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: Airplane Defense Logic

 
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 >> Tech Support >> RE: Airplane Defense Logic Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/18/2020 6:35:31 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1412
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
I would like to make a suggestion.

First, I'm not a pilot, but I've been playing this game, and Harpoon before it since its inception, and I even go all the way back to the board version back in 1982-3 (I think), so I do have a little gaming knowledge about the topic. I don't use TacView, and I have no desire to fly my plane around on my computer screen. (Nothing against those who do.) In fact, I liked what CMANO did just fine, even though I do like the new enhancements of CMO.

My suggestion and the set up: Four planes have just delivered their ordinance and are heading home. Let's call them Flights A-D. An I-Hawk starts shooting two SAMs in their general direction. Obviously, the planes do not know which plane is targeted, so they all begin their standard turn back toward the SAM maneuver. Well, within a very short period of time I can see which of the planes the missiles are headed for. Let's say that it's Flight C. What I think should happen is that if I can see it, then the computer's AI should be able to see it as well. So, I would like to see Flights A, B, and D (the other planes) then turn back toward the course toward THEIR base and hit the afterburner. They can't do anything to help Flight C anyway. Whether the SAMs hit Flight C or not is irrelevant. By the time that the I-Hawk can shoot again, the others are that much further away, and the odds of their destruction bu a subsequent shot have been significantly reduced. Sticking around, and making the same maneuvers that Flight C is doing merely keeps the other planes in the danger zone longer.

It's just a thought, but I think that it would reduce some of those subsequent "corkscrew deaths" that seem to occur more often than they should.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 61
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/18/2020 6:51:14 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1412
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
LargeDiameterBomb, Chickensim, and Dimitris (and a few others) all came up with some really greatsuggestions. Some probably overlap a little bit. All seem to tackle exactly what is needed to be done.

One thing that might make the game even more fun is if a group of options were available to the computer opponent, that then randomly chooses which evasive action that it will take for each individual attack.

In the movie Top Gun, "Iceman" was always the perfect tactician, always choosing exactly what he had been trained to do. In essence, that's what the game does. It ALWAYs selects the same evasion technique. But, of you recall, "Maverick" rarely did exactly what he had been trained to do. He was very unpredictable. Both pilots were highly effective.

So, perhaps the game could be programmed so that 80 percent of the time (or so), our pilot making defensive maneuvers does exactly what the book says to do, and 20 percent of the time he chooses something else.

Again, it's just a thought, but it might make the game a little bit more fun to play. (If nothing else, I'm just brainstorming here. Who knows how possible/difficult any of this would actually be to program? <lol>

Doug

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 62
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/18/2020 11:36:12 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1194
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

In the movie Top Gun, "Iceman" was always the perfect tactician, always choosing exactly what he had been trained to do. In essence, that's what the game does. It ALWAYs selects the same evasion technique. But, of you recall, "Maverick" rarely did exactly what he had been trained to do. He was very unpredictable. Both pilots were highly effective.


On yeah.. because Top Gun is the best source on tactics!

Seriously, though, the most accurate answer for how an aircraft would evade a threat SAM would depend highly on the threat encountered, the energy state of the aircraft, its distance from the threat, and all types of available ECM. Also, there's probably some threats out there which are so evil that the best thing to do is just destroy it before it destroys you (with cruise or ballistic missiles for example), because there's probably not a lot that can be done to reliably defeat the weapon by the time a pilot knows about it. As a pop up threat, the evasion tactic for SAMs like that is to pull the handle and enjoy the hospitality of one's captors.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 63
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/19/2020 12:33:08 AM   
ChickenSim

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 12/7/2016
Status: offline
SeaQueen, I think we're on the same page as far as the scope of CMO goes. I don't want it to be a flight simulator either, and I think trying to scope-creep beyond the M in DIME is probably a mistake - those things can provide context for scenario creation but ought not have mechanics in play.

I agree that someone in the JFACC's chair isn't going to tell each flight how they ought to dodge SAMs (beyond perhaps guidance for things like hard decks and setting the acceptable level of risk (ALR), which may dictate tactics). In the real world, that's because they can trust the pilots to make the best decisions while coloring inside the lines as best they can. In CMO, we can't. So I think it's reasonable that we be able to set our own rules to help ensure our AI jets are coloring inside the lines we draw.

