Naval mines in Command

December 16, 2016 · Posted in Mines, Uncategorized · Comment 

 

Image result for naval mineThere has been a question about Command’s mine warfare model on the forum so we would like to cover our mine model in more detail than the current manual covers.

To start it’s a good idea to have a little background on what naval mines are how they are detected and neutralized. If you’re not familiar there are some really great resources online that do a good job explaining the basics. Please do give these a good read if you’re unfamiliar with the concepts.

Now how does CMANO model mines, mine deployment, mine strikes, mine detection, and mine neutralization?

Mines in the database

CMANO eschews the traditional “minefield area with % chance to stumble on one” wargaming model and instead treats mines as discrete individual objects (yes, that means you can have thousands of them in a scenario. The sim engine can take it.). Let’s take a look at the general mine categories currently modelled in Command:

  • Bottom Mine. As the name implies, laid on the sea bottom. These are quite hard to pick on sonar and (if they are properly camouflaged) even with visual cameras. They can be used only in relatively shallow waters (if they are laid deep, when they detonate their explosive shock will dissipate until it reaches the surface).
  • Moored Mine. These are deliberately filled with some light material to provide them with positive buoyancy and then anchored to the bottom, suspended in mid-water. Because of this they can be laid in deeper waters than bottom mines. They are, however, easier to detect and neutralize.
  • Floating/drifting Mine. These float on the surface. They can be spotted and neutralized more easily than other types.
  • Moving/Mobile Mine. These are often converted torpedoes, fired from standoff range by ships or submarines, traversing a distance before settling on the bottom.
  • Rising Mine. These nasty weapons are either bottom-lying or moored, and instead of an explosive warhead their payload is a homing torpedo or rocket. When they detect a suitable target, the payload is launched and homes on the target independently.
  • Dummy mine. A fake mine, meant to delay counter-mine operations.

The mine attributes listed in the database include fuse types (magnetic, passive acoustic, pressure, seismic), arming delays, different warhead explosives and properties etc. Some of these attributes are not currently used (for example target discrimination is currently listed but not actually used in code) but have been included nevertheless for future revisions to the model. We’ve also provided generic examples of each major type in the database and in case where we’ve found detailed information on real life mines we’ve added them.

 

Deployment: Pre-fab and in-game

Mines can be deployed in any water area that meets the depth requirements for the mine. You can find these depth requirements in the database viewer or, if using the scenario editor to add a minefield, in the drop down select menu next to the mines name.

Mines are deployable in CMANO in two ways.

The first way is via the mining mission in the mission editor in either game or editor mode during gameplay by an air, sea or subsurface unit. You can create a mission by first defining an area by dropping some reference points, then selecting them and finally creating a Mining mission. This will open the mission editor allowing you to modify the mission parameters and if the mine type supports it an option to add arming delays for fields you want to activate later. Once a unit is assigned it will launch and drop mines about 400 meters apart in random lines dispersed in your defined area.

Here is an example of laying mines via a mission:

 

Things to note:

  • Multiple assets of different type can be used for the mining mission. In this example we are using the Iran Ajr in combination with a squadron of B-52Hs based at Bandar Abbas. (Yes, “Red” would not normally have access to B-52s but the Buff is as good a mining demonstrator as any. Cope!). To ensure the bombers have enough mines to sow, we are adding 10.000 Quickstrike mines to the base’s stocks. Submarines can also be used in the same manner.
  • One of the most useful custom options for the mining  mission is arming delay. This can range from 1 second up to years. This can help significantly in preventing the assigned forces from literally mining themselves into a corner. This can happen both in real life and in Command, but the delay option makes it far less likely. It also adds an extra element of uncertainty for third-party observers (“can I pass through that area before the mines are armed?”). In this example the delay is 1 hour, and every sown mine has a visible timer indicating the countdown to being armed.
  • The laying pattern is highly irregular and very rarely are 3 mines laid in a straight line. This is deliberate, as it prevents the enemy from discovering a few mines and then using their regular pattern to determine the locations of the rest. It does of course mean an uneven distribution of the mines and the possible presence of gaps in the coverage, but with enough density this is acceptable.

