RE: Is the direct control unrealistic?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic?

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 >> RE: Is the direct control unrealistic?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/14/2016 10:54:55 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrOrange

Interesting comments.

Maybe my autoritaristic, self-centering, dictatorial attitude, never allowed me to considerate the fact that in this game I can be considered a group of persons working as a team.

That's the closest thing to "it could be that I'm not 100% right" that you'll ever get out of me.

Good point, people are easily stuck in a mindset that only the player can command everything in real-time strategy game. It is particularly true for almost every RTS games, especially MOBA.

Military commanding however, is not a single person's effort. To manage everything perfectly, a strict doctrine and well-gathered intelligences are the key to provide solutions to units in different situations.

As previous comments said controlling technique, crew conditioning (food and health), morale and such, those are general managements for officers (in between cogs and brains), and commander should take the least concern of them, otherwise they're just distractions.

It's correct that general managements are also does matters to the entire unit/group, and eventually your whole strategy; but like I said before, it's way too complicated and repeating to care. A good-conditioned units should never have basic problems, both in peacetime and wartime.

_____________________________

(in reply to MrOrange)

Post #: 31

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/14/2016 5:48:43 PM

hellfish6

Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

When (I hope) CMANO gets multiplayer, maybe they'll have the kind of setup that will allow multiple players per side, so theoretically everyone could have their own ship/platform/unit. This'll at least make it less unrealistic, especially if you have some sort of communications scheme that doesn't give people a perfect common operational picture, and you've got a delay or relying on an individual's reports of what he is doing and seeing.

In the recent attacks against the USS Mason in the Bab al Mandeb, for example, I wonder if any other ships nearby knew what was happening until it was already over. In CMANO, they would because you are playing the commander of the entire force in the BAM - in a disaggregated scenario where you don't have that common operational picture, maybe the others won't know until seconds or minutes later.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 32

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/14/2016 6:04:56 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I would suspect that there is someone in the CiC whose sole function is immediately notifying other USN ships about the situation. Probably in some great detail. In a modern setting for the USN, the data is transmitted in almost real-time.

(in reply to hellfish6)

Post #: 33

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/14/2016 9:12:23 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

Actually, with datalinks and what not, other nearby ships most likely had a pretty good idea of what was going on. While there's been a lot said about fog-of-war and uncertainty, militaries around the world are investing in technologies intended to create a fairly accurate operational picture. While it's not perfect, it's not that bad either. That's the whole point of Link-11 and Link-16 tactical data links.

To hear you all talk, you'd think that every military officer was basically half blind, dumb and deaf, issuing commands in language barely understood by his subordinates from a sealed box while trying to make sense of the world through grainy photographs and second hand accounts. It's just not so.

Warfare has come a long way from passing flag signals and wireless telegraphy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

When (I hope) CMANO gets multiplayer, maybe they'll have the kind of setup that will allow multiple players per side, so theoretically everyone could have their own ship/platform/unit. This'll at least make it less unrealistic, especially if you have some sort of communications scheme that doesn't give people a perfect common operational picture, and you've got a delay or relying on an individual's reports of what he is doing and seeing.

In the recent attacks against the USS Mason in the Bab al Mandeb, for example, I wonder if any other ships nearby knew what was happening until it was already over. In CMANO, they would because you are playing the commander of the entire force in the BAM - in a disaggregated scenario where you don't have that common operational picture, maybe the others won't know until seconds or minutes later.

(in reply to hellfish6)

Post #: 34

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/14/2016 9:14:44 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

Actually, it's probably passed automatically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I would suspect that there is someone in the CiC whose sole function is immediately notifying other USN ships about the situation. Probably in some great detail. In a modern setting for the USN, the data is transmitted in almost real-time.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 35

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/14/2016 11:18:19 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I know its automated...hence near-real-time. But also keep in mind only a few navies have that capability.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 36

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/16/2016 5:59:26 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

Any NATO nation would, the Aussies, the Kiwis, the Taiwanese (they buy old US ships), the French, the South Koreans (also buy old US ships), the Japanese, probably most Gulf States have some kind a datalink capability on their missile boats. That's a lot more than just a few. I'd say that the capability is fairly common these days.

