Jamming Effects

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Jamming Effects

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 >> Jamming Effects

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Jamming Effects - 9/30/2017 11:02:59 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

I have tested this several times each way, and I would like to hear some feedback from you.

I have taken a groups of planes and advanced them toward a ground target with radar. At some point, the radar picks up the air units. This is obvious. For the purpose of this discussion, and just to attach some numbers to it, let's say that the radar detected the planes at a distance of 70 miles.

Then, I tried it with the same arrangement, but this time I added a jamming aircraft and positioned them in front of, and later, behind the group of planes and activated the jammers. Again, at some point (albeit much closer), the ground units detected the incoming group of planes. Again, for the purpose of discussion, let's say that the radar units detected the incoming planes at a distance of 35 miles. Obviously, this is the burn-through effect.

Now, the thing that I am not sure of is this: If, as in the first example, the DETECTED group (at 70 miles away) were to then activate jammers (if they were to have existed in the first place), would the first group of planes go from being detected to having their exact locations not known because of the jammers, or would they remain detected because they had ALREADY been detected?

In the limited play testing that I have done, it appears to me that turning on jammers AFTER you have been detected doesn't do anything to really hide your position. In other words, after you have been detected, then you don't get to hide any more.

The reason that I was interested in this situation is this: I have a strike package approaching. The strike is led by SEAD units. The SEAD units obviously want the ground SAM units to activate their radar units so that they can shoot at them. So, they could go in unmasked to get the ground units to illuminate their radars. So, since I WANT the ground units to SEE the SEAD units, no jamming in taking place. But, if no jamming is taking place, then the ground units will eventually be able to SEE my strike package that follows the SEAD units. That's why I was wondering if, after the SEAD units have done their thing, would there be any benefit to turning any jammers on, if the radar units have already detected the incoming strike package that was behind the SEAD units?

It's just food for thought.....

Doug

Post #: 1

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 12:35:12 AM

kevinkins

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

Doug

It's really best to do testing on your own when it comes to the tactical details you are describing above. You will find Command much more pleasing when you ultimately figure the tactics out. The forum can help new players get started. It can provide general information. But do not expect the forum to help players win scenarios via tactical recommendations. We are not here to give spoilers to scenarios that took designers many hours to create. Dude, the fun is figuring it out ...

Respectfully

Kevin

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 2

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 12:42:52 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Thanks for your input, Kevin, but I'm not trying to WIN any scenario. In fact, I don't really even actually PLAY the scenarios. I play around with the scenarios. So, I'm not looking for any help as to how to "beat" a scenario.

My question is legit....Does turning on a jammer from a jamming unit AFTER the original unit has been detected, help to conceal the original unit at all? It's my observation that it does not. I'd love to hear from someone else who says that it does. That would make for an interesting conversation.

Dude, there is no scenario to beat, so there is no spoiler alert that you need to worry about. It's a general question.

Doug

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 3

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 12:43:28 AM

thewood1

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

I think this is a good question...

"turning on jammers AFTER you have been detected doesn't do anything to really hide your position" I would expect it has some impact, but there are so many variables it might be hard to give a definitive answer. I'll play around with it.

I also keep jamming separate from SEAD, if I can. Sometimes you can't, sometimes you can.

btw, I am not sure what the issue is with somehow cheating designers out of their gratification, this seems like a very legit tactics question.

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 4

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 12:48:55 AM

mikmykWS

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

Guys

If you find a bug please do put this with file in tech support so the team can follow up with it. IIRC there is a supposed to be a progressive time out on detected and then lost targets in conjunction with an uncertainty zone (time of last contact et). If you're not seeing this there is probably an issue.

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 10/1/2017 12:55:49 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 5

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 12:58:24 AM

mikmykWS

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

Doug

Let me guess the scenario you're working on? It's been how many years now?

How bout you release that puppy and turn the page?

