WDS Modern Air Power

[Jarhead0331]

Hey fellas'...any update on when the two titles in this series might receive some update love?

[Jarhead0331]

Just wanted to come back to this title...

I've been playing around with it due to a renewed interest in the air war over Southeast Asia. I'm reading a study about Electronic Warfare tactics in Vietnam and I'm wondering how deeply this is modeled in the game. The Getting Started Scenario includes an RB-66 with jamming capability as part of the strike package. It clearly is equipped with directional antennae that are jamming ground based air defense radars. However, it is unclear how complex the modeling goes. For instance, is range and frequency calculated in any way? Are ground based radars able to burn through the signal?

It is unfortunate that enemy targets can't really be selected so I'm not sure what type of radars the EB-66 was jamming...fan song? fire can? Also, how are the SAMs modeled and how do allied aircraft react to them? The player's aircraft are in flights of four and there does not seem to be any way to control their formations or defensive response to SAM launches. The missiles would come at my planes but none of them scored hits and the flights did not deviate in their course or take any discernible evasive actions. From reading the EW study, the air war was VERY bloody for US aviators and losses were extremely heavy. I had one flight of Thuds armed with Shrikes and although none of the shrikes scored hits, I did notice that the launches seemed to cause the ground radars to stop transmitting. This seemed authentic, as that is what the North Vietnamese controllers would do to defeat early era radar killing AGMs. Some of the aircraft were also equipped with ALQ ECM pods, but the player doesn't seem to have any control over these.

I guess I'm trying to find out what is going on underneath the hood and if any of you WDS bubbas can provide some feedback it would be great!

Thanks!

[rahamy]

I'm just passing through doing a sale reminder post, and I have to get on the road... so just noting that I have seen this and will aim to come back to it.

[Jarhead0331]

I'm just passing through doing a sale reminder post, and I have to get on the road... so just noting that I have seen this and will aim to come back to it.

Thank you!

[ArizonaTank]

I guess I'm trying to find out what is going on underneath the hood and if any of you WDS bubbas can provide some feedback it would be great!

I'm interested in the answer as well.

Although after perusing the .dat and .ai files (that are all viewable as text by the way), I suspect the game engine skews more toward playability than the in-depth complexity of CMAO. Not a bad thing. The depth of CMAO can make my head hurt at times; particularly in large campaigns. I have always found WDS/Tiller air war games to be very playable and still have the right "feel."

[Jarhead0331]

I guess I'm trying to find out what is going on underneath the hood and if any of you WDS bubbas can provide some feedback it would be great!

I'm interested in the answer as well.

Although after perusing the .dat and .ai files (that are all viewable as text by the way), I suspect the game engine skews more toward playability than the in-depth complexity of CMAO. Not a bad thing. The depth of CMAO can make my head hurt at times; particularly in large campaigns. I have always found WDS/Tiller air war games to be very playable and still have the right "feel."

Honestly, that is why I'm taking a close look at the Air Power series. I loaded a CMO scenario the other day that had a relatively "simple" strike on 2 bridges in North Vietnam during Rolling Thunder as objectives. It was an extremely complex scenario with so much going on that I just did not feel capable of running it with the state of my CMO knowledge. I felt overwhelmed and unable to control the orchestra, so to speak.

The WDS Air Power series is much more manageable out of the gate, and I'm ok with certain abstractions...but I would like to know that the core elements of the air war are somehow being modeled in the game, even if it is not directly controlled or influenced by the player or even readily apparent.

[Grim.Reaper]

You probably checked the user manual, but within it discusses the various jamming and seems to indicate range as a factor.  But not sure if that answer your question on depth.

[rahamy]

So, first off, we do plan on more updates to this series. It's just a matter of resources, and this just hasn't made it to the top of the list yet. Possible you will see a new round before the end of the year though. We've got a round for the Naval Campaign games coming out this summer, so we are slowly working our way through the various series.

Just wanted to come back to this title...

I've been playing around with it due to a renewed interest in the air war over Southeast Asia. I'm reading a study about Electronic Warfare tactics in Vietnam and I'm wondering how deeply this is modeled in the game. The Getting Started Scenario includes an RB-66 with jamming capability as part of the strike package. It clearly is equipped with directional antennae that are jamming ground based air defense radars. However, it is unclear how complex the modeling goes. For instance, is range and frequency calculated in any way? Are ground based radars able to burn through the signal?

Full disclosure, I'm not an "expert" on the game series, nor modern air power as a whole... these games were John Tiller's baby, so to speak, as he was enmeshed with them and Air Force contract work for well over a decade. Sadly, he's not hear to give you all the nitty gritty.