And while I agree that the TOPGUN movie isn't the best source on tactics, I do like DWReese's idea that sometimes the pilots mess up or don't make the best decisions, and perhaps this is something side/pilot skill can contribute to in cases not covered by doctrine settings.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 64
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/19/2020 12:59:06 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1412
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
As I'm sure that you actually know, the "Top Gun" reference wasn't made with the intention of discussing the reality of the movie. If that is what you gathered from it, then I missed my own point.

My point was that there are two different pilots represented in the film, each good, but they are polar opposites when it came to their methodology. I'm sure that those types of personalities really do exist, regardless of all of the training that they have had.

So, if that's the case, then it would be nice to not have every pilot in our game ALWAYS take the same exact evasive action maneuver every time. Change it up a little bit. Randomize some of the evasive options. That's all that I am suggesting.

Otherwise, multiple planes ALL taking the same evasive action at the same time starts to resemble synchronized swimming. <lol>

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 65
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/19/2020 10:29:07 AM   
c3k

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/25/2017
Status: offline
Pilots are trained to use DIFFERENT evasion maneuvers based on the circumstances.

A LOT of the tactics depend on identifying the threat. That identification can be done via RWR/DECM/OECM or intel. The other basis, and a critical one in the moment, is to VISUALLY ACQUIRE the launch and the missile. Luckily, missile launches are very energetic and kick up large plumes of dust and smoke. The exhaust is very bright and leaves a nice trail. (Assuming there's no cloud deck in the way.)

If the missile is staying between the pilot and the launcher, that means it's one type of guidance.
If the missile is staying on a constant location in the canopy despite maneuvering, that means it's another type of guidance.

The optimal maneuver would change based on what the pilot sees the missile doing.

Beaming towards the launcher every time a missile launches is sub-optimal.

Different evasive maneuvers would enhance the game, significantly.

If, at an operational level, my squadrons continuously misapplied tactics, I would not let them near SAMs. I'd fire the squadron commander, stand them down, retrain them, and then reintroduce them to combat. ;)

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 66
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/19/2020 11:47:05 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1412
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
"Different evasive maneuvers would enhance the game, significantly."

I was really hoping that you would lend your insight and expertise to this topic.

Thanks.



< Message edited by DWReese -- 1/19/2020 2:21:38 PM >

(in reply to c3k)
Post #: 67
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/19/2020 12:24:36 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1194
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChickenSim
I agree that someone in the JFACC's chair isn't going to tell each flight how they ought to dodge SAMs (beyond perhaps guidance for things like hard decks and setting the acceptable level of risk (ALR), which may dictate tactics). In the real world, that's because they can trust the pilots to make the best decisions while coloring inside the lines as best they can. In CMO, we can't. So I think it's reasonable that we be able to set our own rules to help ensure our AI jets are coloring inside the lines we draw.


The only drawback I see to that approach is that it adds a little bit more to the already daunting, "too many hats" problem, which continuously draws Command down further into the tactical level. While not making it a flight simulator, it's just one more knob to turn. That, and it'd add to D's already considerable stress issues, by making him add YET ANOTHER button.

quote:


And while I agree that the TOPGUN movie isn't the best source on tactics, I do like DWReese's idea that sometimes the pilots mess up or don't make the best decisions, and perhaps this is something side/pilot skill can contribute to in cases not covered by doctrine settings.


This is something which makes great sense as a game, and less sense as a tool. I worry that as time progresses the tension between the entertainment Command and C:PE might increase. As a gamer, you want unexpected twists and odd turn arounds. Unpredictability is part of what makes it fun. As an analyst, though, you're looking for control because you want to understand how tactics and technology interact, so unanticipated randomness is a frustrating source of noise in the data. To me, this is the sort of thing which if you want to randomize it, you could just write a LUA script to do it at scenario load or whenever. Of course, nobody likes to be told, "write a computer program inside your computer program," but that's also a reflection of the tension between advanced users and casual users.

(in reply to ChickenSim)
Post #: 68
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/19/2020 1:10:51 PM   
LargeDiameterBomb

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 3/3/2019
Status: offline
I find DWReese's further suggestions to have been sound and reasonable. A variation in behavior among pilots would also make the game more intersting for me as well.

