The Command development group has been busy the last few weeks working on this feature and is now proud to present the first working version:

This is a significant milestone for Command since it enables us to proceed with modeling several hitherto under-represented but crucial facets of naval operations:

• The deployment phase of amphibious operations: Landing ships leaving their parent amphibious ships and shuttling back and forth to the target coast to unload forces.
• Unmanned remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs) hosted in fleet boats and employed in such diverse roles as mine-hunting & mine-sweeping, naval surveillance, expendable anti-surface operations (“streetfighters”), towed decoys etc.
• Small boats operating from at-sea mobile bases (“motherships”), as well as small boats deployed from normal surface combatants for maritime blockade & inspection, piracy/counter-piracy operations etc.

We are already working rapidly on amphibious and mine-warfare operations and hope to be able to present them in more detail in the future.

In the meantime, the 55th issue of the wargaming magazine PC4WAR is out, and features an interview on the background, concepts and development status of the game. With the kind permission of Guillaume Poulain we are reposting the interview here, along with a new batch of screenshots.

——————————————————————————

The Start screen

A lot of our readers have played Fleet Command and Harpoon. They almost are a specific genre of videogames although they are rare. What lead you to create such games?

One of the things that unite the Command development group is a shared vision of the "ideal" wargame simulating air & naval operations, on multiple levels from tactical, "down in the trenches" details all the way to operational/strategic decisions. We have been looking for this game for over 2 decades now. Many titles in the past have come very close to our vision (notably the Harpoon series) but did not quite fit. So eventually we concentrated a sufficient critical mass of talent & experience that enabled us to develop it ourselves.

A typical day over the Aegean: Two Greek Mirage 2000-5s head to intercept an "unknown"
intruder that has been detected by the early-warning radar network.

Despite your experience in this industry, Warfare Sims remains unknown for a lot of people; could you introduce your team? Are you totally independent, big, where are you come from…?

We are a small group of people from all over the globe and all walks of life, united in our interest in defense & aerospace matters and wargaming & simulations. Each of us brings specific skills and experiences to the team and it’s the elegant fusion of these capabilities that makes Command work. Some of us are defense professionals, others simply hobbyist civilians. If I had to pick one distinct item that unites us, it’s the passion we share for our niche. As I once replied to a question in our forum, "we live and breathe this stuff". I don’t think a creation with the defining attributes of Command would have been possible any other way.

HMS Invincible off the British isles, with a lot of information windows open.

«Command», how strange and ambiguous! Why did you choose this concise title?

Actually the full title is "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations". We think it describes what the game is first and foremost about – commanding forces in operations, not sitting in front of control panels and pushing buttons. This means having to worry about the big picture while also keeping an eye on tactical action, as air & naval conflicts can often hinge on a few key events. It also means providing broad guidelines of action to your forces, letting your "virtual crews" handle their own and intervening only as necessary.

We actually got some negative feedback on the title as some people considered it to be too generic. I think once folks get the game in their hands and see what it can do, they’ll set aside any concerns on the title

The US submarine Virginia is patiently tracking with passive sonar its targets, a Chinese
surface group centered around the brand-new aircraft carrier Shi-Lang.

So, the game let players have the command of almost everything. Sea, air, ground, even satellites… It looks like an ultimate game for someone who like tactics. How did you do to make all of this consistent?

Mainly we concentrate on the essentials of what the game is about, and focus there at the expense of peripherals (a.k.a. Sid Meier’s "Covert Action rule"). For example, ground forces are included but they’re not at the center of the game, so we simplify their properties that have little relevance to air/naval ops (e.g. no separate front/side/rear/top armor rating on tanks). You can set up a massive ground battle (with platoon/squad-level units, artillery, air support etc.) and have lots of fun with it but it won’t dethrone TacOps or SPMBT in terms of detail/accuracy – and that’s perfectly fine.

On the other hand, on the core aspects of the game, we are helped by the fact that air, naval, space and strategic forces often use common properties (e.g. both ships and aircraft typically use knots for speed measurement) and ways of organization & command, and share identical or nearly-so properties. For example both ships and aircraft may have guns, missile launchers etc. This allows us to integrate different branches into a common model while also providing "shims" for each separate need.

