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

[Staggerwing]

You guys realize this guy is nuts, yes? You can't change his opinion or his idiot's crusade.

*1850kts*

^But... but... but, that's not possible! It's against the Laws of Critics!  :o

[Herman Hum]

Herman, I fail to see the need for you to do yet another review of CMANO (oh yes I know you were "asked" to do it). You've previously reviewed the game and we are all well aware of your issues with it. You've made them abundantly clear, here and elsewhere, over the past year.

I'm not the one digging up past grievances.  I'm talking about how a game does or does not work.  I am answering someone's request for assistance, which I would do for anyone.  The motto has always been, "Help all who ask."

The updated review was necessary since a new game version came out on Steam and some might think that many changes and improvements had been made, when they had not.  Others are writing reviews for v1.05 yet they are not subjected to the same questions and abuse only my review is critical and points out serious game deficiencies.

IMHO, you don't do things for the community. You do them to promote yourself. That's based on years of observation of your behavior within the gaming community.

You are certainly free to your opinion, even if I do not agree.  I do not criticize nor attack you for it, even if you feel the need to do the same over my opinion.

[Herman Hum]

You guys realize this guy is nuts, yes? You can't change his opinion or his idiot's crusade.

*1850kts*

^But... but... but, that's not possible! It's against the Laws of Critics!  :o

Of course, the review already stated that there are exceptions to the rule, but most fighter aircraft in MNO are limited by the artificial limit of 950 knots.  It's all upfront and openly stated.  I've take the liberty of setting the video right to that point.  54min 44s

[55:50] Notice how each and every airplane flies at the exact same maximum speed of 950 knots.

[snip]

[56:12] Note that there are a few aircraft that can fly faster in MNO, so it's not a game engine constraint.

[Bletchley_Geek]

Not all airplanes in MNO travel at the same speed.  I was quite specific and talked about the fighters when they were on afterburner at high altitude.  Most of the modern fighters found in MNO with an afterburner capability are capped at 950knots at high altitude.  There are exceptions, but most of them are artificially restricted in this manner.  I listed fighters such as Tomcat, Falcon, Fulcrum, Flanker, Eagle, Eurofighter, Tornado, and few others as examples.  You could go ahead and list them all.

I think that the explanation or design rationale for this is quite clear

http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=2920#624

And totally irrelevant.

The aircraft in MNO are capped at 950 knots on afterburner.  It matters not a whit whether anyone agrees or believes in the excuses.  It cannot be changed by the player.  Either accept this artificial and arbitrary limit or else do not purchase the game.  It's as simple as that.

Why irrelevant? Because you don't want to listen? What you call an excuse I rather call a compromise. Indeed, the compromises the designer makes on a game can turn a purchase decision, and indeed, when making a review you can choose what compromises to criticize. And when choosing an aspect to highlight and criticize, please, be factual. Being fair - as in taking into account the context and seeking the designer's for comments - is indeed also quite voluntary: either you do it, or you don't.

Every scenario editor can make wonderful detailed scenarios if given sufficient time.  The MNO scenario editor is no better nor different.  Of course, other editors such as War in the Pacific, Harpoon, and FPC (to name just a few) actually allow for real database editing capability; that means that they can actually change the performance of the units instead of just mixing up the various systems in new combinations (a.k.a. shuffling).

There goes out of the window your previous statement about making effective scenarios in an hour. For me, an operational level scenario of Stalingrad that is as detailed as would be an 1980's design by R.T. Smith, see some of the stuff perpretated by Jim Rose on the TOAW classic scenarios, doesn't qualify as "effective".

Again, in this respect you pick up one single thing you don't agree with or just dislike and magnify its importance so to forgo commenting on other aspects that any other rational person would consider as very strong points of Command third-party content creation tools, especially when compared with other well known game engines relevant to the audience of Command. Singling out one aspect and ignoring the rest - and making meaningless comparisons that sound very well but mean little - I reckon is doing violence to the facts.

Though, what we can do is refute the things he says for people who don't read naval warfare forums.

That's precisely why I am bothering to answer.

Which begs the question: Why Matrix asked to post on SimHQ a review of version 1.01 "pronto!" (made by an obvious fanatic) and thus sinking the original 1.00 review by Herman? Inquiring minds already know the answer.

Because someone complained about Herman's review to SimHQ editors, the editors assessed the complaint, decided it had some merit and then decided to ask for a second opinion. As for "sinking" reviews: Herman's original review is still posted on simhq.com site, and it appears - surprise, surprise - as the first result of a search on the site

http://www.simhq.com/?s=Command%3A+Modern+Air+%2F+Naval&submit=Search

To be honest, I take issue with people assuming that everyone on the Internet are gullible morons who can't check things by themselves and form an opinion.

[Toonces]

If you're into this type of game, and let's be honest- you have to be a certain type of person to find gaming this stuff interesting- then you really have two choices: Harpoon or CMANO.

I can't imagine any reason why if this subject matter interests you, that you wouldn't own both.  Hell, I've probably bought Harpoon 3 or 4 times by now.