That said, none of what I wrote should be taken as a complaint that the developer's are not doing enough in enhancing this game. The advancements made have been beyond my wildest expectations when i first bought the game five years ago and the advancements are continuing apace.

And for everybody's information, i have never played a combat-oriented flight sim and about 200 hours in a purely civilian sim that i stopped playing years ago because I found it boring. I have however read a decent amount of material on military technology. combat pilot's memoirs, commander's memoirs and some material concerning doctrine with regards to the larger powers of the last 50 years.

Mu suggestions here comes purely from a desire to make the game more realistic or to word it in another way, avoiding the most unrealistic instances of unit behavior - whether that's done at an abstract level (Missile endgame calculations) or at a more concrete level (aircraft maneuvering in this case) is not of any special interest to me.

And I think my way of looking at things is colored not by flight simming but more by that I primarily like to play small to medium scenarios (which make up the bulk of the standalone scenarios that is included with the game as well as a decent amount of the expansion scenarios).

And I'd also like to point out that there is no inherent property in CMANO/CMO that gives that it should work best with large to very large scenarios (50-200 aircraft) - that's ultimately up to the developer's to decide with regards to their long-time vision of what CMO should become as well as financial considerations (Ie what the customers are willing to pay for).

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 69
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/19/2020 1:51:10 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1194
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

And I'd also like to point out that there is no inherent property in CMANO/CMO that gives that it should work best with large to very large scenarios (50-200 aircraft).


That's not large, dude. That's one strike. To put things in perspective, the strike against H2 in Desert Storm involved ~70 aircraft, and struck probably over 100 DMPIs including fuel storage, runways, aircraft on the ground, chemical weapons storage, SCUD support facilities, AAA sites, SAM sites, and C2 facilities. They were all an integrated part of a single raid against one air base complex.

I think part of what's at work here is a difference in perception regarding what "small" is between people with experience and without experience in what a real air battle might look like. Think about it, a CVW has ~50 combat aircraft, and in the real world if you've got sorties you're flying. There's no parceling out aircraft ad hoc, unless you're talking about missions like TST CAP, or strip alert and even that's planned and has aircraft apportioned for it. You don't sit around and wait, you get out there and kill them! The level of violence and aggression is way beyond what you guys are thinking about. With that in mind, a single USAF fighter squadron is ~24 aircraft. A composite air wing is going to be in the 50-200 range easy. That's just at one airport! Big scenarios are in the 500-1000 aircraft range. That's frickin' huge!

70... 100... that's actually in the sweet spot for Command.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 1/19/2020 2:06:50 PM >

(in reply to LargeDiameterBomb)
Post #: 70
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/19/2020 3:11:26 PM   
serjames

 

Posts: 193
Joined: 2/21/2016
Status: offline
Why don't we allow the Dev's to decide what they think would be valuable to add to the game based on the suggestions made?

Rather than criticise the way that others perceive "their" game and the way it's played.

Some reasonable suggestions have been made following frustrating experiences during play. If you don't experience that frustration, bully for you. But I'm starting to get a little frustrated reading passive aggressive put downs or subtle inferences that people are in some way playing the game "wrong". I'm not pointing at anyone in particular btw... It's just this seems to be a common occurance in threads with more than 6 answers... We all paid good money to play. We each have as much right as the next player to leave our feedback. Finally. Not once have I seen anyone Complain, or aggressively attack the devs. We all know and respect the work that goes into the game.

< Message edited by serjames -- 1/19/2020 3:39:11 PM >

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 71
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/19/2020 3:40:51 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4760
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Do you really think we thought we made the decision?. But I just want to make sure there is a counterpoint.

(in reply to serjames)
Post #: 72
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/19/2020 4:16:47 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1194
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: serjames
Why don't we allow the Dev's to decide what they think would be valuable to add to the game based on the suggestions made?


I am not the decision maker here. We're having a healthy debate about what might be useful to us in some future version that might not ever happen.

quote:


Rather than criticise the way that others perceive "their" game and the way it's played.


One should not take what I have to say personally. I have much thicker skin than many people, so I don't feel the same things others sometimes do. If people feel as though I'm attacking them personally, I apologize. That is not my intent.

quote:


Not once have I seen anyone Complain, or aggressively attack the devs. We all know and respect the work that goes into the game.


