From: Washington D.C.
There are hardened aircraft shelters in the database.
Cover and concealment for ground based units in CMO is sort of a complicated thing in my mind. In land-war oriented games, it's typically a function of terrain and the unit type, as well as whether or not the unit is in "defilade." In TacOps 3, there are also "entrenchment" units, where you can put your units in to protect and conceal them. Furthermore, in real life, aircraft often have difficulty distinguishing between live and dead armored vehicles. In CMO they just remove them from the game as they're destroyed. You're not talking about that kind of tactical concealment, though.
Here's what I'd do:
I'd use a Hardened Underground Bunker unit (#2926) or A/C Underground Aircraft Shelter Entrance (Blast Doors) (#915) to represent your bunker.
If stuff is periodically leaving that bunker for some reason, I'd use LUA to create and remove the units as they came and went. The thing is, from an air perspective, I'm not sure it's really necessary to model the ground forces. Think of it from the air perspective: If I was planning an air strike, the target would be the bunker or the doors. While the desired weapon effect would be to destroy or degrade what's inside for at least a fixed period of time, if not permanently, that's not really captured in CMO in detail. It doesn't ask questions like, "Did the weapon detonate against the bursting slab, above the ceiling, or in the void?" "Which void did it explode in?" "How many voids are there?" "What was in each void?" "Do I need the bomb to go off inside the void or is it good enough to collapse the ceiling on it?" That kind of weaponeering isn't what CMO does well, and I'm not sure it'd really add anything valuable to the game. That'd be the kind of thing people focused on destroying what's inside would be asking, though. That'd be an example of something too tactical for the game, and I'm not sure the guys are really well equipped to even begin to model that kind of question in a way that even resembles realism. Destroying hardened, deeply buried targets is a little bit of a black art, best assumed away in the scope of CMO. That kind of thing would be figured out by the mission planning cell, if not some higher level planning or analysis cell before the mission was even flown.
This sort of touches on the fundamental question: What's the point of this scenario? If the problem you're presented with is to attack or defend a deeply buried, hardened target, then you don't need all the stuff that might be in the bunker. That's in the weeds. It doesn't mean it's not there, it's just assumed away. If the point is to fight a land battle, on the other hand, CMO is probably the wrong tool for that kind of wargame.
In wargaming there's a persistent fantasy of a wargame that does everything in minute detail, and answers all questions in one system. Pursuing that fantasy is the surest path to producing nothing valuable or interesting at all.
< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 4/4/2021 1:42:50 PM >