I think there's a tendency to underestimate the capabilities of nations outside the United States which is often counter productive. My observation is that unless you're dealing with impoverished countries, the biggest difference usually isn't the technologies, but rather the levels of training. Many nations have large numbers of draftees which serve their minimum requirement and then get out, taking their training with them. Other countries don't get to spend as much time at sea as they'd probably like to because they're budget constrained. The equipment is there, though and someone probably knows how to use it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I know its automated...hence near-real-time. But also keep in mind only a few navies have that capability.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 37

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/16/2016 6:53:46 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I think there is a tendency to overestimate the spread of technology beyond a handful of countries and a handful of ships.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 38

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/16/2016 11:33:26 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

Well... to take an example from the news. Somehow, a coastal defense cruise missile operator was able to get sufficiently accurate information that they could target an AEGIS destroyer and/or and old amphib it was escorting. Things that were high technology in 1980-something aren't rocket science today. Whether they got the information using a tactical data link, a satellite phone, a text message, an e-mail or something else is almost immaterial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think there is a tendency to overestimate the spread of technology beyond a handful of countries and a handful of ships.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 39

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 12:33:22 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I am not comparing a radar passing information onto a ground missile system and you know that. I am talking about real-time data management systems on naval vessels. In fact if you go back and look at my post, I stated specifically that information was being passed in near-real-time on the US ships.

Do you really think the US data management systems are equivalent to a guy potentially on a phone calling in coordinates. If so, there is no point even continuing the discussion...you win.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 40

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 12:43:24 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

I agree with Seaqueen on this one. Obviously a secure computer/data network is ideal for many reasons but think insurgencies, irregular combatants etc have leveraged civilian data networks to come up with their own local systems (killchains).

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 41

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 1:12:11 AM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

That has been shown to work (unfortunately) in ground warfare but I don't think asymmetric naval warfare has reached out very far since the Cole. I am sure they are trying however as evidenced by the recent cruise missile actions. Anyway, I think the discussion was around intra-ship comms.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 42

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 1:38:45 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I see no way to compare the comms between a radar site to a cruise missile to a modern data network. The basics of communicating coordinates from a radar to a missile guidance system was solved 50 years ago. I am talking about modern battle management systems that can transmit near-real-time data on an operations area. A system that gives other ships the capability to be part of modern engagement scenario.

I guarantee you that those radar sights were just the fire control sites for the missiles. Again, if you want to use that as your measure for modern combat data systems, there is no point going on.

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 43

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 2:09:14 AM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Do you really think the US data management systems are equivalent to a guy potentially on a phone calling in coordinates. If so, there is no point even continuing the discussion...you win.

It depends on what you mean by equivalent. I think in the case of the USS Mason, whatever system they used to target a cruise missile (be it a tactical data link, a smart phone, a satellite phone, or whatever) was used for equivalent effect. The particularities of the system and it's relative advantages or disadvantages, in this case were immaterial. There's always the question of "How good does something have to be?" For their purposes, whatever they used was good enough to target a cruise missile.

Foreign navies, particularly the more advanced ones, exercise regularly with US and allied forces. Part of those exercises I'm sure involves testing the relevant command, control and communications systems such as tactical data links for inter-operability. The developing world is a lot wealthier than they once were. Even nations that once had rusting left overs from WWII are purchasing some very impressive technology, and learning how to use it. In Asia, in particular, there's a very quiet arms race going on, with nations taking advantage of their new found affluence to modernize their naval capabilities. Look at this year's RIMPAC exercise. It included participants from Singapore, India and Chile.