If you ever want to add a mine rack to a surface or submarine unit you can do so. We have added a number of mine rack type weapons records which you can add to any mount. Many combatants actually have mine racks in real life (Chinese FF, Soviet Destroyers) but aren’t filled or used unless specifically tasked.

The second way to deploy mines is there is a function in the game editor. To do so simply drop some reference points to define an area and select them. Next, go the editor dropdown menu, select minefields and then create minefields in designated area. A dialog will then appear allowing you to pick the mine you’d like and number. The editor will then do its best to randomly disperse mines in the area you’ve chosen with the correct depth requirements.

 

Going BOOM

Mine strikes are resolved in the game as follows. Once a ship or submarine reaches a certain distance from the mine a calculation is made to see if the mine is armed and triggered. If so then the mine explodes or the payload is released. If it is an explosion than our CEP modeled is leveraged and damage is applied accordingly. If it’s a payload the torpedo hit is calculated like any other torpedo and if it’s a rocket munition it will be resolved using CEP on its own. Keep in mind that any unit in range of the explosion could take damage. This includes mine hunting UUVs and RMVs that could be destroyed as well as minesweepers themselves. This could also occur during mine neutralization involving explosives or a failed attempt.

Here is an example:

 

A small USN amphibious group (an Essex LHD and a Mars replenishment ship, escorted by a Ticonderoga cruiser and a Burke destroyer) is about to enter the Hormuz straits in order to transit to the Persian Gulf. Unknown to them, we are laying a pre-made minefield using the scenario editor. We are laying approximately 500 mines, half of them moored and the other half floating ones. Despite stumbling on some of the mines and setting them off, the group crosses the minefield seemingly intact – however, close examination of the ships’ damage reports reveals that most of them have suffered substantial hull damage and many of their critical systems have been damaged or destroyed; the group is thus now a significantly easier target for follow-up attacks or may even have to abandon its mission altogether.

Several things to note:

  • Each mine category (and indeed in most cases each individual mine type) has its own operating depth restrictions. This, combined with the fact that most seabeds are non-uniform in their depth, means that laying a single-type minefield is frequently impractical. A multiple-type minefield is both easier to lay and tougher for an adversary to sweep.
  • Most modern mines follow a two-step arming & detonation logic: First the detection of an incoming valid target “wakes up” the mine, and only when the distance to the target opens (ie. the target is passing its nearest point relative to the mine, almost certainly beam-on) the warhead detonates. This protects the mine against simple “prodding” sweeps, retains the element of surprise and ensures the maximum damage to the target. Command models this faithfully.
  • If the mine happens to be right under the target, its destructive potential is magnified because of the “gas bubble” effect; under ideal circumstances the mine can even literally break the ship’s back  (similar to an under-keel torpedo detonation).

Mines are very cost-efficient and, if properly used, a tremendously effective naval weapon. It is illustrative that they have damaged and sunk more ships than any other weapon since WW2. So how does one counter them?

 

Detection

 

Mine detection varies based on the type of mine and technology used to detect them. Floating mines can be detected visually with the constraints of time of day and weather. All mines can be detected using mine hunting sonar. We do mark them as such within the database so you can use the database viewer to see what kind of sonar or gear a unit has. In general, bottom and moving mines are the most difficult to detect followed by floating and then moored and rising.

 

Sweeping

Sweeping is the most common countermeasure. Basically the sweeper is trying to prematurely trigger the mine so that it detonates (or releases its payload) while friendly forces are at a safe distance. Mine-sweeping gear is included under the sensor grouping in the CMANO database. All sonar detection is impacted by range of the unit and speed of the host unit and all mechanical gear is constrained by speed of the host vessel and usable depth of the equipment. Keep in mind all sweeping equipment has width, depth and speed constraints (ex. Mechanical sweep can sweep down to -70m to -10m at 8 knts.). If you zoom in on any unit with sweeping gear the sweeping arc is visible behind the unit.

