The "Uber" Command: Modern Air/Naval Ops Thread

[jomni]

My  point is that I got similar result as spelk but with less coordination (plainly following instructions). I was wondering if sophisticated air tasking is necessary for other scenarios.

The enemy simply cannot deal with continuous streams of aircraft in that scenario.
In fact I tried coordinating with planes loitering (without mission assignment) until all are formed up for a giant strike but we just got picked off one by one.

I think it is because the airbase is very close to the hot zone.

[mikeck]

I understand. My point was that it is a tutorial designed to walk you through air ops. I don't think much time was put into making it more than that. It's not a reflection of the game...you did better than me, I lost about 8 planes from SAMs

[Dimitris]

No-one who is aware of Herman's past history with the HHQ/WS should be surprised by this "review".

[Herman Hum]

No one who is familiar with the hhq/ws history behind databases should be 'surprised' why they are locked in this game.

Unannounced Database changes

[Herman Hum]

Here's an example of the absolute absurdity of that review: Herman's complaints about having to click on every unit individually to tell the AI not to fire. Makes a big production about how much of a pain it is to click on every unit. Well, why would you have to do that? Almost every unit that is doing something is doing it within the framework of a mission created in the editor. When you create that mission, you create the rules of Engagement. Standard would be "engage unidentified targets: no"

So, if my ROE is set to not shoot at crap when I don't know of its hostile, why would I have to run around and manually tell every pilot not to shoot at unidentified crap? Well, you don't...that's why we have Roe. Now, is there a time when you wouldn't want a ship or plane to fire at a hostile target when in weapons range? Perhaps...and when that occasion occurs, you can click on the unit and select "AI hold fire" simple.

Your ignorance of this game is simply astounding.  To be perfectly clear, there is no way to order units to hold fire with the ROE setting.  That setting is only for "Engage non-hostiles".  In Harpoon and Naval War: Arctic Circle, Weapons Tight status is set with two clicks.

A player who wishes to exercise total control over his units and not permit them to fire without his express authorization cannot do so.  This is for both hostile and non-hostile targets.  The only way to prevent units from firing is to issue the Hold Fire command to each and every group along with every individual unit.  There is no other way.

[Dimitris]

Coming up next on SimHQ: Joseph Goebbels reviews Bertold Brecht.

[jomni]

I would like to see harpoon-style even pauses in Command.
Important events like new contacts, ships sunk, should have a pop out message window and pause the game (like the tutorial events).   Unless I'm missing something already in the game.

[Herman Hum]

I would like to see harpoon-style even pauses in Command.
Important events like new contacts, ships sunk, should have a pop out message window and pause the game (like the tutorial events).   Unless I'm missing something already in the game.

Go to the Message Options and select "Pop Up" for the new contacts, etc.

[jomni]

Which reminds me why my sub in the sub tutorial expended all but one of his torpedoes on the first sub contact (Phase 1). Leaving me with no weapon to sink the 2nd ship in Phase 3.

[JudgeDredd]

Well - I wouldn't expect anything else from the publisher of a game - a game that has been touted as their "big ticket" items and doesn't stack up to that tag.

No disrespect Dimitris - really none intended - but this wasn't worth £65 out the door. It will be I hope - but not out the door. I've already listed my issues in this thread and won't go over them again...and to be fair to you have acknowledged and accepted for the most part and have said you are working on it. So I am happy things are moving forward.

But to everyone - if you want to discredit Herman's review (including you Erik and Dimitris) then do it by pointing out the things that are wrong or things that he doesn't get - RELATING TO HIS REVIEW. Don't discredit it with personal attacks and links to historical crap...we (the paying public) don't give a shit about your past with him...tell me what he's got wrong.

Many of the things in that review I have found myself. He may (given his love/hate relationship with Harpoon and it's development/lack of) have over stated some issues - but I have come across many of the issues myself. Especially the love the devs have put into the game for clicking.

So ffs - don't discredit the man - discredit the review!