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 6

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 1:12:22 AM

thewood1

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

I don't think he is asking about a bug. I think he is asking just a basic question about how things work.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 7

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 1:17:46 AM

Cik

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

so, what should happen is:

if you are detected at all, your position is known (just not necessarily well enough to get a target track)

if you allow them to see the SEAD in order to maintain invisibility with the strikers you would have to have them outside the range of the radar's detection for until the SEAD shooters had engaged the target and the SOJ platform (or SEAD shooters) had turned on the jammer.

then you would remain "invisible" on the strikers until you entered the suppressed radar's range of 35nm. (assuming no terrain masking etc.)

in-game and probably IRL, whether the radar loses track or not after the initial detection, you still know something is (or was) there. in-game this will generate an ambiguity (IE, something was there and now 2s hence it might be somewhere else) but they will still know that the strikers are there as they have memory (human or otherwise) to tell them that there was an additional element on the strike package.

i haven't run this specific scenario to see how it works but to take your example what should happen is that as soon as the jammer's switch is flipped the radar should lose tracks on everything outside of it's "new" range. any contact that's dropped will then begin an ambiguity depending on it's speed/heading/altitude etc. until it's re-detected or the track is dropped due to lack of re-acquisition.

you still give a lot away by the initial detection though. your best option would be to maintain 75~nm standoff with the strikers until the radar is suppressed (either by ARM or jammer) and only then begin your ingress.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 8

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 1:29:05 AM

Airborne Rifles

Posts: 229
Joined: 2/17/2015
Status: offline

I've seen jamming have an effect after a unit is detected. A tactic I've used in the past is to allow an enemy SARH-equipped fighter see my aircraft and launch, then flip on the OECM from a nearby EW aircraft. The SARH missiles lose lock and self-destruct.

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 9

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 1:47:54 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Hi Mike,

I actually released that scenario to the public a few months ago. <g>

In any case, I have tested this situation many times, and the results have always been the same. If the ground unit detects any air craft, then turning on a airborne jammer (AFTER THE FACT) doesn't seem to mask it. As thewood1 most accurately pointed out, there are other important variables such as distance and altitude that I have not checked as of yet. That was the reason that I brought this up. Before I start adding any variables to my testing, I was wondering if anyone else had ever attempted this. I don't want to waste the night doing something that others have already done and tested.

I have never seen this situation included in any scenario (community or professional), so I do think that it is worth exploring.

Doug

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 10

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 1:49:30 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Thanks for your interest in the topic. Your knowledge of the game mechanics, and your attention to detail, is most appreciated.

Doug

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 11

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 2:05:02 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

I sincerely appreciate your valuable input.

I see your point about spreading out the entire SEAD/Strike package to avoid detection. That seems like a very valid method, when applicable. I realize that this tactic is most viable.

Sometimes, however, due to distance and fuel, that isn't possible. This is why I wanted the SEAD units to go active, to draw out the SAMs. After the SAM radars illuminated they, of course, detected the SEAD and the Strike package, as they should. This is understandable.

My question pertains to what exactly, would the effect on the SAMs, ground radars be if an OECM was suddenly activated? Would/should they lose any kind of detection with the Strike package that was following the SEAD units (50 miles behind)? I realize that distance and altitude could play a factor, but thus far, activating an OECM (for me anyway) has not changed the ground units' ability whatsoever to continue detecting the Strikers. Perhaps they were too close to begin with, or maybe, as I suggested, once the units are detected, they remain detected. If that is the case, then it could be a flaw. It's just a theory.

I'm not asking anyone to test it, or to provide trade secrets. I will completely test it with no problem. But, if someone has already tested portions of it, and they would like to share their findings with me, that could save me a little work.

Thanks again.

Doug

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 12

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 4:14:49 AM

kevinkins

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

quote:

In fact, I don't really even actually PLAY the scenarios. I play around with the scenarios. So, I'm not looking for any help as to how to "beat" a scenario.

Even after a year in this forum, I just do not get the sand box culture. It's probably related to the fact we can not play each other head to head in a competitive game. It's probably a hold over from Harpoon. What does playing around with a scenario mean? Asking questions on tactics presumably means one wants to get better to defeat "something". If not in the context of a designed scenario - what else is there to fight? How does one measure their progress?

Kevin

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 13

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 5:08:31 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Kevin,

Wow! We are on completely different planes. (BTW, what is sandbox culture?)

I began with the board version of Harpoon way back in the early to mid 80s; yes, the board version. I found it quite interesting to look at the ratings that the various platforms had, and compare them to others. The game teaches you what type of weapons are out there, and what their capabilities are. Sure, the ratings may not have been perfect, but it is at least interesting.