Let’s look at an example of sweep operations:

 

“Red” has created a mine barrier on the entrance to the straits of Hormuz, and side “Blue” has to neutralize it by clearing at least part of it to create a safe transit lane. Blue has access to two Avenger-class and one Osprey-class mine-warfare ships (MCM), plus a dozen MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters at nearby airfield “Base 1”, fitted with the Mk105 mine-countermeasures equipment.

First, we take a peek “behind the scenes” by briefly enabling “God’s Eye” view, to see what Blue is up against. The minefield looks pretty thick (around 3000-4000 mines). Normally Blue does not have access to this information.

Switching back to normal view, we define an area for the safe transit corridor we want to open. Using the created reference points, we create a new mine-clearing mission and assign all available assets to it, enabling the 1/3rd rule (more on this later). Then we sit back and watch them get to work: The ships activate their HF sonars and plot a course towards the area, and some of the helicopters begin their air ops procedures for taking off. This is going to take a while, so time acceleration is widely used.

Some observations:

  • Zooming on the MCM ships and helicopters shows their mine-sweep coverage (the blue triangles). Once one or more mines are detected, the vessels maneuver in such a way as to place the target mine inside this coverage area in order to trigger it. (The odds of this happening depend on the tech levels of the sweep gear and the mine being prodded; an old mine is much easier to sweep with modern equipment and vice-versa). If no mines are detected the units will still patrol inside the designated area, aiming to set-off undetected mines (hopefully without being damaged by them).
  • Helicopters are much more efficient than ships at sweeps against detected mines thanks to their speed (and reduced vulnerability) but are less effective at detecting the mines in the first place. Ships on the other hand have the sensors suitable for detecting mines en-masse but are less effective at clearing them, and more vulnerable. As is obvious in this example, ships and helicopters are most effective in this mission when cooperating to maximize their strengths.
  • All ships (including MCMs) try as much as possible to avoid passing too close to detected mines (the pathfinding code takes known mines into account when plotting a course). The “minimum safe distance” is estimated based on the ship’s own signature characteristics (magnetic, noise etc.) and whatever information is available about the mine contact. Smaller ships have a smaller keep-out distance and MCM ships have a big advantage thanks to their special signature-suppression techniques (non-metallic hulls & structure, enhanced degaussing, low-noise motors, reduced pressure etc.). This enables them to maneuver much closer to mines than other ship types in order to sweep or hunt them.
  • Despite these measures however, all 3 ships progressively suffer blast damage. (MCM vessels are designed with the assumption that they will suffer multiple proximity blasts during their lifetime, much more intense than for frontline warships). Even the best MCM ships are vulnerable to this; during the mine-clearing operations off Inchon in 1950, multiple MCM ships and destroyers were lost. Normally the ships withdraw after a certain damage threshold and return to a tender or naval base for repairs, rotating with others.
  • Midway through the operation one of the helicopters is destroyed by fragments from a surface mine detonation. This is not a bug; helicopters occasionally do get damaged or lost while detonating nearby mines (the USN lost two helicopters this way while clearing the Haiphong harbor in 1973). One of the upcoming new features of Command is gradual aircraft damage; this will enable sending the half-damaged helo home for repairs instead of permanently losing it.
  • At 8:53 we enter the mission editor and deactivate the mission’s “1/3rd rule”. This option dictates that hosted aircraft & ships will depart for their missions in 1/3 increments rather than all together, in order to rotate and thus provide continuous coverage of the patrol/mission area. Disabling this option allows us to perform a “surge”: All available assets tasked to the mission are immediately launched, providing temporarily a significant increase of on-station assets at the cost of reduced coverage in the long term. This is one of the typical trade-off decisions that the player must make.
  • Different sweeping gear types have different probabilities of setting off a given mine, based on the fuse type involved and the technological level. Old equipment can only get you so far!

