The Red Pill - Bye bye Harpoon?

[Kal]

¿Qué significará "...near future"?.

Un mes, un año, mañana??

No me importaría empezar a jugarlo estas navidades.

[nomada_squadman45]

Naaa en el lenguaje de Matrix es un "ratico" solo hace falta mirar el "heroes of Stalingrad" que esta cerquita cerquita como el World in Flames .... cuanto echo de menos un emoticono troll

[PijusMagnificus]

Naaa en el lenguaje de Matrix es un "ratico" solo hace falta mirar el "heroes of Stalingrad" que esta cerquita cerquita como el World in Flames .... cuanto echo de menos un emoticono troll

Pues nada, paciencia, mientras tanto a jugar a Harpoon... ya tengo ganas de ponerle la mano encima al editor de escenarios del CMNAO....por lo que he visto en el foro de warfaresims no le falta de nada, y la DB está hecha por Ragnar, así que seguro que tiene que ser la caña...

[Bender]

Por lo que se puede ver en los foros la base de datos más que exhaustiva es acojonante. Por ejemplo, con un click puedes cargar las defensas antiaéreas y/o bases de una determinada zona en un determinado periodo histórico.

[Dimitris]

Yes, it's now official

[lecrop]

Pues para mí es una buena notícia que lo publique Matrix. No obstante, aunque llevo más de dos años siguiendo su desarrollo y me gusta mucho lo que veo, no compraré en el minuto uno. Ya no lo hago con ningún wargame, demasiadas decepciones y dinero tirado. Al final, siempre vuelvo a los mismos, al Harpoon, a mis Napos de HPS y al WitP-AE. Esos no me fallan, aunque a temporadas me canse de alguno de ellos. Ahora siempre espero a las opiniones de otros y si puede ser a algún AAR cualificado, y si es de la casa mejor.

[nadia911]

Grandes verdades Lecrop, seguiré tu consejo, yo estoy igual, demasiadas decepciones ya...

[Dimitris]

That's perfectly OK, we're in this for the long run, we're not anxious over "first weekend sales" like in movies or big-budget games And I am confident that you will very much like what you will see.

[nomada_squadman45]

Pros y contras, ni mas ni menos, de todas formas el tema monetario no estaba ni tocado asi que el hachazo podria venir por un lado u otro y en Matrix tenemos de todo un poco aunque no creo que baje de los 40 dolares (esperemos que no se marche a la estratosfera como los titulos mas "potentes").

Release... bueno, ya se vera pero antes de mediados del año que viene lo dudo... yo diria que saliendo este 2013 ya seria para darse con un canto en los dientes....

A little question, about game Dimitris, i ask some time ago about add some kind of art for units info (photo, scheme etc etc) and reply was negative... now with publisher for game you plan work on this even if is added later after game release in a patch??? thanks.

[Dimitris]

A little question, about game Dimitris, i ask some time ago about add some kind of art for units info (photo, scheme etc etc) and reply was negative... now with publisher for game you plan work on this even if is added later after game release in a patch??? thanks.

Our problem with the unit images remains with regards to IP/copyright issues. However, there have been two developments since then that have changed the situation:
1) We came across a plentiful collecion images that we can indeed use without problems, and
2) We adjusted the built-in DB viewer so that it can read external images (ie. image files stored on disk, outside the DB files themselves).

The first item means that the game will have images for some (not all) of the included platforms. More importantly, the second item means that players will be able to add their own images to the game and have them appear on the DB viewer. This means that players can exchange between them also unit images, just like with scenario files, game icons, pre-build installation files etc. You can also create "image packs" and have them distributed.

[Blas de Lezo]

Hola Dimitris,
muchas gracias por tus comentarios por aqui...

Una pregunta acerca de algo que me tiene fascinado en vuestro proyecto (ya casi realidad): la implementación de los ciclos OODA y por lo tanto ralentizar la respuesta de las unidades y de la AI segun se les va degradando las comunicaciones, los sensores, etc...
Si no lo he entendido mal, esto quiere decir que ni el jugador humano ni la AI seran siempre el todopoderoso y conocedor de todo lo que pasa Dios ¿no?, me explico: hasta ahora en los juegos degradar las comunicaciones o incluso el sistema C3I no tenía mucho valor real: el jugador seguía teniendo una imagen completa y disponible de lo que "veía" cada una de sus unidades y lo integraba, seguía siendo capaz de dar ordenas a sus unidades, etc; sin embargo en Command esto no va a ser así ¿no?

Un saludo

"Hi Dimitris,
Thanks a lot for your comment in this forum...

I would like yo to explain more about a feature in your proyect (almost reallity now) that is fascinating me: the implementation of OODA loops and the AI being slower reaction-wise as long as its sensors and comunication are degraded...

If I haven´t get it all wrong, this means thant neither the AI or the human player will continue to be like an all powefull god, always knowing whats going on and having the full picture of the situation, doesn´t it?... what I mean is that in previous games, degrading comunications or even destroying C3I facilities wasn´t really worth it, the player continued to have a complete picture available, he still was "seeing" everithing his units was reporting and he was able to give new orders to those units... but somehow this won´t e the case in Command, am I right?

Best

[Dimitris]

Hello,

I would like yo to explain more about a feature in your proyect (almost reallity now) that is fascinating me: the implementation of OODA loops and the AI being slower reaction-wise as long as its sensors and comunication are degraded...

Our current OODA implementation is on per-unit reaction times. Typically this applies for the fastest-reacting main defensive weapon on a platform (e.g the SAM system on a ship). The value is unique per platform variant, so an early version of ship may have a large OODA value while a later modernized version will have a much smaller value (a good example is the modernised Kortenaer-class frigates of the Hellenic Navy, with their brand-new integrated combat system).