The ship from Singapore was a recently commissioned "stealth" frigate of French design. They have new submarines of Swedish design. They fly SH-60Bs which aren't the latest and greatest, but they still quite sophisticated in their tactical data links. The Indian participant was a modern frigate with ASCMs which are probably more sophisticated than those in many Western navies. The Chilean participant was an ex-UK Type 23 FFG. All of this is some pretty impressive hardware, with modern command and control systems. Some of the designs feature technologies which are ahead of the US and other Western Navies. So don't discount the developing world's capabilities. The world is changing, often faster than perceptions, and while they definitely have problems, their ability to stock up on technology is definitely not one of them these days.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 10/17/2016 2:10:47 AM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 44

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 2:40:43 AM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

I don't understand the equivalent effect if the intent was to hit something. They missed, wasted ordinance, and are revealing their tactics. Another perspective is the Mason could be toying with the would be heroes on shore. She better be careful and remember David did bring down Goliath.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 45

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 5:40:38 AM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

you're thinking of the direct control all wrong IMO.

if there is a "player character" they're mostly battlegroup commanders or whatever (depending on the scenario) obviously in real life some fleet admiral isn't shouting at his pilots to launch two missiles instead of one, as that would be inefficient a waste of time and make no sense.

the pilots just decide independently to do that. essentially, you can simultaneously "be" the battlegroup commander and everyone else that isn't directly datalinked to that ship or platform, if you want to.

personally i prefer to let the WRA/EMCON/ROE/MISSION system do most of the work, but that's just standard operating procedures, not a hard and fast rule; there's no real iron law that says "thou must not fire two radar missiles at a certain target instead of one. if thou trespass this law, thou will be court martialed and thrown out of the navy" a pilot may well decide on his own to be less optimistic about missile PK% and fire two or three radar instead of the WRA's standard one.

of course in the game, you make that decision, but in the world OF the game, it's the pilot making that call, not the fleet/battlegroup/air command or what have you.

basically no, there's nothing wrong with how the game handles it because the game isn't strictly "you are only this person and you only have the intelligence available to this person" if you did you'd only have a very fuzzy view of where your own fighters and the enemy fighters were, depending on the era. hell, 90% of the game would be a fuzzy fog of war where you can barely see what's actually going on at all.

< Message edited by Cik -- 10/17/2016 5:50:16 AM >

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 46

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 7:27:23 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

I am with Clk.

Scenarios must start with objectives, and commander is here for fulfilling them with perferrable methods, not over-complicate it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 47

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 8:03:44 AM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

i think the only real edge case is subs, who as far as i've heard are in the dark for vast stretches of time. but for a fighter, or a ship, there is no real ability to act on "unknown intelligence" by which i mean intelligence that the platform has no real possibility of knowing.

for subs i think you can metagame; that is, detect a unit with a unit that cannot possibly talk to the sub, then move the sub towards that unit, pick it up on sonar and torpedo it. but with a plane, or a ship no real such metagaming can occur, as ships or planes can easily gain awareness of targets they cannot sense (with eyeball or sensors) by just talking on the radio/using the datalink/observing the behavior of friendlies etc. a plane and pilot making decisions that disregard WRA/MISSION/EMCON/what have you is not outside the purview of the pilot's ability or authority, and neither is it for ships to decide to engage certain targets, launch certain weapons, deploy countermeasures etc.

whether you want to metagame is up to you of course; i'm not sure exactly how sub to <----> from comms works but i'm sure you can satisfy the requirements for it (certain depth, range from friendlies, what have you) and choose not to do it yourself. you can always firewall the knowledge yourself by writing down on a notepad or text document what each sub knows about and move accordingly, if you want to.

i don't play with subs often, but once i'm reasonably adept with them i'm sure that's what i'll end up doing.

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 48

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 10:17:37 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

It has been explained before and even in this thread...just read up. Subs ar Side B when submerged. Side A when at periscope depth. A good scenario designer can even make it optional.

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 49

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 10:19:50 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

As to data networks for combatant ships, just go through the list of countries in that list and see how many of them would have the capability to operate a near-real-time battle management system. Its going to be a minority. Even some navies that have the capability, don't have it universally on all combatants. Its still radios and plotting boards.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 50

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 6:50:03 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

Comms (data links or otherwise) will probably never help you hit something. That'd be a function of other technologies. Instead, they enable the attack to occur by allowing some sort of sensor (maybe even just a guy in a dhow) to relay it's information to a weapons system. In that sense, whatever system they used to target the Mason (satellite phone, text message, etc.) functioned equivalently to a tactical data link.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

I don't understand the equivalent effect if the intent was to hit something. They missed, wasted ordinance, and are revealing their tactics. Another perspective is the Mason could be toying with the would be heroes on shore. She better be careful and remember David did bring down Goliath.