$80 is an absolute steal for CMANO, considering what you are getting, IMHO.

[Herman Hum]

Not all airplanes in MNO travel at the same speed.  I was quite specific and talked about the fighters when they were on afterburner at high altitude.  Most of the modern fighters found in MNO with an afterburner capability are capped at 950knots at high altitude.  There are exceptions, but most of them are artificially restricted in this manner.  I listed fighters such as Tomcat, Falcon, Fulcrum, Flanker, Eagle, Eurofighter, Tornado, and few others as examples.  You could go ahead and list them all.

I think that the explanation or design rationale for this is quite clear

http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=2920#624

And totally irrelevant.

The aircraft in MNO are capped at 950 knots on afterburner.  It matters not a whit whether anyone agrees or believes in the excuses.  It cannot be changed by the player.  Either accept this artificial and arbitrary limit or else do not purchase the game.  It's as simple as that.

Why irrelevant? Because you don't want to listen? What you call an excuse I rather call a compromise. Indeed, the compromises the designer makes on a game can turn a purchase decision, and indeed, when making a review you can choose what compromises to criticize. And when choosing an aspect to highlight and criticize, please, be factual. Being fair - as in taking into account the context and seeking the designer's for comments - is indeed also quite voluntary: either you do it, or you don't.

You can call it whatever you like.  The 'compromise', 'excuse', or blueberry muffin is artificially and arbitrarily capped at 950 knots for planes on afterburner.  It cannot be changed.  You either live with it or do not buy the game.

Every scenario editor can make wonderful detailed scenarios if given sufficient time.  The MNO scenario editor is no better nor different.  Of course, other editors such as War in the Pacific, Harpoon, and FPC (to name just a few) actually allow for real database editing capability; that means that they can actually change the performance of the units instead of just mixing up the various systems in new combinations (a.k.a. shuffling).

There goes out of the window your previous statement about making effective scenarios in an hour.

Again, in this respect you pick up one single thing you don't agree with or just dislike and magnify its importance so to forgo commenting on other aspects that any other rational person would consider as very strong points of Command third-party content creation tools, especially when compared with other well known game engines relevant to the audience of Command. Singling out one aspect and ignoring the rest - and making meaningless comparisons that sound very well but mean little - I reckon is doing violence to the facts.

Some take an hour. Some take more.  Some take less.  Same for the MNO scenario editor.  It is just one of many editors.  Nothing special, except for the inability to change a single performance variable.  Other scenario editors allow for it.  MNO does not.

Though, what we can do is refute the things he says for people who don't read naval warfare forums.

That's precisely why I am bothering to answer.

Which begs the question: Why Matrix asked to post on SimHQ a review of version 1.01 "pronto!" (made by an obvious fanatic) and thus sinking the original 1.00 review by Herman? Inquiring minds already know the answer.

Because someone complained about Herman's review to SimHQ editors, the editors assessed the complaint, decided it had some merit and then decided to ask for a second opinion. As for "sinking" reviews: Herman's original review is still posted on simhq.com site, and it appears - surprise, surprise - as the first result of a search on the site

http://www.simhq.com/?s=Command%3A+Modern+Air+%2F+Naval&submit=Search

To be honest, I take issue with people assuming that everyone on the Internet are gullible morons who can't check things by themselves and form an opinion.

Exactly, the SimHQ editors took the time to re-examine the original 1.0 review and re-posted it as soon as they found nothing amiss.  The problem lay with those who tried to have it removed with false claims that could not be proven, the same as is happening with the revised v1.05 review.

[mirth]

Go troll Wargamer or Matrix, Herman.

[GDS_Starfury]

The aircraft in MNO are capped at 950 knots on afterburner.  It matters not a whit whether anyone agrees or believes in the excuses.  It cannot be changed by the player.  Either accept this artificial and arbitrary limit or else do not purchase the game.  It's as simple as that.

and exactly how many planes are doing over mach 1 at altitude when not engaged in combat?
I can think of exactly 1 that can super cruise and all the rest dont hit the firewall unless absolutely necessary.
but I have an ex Strike Eagle pilot in the family so wtf do I know...
even then, when the merge happens, who the hell is maneuvering at mach 2+? 
I think you might want to step back and read this:

great book by the way and an absolute must for flight simmers.  it advocates the use of cluster bombs when attacking helicopters.  O0
but I digress.
you seem to enjoy nitpicking specifics instead of enjoying the generalities of a broadly scoped simulation.

[GDS_Starfury]

in fact I think that youre fixating on the top end abilities of equipment and making the mistake of thinking that thats available all of the time.

[Bletchley_Geek]

You can call it whatever you like.  The 'compromise', 'excuse', or blueberry muffin is artificially and arbitrarily capped at 950 knots for planes on afterburner.  It cannot be changed.  You either live with it or do not buy the game.

Same as you do.

