Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Accidents?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Accidents? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Accidents? - 11/23/2013 6:38:26 PM   
JCR

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 11/4/2013
Status: offline
Naval aviation is inherently dangerous, so how about modelling accidents.
With crew proficiency, this could be an interesting factor. Like someone crashes on landing and fouls the deck for 10 minutes. Maybe depending on sea state, especially for smaller vessels and helicopters.
Some planes could be more inherently unsafe than others, I especially though about the DASH drone helicopter, which is far too useful in CMANO. It should crash often...
Post #: 1
RE: Accidents? - 11/23/2013 8:04:02 PM   
CaptCarnage

 

Posts: 335
Joined: 5/24/2011
Status: offline
Flying at min altitude at night is a good opportunity for crashes.

_____________________________

"One must always distrust the report of troop commanders: 'We have no fuel' [...] You see, if they become tired they suddenly lack fuel" - Heinz Guderian, Panzer Leader

(in reply to JCR)
Post #: 2
RE: Accidents? - 11/23/2013 8:08:00 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
I think this sounds like a great idea also, but it risks becoming very deep very fast. Once you put in accidents to aviation, you have to also consider accidents to the ships themselves, and also various other things that can happen to take an airframe, or a ship, or parts of a ship, offline for extended amounts of time.

(in reply to CaptCarnage)
Post #: 3
RE: Accidents? - 11/23/2013 8:21:53 PM   
CaptCarnage

 

Posts: 335
Joined: 5/24/2011
Status: offline
Well one step at a time I suppose... :)

To me the low alt flying should nit be possible for long stretches at night so if you try that there should be a risk involved IMHO. otherwise it's an unfair tactic.

_____________________________

"One must always distrust the report of troop commanders: 'We have no fuel' [...] You see, if they become tired they suddenly lack fuel" - Heinz Guderian, Panzer Leader

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 4
RE: Accidents? - 11/23/2013 8:22:17 PM   
JCR

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 11/4/2013
Status: offline
Collisions could be simulated, everything else is too much and unusual anyway

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 5
RE: Accidents? - 11/24/2013 8:44:04 AM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
ATM the low level flight is not even allowed by the game (by that, I mean REAL low level flight) I think the game engine enforces a 50meter hard deck. I have seen talk on these threads that some want that changed to account for real life strike profiles that often will go below that for a brief leg of the ingress. If that restriction is lifted in-game, I definitely agree with you that it should come with a risk of accident to make sure it is only used for a short time, and as part of a trade-off between early detection of the inbound raid, and risk of accident, which itself can then be mitigated somewhat by the skill level of the strike side.

(in reply to JCR)
Post #: 6
RE: Accidents? - 11/24/2013 10:58:27 AM   
CaptCarnage

 

Posts: 335
Joined: 5/24/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

ATM the low level flight is not even allowed by the game (by that, I mean REAL low level flight) I think the game engine enforces a 50meter hard deck. I have seen talk on these threads that some want that changed to account for real life strike profiles that often will go below that for a brief leg of the ingress. If that restriction is lifted in-game, I definitely agree with you that it should come with a risk of accident to make sure it is only used for a short time, and as part of a trade-off between early detection of the inbound raid, and risk of accident, which itself can then be mitigated somewhat by the skill level of the strike side.


Yep +1

If there would be accidents in CMANO I think they should be "player-dependent": behaviour of player causes risk of accidents. You can have maintenance-related failures (engine failure on a ship) but there is nothing a player could do to avoid that.
Perhaps you could throw in a chance of failure of am asset and players have to make it part of their ops plan - but then I would like to kow those failure rates beforehand (like a state of maintenance, when was the last refit etc.) otherwise there is really no solid ops planning to do and that would perhaps overcomplicate issues.

_____________________________

"One must always distrust the report of troop commanders: 'We have no fuel' [...] You see, if they become tired they suddenly lack fuel" - Heinz Guderian, Panzer Leader

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 7
RE: Accidents? - 11/24/2013 12:24:13 PM   
ExMachina


Posts: 462
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

Collisions could be simulated, everything else is too much and unusual anyway


This should be pretty far down the road (if at all)--the current AI is still court marshal-able when it comes to such basic things as steering around coast lines .

(in reply to CaptCarnage)
Post #: 8
RE: Accidents? - 11/24/2013 1:44:57 PM   
JCR

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 11/4/2013
Status: offline
Ship collisions are really not that necessary, however landing accidents are a very common occurence with carrier aviation

(in reply to ExMachina)
Post #: 9
RE: Accidents? - 11/24/2013 5:20:01 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
It something we should definitely look at in the future. Logged.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to JCR)
Post #: 10
RE: Accidents? - 11/24/2013 5:30:19 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

ATM the low level flight is not even allowed by the game (by that, I mean REAL low level flight) I think the game engine enforces a 50meter hard deck. I have seen talk on these threads that some want that changed to account for real life strike profiles that often will go below that for a brief leg of the ingress. If that restriction is lifted in-game, I definitely agree with you that it should come with a risk of accident to make sure it is only used for a short time, and as part of a trade-off between early detection of the inbound raid, and risk of accident, which itself can then be mitigated somewhat by the skill level of the strike side.

