What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (Full Version)

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



Message

ai_beyondcontrol -> What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (2/26/2021 2:35:25 PM)

In current DB3K databank, some vessels (e.g. those from US） has a Link 11 and a Link 14 datalink, while some others (e.g. those from China or Russia) only has UHF/VHF/HF radios. But despite the impressive range of Link 11/14 (typically ~300 nm), I wonder what's the key difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? Is there any specific task that can only be fulfilled by Link 11/14? And how will the lack of these links affect the combat effectiveness of those vessels without them?



fire-fox -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (2/26/2021 3:48:52 PM)

IRL see the following for Link 1 - 22
https://www.anmb.ro/buletinstiintific/buletine/2016_Issue2/MES/317-322.pdf

and http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp2/1980s_adlips_link.html specificly link11-14



Parel803 -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (2/28/2021 10:48:17 AM)

Good afternoon,
The range of your link depends on the Freq is operating on and with that all the pros and cons of those RF radios and frequencies, or other means of getting your info across. The amount and type of info differs greatly between the link systems, newer systems have faster data transfer and more data fields. Newer link has better protection against jamming and other interference from advisaries.
with regards GJ



Muhammad.Tufail -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/6/2021 3:17:47 AM)

I have the same question, the communication simulation is not perfect in CMANO.



Rory Noonan -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/6/2021 2:32:54 PM)

There's no practical difference at the moment. More news on that front... soon [:)]



BDukes -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/6/2021 4:42:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Muhammad.Tufail

I have the same question, the communication simulation is not perfect in CMANO.


Man you should see what life is like[:)]

Mike



Dimitris -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/6/2021 8:53:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muhammad.Tufail
I have the same question, the communication simulation is not perfect in CMANO.


It's good enough for an entertainment product.

For no-kidding higher fidelity needs, there are other solutions, with Command-PE being a part of them.




Muhammad.Tufail -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/19/2021 12:17:44 AM)

Data links are based on generic radios, they have more messages and protocols for network management, command, control, intelligence etc.
I think, all above not simulated in COMMAND.



Sardaukar -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/19/2021 6:09:17 AM)

I think (not sure) that they are going to implement resistance for Comms Jamming, better the communication link, harder to jam.



TBLackey -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/26/2021 12:52:52 AM)


That, and providing tracking for another weapons platform ought to require both platforms to have the same datalink.

As I understand it, in CMO a small surface combatant with air search radar and generic radio can provide tracking to fighter aircraft 50 nm miles away. Is the weapons officer barking position, altitude and heading to a fighter pilot as fast as he can talk?



thewood1 -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/26/2021 11:53:27 AM)

"a small surface combatant with air search radar and generic radio can provide tracking to fighter aircraft 50 nm miles away"

Only if you don't use comm isolation in some form.



Gunner98 -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/26/2021 6:32:28 PM)

quote:

Is the weapons officer barking position, altitude and heading to a fighter pilot as fast as he can talk?


Probably. Close Air Support in the days before datalinks was not much better than reading the pilot on from an identifiable point on the ground and hoping ... Using an air search radar would be...'luxury' [:D]



AKar -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/27/2021 11:05:29 AM)

Regarding the communications simulation in general, in my opinion, inclusion of more communication restrictions would alter the scope of CMO more than enough to warrant major changes to AI system and mission planning features. Essentially, it would change the game into something different.

As I see it, using units to their fullest potential usually requires player to take certain action that would, in reality, be taken at the unit level, by individual pilots for example. For this to make sense, the player must also be able to have the full situational awareness of those individual units, whereas in reality very little of this would be shared with high command level (aside latest developments on sensor fusion and datalinks). And I feel this ability/necessity to micromanage is a part of the game, not a limitation.

Now, for instance with Realistic Submarine Communications enabled, I am basically incapable of using these units to the fullest. At least I can't chain commands and missions that well for the AI to do any more... discretionary missions without me micromanaging every now and then. That's why I don't like this setting in most scenarios, except where it specifically makes sense with submarines being limited to very specific tasks, mostly correlating well with available mission types.

In other words, I feel that if more of features such as Realistic Submarine Communications get included and systematically enabled in the scenarios, this would shift the focus of CMO as a game towards being a "theatre commander simulator". And for this to work reasonably, I think the AI system would require very much of work to be able to reconfigure the AI units that I can't micromanage anymore to make human-like decisions on their own.



thewood1 -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/27/2021 11:32:21 AM)

I use the comms isolation and side switching a lot in my personal scenarios. The main impact is the amount of detailed planning you have to do up front either in the scenario editor or prior to hitting start. There is a lot of general command and mission building that has to happen. I also work in a lot of what I call "awaiting orders" events. I sometimes use special actions, events, and triggers to let me, as the player, interrupt a unit and give new orders. For example, I'll have a few points on a sub's path where I can hit a button and force the sub to periscope depth for an update and new orders. I produce multiple missions and activate and deactivate them based on similar triggers. I switch unit sides from player to friendly based on the comms environment. I have even played around with detection of comms through events and lua.