The VCR player in action (lower left). Here we are playing back a recording made using the Vietnam-era
scenario "Down Town", a massive joint USAF-USN airstrike on selected targets around Hanoi.

What kind of operations are we to expect? (Period, scale, fictional/historical?)

Out-of-the-box scenarios are still under construction and we cannot comment on them.

The integrated scenario editor, combined with the included databases, allows you to construct scenarios from 1946 all the way to the near future (2020+).

The scale is primarily tactical/operational (small groups of ships, aircraft etc.); that said, the design is detailed enough to handle small-scale operations like mine warfare (with mines as individual objects), piracy/boarding operations, squad-level skirmishes etc. while at the same time the engine is scalable enough to support thousands of units operating on a global level (with a suitably powerful PC, of course).

The scenario editor allows both historical and fictional setups to be represented. The database developers are constantly researching for new real-world information to add to their datasets and can conditionally solicit requests for hypothetical systems (no F/A-37 Talons or Macross-universe fighters please!).

Something different: A small ground engagement between US tank platoons and detected "OPFOR" units. The
US side is supported by a 155mm artillery battery (which is already engaging targets within range, notice
the pairs of white shells in the air) and two overhead air assets, an A-10C and an MQ-9 Reaper UAV.

What war mechanics did you simulate in the game? How does a single unit act and react?

Our game currently includes models for physics (kinematics etc.), multiple sensor types (radar, sonar, visual, ESM, ECM, laser, infrared etc.), multiple weapon types, multiple weapon guidance types, multiple warhead types each with its unique damage effects (conventional and less-so), gunnery & unguided weapons (including CEP & accuracy modifiers), fuel consumption and flight models. All of these are impacted by environmental factors (time of day, weather) or electronic warfare with the overall purpose of presenting a usable and accurate combat model that we feel game hobbyists and professionals alike will appreciate. Combat is resolved in real-time on a per-unit and per unit-component level, so you have e.g. actual radars trying to detect targets and discrete electronic countermeasures trying to jam or fool them.

The degree of detail we have incorporated in weapons modeling offers simulation opportunities hitherto unprecedented in this genre; so for example we have a much more detailed ABM model because a given surface-to-air missile may not have the flight characteristics (speed, acceleration, altitude) or guidance capabilities to deal with a certain ballistic missile type. You simply don’t have that in any other comparable game out there.
The current game AI is a fairly large pool of scripted behaviors based on the type of duties a certain unit is assigned to, mixed with any overrides stemming from its current situation. So for example an aircraft may initially calculate its desired heading, throttle and altitude based on the fact that it’s assigned to a ground strike, but if at the same time it faces an imminent threat (e.g. an incoming missile) then this takes priority. We’ve added more variability with mission parameters and rules of engagement which make these behaviors less predictable and more configurable. We do have several automatic evasion behaviors and counter-SEAD routines programmed in where they make sense to include.
The game includes a pretty refined logistics model. Airbases and ships have multiple magazines and mounts that can have weapons added and subtracted from them. Air refueling is done and we hope to have a ship replenishment model done in the future.
Crew management, quality and morale are certainly important but we would prefer to develop an implementation that lets the players input these values. Unquantifiable values are very subjective and having them hardcoded into the game can easily lead to unhappy users, which is what most developers try and avoid.

KABOOOOM! A M45 ballistic missile fired from the submarine Triomphant has impacted on the Iranian airbase
at Bushehr. The TN75 nuclear warheads have impacted on the eastern side of the base, at the aircraft shelters
which of course are immolated instantly. The expanding fireball & shockwave is now sweeping most of
the facilities on the base. By the time it dissipates, most of the base facilities as well as the
neighboring city will be left destroyed.

Do you plan to implement a political/diplomatic dimension in Command?

Not initially, since Command is first and foremost a tactical/operational game. We do, however, plan to have certain hooks in the game’s event engine that could be used to support "if-then" branching based on certain conditions happening in the scenario. For example if you occupy area-X before time-Y, the enemy gets an extra squadron of aircraft to throw at you. This can easily be framed as a political-context action ("your campaign so far has been so successful that your enemy has been forced to ask for outside assistance").

Orbital surveillance: Cosmos-626, a Soviet radar satellite is sweeping the northern Atlantic . Two heavy
cruise-missile shooters, a Kynda-class cruiser and a Juliett-class submarine, are waiting for surface
targets to be detected by the satellite pass so that they can attack them from long range.