Right on. Don't worry, we can call the guys "dumbasses" elsewhere. ;-)


(in reply to serjames)
Post #: 73
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/20/2020 12:24:55 AM   
LargeDiameterBomb

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 3/3/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

quote:

And I'd also like to point out that there is no inherent property in CMANO/CMO that gives that it should work best with large to very large scenarios (50-200 aircraft).


That's not large, dude. That's one strike. To put things in perspective, the strike against H2 in Desert Storm involved ~70 aircraft, and struck probably over 100 DMPIs including fuel storage, runways, aircraft on the ground, chemical weapons storage, SCUD support facilities, AAA sites, SAM sites, and C2 facilities. They were all an integrated part of a single raid against one air base complex.

I think part of what's at work here is a difference in perception regarding what "small" is between people with experience and without experience in what a real air battle might look like. Think about it, a CVW has ~50 combat aircraft, and in the real world if you've got sorties you're flying. There's no parceling out aircraft ad hoc, unless you're talking about missions like TST CAP, or strip alert and even that's planned and has aircraft apportioned for it. You don't sit around and wait, you get out there and kill them! The level of violence and aggression is way beyond what you guys are thinking about. With that in mind, a single USAF fighter squadron is ~24 aircraft. A composite air wing is going to be in the 50-200 range easy. That's just at one airport! Big scenarios are in the 500-1000 aircraft range. That's frickin' huge!

70... 100... that's actually in the sweet spot for Command.


This is getting off topic but I'll give one quick reply on this subject.

First, I just used those exact numbers (50-200) since you mentioned them in a previous post and I'd probably agree that a scenario involving 50 aircraft could justly be described as either medium or large.

My premise here is that I look at existing scenarios involving aircraft as a significant part of the forces at hand for completing the given mission (Even if it's only six ASW helicopters stationed on some ships where ASW is an important part of the scenario) and classify the scenarios as belonging to one of five size classes with the same amount of scenarios in each size class: very small, small, medium, large, very large.

Maybe you have another definition, but I'd at least argue that any definition of the size of a scenario would have to be relative, ie it would have to take into consideration how many aircraft (Which almost always make up the bulk of units that can apply combat power in a scenario, except for very small scenarios) other scenarios that presently exists involve, to be meaningful.
Therefore how large real air strikes or campaigns have been is of quite small importance, even though I overall agree with your points there. Remember we (Or at least I) were talking about scenarios in CMANO/CMO, not real air battles.

A scenario with for instance 400 aircraft must belong to something along the line of the top 3 percent of scenarios in terms of size. Given that a large scenario in your opinion would refer to scenarios with 100-500 aircraft, it's my opinion that a term like very large (In other words a term describing scenarios that involve more aircraft than just large scenarios) would lose almost all of it's meaning.

Anyway, this seems like an unnecessary sidetrack and my main point was just that thewood1's and your contention that this discussion was happening because of giving flight simmers what they wanted sometime back in the past was wrong. I could easily have written this OP just as DWReese did and I can in no way be described as a flight simmer.

< Message edited by LargeDiameterBomb -- 1/20/2020 12:33:59 AM >

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 74
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/21/2020 2:57:00 PM   
c3k

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/25/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

"Different evasive maneuvers would enhance the game, significantly."

I was really hoping that you would lend your insight and expertise to this topic.

Thanks.




I cannot tell if you're being sarcastic, but it certainly seems so. I'll take my 28 years as a USAF pilot and let you figure it out.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 75
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/21/2020 4:07:05 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1412
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
No, I'm quite serious.

As I said before, I sincerely appreciate your insight. I believe that an addition like this, with some sort of randomization to a variety of evasive techniques, would be great for the game. Like I said, watching all four of my planes always turn to the right and peel back toward the SAM resembles some kind of synchronized swimming maneuver. (And, I'm no fan of synchronized swimming.)

(in reply to c3k)
Post #: 76
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/21/2020 8:48:38 PM   
LargeDiameterBomb

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 3/3/2019
Status: offline
C3k.

first, there's more airforces than the USAF, not all as well-trained as the USAF and some of them not well-trained in any sense of the word.
The novice setting in CMO is in my mind meant, at the very most, to represent a pilot who has just been assigned to a combat squadron out of the Iraqi air force academy (Or whatever equivalent institution existed there at that time) in 1994. Such a pilot might very well panic and do outright stupid things when seeing a missile coming straight at him, or simply lack the will to fight and just eject prematurely if over friendly territory. Even a pilot with a cadet setting, going by the name of the setting only, might very well not make the best decision when under high stress.