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 51

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 7:15:30 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

The same could be said for the US Navy, though. RIVRON and SOC-R boats don't necessarily have tactical data links either. They don't need them. We have more of them at this point than we do LCS or aircraft carriers. Does that make them the dominant paradigm of naval combat?

While it's true that a lot of navies in the developing world would be thrilled to even have those capabilities, that's more typical of Africa, which is significantly poorer and subject to greater instability than Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. Different vessels are intended to confront different sorts of threats. They range from fishery enforcement and counter-piracy to confronting powerful modern surface combatants, submarines and aircraft. In the one case you don't need tactical data links and battle management systems need a fast boat with a chain gun on the front and maybe some helicopters. The Columbian Navy has a huge Littoral/Riverine force to confront a specific threat, while they also have some fairly sophisticated submarines and frigates to confront a more limited threat on the opened ocean. All of them are equivalent to those in current use in many Western navies. So, it's not a fair metric to judge a navy's capabilities solely in terms of the numbers of high technology vessels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

As to data networks for combatant ships, just go through the list of countries in that list and see how many of them would have the capability to operate a near-real-time battle management system. Its going to be a minority. Even some navies that have the capability, don't have it universally on all combatants. Its still radios and plotting boards.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 52

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 7:27:52 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Let's look at the majority of ships in Peru's navy...or Mexico's. I bet that a few might have technical capacity, but do the navies have the capability. Go back to my original point... The majority of navies don't have the capability to operate near-real-time data management networks on their ships.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 53

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 8:50:15 PM

Filitch

Posts: 423
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

Colleagues, let me share some thoughts how to approach the reality and solve the problem of "all-seeing eye". Every unit has own sensors and communications links. The key aspect: units are not linked with each all. Communications links creates hierarchy or partially network structures. We introduce the concept of scope for each unit. The scope - all contacts detected and tracked by this unit sensors and detected and tracked by sensors of linked units. It is necessary to determine the boundaries of information propagation. Up and down the hierarchy. Thouse boundaries are defined with types of communications and types of control systems wich unit is equiped. Operator (gamer) has ability to control every unit. But can see at the map only information from the scope of current unit. Examples:
1. A surface group has the scope provided by ship radars, sonars and electrooptical systems, radars of the AEW aircrafts. But not by the radar of the fighter takes off from carrier.
2. All submarines are shown on the map only when it detects. The side of the submarine is not detected automatically. As well as side of ships and aircrafts are detected by the submarine.
3. When controlling a separate aircraft operator(gamer) see only contacts detected by aircraft sensors and possible mark of the contacts detected at the moment of the aircraft's take-off (with a time spend from this moment).

Data and communication links are jammed. Jamming of links affects amount and quality of the information propagated between units. So AEW aircraft or Aegis compatible ship can't transmits information about new contacts or transmits with errors. Jamming also affects ability of direct control of the unit. Operator (gamer) can't control a jammed aircraft and unit should be execute mission task self.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 54

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 10:02:56 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

I think you have capacity and capability confused.

The number of technologically advanced warships a nation has is not indicative its capability. Capability is merely whether or not they can do something. It's a yes/no thing.

Capacity is a whole separate problem. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they can do lots of it, nor does it necessarily mean they need to.

The Peruvian navy consists of modern submarines, an antiquated guided missile cruiser of Italian design, 1970s-era guided missile frigates and some 1980s era corvettes. Their older ships have been overhauled periodically. Datalinks and battle management systems have been around singe the 1970s. The only one that probably doesn't have that capability is their cruiser, which probably rarely leaves the pier. The Mexican navy on the other hand, definitely has some pretty old ships and even the ships that have the capability probably don't have the systems they're supposed to work with (e.g. LAMPS I + ex-Knox class). They do mostly counter narcotics work, though. They don't really need that sort of hardware. I wouldn't really consider them much more than a coastal navy. They're not a blue-water ocean going force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Let's look at the majority of ships in Peru's navy...or Mexico's. I bet that a few might have technical capacity, but do the navies have the capability. Go back to my original point... The majority of navies don't have the capability to operate near-real-time data management networks on their ships.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 55