Don’t you fear that your game is going to be too complex for the public? (especially with the cold windowed-mode GUI) At PC4WAR, we love the main ideas of your game, but we are mad people

There are two factors that make this a non-issue. One is that we’ve gone to great lengths  to place the inherent technical complexity of modern combat "under the hood" as much as possible. You select a unit, order it to attack a target and off it goes; if the unit needs to flip two dozen switches to properly illuminate a semi-active guided weapon or some other technobabble, it will flip those switches itself. So you don’t need Carlo Kopp’s PhD in electronics to win a scenario. On the other hand the copious info is there for the techno-maniacs (like us) to devour: Do a "manual weapon allocation" attack (yes, you can specify an attack down to the last bullet if you want) and the unit will tell you all the reasons it can or cannot shoot at the target ("Because it’s Tuesday!"). Likewise, we have a detailed message log (also configurable) that lists all the juicy details on why that last seemingly easy kill went awry. So an AF lieutenant and Joe Public can both have a go at this and both can enjoy it, each from his own perspective.

The second factor is that we have a fairly good grasp of our intended core audience. The users that we are targeting are enthusiasts of the niche at least as much as we are (or even professionals in it) and so they "get" this stuff. In fact, we often find ourselves receiving valuable feedback (contributions, corrections etc.) from them in areas where our knowledge or modeling is deficient. So we are confident that the people for which we are developing this game will appreciate it for what it is.

The new boogeyman: Three DF-21D batteries on the Chinese mainland perform a coordinated
ASBM attack against a cluster of ships detected by a patrolling Y-8X maritime aircraft.

The AI must be hard to manage in this kind of game. What can we expect of it? Will it be possible to play in multiplayer?

We have taken a "bottom-up" approach to developing the AI for the game. Initial emphasis is strongly tilted towards the tactical side, so that the actual assets can be trusted to make sound decisions on their own after being given their general orders (if they are on your side) or present a credible threat without cheating (if they are the enemy). This involves decisions for navigation, throttle control, target prioritization, weapon selection, threat avoidance etc. So it’s a complex beast for sure.

Going up a level is the operational-level AI which deals with asset management (e.g. managing air ops in a base), mission prioritization & force allocation, logistics etc. This part is much less developed at the moment because its very existence hinges on the presence of a solid tactical foundation underneath it. There is still great room for improvement there and it is probably going to take a significant portion of our development effort as we move on beyond the first release.

Multiplayer is something that has been taken into account on the architecture since Day-1 of development but it’s not there yet. We would not want to release a half-baked implementation so whether it will appear in the first release is a very good question indeed. What I can say at the moment is that we have taken the lessons of past games in this genre to heart and will try to avoid the typical pitfalls we have observed in them. We realize that our audience is grown-ups with real lives, jobs and families who have maybe 15 mins of free time in a day, and our MP design reflects this.

A modern US carrier group, and a window showing its available air assets.

What about modding?

The game will ship with an integrated scenario editor that enables users to modify existing scenarios or build a new scenario of their own. The scenarios released with the game are made using this editor too. The map symbols (units etc.) are stored on separate graphics files so they can be fully customized. We are also considering adding "hooks" for sound-generating events (planes taking off, weapons firing, bombs impacting etc.) so that players can add the sounds they want to each event.

The databases used by the game are readily accessible but read-only; you can browse through the data but the game will refuse to use an altered database. This reflects our past experience with other games where the ability to freely modify the databases and use them was abused by certain parties who bulk-copied the hard works of others without permission and created much animosity in their respective communities.

At the same time we realize that players often want to experiment with the units at their disposal and a complete DB lockdown would be restrictive in this respect. For this reason, we have taken a great deal of modding functionality that previously required DB changes and instead moved it to the scenario editor. For example if you want to add a new weapon to an existing ship, you can now do it in the scenario editor and never touch the DB (this also means that you are no longer bound to the DB author’s update schedule). Such edits are saved with the scenario and effectively act as "DB overrides".

One of the things we are particularly proud of is the ability to construct very complex & detailed installations (e.g. airbases) once, save them and re-use them in other scenarios as well as exchange them with other players. This is a tremendous time-saver when building non-trivial scenarios and is just one of the ways we are streamlining the scenario creation process and making it more accessible to non-experts.

