or 120d being driven by same. I'm reasonably sure there are other situations where this comes up, and will increasingly as munitions being driven by other units radars continues to advance and affect more units.

This isn't complicated from my viewpoint. Active means keep everything on-period, Passive used to mean keep everything off-period, it doesn't anymore. This was easy to understand and account for, but now passive doesn't really mean passive, even if you take manual control. Which in and of itself is fine, though I think changing that default was not the best call (because you just changed a long running assumption authors made in their scenes and code), rather adding something additional to allow overriding might have been a better approach, but I'm not going to belabor it.

The "you can accomplish what you want via WRA" is accurate, you technically can, but I also agree it's not just inconvenient for the player and authors it's an odd\convoluted place to address an EMCON issue. Yes the game is complex piece of software, and 'passive' used to be a nice over-ride from keeping certain complex things from happening when you didn't want them to happen, but now it does not. Having the ability to restore the prior behavior is needed imho, without unnecessarily adjusting WRA for each potentially effected weapon on each unit, and then having to reverse that potentially shortly there after in certain situations. Reading through this thread I really don't understand the hostility toward asking for a more direct way to restore prior, and often enough, desired behavior. Is something like this such a big deal to enable passive being truly passive again?
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/yJwSDsVT/Passive-No-Offensive.jpg[/img]
We could argue all day about if it should be restored as the default, or if the above example is the right place for the option, or any number of things like the wording (I don't care what you call it), but I will argue all day it needs to exist as an easy enabled option no matter how re-implemented. I see this is logged for investigation now. Thanks you, I appreciate the developers taking an second look to consider this.






thewood1 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 8:20:11 PM)

As an isolated option, yeah, its not a big deal. But look at a couple threads hanging around now from less experienced players and their inability to comprehend all the available options. There are tens of thousands of permutations just in ROEs. This game has grown in such switchology complexity that new players are failing to comprehend all the options available to them.

My opinion is that unless we can find some way to simplify how all the switches and options interact, if something that is not an every day issue for players and can be worked around simply, lets push back and even, good heavens, restrain ourselves from wanting every option under the sun to make play for very experienced players that much easier.

If you want to switch the option back to complete blackout, all the more power to you, but lets try to help simplify the game a little for new players.



KnightHawk75 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 9:06:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

As an isolated option, yeah, its not a big deal. But look at a couple threads hanging around now from less experienced players and their inability to comprehend all the available options. There are tens of thousands of permutations just in ROEs. This game has grown in such switchology complexity that new players are failing to comprehend all the options available to them.

My opinion is that unless we can find some way to simplify how all the switches and options interact, if something that is not an every day issue for players and can be worked around simply, lets push back and even, good heavens, restrain ourselves from wanting every option under the sun to make play for very experienced players that much easier.

If you want to switch the option back to complete blackout, all the more power to you, but lets try to help simplify the game a little for new players.

I hear you, but this game has always been like that, nature of the beast, and part of it's power is the flexibility\complexity that comes with all the various options. I like your thoughts about templates btw.
But if the push back from devs is "too many options", then yes I would argue for the change to be reverted and passive to mean passive again, which I think I was already alluding too. Would love to accommodate "mr bug report user" too - but if it's chose one or the other, I'm definitely in favor of not accommodating it, as flipping on a specific sensor is far easier and clear than the reverse alternative.



thewood1 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 9:49:42 PM)

No, in 2013, the game was manageable. I learned from a background in Harpoon, it still it was tough. I wish I could find a pic of the ROE page back then. It has half the number of drop downs and no WRA, withdrawal, etc. Don't even start on missions. The mission editor was pretty limited.

Every single one of the new options was justified on its own and made the game better for people who know what WRA mean. But if you are new, even with the manual and the newer tutorials, there is investment in the game that someone buying the game just can't fathom when pushing the buy button. I actually suggested at one time that there be a warning to buyers that they won't like the game if they don't take the time to play small scenarios and learn from failing.

And back to this point. As the devs, I would put a moratorium on new options, menus, and switches until they can figure out a way to simplify the switchology. Of course the other option is to use it as a filter so only the strongest players survive.



thewood1 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 9:56:29 PM)

I'll beat the template thing to death. What if a new player had only to pick from three different CAPs? Maybe one with LR AAM, one with SR AAM, and one that has tanker support. All set up by a scenario designer to give more abstracted option. But it still allows the more experienced player to go into the mission like they do today and monkey around.

If you think about it, between ROE, WRA, mission settings, withdrawal, etc., the devs have you programming a very basic AI for each unit on a mission. The template suggestion would allow you to abstract up one level and hide all that from players who want a little guidance from the scenario designer.



Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/6/2020 10:48:33 PM)

Hey, I'm all for the template feature. I am in agreement with thewood1 regarding ease of use and the daunting learning curve. Templates could go a long way in abstraction and/or dimension reduction.

I just want to explicitly make it known that I made this thread because I sincerely think the players, both new and veteran, would be better off with a change to the EMCON system as of the time I posted this.