One thing about the board game is you couldn't really play it. It had way too much calculating to have anything other than one ship versus one sub, or another ship. The computer version was great because it handled all of the calculations for you. But over time, Harpoon had run its course, and its death was slow, and somewhat silent. Thank goodness for these CMANO guys because they picked up where Harpoon had started, and ran with the ball. All of the shortcomings that Harpoon had were addressed and immediately fixed. CMANO is the best game around. I have never met develeopers so devoted to a project before. Kudos, and many thanks to them.

Back to me. I doubt that I have ever played a complete scenario from start to finish. Everything that I do is done through the Scenario Editor. I'm not trying to win anything. When I get new scenarios I like to go through them and see how others created various things, like Special Actions, etc. (Personally, I still believe that lua can be difficult, and that the process could somehow be streamlined a little better, but it can be made to make a situation work, but that topic is for another day.)

I use the various scenarios to give me ideas as to how I can make my own scenarios. As Mike indicated, I have been working with the same proto-type for three years. I add and subtract things all of the time. My scenarios have all kinds of twists, etc. Why? I don't know, I probably do it for myself. I am more interested in HOW something works, and does it work correctly, than I am in actually doing it.

As mentioned, my scenarios, for instance, have so many twists, etc., that there is no way to beat it consistently because it has so much randomization to it that no two games are ever alike. You could walk into a bear trap or it could be a cakewalk. I'm not trying to get better. I know that the scenario will either completely defeat you, you will completely defeat it, or it will be somewhere in between. It's a challenge, and it never gets old.

So, I'm not trying to win. I'm not trying to get better. I'm not trying to defeat someone else' scenario. I am not interested in playing against someone else. I am more interested in HOW they did it, as opposed to beating it. I hope that you can fathom what I am saying.

The scenario creators here are varied. Some are downright excellent, while others are just okay. Since I am intrigued by the ingenious efforts of the elite, I tend to pattern any of my efforts around tricks used by others (like Special Actions that only a few scenarios have) whenever I create a "working" scenario. Again, I have never even started CMANO from the game version, I have always played directly from the Scenario Editor. I want to "see" what's going on.

Obviously, I don't use this game the way that you do, or anyone else for that matter, does. I don't ever challenge any database ratings because I don't know enough about ratings to do it, and I figure that they know way more than I do. I figure that whatever sources they use are good enough for me, and I accept them at face value.

I have privately been communicating with Ragnar for years, since our Harpoon days. I have sent him things since way back then. If I send him something that I think "could" be wrong, he has always taken it very seriously. He knows that I am more of a TESTER than a PLAYER. He knows that I know how the game should work, and if, after me testing it for hours, I really believe that something is still wrong and should be looked at, then I sincerely believe that he has enough confidence in my efforts to look into it thoroughly.

So, Kevin, we come from different backgrounds, and obviously have different interests. If I bring something up, it's because I have already done work with it, and I intend to do more, because I want the game to be as good as it can be. So, with no offense intended, you play the game your way, and I will do what I do, as archaic as it may seem to you. But rest assured, many of the things that I explore and pass on to others in CMANO, sometimes do get changed or re-worked without anyone ever knowing anything. I do it without the fanfare. I just want the game to be as good as it can be,

These guys have done a great job, but that doesn't mean that some things couldn't inadvertently get overlooked. An extra space, comma, or a misplaced decimal point can make a big difference in how things play.

Continue to enjoy CMANO, and buy all of its peripherals, and I will do the same. What we do with them, after we have purchased them, is up to us. <g>

Doug

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 14

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 5:10:01 AM

Cik

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

I sincerely appreciate your valuable input.

I see your point about spreading out the entire SEAD/Strike package to avoid detection. That seems like a very valid method, when applicable. I realize that this tactic is most viable.

Sometimes, however, due to distance and fuel, that isn't possible. This is why I wanted the SEAD units to go active, to draw out the SAMs. After the SAM radars illuminated they, of course, detected the SEAD and the Strike package, as they should. This is understandable.

My question pertains to what exactly, would the effect on the SAMs, ground radars be if an OECM was suddenly activated? Would/should they lose any kind of detection with the Strike package that was following the SEAD units (50 miles behind)? I realize that distance and altitude could play a factor, but thus far, activating an OECM (for me anyway) has not changed the ground units' ability whatsoever to continue detecting the Strikers. Perhaps they were too close to begin with, or maybe, as I suggested, once the units are detected, they remain detected. If that is the case, then it could be a flaw. It's just a theory.