[JudgeDredd]

Coming up next on SimHQ: Joseph Goebbels reviews Bertold Brecht.

Dimitris - this is extremely unprofessional, discourteous and not helpful in the slightest.

You have the potential here for a great game - don't waste it by acting like you're in the playground

[spelk]

Well I got 1200 points with very little planning. Just sent CAP, SEAD, Strike packages in the zone without even thinking about coordination.  No groups are formed, just individual planes endlessly streaming out of the base doing their own thing.  Lost 3 planes.  :o

You know what, I got almost the same score and losses, when I first played it. But I didn't feel in control at all. I can only assume that its the AI mission control doing a good job, even when I am not. It felt like a "better win" when I knew what I was doing and the planning all went off smoothly. I think my problem is that I wasn't marking up priority targets in terms of victory points netted - apparently Robear from Gamers With Jobs mentioned that taking out the missile assembly buildings will add a couple of hundred points to your score. So I guess there must be a way to see the VP value on your targets, and perhaps I can customise the run through with a more lucrative target package. I selected targets based on what I thought were the priority, SAMS/Radar, runway, runway access points, gas tanks.

[Dimitris]

@Judge: I could do a detailed "fisking" on this "review" and also point out how the very points it is raising could/would have been expressed by a non-biased writer.

Or I could continue working on the preparation of the first update, which already solves some of the issues he's picking on.

Guess which of the two is a better use of my time.

I'm actually glad that he posted this under his default identity. This will be an excellent touchstone every time someone tries to tell me or anyone else that he's an objective observer of all things air/nav.

It is also now crystal-clear who has moved on and who is still stuck 10 years back.

Thanks.

[spelk]

A new review for CMO has been posted to SimHQ.
http://www.simhq.com/air-combat/command-modern-air-naval-operations-review.html

Ah, I thought I recognised the voice (I've only watched the first few minutes). I suppose if you "review" a game with the initial premise that its NOT Harpoon then its going to come off badly any criteria you throw at it.

Bugger, I thought Herman would be all over Command and would be doing video tutorials by now. But it seems, because it's NOT Harpoon, theres an axe to grind. :(

All I can say is that, I struggled immensely to get anywhere with Harpoon and its confusing soup of versions and badly designed UI's. I tried. And I even had much welcomed tutelage from Herman himself. But I think after knocking my head against it for a while, I fell back on to Fleet Command - simply because I could play it without having to step back in time.

Command has opened up Modern combat and has given me a new enthusiasm for this subject - that Harpoon couldn't do - no matter how much money I threw in its direction. I've played the tutorial mission many times, just to get my skills with the system better so I can feel in control, and I didn't regret firing it up all those times. I actually enjoyed it! That in itself has Command higher up in the esteem tables than anything Harpoon could do.

Command (no-one has been calling it MNO by the way) is the way forward for this type of game, no-one else is doing this stuff. It's the future. Harpoon is the past. Lets not beat the future of the genre down with a sub-standard nostalgia stick. Lets go forward, and with constructive criticism make it the best it can be. We've got developers who are willing to listen!! They're here. On these forums! Full speed ahead Captain.
 

[JudgeDredd]

@Judge: I could do a detailed "fisking" on this "review" and also point out how the very points it is raising could/would have been expressed by a non-biased writer.

Or I could continue working on the preparation of the first update, which already solves some of the issues he's picking on.

And I for one would be much appreciated if you performed the latter. I don't want this place to turn into a vipers nest.

If you weren't going to pull his review apart bit by bit and let the paying public make their minds up - then you shouldn't have said anything. In all honesty - you've just taken a bit of a dive engaging in the tactics you did.

Dragging up history and pointing to other sources to help justify your admonishment of a review isn't the way to deal with your critiques.

I'm partly familiar with Herman's history with Matrix and Harpoon - I guess it's no surprise that he's treated in this fashion.

What's annoying is this - his review is there...like it or lump it - in the public domain...so it should be discredited by pointing out glaring issues with it - by doing anything else suggests there's a disregard for the points he raised.