Second, other smaller air forces might have different doctrine for dealing with some missile threats even though I haven't found anything different in my admittedly quite sparse reading about doctrine among the main powers of the cold war.

Third, as you certainly know optimal defensive tactics depend on utilizing your aircraft's strengths and the threat's (Weather an §AM, AAM or enemy aircarft) weaknesses.
I doubt SR-71 Blackbird pilots dove and started to maneuver when detecting a launch from a SA-2d or SA-2f missile battery, or to put it more forcefully: I know they didn't, even though i freely admit that's an extreme case (I however in no way doubt that you know a lot more about USAF & Threat doctrine, ACM and a host of other combat piloting-related topics than i do).

So I don't find DWReese's suggestion as absurd as you do, primarily for the first and third reasons.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 77
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/22/2020 1:31:42 AM   
c3k

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/25/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeDiameterBomb

C3k.

first, there's more airforces than the USAF, not all as well-trained as the USAF and some of them not well-trained in any sense of the word.
The novice setting in CMO is in my mind meant, at the very most, to represent a pilot who has just been assigned to a combat squadron out of the Iraqi air force academy (Or whatever equivalent institution existed there at that time) in 1994. Such a pilot might very well panic and do outright stupid things when seeing a missile coming straight at him, or simply lack the will to fight and just eject prematurely if over friendly territory. Even a pilot with a cadet setting, going by the name of the setting only, might very well not make the best decision when under high stress.

Second, other smaller air forces might have different doctrine for dealing with some missile threats even though I haven't found anything different in my admittedly quite sparse reading about doctrine among the main powers of the cold war.

Third, as you certainly know optimal defensive tactics depend on utilizing your aircraft's strengths and the threat's (Weather an §AM, AAM or enemy aircarft) weaknesses.
I doubt SR-71 Blackbird pilots dove and started to maneuver when detecting a launch from a SA-2d or SA-2f missile battery, or to put it more forcefully: I know they didn't, even though i freely admit that's an extreme case (I however in no way doubt that you know a lot more about USAF & Threat doctrine, ACM and a host of other combat piloting-related topics than i do).

So I don't find DWReese's suggestion as absurd as you do, primarily for the first and third reasons.


First, let me address the part I bolded, in your last sentence. I have NO friggin' clue where you thought that I considered any of DWReeses suggestions absurd.

I would like you to re-read my posts and show me where I came across, implicitly or explicitly, holding such a stance.

You have seriously mis-read or misunderstood something.

(in reply to LargeDiameterBomb)
Post #: 78
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/22/2020 1:32:25 AM   
c3k

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/25/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

No, I'm quite serious.

As I said before, I sincerely appreciate your insight. I believe that an addition like this, with some sort of randomization to a variety of evasive techniques, would be great for the game. Like I said, watching all four of my planes always turn to the right and peel back toward the SAM resembles some kind of synchronized swimming maneuver. (And, I'm no fan of synchronized swimming.)


Thank you for clarifying.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 79
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/22/2020 3:30:18 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1194
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

If, at an operational level, my squadrons continuously misapplied tactics, I would not let them near SAMs. I'd fire the squadron commander, stand them down, retrain them, and then reintroduce them to combat. ;)


Maybe what we really need is a "Fire Subordinates," button which reshuffles the OODA values among the various units under one's control?

(in reply to c3k)
Post #: 80
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 1/22/2020 3:31:33 PM   
LargeDiameterBomb

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 3/3/2019
Status: offline
C3k,

your post answering CWReese just seemed very flippant at first look and I missed your earlier post here, or rather I thought Chickensim wrote it.

For me it was perfectly obvious that DWReese was being serious and you starting your post by asking if he was sarcastic seemed (Out of the context of your earlier post) like you thinking his opinion was so crazy that it didn't even merit a serious reply, especially when you mentioned being a pilot for 28 years.