We have begun to release videos that demonstrate the ease with which a user can very quickly put together comprehensive scenarios and play them out, and the feedback so far has been very positive and encouraging. So we are very confident that the user community will embrace the tools we are providing with the game and will ultimately craft creations that will far surpass our out-of-the-box scenarios.

Mission editor: Here we are adding aircraft to an anti-air patrol and configuring their loadouts. The lower part allows
a wide range of options for customizing the mission: doctrine, EMCON, activation time, AI behaviors, editing the patrol area etc.

Is it going to be released in 2012?

We certainly hope so. The date of the first release will be finalized once our publishing/distribution decisions firm up. After that, our plan is to employ a steady stream of subsequent update releases to improve the game. We are definitely in for the long run with this.

Thank you and good luck!

Thanks! We know you’ll like the game.

Here are the release notes for the long-awaited update:

What’s New

Database – 100′s of new and updated platforms and equipment. Database editor has been updated with powerful new editing features.

Scenarios – Many new and updated scenarios to play. Improved in-game scenario editor for faster scenario generation.

Game Engine – Numerous simulation and interface improvements based on testing and feedback over the past year. Updated models for radar, sonar, ECM, mines, torpedoes, and AI.

You can download the new version here.

This is a simulated exercise in which “Blue” (a single A. Burke-class destroyer) attacks a “Red” airfield (Hazerim airbase in Israel) using Tomahawk TLAM cruise missiles. The primary targets are the base runways. The base happens to be the least-covered by ground-based air defences in Israeli territory (most SAMs and ABMs are eastward-oriented), and for this reason a CAP screen of F-15I fighters and Phalcon-AEW aircraft is provided.

We have shown airfield attacks before, so the heart of the video is the ease & speed with which a simple scenario can be constructed using Command’s built-in scenario editor. The video covers all the steps necessary, from creating sides and defining their postures to loading up installations, creating strike & AAW-patrol missions, equipping the airbase with appropriate aircraft weapons etc.

Jakob has stated that he has more videos in the pipeline. If his first attempt is that good, one can hardly wait.

And now, the time has come to make it happen.

(As always, viewing in HD is recommended)

This short demonstration depicts three different satellites in orbit:

• Cosmos-626, a Russian RORSAT.
• USA-186, a US KH-12-series imaging satellite.
• USA-200, a US Jumpseat-2 signals-intelligence satellite.

The different trajectories demonstrated are based on publicly available data on these satellites and are, naturally, tailored to their respective missions: Cosmos-626 with its low inclination frequently sweeps the Atlantic, Pacific & Indian oceans as well as the Norwegian Sea, and USA-186 follows a low-perigee (just 264km), near-polar orbit to maximize its daylight coverage. Likewise, USA-200 follows a highly-elliptical Molniya-type orbit that allows it to “hover” over the African continent in order to intercept signals from Europe, Middle East and Asia.

Satellites in Command are treated very much like any other platform, with the obvious exception of their kinematic characteristics. They can be equipped with weapons, sensors and any other components available in the DBs. Because a satellite may shift its orbit one or more times during its active life (and thus have multiple orbital profiles), we plan on compiling a detailed list of historical data on each system’s known orbits. The idea is to provide the scenario author with a minimum-hassle mechanism of adding historically-accurate satellite systems into a scenario: This requires filtering both by operator country and in-service/out-of-service dates (sat gurus will already have noticed that Cosmos-626, a ‘70s system, could have never actually flown in parallel with the two US systems, which were launched in the 2000s).

Props to anyone who can identify the soundtrack, and its relevance, without using a tune-recognition app…

The people’s reception was enthusiastic, particularly by visitors who had been informed of Command’s existence only recently through the announcement. The Lab’s head professor (a man not easily impressed, as we were afterwards informed) was left commenting “you guys are dangerous…!”. In another amusing instance, a pair of visitors sat down to have a peek at Command “although we’re not really much into these militaristic games, what with all the violence promotion…”. A few minutes later we were dissecting the optimum engagement geometry for a high-deflection AMRAAM BVR shot – not too shabby!

