Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Ability to Tow Disabled Ships

 
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 Air / Naval Operations >> Ability to Tow Disabled Ships Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 10/31/2018 5:08:43 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1006
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
I'd like to renew my request for being able to tow a disabled ship that has lost its ability to move. Even a temporary fix would suffice until this can be officially addressed.

Last night I played the "Game Changer" scenario from Silent Service. The objective, as outlined in the briefing, is to sink the Iowa. The Battleship is surrounded by several escorts, and is in route to a destination. I managed to hit the Iowa with a torpedo which disabled the ship from moving. Since the escorts are programmed to follow the Iowa, and the Iowa can't move, all of the escorts and the Iowa simply remained stationary, waiting to be attacked. In real life I suppose that tow lines would have been attached, and the TG would have proceeded to try to tow the Iowa back to port. But, without the ability to tow, the scenario comes to a grinding, and unrealistic, halt.

A similar situation also often occurs in the Spratly Spat scenario where main ship becomes disabled, can't move, and it (and its escorts) ends up being (a) sitting duck(s). The escorts won't leave the main ship, and the main ship can't move.

Can "towing" (even if it's a basic or primitive fix) please be moved up on the priority list?

Thanks,

Doug
Post #: 1
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 10/31/2018 9:12:18 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
What were her escorts?

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 2
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/1/2018 1:51:36 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1006
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
In the Game Changer scenario (which I assume that you are talking about) there were mostly Fletcher, Gearing and Forest Sherman class destroyers, and a few others.

Doug


(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 3
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/2/2018 12:06:50 AM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
So... you want to tow a battleship with an old DD?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

I applaud their heroic efforts, but at 2-3 kts, you might as well be standing still. Best to leave things as is.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 11/2/2018 12:12:10 AM >

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 4
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/2/2018 2:24:35 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1006
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
SeaQueen,

I'm sorry to see that you find the idea of towing another vessel to be laughable.

My request has nothing to do with trying to defeat a SPECIFIC scenario, nor am I trying to test the overall towing capacity of any specific ships at this juncture. The played scenario had already reached a state of null when the Iowa could no longer make it to its assigned destination. That essentially ended the scenario, regardless of whether I wanted to continue or not. So, it was already over.

While that scenario ended somewhat prematurely, I do believe that having the ability to tow a vessel from a specific area would be very useful. In fact, I can think of a disabled vessel inadvertently drifting into, or being, in enemy waters as being something that could provide an excellent backdrop for the creation of a bunch of scenarios. If I'm not mistaken, one of the most recent Tom Clancy books dealt with this very issue as a side story. I'm certain that towing ships has frequently come up before in real life.

As to the general request to attempt to salvage, move, tow, or defend a disabled ship, I can certainly see the need for that as well. You may laugh at the idea, but if some gamers were clamoring for years for the ability to rescue a downed pilot, then I don't seem to think that rescuing a "downed" or stranded (disabled) ship to be that far-fetched.

It's just my opinion. I think that it could be a nice feature.

Doug


(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 5
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/2/2018 2:39:19 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
If I'm not mistaken, one of the most recent Tom Clancy books dealt with this very issue as a side story. I'm certain that towing ships has frequently come up before in real life.


It's not even just a recent one. In Red Storm Rising, a torpedoed FF gets towed back to Scotland by an ocean going tugboat. Their primary concern was if another submarine decided to finish the job. The thing about these kinds of scenarios, is that it doesn't really pose a player with a solvable tactical problem. They're just doomed. There's very little anyone can do. The smartest thing is to cut the tow ropes, abandon the damaged vessel and run.

Rescuing downed pilots is a different case. Combat search and rescue (CSAR) and tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel (TRAP) are core missions of the US military. I'm sure other nations have similar missions. There's lots of historical examples of successful and unsuccessful missions of this sort. Even then, though, I'd argue that in many cases, particularly in increasingly contested air space, the future for this mission is probably bleak. They probably won't attempt it. During the Vietnam War, losses in the attempted CSAR mission following an air battle were often greater than the losses during the original air battle. As a result, by the first Gulf War, Gen. Horner, the Air Component Commander chose not have his forces automatically fly a CSAR mission when aircraft were lost, and instead only fly it if they felt there was a reasonable chance of success. The result was that pilots could no longer count on rescue. While CSAR and TRAP missions were flown, they were much more conservative about them. Later, during the Balkans conflict, the Marines supported by the USAF flew a TRAP mission to recover Scott O'Grady. In that case, however, the Marines landed unopposed, and the USAF/USMC aircraft involved were able to successfully establish local air superiority so that they could land. It's not even clear the Serbian forces knew they were there until after they'd recovered O'Grady when they were fired on during the return leg.

