Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios?

 
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 >> What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic ra... - 2/26/2021 2:35:25 PM   
ai_beyondcontrol

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 1/31/2020
Status: offline
In current DB3K databank, some vessels (e.g. those from US) has a Link 11 and a Link 14 datalink, while some others (e.g. those from China or Russia) only has UHF/VHF/HF radios. But despite the impressive range of Link 11/14 (typically ~300 nm), I wonder what's the key difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? Is there any specific task that can only be fulfilled by Link 11/14? And how will the lack of these links affect the combat effectiveness of those vessels without them?

< Message edited by ai_beyondcontrol -- 2/26/2021 2:38:31 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 2/26/2021 3:48:52 PM   
fire-fox

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 1/12/2020
Status: offline
IRL see the following for Link 1 - 22
https://www.anmb.ro/buletinstiintific/buletine/2016_Issue2/MES/317-322.pdf

and http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp2/1980s_adlips_link.html specificly link11-14

< Message edited by fire-fox -- 2/26/2021 3:50:51 PM >

(in reply to ai_beyondcontrol)
Post #: 2
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 2/28/2021 10:48:17 AM   
Parel803

 

Posts: 417
Joined: 10/10/2019
From: Netherlands
Status: offline
Good afternoon,
The range of your link depends on the Freq is operating on and with that all the pros and cons of those RF radios and frequencies, or other means of getting your info across. The amount and type of info differs greatly between the link systems, newer systems have faster data transfer and more data fields. Newer link has better protection against jamming and other interference from advisaries.
with regards GJ

(in reply to fire-fox)
Post #: 3
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/6/2021 3:17:47 AM   
Muhammad.Tufail

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/4/2021
From: Pakistan
Status: offline
I have the same question, the communication simulation is not perfect in CMANO.

_____________________________

Study war to stop the wars

(in reply to Parel803)
Post #: 4
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/6/2021 2:32:54 PM   
Rory Noonan

 

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline
There's no practical difference at the moment. More news on that front... soon

_____________________________


(in reply to Muhammad.Tufail)
Post #: 5
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/6/2021 4:42:01 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1364
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muhammad.Tufail

I have the same question, the communication simulation is not perfect in CMANO.


Man you should see what life is like

Mike

(in reply to Muhammad.Tufail)
Post #: 6
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/6/2021 8:53:38 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13042
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Muhammad.Tufail
I have the same question, the communication simulation is not perfect in CMANO.


It's good enough for an entertainment product.

For no-kidding higher fidelity needs, there are other solutions, with Command-PE being a part of them.



< Message edited by Dimitris -- 7/6/2021 8:54:44 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Muhammad.Tufail)
Post #: 7
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/19/2021 12:17:44 AM   
Muhammad.Tufail

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/4/2021
From: Pakistan
Status: offline
Data links are based on generic radios, they have more messages and protocols for network management, command, control, intelligence etc.
I think, all above not simulated in COMMAND.

_____________________________

Study war to stop the wars

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 8
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/19/2021 6:09:17 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9448
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
I think (not sure) that they are going to implement resistance for Comms Jamming, better the communication link, harder to jam.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Muhammad.Tufail)
Post #: 9
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/26/2021 12:52:52 AM   
TBLackey

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 4/8/2021
Status: offline

That, and providing tracking for another weapons platform ought to require both platforms to have the same datalink.

As I understand it, in CMO a small surface combatant with air search radar and generic radio can provide tracking to fighter aircraft 50 nm miles away. Is the weapons officer barking position, altitude and heading to a fighter pilot as fast as he can talk?

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 10
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/26/2021 11:53:27 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6005
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
"a small surface combatant with air search radar and generic radio can provide tracking to fighter aircraft 50 nm miles away"

Only if you don't use comm isolation in some form.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to TBLackey)
Post #: 11
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/26/2021 6:32:28 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5215
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

Is the weapons officer barking position, altitude and heading to a fighter pilot as fast as he can talk?


Probably. Close Air Support in the days before datalinks was not much better than reading the pilot on from an identifiable point on the ground and hoping ... Using an air search radar would be...'luxury'

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to TBLackey)
Post #: 12
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/27/2021 11:05:29 AM   
AKar

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 3/18/2018
Status: offline
Regarding the communications simulation in general, in my opinion, inclusion of more communication restrictions would alter the scope of CMO more than enough to warrant major changes to AI system and mission planning features. Essentially, it would change the game into something different.

As I see it, using units to their fullest potential usually requires player to take certain action that would, in reality, be taken at the unit level, by individual pilots for example. For this to make sense, the player must also be able to have the full situational awareness of those individual units, whereas in reality very little of this would be shared with high command level (aside latest developments on sensor fusion and datalinks). And I feel this ability/necessity to micromanage is a part of the game, not a limitation.

Now, for instance with Realistic Submarine Communications enabled, I am basically incapable of using these units to the fullest. At least I can't chain commands and missions that well for the AI to do any more... discretionary missions without me micromanaging every now and then. That's why I don't like this setting in most scenarios, except where it specifically makes sense with submarines being limited to very specific tasks, mostly correlating well with available mission types.

In other words, I feel that if more of features such as Realistic Submarine Communications get included and systematically enabled in the scenarios, this would shift the focus of CMO as a game towards being a "theatre commander simulator". And for this to work reasonably, I think the AI system would require very much of work to be able to reconfigure the AI units that I can't micromanage anymore to make human-like decisions on their own.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 13
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/27/2021 11:32:21 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6005
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I use the comms isolation and side switching a lot in my personal scenarios. The main impact is the amount of detailed planning you have to do up front either in the scenario editor or prior to hitting start. There is a lot of general command and mission building that has to happen. I also work in a lot of what I call "awaiting orders" events. I sometimes use special actions, events, and triggers to let me, as the player, interrupt a unit and give new orders. For example, I'll have a few points on a sub's path where I can hit a button and force the sub to periscope depth for an update and new orders. I produce multiple missions and activate and deactivate them based on similar triggers. I switch unit sides from player to friendly based on the comms environment. I have even played around with detection of comms through events and lua.