Those calculations are happening under the hood and the values are derived from the entries in the game database, which are not editable in the current iteration of the games.

From the manual:
"Certain aircraft have an inherent radar jamming effect defined in the aircraft database. This jamming ability is determined by a range for the radar jamming effect and an angle measured from the wing tips of the jamming aircraft. The coverage area is shown on the map using bright purple wedges.

Radar sources that are within the range and angle defined by the jamming data are affected. This effect is displayed on the map using bright green wedges. When an aircraft is inside this wedge, it cannot be detected by the affected radar."

I am not aware of the ability of ground based radars to counter & burn through the jamming signals, but I might be mistaken on that.

It is unfortunate that enemy targets can't really be selected so I'm not sure what type of radars the EB-66 was jamming...fan song? fire can? Also, how are the SAMs modeled and how do allied aircraft react to them?

By this do you mean details on the capabilities of the site can't be displayed? That is true, all those values are set in the scenario editor when the scenario is built. We'll see if we can get more data displayed in a future update.

The SAM sites are modeled with a variety of attributes set in the games database. For example this is the SA-9 Surface-to-Air Missile Battery. It has various attributes set such as range, speed and that it is controlled by active radar.

The player's aircraft are in flights of four and there does not seem to be any way to control their formations or defensive response to SAM launches. The missiles would come at my planes but none of them scored hits and the flights did not deviate in their course or take any discernible evasive actions. From reading the EW study, the air war was VERY bloody for US aviators and losses were extremely heavy. I had one flight of Thuds armed with Shrikes and although none of the shrikes scored hits, I did notice that the launches seemed to cause the ground radars to stop transmitting. This seemed authentic, as that is what the North Vietnamese controllers would do to defeat early era radar killing AGMs. Some of the aircraft were also equipped with ALQ ECM pods, but the player doesn't seem to have any control over these.

You do have some control of your air craft, the game is meant to be played as controlling packages and assigning missions, but it is possible to manually control individual flights, assign specific targets and fire specific ordnance. That's all covered in the manual. But depending on how busy the air space is, that can get a bit overwhelming in a hurry.

I guess I'm trying to find out what is going on underneath the hood and if any of you WDS bubbas can provide some feedback it would be great!

Thanks!

Again, wish I was better versed in the engine to give you a more detailed response... I'm a pre-twentieth century guy myself.

I do know though that there is a considerable amount of functionality modeled in the current version of the game, and when we are able to get a further update out it will include more.

It will always be less detailed than CMO, but at the same time that should make it a bit more accessible.

[Grim.Reaper]

So, first off, we do plan on more updates to this series. It's just a matter of resources, and this just hasn't made it to the top of the list yet. Possible you will see a new round before the end of the year though. We've got a round for the Naval Campaign games coming out this summer, so we are slowly working our way through the various series.

Just wanted to come back to this title...

I've been playing around with it due to a renewed interest in the air war over Southeast Asia. I'm reading a study about Electronic Warfare tactics in Vietnam and I'm wondering how deeply this is modeled in the game. The Getting Started Scenario includes an RB-66 with jamming capability as part of the strike package. It clearly is equipped with directional antennae that are jamming ground based air defense radars. However, it is unclear how complex the modeling goes. For instance, is range and frequency calculated in any way? Are ground based radars able to burn through the signal?

Full disclosure, I'm not an "expert" on the game series, nor modern air power as a whole... these games were John Tiller's baby, so to speak, as he was enmeshed with them and Air Force contract work for well over a decade. Sadly, he's not hear to give you all the nitty gritty.

Those calculations are happening under the hood and the values are derived from the entries in the game database, which are not editable in the current iteration of the games.

From the manual:
"Certain aircraft have an inherent radar jamming effect defined in the aircraft database. This jamming ability is determined by a range for the radar jamming effect and an angle measured from the wing tips of the jamming aircraft. The coverage area is shown on the map using bright purple wedges.

Radar sources that are within the range and angle defined by the jamming data are affected. This effect is displayed on the map using bright green wedges. When an aircraft is inside this wedge, it cannot be detected by the affected radar."

I am not aware of the ability of ground based radars to counter & burn through the jamming signals, but I might be mistaken on that.

It is unfortunate that enemy targets can't really be selected so I'm not sure what type of radars the EB-66 was jamming...fan song? fire can? Also, how are the SAMs modeled and how do allied aircraft react to them?

By this do you mean details on the capabilities of the site can't be displayed? That is true, all those values are set in the scenario editor when the scenario is built. We'll see if we can get more data displayed in a future update.