We would like to thank everyone who took the time to visit us and provide us with invaluable feedback as well as precious encouragement. We hope to present an ever better product at future exhibition opportunities and, of course, there is also the prospect of a public beta on the horizon.

Air Ops

- The scenario designer can now mark any aircraft as unavailable (for maintenance etc.), and the aircraft can remain so for the full duration of the scenario or until a specified datetime.

- A frequent problem in legacy sims is when an aircraft is unable to take off because, for instance, a single Sidewinder is missing from its strike loadout. Command uses a much more intelligent algorithm to determine if an aircraft has the essential stores for its assigned loadout & mission, and in such a case will send the aircraft on its way. The same algorithm also monitors continuously the remaining stores of all airborne aircraft and will suggest that they RTB if it determines that their "core" weaponry has been expended. For example an F-15 tasked with air superiority and facing multiple bandits will shoot off its long-range missiles and attempt to head home (with its short-range missiles and gun still intact) rather than get into a disadvantageous dogfight. The same aircraft with the same loadout in a different mission (e.g. intercept scramble) may follow different logic. The player can override this decision if he deems that the AI "crew" is making the wrong choice.

- Support missions can follow pre-planned waypoint routes, either one-time or in a loop. This allows players to define much more precise tracks for e.g a stand-off jammer than a general "loiter in this box" assignment. It also makes reconnaissance runs much easier to plan.

- When putting together an airstrike, you can attach support aircraft to the "core" strike group(s). These aircraft may be fighter escorts, jammers, tankers, SEAD shooters etc. They remain separate from the strikers in grouping (which greatly simplifies by-type management) but will stick as much as possible with them in terms of course/speed/altitude and follow them all the way to the target and back. This significantly reduces strike micromanagement and offers an alternative to independent support missions.

Tactical AI

- Land units no longer simply advance towards their target(s) while firing at them. They now take into consideration their weapons envelope and their own type. For example truly mobile units able to fire on the move (such as armor platoons) will move while firing until they reach a certain percentage of their weapon’s range against the target, whereupon they will halt and continue firing. On the other hand relocatable units like artillery or SSM launchers will not fire while on the move and will halt once they reach just within max weapon range of their target, then deploy and commence firing. Relocatable units are also much more likely than mobile units to retreat under threat of enemy incoming units. These tweaks significantly improve the realism of land combat.

- The crew-AI for underwater operations (both sub-ops and ASW) is being given a thorough overhaul as the sensor & weapon models are falling into place. We should be able to visually present various end-to-end sub-ops & ASW setups in the near future.

Sensor modeling

- A limitation of the ESM model in legacy sims is that any sensor is able to precisely identify the emissions that it detects. As a result, one can send a MiG-21 with a stone-age RWR on an ELINT mission and get the same results as with a sophisticated ELINT aircraft like the RC-135.
Command changes this. Only certain ESM/ELINT sensors are able to precisely identify the emissions they detect; other less sophisticated sensors will provide only general descriptions like "Long-range air search radar". The emission-based contact filtering (shown on Part I) can be performed only after having at least one emission positively identified. This makes sophisticated ELINT equipment much more valuable, as in real-life operations.

- ESM detections are now resolved much faster. This increases performance in virtually any air/surface ops scenario.

- Magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) sensors and sonobuoys have been implemented.

- Convergence zones and surface ducting have been added to the sonar model.

Weapon modelling

- The benefits of brilliant weapons are now properly modelled. A LOAL-capable smart weapon arriving at the target area and detecting other nearby targets may well home on a target different than the one it was launched against, a result both militarily and often politically undesirable. Brilliant weapons (such as AGM-84K SLAM-ER ATA) are able to pick out their intended target even in the midst of others and specifically home on it. This is particularly important for strikes in populated areas or other cases of probable collateral damage. Weapons with active man-in-the-loop guidance (like the AGM-130 glide bomb) also have the same discrimination ability.

- Weapons with terminal semi-active guidance (LGBs, SM-2 SAMs etc.) now have a per-weapon "Paint Time" variable that determines the amount of time they need to have their target illuminated. This amount varies depending on various properties of the weapon (Paveway III bombs need a 10 second paint; SM-2 missiles only need 3-5 seconds etc.) and is an important tactical factor for the platform that must perform the illumination.