Now when I saw that it was you who had written that earlier post everything falls into place though.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

< Message edited by LargeDiameterBomb -- 1/22/2020 9:51:01 PM >

(in reply to c3k)
Post #: 81
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 2/17/2020 4:40:36 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1412
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
I know that you are busy, and I am not complaining, but when you get a chance can you look into the Airplane Defense Logic thing again? We (you/everyone) had some suggestions that I think would really improve play within the game.

I was just playing Broken Shield. I was well on my way to a complete, absolute, and total Israeli victory when two of my F-35s went downtown Damascus to take out the HQ. Suddenly, a lowly SA-3 emerged. The SA-3 has a 1 percent chance of killing my F-35s. But, my F-35s start evading, going into the old "spiral of death" corkscrew routine, where they continue to turn INTO (toward) the shooter. So, instead of being very safe on the outskirts of town, but F-35s in up right in the middle of the city with SAM shooters everywhere. Both eventually get shot down.

I know that we can turn off automatic evasion, but it would be so much better if you could apply some of your wizardry and come up with a workable solution to eliminate the "spiral of death" issue once and forever.

(BTW, the pilots ejected in downtown Damascus, so there was no chance to rescue them. I would hate to be them.)

Thanks.

Keep up the great work.

< Message edited by DWReese -- 2/17/2020 11:57:46 AM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 82
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 2/21/2020 5:38:43 PM   
ARCNA442

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline
One easy addition I would like to see made is a "min altitude when evading" doctrine setting. A few times I've had planes attempt to evade a fairly non-threatening radar SAM by diving down into a mess of extremely dangerous IR SAMs and AAA. And setting min altitudes is a very common real-world tactic to avoid precisely this situation.

Personally, I feel like the more doctrine settings we have the better. They do a great job allowing you to customize your force's reactions without having to manually micromanage everything.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 83
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 2/21/2020 6:46:45 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1412
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
The altitude issue is another great point. Not all defense settings are the same for the attacking planes each time. Often it is necessary to go low, and at other times (as you pointed out), it is better to remain high. Having some adjustable parameters available in the doctrine would be a great way to avoid various threats.


(in reply to ARCNA442)
Post #: 84
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 2/23/2020 12:34:51 AM   
Frostitute

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 2/11/2020
Status: offline
So the problem isn't actually a mistake by the airplanes, its an error in missile code. Pilots will indeed turn 90 degrees to the threat as it poses the greatest problem to the missile. Its helpful that it becomes difficult for pulse doppler radars but the more important aspect here is that the closer to 90 degrees the aircraft is, the more the missile will perceive the aircraft's change in direction thus making it easier to pull ahead of the seeker. The problem here is that the missile flies towards the aircraft's current location making it end up somewhat behind the aircraft. Thus the aircraft keeps it at 90 degrees, and the result is that the defender flies towards the threat. In the real world the missile will fly a straight line towards the point at which the missile meets the aircraft for the shortest distance (surprisingly easy to calculate with basic analogue systems) and so there is no turning effect, and the pilots will often keep 90 degrees from the threat site because it is so close to the missiles direction that there is little problem.

This is not to be confused with other techniques mentioned in other posts here. There are a number of specific techniques to evade specific missiles or specific ranges - for instance flying away or at an angle greater than 90 degrees might be used as a suboptimal technique where gaining distance is more important, or it might be used when a straight line away puts the aircraft out of range of the threat anyway. Other techniques like flying towards the missile and diving it into the ground are also interesting but not particularly relevant at this point. The generic missile evasion technique any time you don't have a specific instance and technique to use would simply be flying 90 degrees from the missile, manoeuvring in the vertical to bleed missile energy if you have time, and then remaining with the missile at 90 degrees as you pull hard in the hopes that the missile either runs out of energy and can't follow or that the seeker can't follow. In this way the aircraft are following a fairly accurate defence to an inaccurate missile trajectory.