The SAM sites are modeled with a variety of attributes set in the games database. For example this is the SA-9 Surface-to-Air Missile Battery. It has various attributes set such as range, speed and that it is controlled by active radar.

The player's aircraft are in flights of four and there does not seem to be any way to control their formations or defensive response to SAM launches. The missiles would come at my planes but none of them scored hits and the flights did not deviate in their course or take any discernible evasive actions. From reading the EW study, the air war was VERY bloody for US aviators and losses were extremely heavy. I had one flight of Thuds armed with Shrikes and although none of the shrikes scored hits, I did notice that the launches seemed to cause the ground radars to stop transmitting. This seemed authentic, as that is what the North Vietnamese controllers would do to defeat early era radar killing AGMs. Some of the aircraft were also equipped with ALQ ECM pods, but the player doesn't seem to have any control over these.

You do have some control of your air craft, the game is meant to be played as controlling packages and assigning missions, but it is possible to manually control individual flights, assign specific targets and fire specific ordnance. That's all covered in the manual. But depending on how busy the air space is, that can get a bit overwhelming in a hurry.

I guess I'm trying to find out what is going on underneath the hood and if any of you WDS bubbas can provide some feedback it would be great!

Thanks!

Again, wish I was better versed in the engine to give you a more detailed response... I'm a pre-twentieth century guy myself.

I do know though that there is a considerable amount of functionality modeled in the current version of the game, and when we are able to get a further update out it will include more.

It will always be less detailed than CMO, but at the same time that should make it a bit more accessible.

Just curious, completely understand limited resources, makes sense.  But just curious what drives priority? The sales of the games?  The developers you have that can support a particular game?  Just seems some series like civil war and napoleon receive many updates, while other series like the modern air and games like 1776 don't. This is not meant as a complaint as you have kept these games going, but personally would love some of these other titles to get some updates and who knows, maybe with updates also increase sales.

[Sigwolf]

Honestly, that is why I'm taking a close look at the Air Power series. I loaded a CMO scenario the other day that had a relatively "simple" strike on 2 bridges in North Vietnam during Rolling Thunder as objectives. It was an extremely complex scenario with so much going on that I just did not feel capable of running it with the state of my CMO knowledge. I felt overwhelmed and unable to control the orchestra, so to speak.

The WDS Air Power series is much more manageable out of the gate, and I'm ok with certain abstractions...but I would like to know that the core elements of the air war are somehow being modeled in the game, even if it is not directly controlled or influenced by the player or even readily apparent.

This is funny, because it came up a while ago in a thread about most desired Tiller games and WDS additions.  I picked the MAP games as my most desired updates, and I believe it was you that asked why they were still relevant with newer titles like CMO available.

(found it... it was a 2022 winter sale thread)

They are good games and I'm glad they are in my library, but I think they have been superceded by games like CMO, which have very robust, detailed and complex aviation elements in terms of databases for aircraft and weaponry, mission planning, logistics combat, etc.

If you wanted something more narrow in scope, complexity and reach, they might be a good option.

That's exactly why I like them.  ;)  Sometimes I just don't feel like dealing with the complexity of CMO.  I think the MAP series is much more accessible and suited to a quick session.  Either way, I'm glad to see that their will eventually be more.

I totally get your desire to see how accurately the engine models individual systems. But, it remains true today... the Modern Air Power system is still fun to fire up.

[Jarhead0331]

What can I say? I want to have my cake and eat it too!

Seriously though, if it wasn't for my intense interest in the Air War over Vietnam, I wouldn't be looking at this title at all.

While I certainly appreciate Rahamy's response, I'm reading between the lines to conclude that this series is very low on the update priority list and probably a little (or a lot) outside the interest and knowledge of the current team. Would be great if they could find an SME to research and work on this series. John Tiller was a really special breed.

[rahamy]

Just curious, completely understand limited resources, makes sense.  But just curious what drives priority? The sales of the games?  The developers you have that can support a particular game?  Just seems some series like civil war and napoleon receive many updates, while other series like the modern air and games like 1776 don't. This is not meant as a complaint as you have kept these games going, but personally would love some of these other titles to get some updates and who knows, maybe with updates also increase sales.

There's a variety of factors that go into it, but programming resources is a key factor. Programmers who are also into wargames are few and far between. And the guys who have been active with us do not necessarily work on every series.

I don't want to say too much, but we have work under way for the topics in the EAW series. Will be '25 before any of that hits the streets though.

And also volume - changes made that can be rolled to 15-30 titles at a time are easier to implement.

We actually have another MAP title well advanced, so hoping to get that moved along in the coming months.