The difference between rescuing a ship, and rescuing a pilot is the amount of time involved. In order to rescue a ship, which is being towed at 2-3 kts top is that you need to establish and maintain maritime and air superiority around it for several days at a time. That's probably impossible, and probably not a priority. A CSAR/TRAP mission is over in minutes. It's a lot less challenging to establish that kind of tactical dominance over the pilot for a few minutes than it is over a ship for a few days. If you could do that kind of thing, you probably wouldn't have lost the ship in the first place.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 6
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/2/2018 4:49:09 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1006
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
Thanks again for sharing your insight.

Doug

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 7
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/2/2018 11:31:59 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 1626
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline
Doug's request is very reasonable given what militaries do daily. Maintenance of the supply chain creates a whole genre of scenarios if folks would just open their minds to low intensity battles that are actually more realistic than the border line WW3 scenarios we are constantly spoon fed.

https://news.usni.org/2018/01/19/stricken-destroyer-uss-fitzgerald-arrives-mississippi-two-years-repairs

Kevin

_____________________________

“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
― Alfred Thayer Mahan


(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 8
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/3/2018 12:30:50 AM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
That was a very interesting article, but if you were to build a scenario based on that article, where is the game? What would you be trying to do? How is that an adversarial process, such that there'd need to be an opposing side? What would your plans look like? How could they be foiled?

quote:


https://news.usni.org/2018/01/19/stricken-destroyer-uss-fitzgerald-arrives-mississippi-two-years-repairs


(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 9
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/3/2018 1:13:25 AM   
kevinkins


Posts: 1626
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline
I was not trying to suggest a scenario based on that one article. How silly. "Bwahahahahahahahahaha!" (You owe Doug an apology BYW).

But a scenario based on the military supply chain and logistics activities that are taking place every day by young people caring for ships planes and tanks is more probable than the WW3 stuff where the "adversarial process" would lead to the destruction of the Earth when such a process escalates. Low intensity combat that could involve a tow would be interesting if the option was available. I think Doug's idea has a lot of merit. Command excels at small quiet scenarios which is why the submarine ones are so well received i.e. compared the huge battles few players have the time or inclination to finish.

Kevin

< Message edited by kevinkin -- 11/3/2018 1:14:28 AM >


_____________________________

“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
― Alfred Thayer Mahan


(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 10
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/3/2018 3:03:38 AM   
HalfLifeExpert


Posts: 566
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

So... you want to tow a battleship with an old DD?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

I applaud their heroic efforts, but at 2-3 kts, you might as well be standing still. Best to leave things as is.


Yeah, I mean, that's how the Yorktown was lost at Midway (it was finally finished off by a Japanese submarine while trying to be towed back to Pearl Harbor) and why the US tried to scuttle the USS Hornet at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. Too big and heavy to tow.

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 11
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/3/2018 3:31:26 AM   
TheOttoman

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 12/14/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

So... you want to tow a battleship with an old DD?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

I applaud their heroic efforts, but at 2-3 kts, you might as well be standing still. Best to leave things as is.

It's happened before.... well open ocean towing. Specifically, a tugboat with an aircraft carrier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=kLSaA3pO6Bc

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 12
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/3/2018 4:18:11 AM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
You're right. I was rude. I'm sorry, Doug. It was wrong of me to belittle your suggestion.

I'm really not sure what you mean by a scenario based on performing logistical and supply chain duties. Is there a specific logistical problem you're thinking of to be solved, where the solution is easily explored in Command? Just because the military does lots of stuff every day, doesn't mean Command is the right tool play around with possible solutions to their problems.

I agree, though, that a lot of scenarios are too big. A lot of them would benefit by being broken up into a few different scenarios, focused on a single specific well defined task (e.g. attacking a specific well defended target, rather than 10 of them, over the course of a few days, rather than a few weeks), in a geographically better defined area (constrain the scenario with no-nav zones), using less dispersed forces (everything in the theater doesn't need to be in play). I blame that more on scenario authors than on Command's shortcomings. Too many people want to write mega-scenarios, but Command requires quite detailed planning and input. While computationally, it might be possible, it doesn't make it wise. The result is exactly the situation you described (nobody has the time to bother finishing them).