I play most scenarios with less than 500 units so its somewhat manageable. In larger scenarios, you can use some of the above tricks also, but it starts to become like real work to manage both building and playing. The short of it is that you can do almost anything if you put your mind to it. As far as the AI goes, you can relatively easily compensate through the detailed planning process. JUst give the human some ability for input at critical times and events.



Gunner98 -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/27/2021 1:24:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I use the comms isolation and side switching a lot in my personal scenarios. The main impact is the amount of detailed planning you have to do up front either in the scenario editor or prior to hitting start. There is a lot of general command and mission building that has to happen. I also work in a lot of what I call "awaiting orders" events. I sometimes use special actions, events, and triggers to let me, as the player, interrupt a unit and give new orders. For example, I'll have a few points on a sub's path where I can hit a button and force the sub to periscope depth for an update and new orders. I produce multiple missions and activate and deactivate them based on similar triggers. I switch unit sides from player to friendly based on the comms environment. I have even played around with detection of comms through events and lua.

I play most scenarios with less than 500 units so its somewhat manageable. In larger scenarios, you can use some of the above tricks also, but it starts to become like real work to manage both building and playing. The short of it is that you can do almost anything if you put your mind to it. As far as the AI goes, you can relatively easily compensate through the detailed planning process. JUst give the human some ability for input at critical times and events.


I think that this is a level of skill and finesse that the average CMO player doesn't have, or certainly doesn't start out with. I agree that this certainly can be done, but that doesn't mean that it should be.

I tend to agree with AKar above, CMO is a game, an intensely realistic game already and not for the feint of heart. Realistic communications are tricky and entire branches of all militaries specialize in this field, so if you're exercising them and the Commanders they support - such as in the Pro edition - this is fantastic. But, when you're a single person playing a game, trying to do the job of dozens if not hundreds - it still needs to be fun; or what's the point.

Anyway that's my $0.02CAD on this topic.




AKar -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/27/2021 4:13:35 PM)

Thanks for your thoughts, guys. Indeed, I appreciate that the playing styles differ. For me, the thing in CMO is the scalability of the gameplay. While I need to handle an entire operation, the most intensive moments are often encountered when micromanaging, say, a four-ship of fighters surprised by a superior opponent, or a submarine trying to pull out something clever when unexpectedly encountering an enemy task force, an overwhelming but juicy target.

For me, if this was a command room / mission execution simulator, I'd prefer an approach where the AI was more independent and "creative" in the way it does its business. Also, I'd prefer the mission planning interface being rather different from what it is now. There are lots of stuff that, if this was the emphasized focus, we'd be missing: greatly increased fog-of-war necessitating the use of command platform units, perhaps even impersonating the player, levels of EMCON (all the way to radio silence / receive only), navigation issues, mis-identifications, technical problems, individually modeled SA at unit level... so on.

The same applies if this was a strategic level simulation: top brass really do desk jobs. Big decisions, supply and logistics.

I think CMO captures a great niche: a low-level strategic / high-level tactical. Personally I feel that added communication disruption functions, unless very nicely utilized by scenery designer, takes away more from the "high-level tactical" than it adds to "low-level strategic" in how the game and its scenarios are currently mostly set up.

That said, I don't mind at all enhancing the capabilities of the game/sim platform, I just hope them being used in moderation!



thewood1 -> RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? (7/27/2021 11:10:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I use the comms isolation and side switching a lot in my personal scenarios. The main impact is the amount of detailed planning you have to do up front either in the scenario editor or prior to hitting start. There is a lot of general command and mission building that has to happen. I also work in a lot of what I call "awaiting orders" events. I sometimes use special actions, events, and triggers to let me, as the player, interrupt a unit and give new orders. For example, I'll have a few points on a sub's path where I can hit a button and force the sub to periscope depth for an update and new orders. I produce multiple missions and activate and deactivate them based on similar triggers. I switch unit sides from player to friendly based on the comms environment. I have even played around with detection of comms through events and lua.

I play most scenarios with less than 500 units so its somewhat manageable. In larger scenarios, you can use some of the above tricks also, but it starts to become like real work to manage both building and playing. The short of it is that you can do almost anything if you put your mind to it. As far as the AI goes, you can relatively easily compensate through the detailed planning process. JUst give the human some ability for input at critical times and events.


I think that this is a level of skill and finesse that the average CMO player doesn't have, or certainly doesn't start out with. I agree that this certainly can be done, but that doesn't mean that it should be.

I tend to agree with AKar above, CMO is a game, an intensely realistic game already and not for the feint of heart. Realistic communications are tricky and entire branches of all militaries specialize in this field, so if you're exercising them and the Commanders they support - such as in the Pro edition - this is fantastic. But, when you're a single person playing a game, trying to do the job of dozens if not hundreds - it still needs to be fun; or what's the point.

Anyway that's my $0.02CAD on this topic.




I'm not saying the player has to do it. This is a scenario designer's responsibility. Also, most players with limited skills will not like more realistic comms at all. It actually requires more planning on the player's part. There is almost no way to play with limited comms or comms detection without some sever planning. Most casual players will end up turning that feature off.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625