I'm not asking anyone to test it, or to provide trade secrets. I will completely test it with no problem. But, if someone has already tested portions of it, and they would like to share their findings with me, that could save me a little work.

Thanks again.

Doug

as far as i know, as soon as you flip the switch on the jammer anything that is above the burnthrough range of the radar (vs. that particular jammer) the radar should drop.

this should produce a ambiguity circle and a lost track (and trash any SARH/radio-guided missiles tracking the dropped target)

the units will remain detected but they will be an ambiguous target immediately (unless detected by another sensor somewhere) the jammer will have it's effect (the strikers will be immune to missiles/further detection) however the enemy commander(s) will know now that there is a strike package which isn't really desirable.

granted i've never actually tested OECM in depth. i just assumed that it was doing "things" when i switch it on.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 15

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 5:25:07 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

granted i've never actually tested OECM in depth. i just assumed that it was doing "things" when i switch it on.

I am aware of everything that you said prior to your last statement. I agree with all of that.

But, that brings me to your last statement. I HAVE spent about five hours (or more) testing on this issue. It is MY INITIAL OPINION at this point, and that could change after more testing involving distance and altitude, that the jammer is NOT DOING what you are ASSUMING that it should do.

In other words, when the switch is thrown (as you said), it is not producing any adverse effect on the ground units trying to maintain contact with the strike package.

My initial post was my attempt to reach out to anyone else who may have ALREADY tested this more thoroughly than I have thus far. If they have tested, and they believe that it works, then I will stop what I am doing because it does take quite a bit of time to do this.

But, if they are only ASSUMING that it works, without ever testing it, then I will press on to verify that it does actual work properly.

I would love to see a situation where the ground units have a solid fix on the strike package, and then the "switch" is thrown, and all of a sudden the ground units have a fuzzy fix on the strike package. This would mean that the OECM is definitely working.

Thanks again for you input.

Doug

< Message edited by DWReese -- 10/1/2017 5:28:26 AM >

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 16

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 5:28:20 AM

Demetrious

Posts: 50
Joined: 4/22/2016
Status: offline

From what I understand of both real life and CMANO's simulated version, once something is found, it tends to stay found. This is because of how radar works. In "search" mode (which is what Early Warning radars are primarily or even exclusively designed to do,) they sweep the entire sky with diffused energy. Once they get some energy bouncing back off something, a "return," the radar will then switch to "target track" mode, where it directs a narrow cone of energy at that part of the sky specifically, narrowing the cone as it narrows down the target's location. This is why stealth aircraft, once detected via any means, tend to stay detected. I've had F-35 "unmasked" because a ship sailing below saw their contrails. And this is realistic; even something as simple as "aircraft contrails in grid 12345678, at 274 degrees, your bearing," drastically narrows the amount of sky needing to be searched, and thus allows a lot more energy to be pumped into it.

Jamming of course is a whole different ballgame, because instead of hiding, a jamming aircraft is blinding the radar with interference, beaming energy back at it. This can confuse, blind and/or swamp out the legitimate returns. However, I think the same logic still applies vis a vis found things staying found. Playing a saved game in the editor (so I can switch back and forth between teams to compare what they can see) I've noticed that an incoming F-18 strike against an S-300 battery can be completely hidden from view till relatively close by a few Growlers - the battery obviously knows the Growlers are out there, because they're blasting the radar with jamming energy, but it can't even hope to pick up returns off the other aircraft. Then you turn the jammers off, and bam - the radar acquires all those other aircraft as normal. Then you turn the jammers back on, and although it works fine - the S-300's radar can't fix any one aircraft to less than a quarter-mile accuracy - it still knows all those other aircraft are there. The radar is then in multi-target track mode, focusing much more energy towards each aircraft, enough to "burn through" the jamming. That in no way means it can engage them, however, just that it knows where to point the more powerful beams.

So in this particular case, I'd say this is simulation mechanics at play, not a bug. Given how complex these mechanics are in real life - and how much of it the devteam has endeavored to actually replicate in the program - it can definitely be difficult to tell sometimes if you're looking at complex modeled behavior or just the quirky effects of a bug. If you're still unsure the easiest way to sort it out: use the editor to make a very quick little mission; two sides, an OECM aircraft escorting some strike craft, and a hostile SAM battery for them to fly towards. Save it, then run through it to ensure it's duplicating the behavior you're asking about, then just upload it here (or make a thread in bug reports forum) and ask if what you're looking at is intended behavior. With stuff this complicated describing it can be exhausting, but the guys who actually programmed (and tested) it can usually tell with as soon as they see it if it's kosher or buggy.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 17

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 5:43:13 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Thanks for your extremely detailed response. I agree with everything that you said.