Adding in logistics, I suspect, wouldn't make people make more scoped down scenarios. It'd just broaden the scope of already overly broad scenarios. Submarines are a great topic for Command because they tend to operate independently, in smaller numbers, and that makes them less vulnerable to the temptation to broaden scenarios to the point of becoming unwieldy. Their nature tends to focus people on doing just one thing with a few things, instead of doing a zillion things with a zillion things.



< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 11/3/2018 4:19:55 AM >

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 13
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/3/2018 4:23:22 AM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheOttoman
It's happened before.... well open ocean towing. Specifically, a tugboat with an aircraft carrier:


I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying that tactically, they'd be doomed if it was during a shooting war.

(in reply to TheOttoman)
Post #: 14
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/3/2018 10:20:37 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 1626
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline
It doesn’t have to be a shooting war or involve a carrier. Maybe something like a training / replenishment operation goes wrong in the Sea of Japan and a cruiser or destroyer or replenishment vessel has to be towed back to Yokosuka before it drifts into unfriendly territorial waters. The rescue operation would be shadowed by China or Russia or both - and be protected by USN air/surface or sub assets. There might be a random chance that hostilities would break out. Choreographing it would be dicey, but it might be fun.

I agree that Command is not a tool to simulate everything. But one reason for this forum is to discuss ideas so the developers can weigh the pluses and minuses against programming time. Towing might find its way into a handful of scenarios. Probably not a fair comparison, but the database contains dozens upon dozens of systems that never get used.

Kevin


_____________________________

“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
― Alfred Thayer Mahan


(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 15
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/4/2018 1:34:56 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin
It doesn’t have to be a shooting war or involve a carrier. Maybe something like a training / replenishment operation goes wrong in the Sea of Japan and a cruiser or destroyer or replenishment vessel has to be towed back to Yokosuka before it drifts into unfriendly territorial waters. The rescue operation would be shadowed by China or Russia or both - and be protected by USN air/surface or sub assets. There might be a random chance that hostilities would break out. Choreographing it would be dicey, but it might be fun.


I don't care if there's a carrier involved or not. My observation has been that most scenarios involving a carrier strike group become too big too quickly because people don't have a very good vision of air and naval warfare. At the same time, they're usually not big enough. To realistically represent carrier warfare, you really need at least 2 of them. Interestingly, for some reason scenario designers like the idea of doing lots of different things, and not concentrating on one thing (e.g. attacking a single, well defended airbase). I wonder why that is?

That being said. Why would anyone care about shadows if there's no shooting war? The whole point of shadows is to provide targeting information when the war starts (it's accepted that they won't last long afterwards) and to perform "strategic messaging," essentially letting the opposing force know that it's known where they are and that they're targetable. If there's no hostilities, it's not as if you can do much about them. I've thought about scenarios where there's a random chance that things turned hostile in the past. The problem is that it assumes away the agency of the player. Essentially, there's nothing the player can do about matters of war and peace, they're just pawns in a larger game, and their decisions don't impact the larger picture. They're just sort of subject to it like the winds and tides. That stinks! It also assumes that the computer controlled side has no logic, strategy or tactics when you have it behave essentially randomly. In some cases that's good enough, but in matters of war and peace, to me, that's a little unsatisfying. Sometimes you have to force hostilities (it's actually very hard to start a war) because otherwise you don't have a conflict, but I'm not sure random chance is the way to do it. I'd have to see a good example of it.

In my opinion, Command doesn't play deterrence well. The reason is that it's too tactical. Deterrence games are at least operational level and really more strategic. They're about where determining what the opposing side's red lines REALLY are, and where they might be willing to make a deal. Military forces are an important part of that, but it's different. In a deterrence game it's less about, "What is the best strike package for attacking target X" and more about, "We're going to schedule an exercise, collaborating with host nation A, and have a lot of press cover it." It's about strategic messaging, it's about telegraphing intentions, etc. It's not so much about, "Do I arrange my SAG in two ship pairs or do I detach one to use as a picket ship? How far out do I put her?"



< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 11/4/2018 1:37:27 PM >

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 16
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/5/2018 9:02:12 PM   
Sniper31


Posts: 111
Joined: 9/15/2015
Status: offline
Well, assuming they are well designed, I much prefer larger scenarios over smaller ones. In fact, most small scenarios bore me. A good medium to large scenario that is well designed is definitely wha I most enjoy and desire from Command. And yes, I DO finish them, and more often than not, I end up playing those scenarios over multiple times. In those larger scenarios, there is always room for improvement, and I find fulfillment in seeing if I can perform better next time.