If I were to make a suggestion, it would be firstly to fix the missile guidance logic even if the guidance check is only done occasionally at longer distances to make sure the game isn't dragged down too much. One could even apply this as a feature with datalinked missiles only occasionally altering course as per the datalink updates. Then the aircraft could run a calculation to see if a turn and burn would get them out of the missiles range or not. Mentioned earlier was a point about not knowing where the missile is and who it is from - if an aircraft has an RWR then the majority of attacks particularly predating active missiles will be known both the type of the attack and a rough/accurate location of the missile depending on if the defender has spotted the missile or knows the SAM site location. If these aren't met (no RWR, IR missile etc) then default to the standard defence tactics. With an accurate missile model other techniques could be included such as attempting to burn missile energy though frankly I'm not sure much more needs to be added beyond just dive and beam for a reasonably good tactical simulation.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 85
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 2/23/2020 1:34:50 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1412
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
If you read from the beginning of the thread then you would see that an annoying tactic that the plane does it continue to turn back toward the SAMs shooting at it. So, a plane that was at 10 miles out and flying away, will begin turning, and then turning again, and then turning again, and before long it finds itself 4 miles out because it keeps getting closer to the SAM, not further away.

Turning off the Automatic Evasion will get the plane out of harm's way sooner, but will also subject it to little defensive moves.

Hence, the need to come up with a method of continuing to move away from danger, but still maintaining some kind of defensive posture. Some really good ideas came out of this discussion.

Altitude was also mentioned. Often, these planes begin diving down in areas to escape high-flying SAMs, only to find themselves now be shot at by AA guns and low-firing SAMs.

So, it would be nice if the planes took a somewhat less-predictable, and more efficient, method to flee from danger.

The devs will come up with something.

(in reply to Frostitute)
Post #: 86
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 2/23/2020 8:14:23 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7550
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
This is one of my pet peeves too.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 87
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 2/23/2020 12:35:55 PM   
LargeDiameterBomb

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 3/3/2019
Status: offline
I had an Idea after I wrote that long IF-THEN post with some other comments a while back in this thread. In that comment, I touched on the subject that it is unfortunate that DECM systems doesn't work in the same way as OECM systems, in other words like a jammer capable of jamming one or perhaps a couple of emitters (Depending primarily on how modern the DECM system is but also on crew size and thus pilot load, where a two person crew, one of them being a WSO/CSO/RIO might be able to jam more emitters) with a low jamming power that just might break lock for SARH SAMs in the same way a OECM system on an aircraft X is able to do so if turned on when a hostile fighter Y, using it's onboard radar for illumination, has just launched a SARH AAM at aircraft X just after the radar has gotten within range to be able to successfully lluminate the target.

I understand this would take a lot of developmental resources to implement though, but I have an idea that might be much easier to implement. In the missile endgame calculations, an aircraft that has a DECM system automatically lowers the chance of a missile hitting the aircraft, how much depending on the difference in "tech level" between the DECM system and the SARH seeker. Let's say a very modern DECM system is coming up against an old SARH SAM system, which would probably give the missile a 35 % penalty to it's chance to hit.


But what if that calculation was performed not in the endgame, but instead a few seconds after the launch has been noticed by the targeted aircraft and the pilot/WSO activates the DECM system (Here the already implemented concept of the OODA loop for automatic missile evasion might come in handy)?
So, if the penalty to the missile hitting would be 35 %, a "roll of the dice" would then happen when the DECM system is "activated" and if it comes up 35 or lower, the DECM system/self protection jammer is considered to have broken lock and the launched missile will disappear in 1-2 seconds, which represents the missile veering strongly off course.

How to do with ARH missiles dependant on mid-point updates is another thing, but I have some ideas there too, but let's leave that aside for now.

I don't know if this idea alone will solve the problem DWReese has brought to our attention, but together with a doctrinal choice to primarily dive and run from a missile while taking evasive action only at the last second if the missile comes very close to the aircraft (Whatever that means), it might make old SAM systems at least less likely to become these "fly traps" because when lock is breaked, the aircraft is already running away instead of beaming and keeping a constant distance to the SAM system.

Also, this seems like something that could be implemented relatively easily (Please notice that I said relatively ).


---------------------------


Also, this is just a guess on my part and I do not in any way claim any definitive knowledge here, but it seems like very modern DECM systems, like late 2010 ones gives too small a penalty to a missile, equipped with a very early seeker, chance's to hit. ECCM was, as I understand it, almost an unknown concept, at least in field use, in the 1960s, since ECM was just starting to appear.

To exemplify, when a F/A-18E with a AN/ALQ-214(V)4 self protection jammer is being attacked by a SA-3b missile with an early 1960s SARH seeker, I would guess that the penalty should be more than the present 35 %, which I think is the most severe penalty I have noticed in game. I have gotten the impression that jamming systems of late has become much more effective, because of what I guess is an exponential increase in computational power and cumulative advances in solid state electronic performance in general. Of course, this is not something I as a civilian can find any hard data on.