Your suggestion about creating a small scenario with detection is exactly what I have been doing for the last five hours.

The only issue that I haven't observed, as of yet, is that the status of the previously detected units (strike package) doesn't ever gets any worse than what it was when it was initially observed. So, if it was initially fuzzy, and the OECM is turned on, it remains fuzzy. If it was solid, and the OECM was then turned on, then it remains solid. I would think that if it was solid, and the OECM was turned on, then it would drop to at least fuzzy, depending on the distance. Again, perhaps altitude and distance have something to do with the testing.

So, if others want to test it as well, I would love to have some addition data to look at. My efforts, at this point, are NOT a FINAL INDICTMENT. They are really very preliminary, which is why I reached out to the community to see if anyone else had ever looked into this. It could work perfectly, but the distance is simply too short. But, until I see the OECM kick in, who really knows?

Doug

(in reply to Demetrious)

Post #: 18

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 5:49:20 AM

kevinkins

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

Doug

The sandbox culture is playing in editor mode tinkering with this and that simulating a procurement or systems testing job in the Pentagon. That is fine and a fully rational use of the software. I am very competitive. I play scenarios for the challenge that the designer presents. I am a terrible player. But even so, I would love to play against another human rather than the AI. I try to simulate the position of a combat commander where there will be a winner and a loser. Your approach is very valuable to the community and I thank you for it since most rather play scenarios to their conclusion and report issues as they come up. Your deep dive sand box style is not for me since I think of Command more as a game not a laboratory. But I understand how it can be considered both.

Kevin

Edit : 1000 posts ... took a while with the vast number in the past year thanks to Command.

< Message edited by kevinkin -- 10/1/2017 5:59:13 AM >

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 19

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 1:04:45 PM

thewood1

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

The sandbox approach isn't just about testing systems. Its about true scenario building..like the various decisions and what-ifs around a battle like the Falklands. Along the lines of "What if Spartacus had Piper Cub?". To me, its about not really caring about "winning" through a score. You know the objectives and can compartmentalize the various sides and their goals. Its the difference between a wargame and a simulation. Its the difference between getting a thousand points for sinking certain ships and knowing you have to keep that airbase on Midway operational.

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 20

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 1:18:36 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Kevin,

Thanks for the education concerning the term.

I suppose the term does apply to me.

At least now you may have a better understanding as to where I am coming from when I pose questions. I am never looking for a strategy to WIN the game. I am only seeking to make something as realistic as it can be, even if it is just a game.

As long as it provides enjoyment in whatever manner that it is being used, CMANO is serving its purpose.

Take care.

Doug

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 21

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 1:20:47 PM

mikmykWS

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

Holy crazy.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 22

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 1:40:05 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Kevin,

I know that your message was to Kevin, but I read it, as well.

Do YOU see CMANO as a wargame or a simulation? Or, is it a combination of both?

I ask this question because I have always treated it more as a simulation than as a wargame. Perhaps, I have looking at it in the wrong perspective all of these years. But, I get great joy at looking a some occurrence, trying to decide if that occurrence is working the way that it should, and then trying to test it to make sure. Usually, after much testing, I find that the existing circumstances consisted of other variables, and the program was functioning as it should have been, and that what I was seeing was simply an anomaly. On other occasions, I have been lucky enough to discover some little trinkets that could use a tweak, or so.

My guess is that the CMANO community obviously needs players, more than tinkerers, but it's the tinkerers who do a lot of the grunt work to keep this great game/simulation going. Perhaps some of these pursuits are overkill, and I accept that. But, at the same time, these guys have put so much work and effort into this project and I am certain that if someone found the slightest deviation from how something "is working", compared to how something "should be" working, then they would put it on the board to fix it as soon as possible.

Someone on the forum asked the other day if CMANO is dead? Well, as long as you have developers who continue to look into these small type of issues, then you have your answer. If a piece of software was DEAD, then no one would care anymore. These guys care immensely.

I've said this before, but these guys are great. They are the most diligent group of software developers that I have ever been around!

Doug

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 23

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 1:48:13 PM

mikmykWS

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

I don't think Kevin or anybody else has said half of what you're responding too. Nobody has said anything bad about the developers etc.