_____________________________

"I say again, expend ALL remaining in my perimeter!" - Platoon

"This is JB27, on target...fire for effect.." - Me

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 17
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/5/2018 11:18:48 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
I guess the thing is, what do you consider to be "large?" For me "large" has less to do with the number of units and more to do with the scope and definition of the scenario goals. In that sense a "small" scenario with over a couple hundred aircraft, multiple aircraft carriers, land bases, submarines and amphibs. The question then becomes what am I doing with them? I feel like too often they ask to do an unrealistically scattered or vaguely defined thing.

Then, when I play the scenario, I find things like the air defenses not being well thought out, or the scenario designer fetishizes a favorite platform (e.g. Kilos, MiG-29s or SA-10s). I don't see them layered or cleverly constructed. They almost always leave the default WRA in place, even though it's not usually the best thing to do. What makes the game so sophisticated is that it's not about platforms, it's about families of platforms and how they work together. To use a historical example, it's not about the AAA, the MANPADS, the SA-2, the MiG-19 or the MiG-21. It's about the AAA, MANPADS, SA-2s, MiG-19s AND MiG-21s in combination, and then how they defended one thing people REALLY cared about hitting (e.g. A POL storage site with a dozen aimpoints). That kind of mission might consume a whole wing's worth of aircraft, plus supporting tankers, AEW aircraft, jamming aircraft and maybe a couple bombers.

It frustrates me when I blow through a scenario with minimal losses because there wasn't any unifying vision or attempt to understand a given country's order of battle, or a target set. It's like they're trying to attack/defend EVERYTHING and never really thought about what's really important, and how things interact to just attack/defend that ONE thing. In the process, they're not very successful at attacking or defending anything. If they can't defend one thing, then they can't defend a whole country full of targets. I'd rather them ask me to attack or defend that one well defended POL storage facility with a dozen aimpoints or so, than attack or defend everything all over a country at the same time, because most of them can't even successfully do that.

Sometimes I think scenario designers need to read less Tom Clancy and more Von Clausewitz.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sniper31
Well, assuming they are well designed, I much prefer larger scenarios over smaller ones. In fact, most small scenarios bore me.



< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 11/5/2018 11:21:26 PM >

(in reply to Sniper31)
Post #: 18
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/6/2018 12:46:41 AM   
kevinkins


Posts: 1626
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline
Just to be clear, are you slamming the large professional and play tested scenarios we pay for e.g. the LIVE series or the large Community ones made by well meaning amateurs in their spare time? Who is being thrown under the bus here?

Kevin


_____________________________

“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
― Alfred Thayer Mahan


(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 19
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/6/2018 1:23:53 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1006
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
Not that it matters to you (or anyone else for that matter), but I actually prefer the opposite of what you are describing.

To me, these huge scenarios where there seems to be an endless supply of ships, planes, subs, ammo, etc., with numerous battles going on everywhere, never seems to be very realistic to me. Unless WW III has broken out, every side in these large scenarios seems to have an absolute endless array of weaponry, etc. Coming from a bureaucratic governmental job, I can tell you that that isn't usually the case in real life. (You usually get 120,000 hot dog buns this week, but then you have to wait two more weeks for the actual hot dogs to arrive.)

The scenarios that I (personally) prefer are much smaller. I would describe them as a situation where hostilities are stressed, and the threat of war is a possibility. Then, if circumstances (randomized, of course) are correct, then hostilities break out. In my opinion, as I alluded to above, each side is rarely completely prepared for the situation, and the availability of the weaponry in the scenario should also be randomized. Therefore, each time that you play the scenario, from which ever side that you play, you never know what you are going to get. While the objective remains the same, the game player is tasked with trying to accomplish something that may end up being quite simple, all the way up to virtually impossible, depending on what you have available and what forces you are exactly facing. I believe that doing it this way represents a "fog of war" and it is challenging at the same time.

To me, too many of the secrets of the current scenarios are known after you play them the first time. How many of us fail the first time that we play the scenario, but play it again and win. Why? Obviously, because we know what's coming. Since most scenarios aren't randomized, there is no longer a challenge after you play it and defeat it.