In adding this feature, we were primarily concerned with a unit's ability to react to surprise threats. For example in legacy games if you had a submarine get close to a ship and attack it with sub-launched missiles you had no benefit of surprise because the ship's defensive systems reacted instantly. With the OODA feature the ship will need a few seconds to react, which can make all the difference between life and death. Another example is when an aircraft (previously hidden by terrain cover, stealth or jamming) suddenly appears in the midst of your friendly assets; with proper OODA delays that single aircraft has a few precious seconds at which it can do great damage to you before your defences react. So essentially we are bringing back the importance of tactical surprise.

Note that some systems are designed specifically for fast reaction against sudden threats; for example most CIWS systems and decoy launchers etc. These systems bypass the OODA delay and can function immediately against the fresh threat.

If I haven´t get it all wrong, this means thant neither the AI or the human player will continue to be like an all powefull god, always knowing whats going on and having the full picture of the situation, doesn´t it?... what I mean is that in previous games, degrading comunications or even destroying C3I facilities wasn´t really worth it, the player continued to have a complete picture available, he still was "seeing" everithing his units was reporting and he was able to give new orders to those units... but somehow this won´t e the case in Command, am I right?

You are essentially describing friendly-side fog-of-war and friction. We have not yet implemented this in Command; communications between friendly forces are always assumed to be reliable and instantaneous (although with the OODA delay factor, instant information sharing does not equal instant reaction!). Communications can only be disrupted between a platform and any guided weapons that it is providing guidance for, for example if you destroy an aircraft which is guiding a datalinked stand-off missile then the missile will have to find another unit to guide it or go autonomous (or self-destruct, depending on its guidance mode).

You can, however, model the degradation of a multi-layered IADS by implementing multiple sides for the system and have the subordinate units lose communication to each other when the main comm nodes, belonging to a separate side, get destroyed. This is effectively the "Desert Storm IADS story". You will probably see an example of this on a scenario that is currently under construction and looks likely to be included on the v1 release.

Thanks!

[nomada_squadman45]

Thanks for the reply Dimitris, great know that units at least are going to have an image to add to them some "soul" even if not all units have an image (ummm maybe here you can use a generic image for this units for example a generic image for every main class like diesel subs and others better than a "image not avaliable" pic).

Cant wait to see an AAR (video AAR or text+pics AAR) to see how is the game working in "real" life, specially interested in how AI do it, reduce micromanegement is something i want see how works.

[Blas de Lezo]

You can, however, model the degradation of a multi-layered IADS by implementing multiple sides for the system and have the subordinate units lose communication to each other when the main comm nodes, belonging to a separate side, get destroyed. This is effectively the "Desert Storm IADS story". You will probably see an example of this on a scenario that is currently under construction and looks likely to be included on the v1 release.

Great!...
I´m looking forward to see it!...

I guest the friendly FOW is in the to-do-list (at least in the wishfull-thinking-list!)... I know facing traditional or enemy FOW is hard but facing a situation with friendly FOW is what makes you "un omvre" (this is a very bad Spanish joke: "this is what makes you a man", note the misspelling!).

So, with instant comunication between friendly units I guest modern navies/ air forces won´t get any bonus by using secure datalinks as the Link-11 or Link 16, will they?

Best

¡Genial!
¡Estoy deseando verlo!

Supongo que la FOW entre unidades amigas está en la lista de cosas por implementar (o al menos en la lista de mejoras deseables)... enfrentarte a una situación con FOW es duro, pero hacer frente a esa situación con FOW sobre tus propias unidades es lo que te hace un "omvre"

Otra cosa, supongo que con las comunicaciones instantaneas entre unidades amigas, las armadas/ fuerzas aéreas modernas no obtendran ninguna ventaja al usar enlaces de datos seguros como el Link-11 o el Link-16 ¿no?

Saludos

[Dimitris]

I guest the friendly FOW is in the to-do-list (at least in the wishfull-thinking-list!)... I know facing traditional or enemy FOW is hard but facing a situation with friendly FOW is what makes you "un omvre"

It has been discussed. The main problem is that the more real-life factors you insert into the gameplay the harder you make it for players to execute their plans. For example we are still being criticized for enforcing more realistic ready-times on aircraft in the DB2000 database for H2/3 ("It takes forever to ready my strike! Aircraft are near-useless in this game/database!"). So every time such a design decision is being considered you have to take into account both the experts (who will appreciate it) and everyone else (who will get frustrated and maybe it will prevent them from playing the game at all). So a balance has to be made.

So, with instant comunication between friendly units I guest modern navies/ air forces won´t get any bonus by using secure datalinks as the Link-11 or Link 16, will they?

The information-sharing benefits of modern datalinks are partially modeled through the OODA factor (better/faster "big picture" -> faster reaction). To model the information-security benefits, you have to properly model COMINT. To properly model COMINT, you have to first realistically model the flow of information to and from each and every unit under your command, for each and every time you give them an order or query them about any of their information, and each and every time they provide you an initial contact report or an update on a contact (since COMINT detections work similar to ESM detections, you have to run detection checks for every single message being thrown around). To do the actual detection checks, you have to determine the actual comm nodes transmitting on each message - so you have to trace a message's path from the sender to the receiver and run detection checks against every single node on the chain. To do that right, you have to accept a hefty simulation performance penalty, a complex (to build and then to maintain/debug) code structure, and yet another layer of complexity for the player to manage (and the dev team to debug).

So, in short: a non-trivial endeavor and deliberately left out of our v1 list. (And I would really like to see a game model this right and in detail. Do you know any? Single-value abstractions don't count.)

We may get down to it at some point down the road, but first it has to justify itself in terms of work/benefit. Endorsement by a pro client would probably help a lot for this.