Please just have fun with the game.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 24

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 2:20:03 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

The radar model is pretty good. You can even see how we simulate sidelobe jamming.

Add a fixed (ground-based radar). Switch side. Add an EA-6B with jammer on. Plot course so that it stays on the same bearing, traveling towards the target. Then add a fighter, flying in a circle around the radar, ca 50-100nm depending on the radar. Switch to the radar side, press play, and watch the contact fade out as the jamming aircraft hits sidelobes. The same is true for F-14 vs jammer escort and bombers. You see the bombers intermittently, in-between blank displays.

http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=2920#1010

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 25

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 2:55:27 PM

thewood1

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

There are games that are very good at both sandboxing/sims and as wargames. Any game that has a comprehensive list of units, unlimited geographical areas, and solid editors, can easily be both.

One thing I don't do is play to break it. No game is perfect and people who play games to find flaws suck the fun and life out a company and the community.

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 26

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 3:01:15 PM

mikmykWS

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

Exactly wood although all these ticks ended up on my block list never to be read again.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 27

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 3:02:18 PM

thewood1

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

OK, if that helps you get through life.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 28

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/1/2017 3:56:45 PM

VIF2NE

Posts: 457
Joined: 7/12/2013
Status: offline

In my observation, the jamming effect is too big. Modern radars (Soviet - after Tin Shield (ST-68U)) are immune to simple methods of interference. In the game, one jammer can interfere with all stations. In RL, a simple tactical jammer can suppress 1-2 radars.

Against modern radars are effective jammers of equal generation.

_____________________________

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 29

RE: Jamming Effects - 10/2/2017 1:29:39 AM

Demetrious

Posts: 50
Joined: 4/22/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
One thing I don't do is play to break it. No game is perfect and people who play games to find flaws suck the fun and life out a company and the community.

I wouldn't call them flaws - just the limits of the simulation. And every simulation has limits. That's never stopped simulations/wargames from being useful tools for military strategists and officers because the goal of a wargame is to accurately derive results. Usually, the more accurately you can simulate reality, the more accurate the results will be - but not always. When you come up against the hard limits of the simulation for whatever reason (practical limits of development time, information availability, and even the limit of available processing power,) oftentimes an intelligent abstraction produces more realistic results than the best attempt at simulation can manage. Classic tabletop games, with pen-and-paper rules-sets, tables of values, and physical dice-rolling for random number generation were more than good enough to be highly useful tools for actual combat commanders in the age before digital computing - such games accurately predicted the defeat of Graf Spee at the river Pate, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and even foreshadowed the catastrophe that'd befall the Japanese at Midway. And since everything had to be kept track of by human beings, even the most complex of those wargames, with many staff aides helping with paperwork, was less complex than most simulator/wargames anyone can buy and play for a few bucks! Considering how useful those highly-abstracted rules-sets were - as borne out by actual battles - you can just imagine how useful something like CMANO is. The professional customers certainly understand it.

So finding the limits of simulation is fine - as long as one also understands just how difficult designing a good abstraction can be. One has to take a dizzying array of factors into account, and boil them down into one simple, yet elegant formula that produces accurate approximate results over a wide range of circumstances. Moreover, you also have to decide where the baseline is, the "average," and oftentimes determining that takes a lot of research! This is the kind of things that military professionals and analysts write entire papers on. The most obvious examples of this in-game are the ready times of aircraft and the repair times of runways - the end result seems simple, but deriving those numbers with assurance they were accurate took someone - or several someones - a lot of research time.

In my personal opinion - and limited experience trying to design simple tabletop games - the abstractions are the most difficult and elegant challenges of game design. The quality of those abstractions often dictates the quality of the game itself - for all its detailed simulation of jamming and such, CMANO wouldn't be nearly as challenging as a game - or useful as a tool (and I strongly feel we should respect CMANO, even the commercial version, for its value as a tool,) if not for the turnaround times of aircraft. Or consider Harpoon, which had a beautiful weather simulation, complete with storm fronts and changing weather, etc; but CMANO's current one-weather-for-all-the-globe is better because it actually affects air ops, spotting, weapon employment and other stuff.

When you play games to "break them," you usually end up finding the dev's best work. Thus it's quite ironic that the loudest gripers (just as you say) focus their gripes on features that deserve the most praise.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 30