With smaller-sized scenarios, you can have a whole host of different units, all of which were realistically selected to match reality, but may or may not be present in the particular scenario that you are playing. This presents a real challenge that is fun to play over and over again. Plus, it doesn't take days to finish.

I realize that to you size matters, and that's okay with me. To each their own. But, I actually prefer the smaller, more manageable scenarios to the giant colossal ones for the reasons that I have stated.

Doug

< Message edited by DWReese -- 11/6/2018 1:25:45 AM >

(in reply to Sniper31)
Post #: 20
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/6/2018 1:34:56 AM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin
Just to be clear, are you slamming the large professional and play tested scenarios we pay for e.g. the LIVE series or the large Community ones made by well meaning amateurs in their spare time? Who is being thrown under the bus here?


Since nobody suffers the consequences of my critiques (other than my stern disapproval and perhaps hurt feelings? ) I'm not sure anyone is really being thrown under the bus. Whoever is the subject of my annoyance is most likely going to continue to do whatever makes them happy regardless of my thoughts.

I haven't played the LIVE series, so I can't comment on them specifically. It's certain Community scenarios. That being said, there's a lot of Community scenarios I like a lot, and have played many times. They're usually the simpler ones, interestingly enough, because I find them to be the most realistic. I figure out the most things with them. When people start trying to be complicated they hang themselves.


< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 11/6/2018 2:10:36 AM >

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 21
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/6/2018 2:04:41 AM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

To me, these huge scenarios where there seems to be an endless supply of ships, planes, subs, ammo, etc., with numerous battles going on everywhere, never seems to be very realistic to me. Unless WW III has broken out, every side in these large scenarios seems to have an absolute endless array of weaponry, etc.


It is and it isn't. I think realism is the wrong way to think about it.

The question to ask is who does the decision making that Command requires? For the air portion, it's usually at approximately the wing or regimental level down. It might go a little above that, but not much. The higher level decision making is essentially the job of the scenario designer. They create the context in which you make the decisions Command allows you to make, and pose you with a tactical problem. The inputs Command requires are very detailed. If you go too far above approximately the wing level, to do it right, you're essentially just iterating the same planning process across many areas of responsibility. That's hard, because in reality these things would be going on in parallel, not in series. As a single player, though, I can only wear one hat at a time, so I have to do them in series. That's where the process breaks down, and you end up performing the actions Command requires in slower than real time (ideally you want to be in real time or faster).

For the naval portion, it's actually easier to go a little broader, because things evolve more slowly. The world is a lot easier to manage at 20 kts rather than 480 kts. I think it might be possible to tentatively go as high as the Maritime Component Commander (MCC, sort of..) but for caution's sake I wouldn't recommend it. Keep it to the task force commodore level. The MCC does not pick which sensors to turn on and off for each ship (even though it might be possible). The commodore of a task force probably doesn't either.

The interesting bit is when you start blending air and naval components. Essentially, then, you're making tactical decisions, but you're coordinating them with one another, which might be done a the operational level in some cases. That's where you start wearing a higher level hat, but you have to be careful not to go too far up there, because if you do, you end up with the problem of having to worry about too many things. The operational level commander probably doesn't spend time on WRA, for example. That's a tactical thing. They're more about translating political (strategic) goals into things the military can actually do. At that point you're not playing scenarios, you're building them.

I think it's important for scenario builders to think of themselves as operational level commanders. Maybe that's where scenario builders get lost? The lack an operational context in which to pose people with tactical problems? So they end up building giant scenarios where they never devote the attention to detail necessary to give them some depth.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 11/6/2018 2:15:35 AM >

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 22
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/6/2018 2:31:56 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1006
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
SeaQueen,

That was a very nice reference to Von Clausewitz. <g>

Strategically speaking, Von Clausewitz would obviously be a better source for the broad and overall perspective as to understanding why a war is being fought in the first place. I totally agree with your reasoning that establishing the purpose for the hostilities, and the political objectives, etc., is paramount to creating a good background for every scenario.

That being said, CMANO scenarios, as you know, never represent the whole war. CMANO scenarios merely provide, at the most, snippets of the war which are described as battles. Since most scenario developers never have the time to delve into the more complex thought processes from Von Clausewitz' perspective, many simply take a small battle (such as those detailed by authors like Tom Clancy) and try to replicate those for our game. I have found that that approach is often extremely fun to play. This is why I brought up the towing of a disabled ship, or the smaller-sized scenario reference in the first place.

