Hello, and thanks for your feedback.
Others will no doubt post here about tech/tactical details. Radar clutter because of hills behind the target, one ship masking another, minimum altitude of the attacking A-4s as a result of time-of-day, sea state and pilot proficiency, and the critical factor of the brand of coffee that Sir Sandy had that fateful day.
I want to talk about the bigger picture. About what you're really saying/implying: "This simulation does not consistently reproduce the historical result of a specific single, isolated engagement, and this is a defect".
Which is kinda like saying that Pro Evolution is a defective representation of soccer because it does not consistently reproduce goals such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS2bomiDOko
The matter of massaging models & data in order to closely track historical outcomes, and the dangers of doing so, has in fact already been discussed on this forum. Read here: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=2793
The attack of the Argentinian A-4s on the Coventry and Broadsword that day had a myriad of possible different final outcomes (to visualize this, imagine a tree starting from a common trunk and branching out), broadly ranging from "All RN ships sunk, all hands lost, not a scratch on the A-4s" all the way to "The RN ships effortlessly blot the A-4s out of the sky". What historically happened was one of those myriad possible endings. Was it the most probable outcome? According to both Arg and RN personnel we've talked with, no. As you yourself described, a number of unlikely things went bad for the RN side and conspired to bring about the loss of the Coventry.
As one of our users pointed out, most people have a built-in bias of considering historical outcomes "after the fact" as the most probable ones, even when in reality they are statistical flukes. Is the RL outcome *possible* in Command? Sure it is; roll a few bad missile endgame rolls and the A-4s end up on top of the RN ships just like in RL. Is it *likely* this will happen? Statistically, no. Is this indicative of a flaw in Command? I don't think so. CMANO, like most wargames, deals in probabilities while also allowing lucky/unlucky events. Did Sherman tanks get lucky against Tigers now and then like in "Fury"? Sure. If you had the ability to time-travel and experience this engagement, say, a hundred times, would the result be the same?
Let's take another fluke event from that same conflict, to better highlight the futility of chasing precise historical outcomes. Early on, an Argie B-707 snooper got too close to the AAW picket line and got fired at by *six* Sea Darts. All of them missed. It didn't outrun them, it didn't evade them, it didn't do anything fancy. They simply missed. (CMANO equivalent: consecutive unlucky missile endgame rolls).
Now imagine someone barging in this here forum and arguing that he cannot reliably reproduce this result in CMANO (no wonder; the odds are really low) and trying to bully us to change (lower significantly) the Sea Dart PoK to match this outcome. And let's say we don't know better and we comply. Congratulations, the Sea Dart (a weapon that historically shot down a number of A-4s and even [in its improved ADIMP version] had the first ever "in anger" ASCM kill in '91) is now completely harmless against anything more capable than a lumbering B-707. We "fixed" one case and broke 99 others. I don't consider that a favorable tradeoff.
Like I said, we can discuss tech & modelling until the cows come home. In a complex simulation like CMANO there are always details to tweak. It's the fundamental "must match RL outcomes or else" viewpoint that I disagree with, and I would wager I am not alone.
Thanks Sunburn for your detailed answer.
You are right when you say a myriad of things could have happened that day. I would play a hundred times and would not get that same outcome? Maybe.
In my original post, in the end, I refer to any engagement, not just the Coventry sinking. That was a detailed example, but Is the campaign in which I have interest.
I used the editor to refight the San Carlos attacks, also the attack made in May 1st ("Torno" flight of 3 Mirages 5 Dagger against HMS Alacrity, Arrow and Glamorgan, if I remember correctly), the Sheffield attack, etc. In all of them It appeared to me, that ship lethality against air threats was too high, more than I expected.
In Sea of Fire you added 2 Super Etendards armed with Exocet missiles, and two more A-4´s to make the fight balanced...
Would close formation, ambient conditions effect on systems, clutter, line of sight and ROF, change that? Well, it is up to you to decide if you think it deserves to be considered. I`m just giving you my opinion to make this simulation even better.