I see four paths forward from here, maybe there are more, but these are the most obvious to me:

1. Leave as-is, and have the player use existing mechanisms to achieve desired effect;

2. Change EMCON Passive behavior to deny FCR/illuminators and, subsequently, weapons release for those requiring them;

3. Add a third EMCON state, maybe called Silent or Restricted, that leaves Passive behavior as-is but allows the player to easily secure all emissions; or

4. Add a third EMCON state, maybe called Selective, that takes on the current behavior of Passive. Then, change Passive to truly mean "passive only - no exceptions"

Personally I'm most in favor of the fourth option, but I completely understand the desire for all other options- and would be content with all but the first. SeaQueen, while maybe a little pugnacious, isn't wrong that the current settings allow for desired behavior. thewood1 is also correct that the settings are already complicated as-is, and adding more willy-nilly for every request will harm the game overall. KnightHawk75 is also correct, I believe, regarding the confusion with EMCON Passive not truly being passive. That is, after all, why I made this thread in the first place thinking this was a bug. And let's not forget Dimitris, who spoke on similar lines about uninformed players making a ruckus over any game mechanic that isn't painfully obvious.

I'm happy to continue this discussion, so long as it's constructive. I just wanted to put forward what is my understanding of what people are feeling about this, and make my personal position on the matter clear.



KnightHawk75 -> RE: [Logged] Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/7/2020 2:19:08 AM)

@thewood1
I've only been playing since like late 2017 early 2018 so that's where my 'always been like that' perspective comes from. It's definitely true that the more you learn and understand the "switchology" and it's interactions, the better you can handle things in game for a positive\desired outcome\action as with any game as you learn the meta over time. Your tool\feature idea might help with that learning curve.


@Battelman2 - You are right we're getting kind of off-topic, good points in bringing us back.

I share your view that anything but the first is the path I would recommend, and that options 3 & 4 seems the most intuitive for a player, and also address both sides of the equation.

Also thinking about some of the more nuts and bolts stuff related to #3 & #4 sort of change, it should not affect existing SetEMCON() calls as today it takes a string value, so adding a new string identifier for a third option shouldn't? impact existing scripts. Looking around more at related things it shouldn't break anything, as you could never really query current EMCON state anyway (separate issue) only set it (and keep track of it yourself). Taking manual control of each sensor via script isn't affected as individually it would still be binary true|false for is_active on each sensor. So there should not be many if any compares in the wild with =='Active' or =='Passive' out there and to the extent there are similar uses out there for building strings to feed to SetEMCON() they should not break with a new addition. They might want to be enhanced to take advantage of the new option but existing behavior would not be affected (with option #4 anyway). Good thing they thought ahead and didn't make it a boolean originally otherwise it might be a breaking change. :)

I do wonder though, if one is taking "manual control" (ie 'unit obeys emcon' is unchecked), how should the game act? I would say not like today, but like in the past where it's assumed the user is going to turn on and off things that are user controllable without being over-ridden. I guess that's actually could be #5... if you want passive to be really passive take manual control and turn everything off and make it obey (today it does not).




Dimitris -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/7/2020 6:33:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/yJwSDsVT/Passive-No-Offensive.jpg[/img]


Completely OT, but that screenshot indicates you have high-DPI issues. Can you try to run the 4KFix.exe tool ? (Located in the CMO installation folder). Cheers.



KnightHawk75 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/7/2020 3:05:26 PM)

Yeah I've tried every fix for my desktop res of 2k +125% text scaling, including that tool, none have worked (other then just downing my res to 1080), as frustrating as it can be on occasion, I've chosen to just live with it.




PN79 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/7/2020 8:35:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Battelman2

...

2. Change EMCON Passive behavior to deny FCR/illuminators and, subsequently, weapons release for those requiring them;

...


It was already mentioned but this change would damage land based SAMs functions. EMCON passive with automatic fire when target is present is desired behaviour for SAMs.

Current setting allows to set EMCON individually for each unit and if totally passive EMCON without firing is requested it is possible to simply set passive EMCON and weapons on hold.



Battelman2 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/7/2020 11:42:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PN79


quote:

ORIGINAL: Battelman2

...

2. Change EMCON Passive behavior to deny FCR/illuminators and, subsequently, weapons release for those requiring them;

...


It was already mentioned but this change would damage land based SAMs functions. EMCON passive with automatic fire when target is present is desired behaviour for SAMs.

Current setting allows to set EMCON individually for each unit and if totally passive EMCON without firing is requested it is possible to simply set passive EMCON and weapons on hold.



Correct. However, what if I want to disable the primary SAM weapon but leave the MANPADS often found in those groups enabled? Then I would need to dig into WRA, because Weapons HOLD will disable all weapons. I agree that option 2 probably isn't the best, because it would solve my particular problem but replace it with another. That's why I'm more supportive of options three or four.



PN79 -> RE: Ships ignore EMCON to fire SARH missiles (11/8/2020 8:57:15 PM)

I agree that adding third EMCON passive - no exceptions would solve this problem. Setting MANPADS or guns to fire while main SAM don't can be done via WRA but it is quite complicated so own EMCON for this can be justified.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625