With an even bigger chance of breaking lock with a state of the art jammer vs an old seeker the solution outlined above would become even more effective.

Can anybody with some specialist knowledge on this give any comment, without saying too much? Maybe c3k for instance, your input and opinion would be very much appreciated.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 88
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 2/23/2020 1:03:00 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1412
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
I kind of like your "simplistic" approach as a potential solution. It would, of course, need lots of testing, but it sure seems simple enough and would, at the very least, offer up some relief to this situation.

(in reply to LargeDiameterBomb)
Post #: 89
RE: Airplane Defense Logic - 2/24/2020 4:00:59 AM   
LargeDiameterBomb

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 3/3/2019
Status: offline
Thanks for your feedback. Glad to hear that you think the idea is of some value.

I think this idea has it's strength primarily in that it would be relatively easy to implement.

In the best of worlds, it would work quite nicely.

Instead of an engagement between a F/A-18E from 2018 and a paltry SA-3b leading to certain death,
the jet would immediately turn and start to dive and run (and since it is already diving it doesn't have to turn into the missile before the missile comes within maybe 2 nm of the aircraft). A third of the time the missile would also "just disappear" and the jet would have a substantially longer time to run, and when the next missile is fired after the first missile "just disappeared" the jet is also also from the start pointing roughly away from the SAM site and is also already at or close to maximum speed, while if it first had avoided a missile by defensive maneuvering it would first have to turn approx 120-150 degrees and then accelerate to it's maximum speed after coming out unscathed from the missile endgame maneuvering.

But as you say, of course it will have to be tested, but considering the things above I think there is a chance that that 1/3 or 1/4 of the time that the missile "just disappears" gives the jet a fair chance to eventually get outside the firing envelope of older SARH SAMs.


-----------------------------


Also, a note on my thoughts on jammers in the previous post. I know many users strongly dislikes when other users say that so and so equipment "seems" to be less effective in CMANO than it is in the real world without providing hard data. I said I was guessing, but anyway, let me expand my thoughts a little before you group me with the grug-brains.

I think a good case can be made for that a late 2010 level DECM systems should be having a higher chance to break lock on a missile from the early 60s than 35 % or at least that the difference between the penalty a missile incurs should be much bigger between a late 2010 DECM system and an early 1960s seeker vs the same jammer and a missile with a late 1980s seeker, even if we have no data to go by.
Now the penalty on chance to hit that a missile accrues due to the difference in tech level between seeker and DECM system in CMO now seems to be linear (I am not 100 % sure on this though), but to me it intuitively seems like it instead should be exponential.

The reason for this is that when technology is dependent on computational power, there is a kind of threshold effect, so when a large enough amount of computational power suddenly becomes available old theoretical concepts that have already been formulated can almost instantly be translated into technology.
This is the same phenomenon we see with AI today, where AI research was for a long time, during the 80s and 90s, in a "winter" where almost no progress seemed to be made, but once a threshold was passed, especially in 2010 when a paper was published that showed that a common graphics card could replace 10 ordinary CPUs in certain AI applications (Machine learning) with the same performance, theoretical concepts that were before impossible to get to work in practice suddenly went from being fiction to reality and as a result for instance machine vision has seen an explosion in performance and the same could be said for machine translation or conversational AI and a host of other technologies that have been enabled by the leap in available computational power during the 2010s, even though the theoretical concepts used are to a large extent from the so called winter of AI where little progress was made and many scientists became quite pessimistic about the whole field.

I think the same type of case could be made for many types of military technology, but especially electronic warfare, for instance jammers, where technologies such as DRFM and the type of jammers that technology enable. DRFM, which was first described as a theoretical concept in the mid-1970s if i remember correctly, was a kind of technological threshold that was overcome precisely by the availability of large amounts of fast computational power and which enables new jamming tactics that were only theoretical concepts a couple of decades back, and which some people in the know today vaguely seems to regard as a real threat even against early/mid versions of the AMRAAM - so I think it's fair to say that the effect on a 1960s seeker would probably be much more forceful.

But this is probably not the right place to further discuss this subject anymore since the thread has been moved to tech support.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> RE: Airplane Defense Logic Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
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

0.172