1 to 2 minutes 'on the deck' is not as risky as you might think. It will be planned and practiced. On the other hand, 1 - 2 mins inside a MEZ and closing in on a firing unit is likely to result in a pretty terminal accident as a head on impact with a SAM tends to do that to you.

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 11
RE: Accidents? a future feature? - 5/21/2015 10:13:33 AM   
chemkid

 

Posts: 1238
Joined: 12/15/2012
Status: offline
.

< Message edited by chemkid -- 4/25/2018 7:23:30 AM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 12
RE: Accidents? a future feature? - 5/21/2015 4:49:07 PM   
NakedWeasel


Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline
I would like it. There's already malfunctions included in the terminal events of a weapon engagement, so there's a precedent. It's certainly realistic. But along with that realism, there is also the real possibility of airborne rescue. I'd like that to be developed on a parallel leg of development. Everything I've been wanting, (and more!) is already being added. Personally, I'm extremely happy with the speed that the game is progressing. But of course, there's nothing wrong with dreaming out loud for right now.

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to chemkid)
Post #: 13
RE: Accidents? a future feature? - 5/21/2015 6:20:44 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline
I'm not really sure how I feel about accidents/system failures. On one hand, it would definitely increase the immersion, and would require players to actually account for things like deck spares in their ops plans. On the other hand, it would have to be realistic enough that it wasn't infuriating (anybody remember cold cats in Fleet Command?). Furthermore, most modern systems are designed to be fail operational, so no single failure will impact mission readiness.

(in reply to NakedWeasel)
Post #: 14
RE: Accidents? a future feature? - 5/21/2015 6:44:47 PM   
chemkid

 

Posts: 1238
Joined: 12/15/2012
Status: offline
.

< Message edited by chemkid -- 4/25/2018 7:23:18 AM >

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 15
RE: Accidents? - 5/21/2015 7:39:03 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
I don't like it. You get into all kinds of things when you're modeling accidents, which don't necessarily provide insight into the things driving decision makers in warfare. If the goal of the game is to provide some kind of insight into what kinds of decisions people are faced with in warfare, accidents probably isn't a great place to focus your effort.

Yes, naval aviation is dangerous. It is certainly more dangerous than land based aviation. That being said, how dangerous is it actually? If it was so dangerous that accidents were frequent enough that they actually drove war planners to factor them into the casualty rates, then naval aviation wouldn't be an operational capability and would be some sort of highly experimental new technology. In short, it wouldn't be actually deployed because it'd be too unreliable. If I'm the commander of a CSG, or even a 2 DDG SAG, I assume that the pilots at my disposal are sufficiently skilled that devastating accidents aren't going to happen very often. This isn't to say they don't happen, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying about them. If I was really concerned about lots of crippling accidents, I wouldn't deploy.

You also get into questions such as, "What is the time frame of the scenario?" If each platform had some sort of "mean time between failure" rate then in any realistic case, would occur in only a very small number number of cases. This is partially due to the short duration and limited scope of most scenarios. Sure accidents occur, but what is their effect? Well... the typical effect is to take a platform out of the scenario. Then maybe you shouldn't play that platform. Put those aircraft in "maintenance." I do that all the time. I might put 12 helos on an LHD, but only play 8 for instance. The remaining ones are out of the game, for whatever reason. For sure, in the real world over the course of many days, different aircraft will pass into and out of operational capability for a wide range of reasons (accidents, mechanical failures, accidents due to mechanical failures, scheduled maintenance) but the net effect is that on average, it just takes a few aircraft out of the game.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 5/21/2015 8:40:25 PM >

(in reply to JCR)
Post #: 16
RE: Accidents? - 5/21/2015 7:48:47 PM   
StellarRat

 

Posts: 188
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline
As long as it's something that can be turned off or on and it's configurable I'm fine with it.

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 17
RE: Accidents? - 5/22/2015 12:19:19 PM   
CV60


Posts: 992
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline
I think it should be included. IMHO, the chance of accidents should be effected by training, terrain, speed, weather, and equipment. Such a inclusion would allow the players to better explore different tactical concepts such as the RAF's low level bombing vs. US High level PGM bombing concept. Also, since the game models a 70+ year time period, it could be used to highlight the importance of terrain avoidance equipped units, etc.
quote:

I'm not really sure how I feel about accidents/system failures. On one hand, it would definitely increase the immersion, and would require players to actually account for things like deck spares in their ops plans. On the other hand, it would have to be realistic enough that it wasn't infuriating (anybody remember cold cats in Fleet Command?). Furthermore, most modern systems are designed to be fail operational, so no single failure will impact mission readiness.


< Message edited by CV60 -- 5/22/2015 1:19:45 PM >

(in reply to StellarRat)
Post #: 18
RE: Accidents? - 5/23/2015 2:33:54 AM   
Casinn

 

Posts: 343
Joined: 7/27/2013
Status: offline
I like the idea, but it would probably require retooling of some scenarios that we have now. I think a few would be tough to win with a couple of accidents taking out prime assets.

(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Accidents? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984