Regarding the three statements above:

• Artificial - Yes, it is, as substantial aspects of simulations and games. Last time I checked out of the window, the surface of the world wasn't neatly organised in hexagons, yet nobody would be seriously taken if dissing out TOAW because it uses hexagons and that doesn't match what one can see out of his office window. One can criticize design compromises like hexes, Zones of Control, etc. putting forward a good argument about how unsuitable hexes, ZOCs etc. are when it comes to account for a particular aspect of what's being modeled/gamed/simulated. A criticism whose argument seems to be "but they can fly faster!" / "the world doesn't come in hexes" is not a very convincing one.


• Arbitrary - I am an ESL so I was a bit puzzled that you used this term to qualify this design decision. It would be arbitrary if they hadn't offered publicly an articulate explanation for it. Taking your meaning of "arbitrary" to be this one (by the Merriam Webster dictionary)  "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something", well I do claim that there's some degree of necessity in this limit (they don't need to code the AI to handle the risks of operating at such speeds, or code the possible mishaps that the aircraft might suffer flying at that speed). Or in other words, I find it fairly reasonable that the devs decide to bound the scope of the simulation, so they can invest their valuable time in other aspects of an already quite massive system.


• It cannot be changed - By the players, Command devs can change it whenever they have the time and inclination to do so. What players can do is to put forward convincing arguments for the developers to consider. From what I have seen over the last year, Command dev team is willing to listen. So I'd say that it can be changed by either the players (indirectly) or the devs (directly).

My entirely subjective assessment is that this design decision is very liveable and doesn't detract in any significant way from the many merits of Command's engine.

Some take an hour. Some take more.  Some take less.  Same for the MNO scenario editor.  It is just one of many editors.  Nothing special, except for the inability to change a single performance variable.  Other scenario editors allow for it.  MNO does not.

Fair enough.

Exactly, the SimHQ editors took the time to re-examine the original 1.0 review and re-posted it as soon as they found nothing amiss.  The problem lay with those who tried to have it removed with false claims that could not be proven, the same as is happening with the revised v1.05 review.

Was it taken down? That's interesting, and obviously, was a temporary expedient -  the editors still considered a good thing that there were several opinions on their side.

[Herman Hum]

The aircraft in MNO are capped at 950 knots on afterburner.  It matters not a whit whether anyone agrees or believes in the excuses.  It cannot be changed by the player.  Either accept this artificial and arbitrary limit or else do not purchase the game.  It's as simple as that.

and exactly how many planes are doing over mach 1 at altitude when not engaged in combat?
I can think of exactly 1 that can super cruise and all the rest dont hit the firewall unless absolutely necessary.
but I have an ex Strike Eagle pilot in the family so wtf do I know...
even then, when the merge happens, who the hell is maneuvering at mach 2+? 

It matters not the circumstances.  It does not matter if it is 'absolutely necessary', 'in combat', 'merge', or whatever.  The player has no choice in the matter.  The artificial limit is 950 knots regardless of the circumstances.  Your pilot family member might decide to fly slower than 950 knots, but he will never be allowed to fly faster in MNO (regardless of what he might have done in real life.)

[GDS_Starfury]

  The player has no choice in the matter.  The artificial limit is 950 knots regardless of the circumstances.  Your pilot family member might decide to fly slower than 950 knots, but he will never be allowed to fly faster in MNO (regardless of what he might have done in real life.)

in the real world he might not be allowed to.  I would submit that a F-15e can hit mach 2.5 on paper.  clean....
loaded up with missiles and bombs it aint coming close to that.  an F-14 can hit roughly the same.  clean...
loaded on a full up air to air package it cant.  the weight and aerodynamics just dont work that way.
yes, many planes can reach amazing speeds.  but they arent allowed to because on the back end it results in down time for for the frame.
we ended up with the F-15 because some yahoo maxed a Mig-25 over Israel and freaked everyone out.  the reality was that he was lucky to land alive and burned out both engines during his sprint. 
what you call a limitation I'm willing to chalk up to real world operational realities in a game that isnt a military grade simulation.

[GDS_Starfury]

I would also submit that you should stop bitching about it and turn your knowledge and abilities to more constructive endeavors and mod the fucking game.  its the new platform so go with it, work it and mod it until its where you want it.  if you cant do that then apply for a job as a tester.

[GDS_Starfury]

It matters not the circumstances.  It does not matter if it is 'absolutely necessary', 'in combat', 'merge', or whatever.  The player has no choice in the matter. 

it absolutely does.  any service person has standing orders to not fuckup the equipment they are issued.  of course that are lots of oversights with this when shit hits the fan.  thats beyond the scope on this simulation and thats something you dont like or acknowledge.

[Bletchley_Geek]

what you call a limitation I'm willing to chalk up to real world operational realities in a game that isnt a military grade simulation.

You might be surprised by some of the limitations you can find in allegedly "professional" "military grade" "simulations". A friend of mine, who served as a Platoon Leader in Iraq with the Australian Armored Forces described to me their tactical simulators... and boy, what a far cry from was that from anything that Steel Beasts can do  :) Regarding naval simulations, from what I've read about them, they look to me clunkier than Command and relying on "Mechanical Turk" kind of solutions to account for certain stuff like weather conditions or effects of weaponry and sensors...