I play most scenarios with less than 500 units so its somewhat manageable. In larger scenarios, you can use some of the above tricks also, but it starts to become like real work to manage both building and playing. The short of it is that you can do almost anything if you put your mind to it. As far as the AI goes, you can relatively easily compensate through the detailed planning process. JUst give the human some ability for input at critical times and events.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to AKar)
Post #: 14
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/27/2021 1:24:12 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5215
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I use the comms isolation and side switching a lot in my personal scenarios. The main impact is the amount of detailed planning you have to do up front either in the scenario editor or prior to hitting start. There is a lot of general command and mission building that has to happen. I also work in a lot of what I call "awaiting orders" events. I sometimes use special actions, events, and triggers to let me, as the player, interrupt a unit and give new orders. For example, I'll have a few points on a sub's path where I can hit a button and force the sub to periscope depth for an update and new orders. I produce multiple missions and activate and deactivate them based on similar triggers. I switch unit sides from player to friendly based on the comms environment. I have even played around with detection of comms through events and lua.

I play most scenarios with less than 500 units so its somewhat manageable. In larger scenarios, you can use some of the above tricks also, but it starts to become like real work to manage both building and playing. The short of it is that you can do almost anything if you put your mind to it. As far as the AI goes, you can relatively easily compensate through the detailed planning process. JUst give the human some ability for input at critical times and events.


I think that this is a level of skill and finesse that the average CMO player doesn't have, or certainly doesn't start out with. I agree that this certainly can be done, but that doesn't mean that it should be.

I tend to agree with AKar above, CMO is a game, an intensely realistic game already and not for the feint of heart. Realistic communications are tricky and entire branches of all militaries specialize in this field, so if you're exercising them and the Commanders they support - such as in the Pro edition - this is fantastic. But, when you're a single person playing a game, trying to do the job of dozens if not hundreds - it still needs to be fun; or what's the point.

Anyway that's my $0.02CAD on this topic.



_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 15
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/27/2021 4:13:35 PM   
AKar

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 3/18/2018
Status: offline
Thanks for your thoughts, guys. Indeed, I appreciate that the playing styles differ. For me, the thing in CMO is the scalability of the gameplay. While I need to handle an entire operation, the most intensive moments are often encountered when micromanaging, say, a four-ship of fighters surprised by a superior opponent, or a submarine trying to pull out something clever when unexpectedly encountering an enemy task force, an overwhelming but juicy target.

For me, if this was a command room / mission execution simulator, I'd prefer an approach where the AI was more independent and "creative" in the way it does its business. Also, I'd prefer the mission planning interface being rather different from what it is now. There are lots of stuff that, if this was the emphasized focus, we'd be missing: greatly increased fog-of-war necessitating the use of command platform units, perhaps even impersonating the player, levels of EMCON (all the way to radio silence / receive only), navigation issues, mis-identifications, technical problems, individually modeled SA at unit level... so on.

The same applies if this was a strategic level simulation: top brass really do desk jobs. Big decisions, supply and logistics.

I think CMO captures a great niche: a low-level strategic / high-level tactical. Personally I feel that added communication disruption functions, unless very nicely utilized by scenery designer, takes away more from the "high-level tactical" than it adds to "low-level strategic" in how the game and its scenarios are currently mostly set up.

That said, I don't mind at all enhancing the capabilities of the game/sim platform, I just hope them being used in moderation!

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 16
RE: What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generi... - 7/27/2021 11:10:50 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6005
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I use the comms isolation and side switching a lot in my personal scenarios. The main impact is the amount of detailed planning you have to do up front either in the scenario editor or prior to hitting start. There is a lot of general command and mission building that has to happen. I also work in a lot of what I call "awaiting orders" events. I sometimes use special actions, events, and triggers to let me, as the player, interrupt a unit and give new orders. For example, I'll have a few points on a sub's path where I can hit a button and force the sub to periscope depth for an update and new orders. I produce multiple missions and activate and deactivate them based on similar triggers. I switch unit sides from player to friendly based on the comms environment. I have even played around with detection of comms through events and lua.

I play most scenarios with less than 500 units so its somewhat manageable. In larger scenarios, you can use some of the above tricks also, but it starts to become like real work to manage both building and playing. The short of it is that you can do almost anything if you put your mind to it. As far as the AI goes, you can relatively easily compensate through the detailed planning process. JUst give the human some ability for input at critical times and events.


I think that this is a level of skill and finesse that the average CMO player doesn't have, or certainly doesn't start out with. I agree that this certainly can be done, but that doesn't mean that it should be.

I tend to agree with AKar above, CMO is a game, an intensely realistic game already and not for the feint of heart. Realistic communications are tricky and entire branches of all militaries specialize in this field, so if you're exercising them and the Commanders they support - such as in the Pro edition - this is fantastic. But, when you're a single person playing a game, trying to do the job of dozens if not hundreds - it still needs to be fun; or what's the point.

Anyway that's my $0.02CAD on this topic.




I'm not saying the player has to do it. This is a scenario designer's responsibility. Also, most players with limited skills will not like more realistic comms at all. It actually requires more planning on the player's part. There is almost no way to play with limited comms or comms detection without some sever planning. Most casual players will end up turning that feature off.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> What's the difference between Link 11/14 and generic radios? 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

0.203