With regard to the book/scenario reference, I'd like to mention that Gunner98 has devised a similar situation using his Northern Fury scenarios, but he is doing it in reverse order. Rather than design the scenario from the book (ala Clancy), Gunner98 actually designed the CMANO scenarios first, and is in the process of writing a book to mimic (more or less) the outcome of the individual scenarios. (If you haven't ever played any of his scenarios then you are really missing out. He is a fantastic scenario designer.) It is really a very clever way to do things.

In any case, I did want to compliment you on the Von Clausewitz reference, but I also wanted to give Clancy some props too. <g>

Doug

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 23
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/6/2018 12:49:41 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1007
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
That being said, CMANO scenarios, as you know, never represent the whole war. CMANO scenarios merely provide, at the most, snippets of the war which are described as battles. Since most scenario developers never have the time to delve into the more complex thought processes from Von Clausewitz' perspective, many simply take a small battle (such as those detailed by authors like Tom Clancy) and try to replicate those for our game. I have found that that approach is often extremely fun to play. This is why I brought up the towing of a
disabled ship, or the smaller-sized scenario reference in the first place.


My issue with ship towing is not the scope of the mission, it's whether it's tactically viable. The other thing that occurred to me, is how is towing any different from defending any other slow moving damaged ship?

And my issue with scenario designers is that too often they don't try to make vignettes, they try to put the whole war into one scenario and it just doesn't work well, nor is it very realistic. I am a little bit sympathetic, because in the contemporary world of thousand mile cruise missiles, theater ballistic missiles, and bombers that can fly half way around the world, sometimes it's harder to portion off "the war" into smaller vignettes.

One of the things I think is interesting about Tom Clancy is that how clear it is that they used table top Harpoon scenarios to develop the narratives for key events. I'd also postulate that they superimposed another gaming system on top (probably matrix style) of that in order to handle operational, political and strategic movement. Even if it was just a map and some counters, where one counter represented the whole CVBG, convoy or a brigade sized formation, somehow they had to have a system for deciding where the tactical level encounters occurred.

quote:


With regard to the book/scenario reference, I'd like to mention that Gunner98 has devised a similar situation using his Northern Fury scenarios, but he is doing it in reverse order. Rather than design the scenario from the book (ala Clancy), Gunner98 actually designed the CMANO scenarios first, and is in the process of writing a book to mimic (more or less) the outcome of the individual scenarios. (If you haven't ever played any of his scenarios then you are really missing out. He is a fantastic scenario designer.) It is really a very clever way to do things.


I don't think Clancy wrote the book first and then built the scenarios. Wargaming was an integral part of his creative process, from what I've gathered. I suspect they had some way of representing strategic and operational movements of forces, but that's it. I suspect Gunner's process is probably similar to Clancy's. The other thing to remember is that Clancy also had Larry Bond, an experienced analyst, to play off.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 24
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/6/2018 1:21:01 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1006
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
SeaQueen,

I concur with all of your comments.

I just proposed the concept of having the ability to tow a ship would be a nice addition. If it can't be easily be accomplished, then it shouldn't be done.

Doug

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 25
RE: Ability to Tow Disabled Ships - 11/6/2018 3:58:15 PM   
Sniper31


Posts: 111
Joined: 9/15/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Just to be clear, are you slamming the large professional and play tested scenarios we pay for e.g. the LIVE series or the large Community ones made by well meaning amateurs in their spare time? Who is being thrown under the bus here?

Kevin




For me, when it comes to larger scenarios that I like to play, it would be the large professional and play tested scenarios that we pay for. I have not yet delved into the LIVE scenarios, but I plan to eventually, after I have tired of playing all the scenarios I am enjoying from the DLC add-on's that I have purchased.

SeaQueen and Doug make salient points all across the comments above, and I don't have any disagreements with them. My way of playing is simply my preference. I have played a few large community scenarios too that I enjoy, so I don't want to leave them out. After 28 years in the military and countless deployments, I have seen my share of real world combat, peacekeeping missions and such. So, if my Command scenarios stray from reality in some way, it certainly does not bother me in the least. I could judge every single scenario through the lens of my personal experiences, but then what fun would that be? I embrace a little imaginative freedom in my play-throughs.

_____________________________

"I say again, expend ALL remaining in my perimeter!" - Platoon

"This is JB27, on target...fire for effect.." - Me

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Ability to Tow Disabled Ships 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

0.204