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 10:37:39 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Capability is limited by technical capacity. Capability means you have the training, organization, skills, etc. to use what you have. Technical capacity means you have equipment and technology installed and operating. There are a number of instances where advanced tech has been sold to countries without the capability to use it. They have the technical capacity, but not the capability.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 56

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/17/2016 10:57:07 PM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Comms (data links or otherwise) will probably never help you hit something. That'd be a function of other technologies. Instead, they enable the attack to occur by allowing some sort of sensor (maybe even just a guy in a dhow) to relay it's information to a weapons system. In that sense, whatever system they used to target the Mason (satellite phone, text message, etc.) functioned equivalently to a tactical data link.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

I don't understand the equivalent effect if the intent was to hit something. They missed, wasted ordinance, and are revealing their tactics. Another perspective is the Mason could be toying with the would be heroes on shore. She better be careful and remember David did bring down Goliath.

quote:

Comms (data links or otherwise) will probably never help you hit something.

No? I think of them as part of an integrated system to deal out death and destruction when needed. BTW, I am still confused since you mentioned they used comms to target. I think targeting is part of hitting.

Functionally equivalent is not the same as tactically equivalent. To exaggerate, a F14 and a Zero are functionally equivalent. There are situations where minimal technology will do. But I think we are ships passing in the night on this one. A couple are talking about battle space dominance over a wide area of water and coastline and a couple of guys about smaller scale close in asymmetric fighting conducted for local reasons. One depends on cutting edge technology and the other can wait for hand-me-downs. I think you can judge a Navy based on how flexible it is in conducting a wide variety of operations. Columbia can patrol it's rivers - OK. Quite frankly it's barely a navy today or in any historical context. The NJ state police patrol our waters too like the Coast Guard. They are not navies. Well, maybe the Coast Guard could break a Russian blockade. They are good.

< Message edited by kevinkin -- 10/17/2016 10:58:50 PM >

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 57

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/18/2016 12:24:58 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

In some ways comms (data links) can help you hit stuff. A lot of the cooperative engagement is based on being able to hand off weapons to other guiding platforms. That requires data links and comms. That capability, in a real-world combat environment, is truly limited to a few platforms in a few navies.

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 58

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/19/2016 9:42:35 PM

DrRansom

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/14/2013
Status: offline

I'd say that direct control really deals with an AI problem and the real inaccurate element of CMANO simulation: the Perfect Data Link (tm).

Direct control makes sense in a situation where the unit AI does not behave as you'd expect but is very natural. An example of this is a fighter wing being vectored in to ambush enemy aircraft by an AWACs. An air superiority mission doesn't produce the realistic behavior. Now, you could just use the air superiority mission, but the unit behavior doesn't fully exploit the tactical situation.

In my opinion, the real issue is the perfect data awareness for all units. This produces unit behavior which is more optimal than reality. Again, return to the issue of fighter interception. The above scenario (AWACS + Fighters) exists in real life. In CMANO, the same behavior can be achieved with any ground based radar and fighters. So, a tactical SAM system, e.g. SA-6, can serve as a GCI for interceptors.

Now, that can be fixed by playing with the multiple sides, but perhaps there is another solution? Maybe an 'acquisition time' could be added to different units, to reflect the process required to detect a target. This acquisition time can be adjusted by having proper GCI / AWACs units in the region.

In a way, there would be a new type of datalink which affects the performance of a new parameter ('acquisition time'). Perhaps that can introduce some of the friction that would naturally exist in combat?

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 59

RE: Is the direct control unrealistic? - 10/21/2016 6:21:45 PM

StellarRat

Posts: 188
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline

Even if someone came up with a perfect non-direct control system, it's doubtful many players would like it. Designers have tried games where the player has little direct control (command level games) and they haven't proven to be as popular. Gamers are a detail oriented lot and when they can't execute the "perfect move" they get annoyed even though that never happens in real life.

(in reply to DrRansom)

Post #: 60