- The dynamic launch zone (DLZ) calculations that determine if a weapon is kinematically able to intercept its target have been tweaked to include an additional buffer against incoming high-speed targets. This allows the shooter platform to exploit the high closure rate to launch the weapon further out than the nominal launch envelope. Common target examples include high-speed incoming aircraft (SR-71, MiG-25/31), supersonic cruise missiles (AS-4/6) or even ballistic missiles and re-entry vehicles.

- Guns and other mounts of unguided weapons (rocket launchers etc.) are now subject to director limitations just like semi-active weapons. A particular gun may have superb accuracy when directed by a radar or laser sensor, but piss-poor effectiveness when aimed with a simple optical device or on full manual control (either because there is no better sensor present or because the better sensors have been taken out). This is a critical differentiator on small-scale skirmishes (e.g. FAC duels, piracy & counter-piracy operations, littoral engagements etc.) because the same weapon systems can often be found on platforms with highly diverse sensor fits. Think that 76mm/62 Oto-Melara works just the same on an western DDG as it does on an oversized speedboat? Think again.

- We have added some tweaks & improvements to the wreckage model; Ships that are destroyed do not "vanish and re-appear as neutrals", they remain on their original side but incapacitated in every way, and they can still act as targets for sensors and incoming weapons. As before, additional hits on an existing wreckage will shorten the time before it sinks completely.

Development of Command continues at a rapid pace. More information and feedback is available on our Command forum.

Underwater warfare

Submarine and ASW ops were the least developed section of Command until recently, but that is rapidly changing.

* Straight-running torpedoes were implemented, and they work very well – in fact you have to use them carefully or risk hitting civilians or neutrals (they are equal opportunity keel-breakers!). Throwing a salvo of these against a concentrated convoy is very interesting to watch.

* We already presented mines; a few improvements since that time is that now the scen author is presented with more information when placing existing minefields, and CAPTOR mines have been implemented.

* A “Mk1” sonar model (both active & passive) has been implemented; despite its fundamental simplicity it works better than anticipated and will easily hold its own until the vastly more complex Mk2 model (currently under development) is added to the codebase.

* ASROC and similar standoff ASW weapons were implemented. The SS-N-14 with its dual-mode operation (ASuW & ASW) was particularly tricky to model correctly, but it works fine.

* The thermocline layer and its effects have been implemented. Contrary to legacy sims that feature a layer of constant depth, thickness and strength, Command dynamically calculates the layer’s properties based in geographical position, local depth, and even the local time of day and climate temperature. Both surface ships and submarines can use the layer to search for enemy forces while masking their own presence.

* The deep sound channel and its effects have been implemented. The DSC is located just under the thermocline and offers a conduit for very long-range sonar detections (this is what SOSUS exploits). Units with towed arrays and/or VDS sonar can stay above the layer while hanging their sensors on the DSC and monitoring the below-layer area.

General game mechanics

* Forbidden zones were added to the scenario editor. Using this feature allows the scenario author to define areas whose violation automatically marks an intruder as unfriendly or hostile. Additionally, standing intercept missions can be configured to launch only against hostile or unfriendly contacts, instead of triggering against any new contact. This combination allows for quite realistic violation/intrusion-interception setups.

* There is something related to scenario editing that we are currently working on which is really big, but not quite there yet. Suffice to say that TOAW-regulars will be really pleased.

User interface

* The ORBAT windows are now much more useful; click-selecting a unit on the ORBAT list will center upon the unit on the map and auto-select it if possible. Listings by task/mission are also available.

* Allied and friendly (but not own-side) units are now displayed with “A” and “F” letters under their symbols respectively. This makes it much clearer which units are friendly to the player’s side but not under the player’s control.

* Massive performance improvements to map rendering under heavy load. Having tens of thousands of visible units on the map no longer slows down UI operations.

* Quick-selection checkboxes have been added on the unit-sensors window. So while you still can manually control every single sensor on a platform, lighting up all 112 radars on the Kirov is now a one-click job.

* The “Contact Report” window now includes a list of the detected emissions from this unit, and can perform a filtering of possible matches based on these emissions. The more emissions you are able to detect from a contact and the more unique they are, the more precise the filtering will be.

The second part of this update will focus on air ops, tactical AI, sensor modeling & weapon modeling.

Thank you for everything, Darren. Fair seas.

- The WarfareSims admins