Towards the end of the video, we pause the scenario and activate “God’s Eye” once more, to witness if the sweep team has made a difference. As can be seen, a very obvious dent has been made on the mine barrier; there is still much work, but the safe-transit corridor is beginning to take form. There is also something else noteworthy: Some mines close to the sweep team have not been detected at all. Such is the uncertain nature of mine operations.

This example was presented under favorable conditions for the sweep team: No unsweepable mines were included, and these do exist. Other mine types can be swept but are really hard to detect in the first place. Sweeping in general is efficient but bound to miss some here and there; a hard proposition for the forces that have to pass through the supposedly sanitized area. Thus sweeping is typically complemented by active mine-hunting operations.

 

Hunting

Compared to sweeps, hunting mines is extremely tedious and inefficient (it is sometimes described as the difference between using a lawnmower and cutting individual grass leaves one at a time); however, it is sometimes the only way to deal with sophisticated mines that ignore sweeping countermeasures.

CMANO includes a range of equipment types to neutralize mines in the game which gives players a range of options with different degrees of success. The equipment is deployed on traditional minelayers, aircraft, UUV, USV and RMVs and includes: divers with explosive charges; explosive charges hosted on units (killer type ROV/USV), moored mine and mechanical cable cutters (moored mine only) etc. Divers with explosive have the best probability of success, followed by explosive charges and all other equipment after.

Let’s look at an example mine-hunting operation:

 

In this video we present a typical mine-hunting scenario taking place inside the Persian Gulf. The Scout and Gladiator, two Avenger-class MCM vessels team up with The Sullivans, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer and the Canadian frigate Halifax. The Avengers are the main mine-hunting force while the warships are screening them against any attacks. To hunt the mines, the Avengers are carrying SLQ-48 and Remus-600 tethered remote-operated vehicles (ROVs); these undertake the brunt of the mine neutralization process so that the ships stay (mostly) out of harm’s way. The Sullivans is also aiding the mine search by carrying and deploying a WLD-1 autonomous ROV.

At some point during the mine hunt, the force has to deal with some surprises. Things don’t always go as planned!

 

Delegating: The mine-clearing mission

CMANO provides a mine clearing mission within the mission editor. You create it by dropping some reference points, selecting them, selecting new mission from the Reference Point and Missions drop down and then add the units you’d like in the mission editor. The third rule is available for aircraft and ROVs. ROVs never appear in the mission editor but are added to the mission when their host unit is.

 

Hunting strategies

To effectively hunt mines in the game it is important to evaluate the constraints of the threat and the capabilities of your equipment.

The ocean is a big place and your ability to successful search any great swath of it for mines is pretty low even with the best gear. It is best to constrain your searches to areas that have the depth characteristics to contain mines and that the forces you are trying to protect might actually transit. Anything larger is a waste of time and resources. You may even consider rerouting transiting forces instead of trying to sweep lanes. It’s a strange game but the only winning move may be to not play.

Evaluating the mine hunting equipment you have is critical. Please do take a look at your order of battle and use the database viewer to see what units you have, the equipment they carry and evaluate their capabilities when developing a strategy.

Here are things we think you should consider and take note when make your decisions.

  • Traditional minesweeping ships are vulnerable even when successful at doing their job because depending on the size of a mine’s warhead it is likely the minesweeper will take points damage with any detonation from sweeping. We have coded in some things to reflect some of the design features to minimize this but it will happen and your ships have a limit as to how many close order detonations they can take.
  • Aircraft are preferable over ships because the likelihood of them being destroyed or damaged during sweeping is lower. Likewise UUV’s are somewhat more expendable and their losses hurt a little less than a mothership.
  • Many modern minesweepers act more as motherships for UUV or USV’s that sweep so it may be best to keep them out of the mine zones themselves thus only assign the UUV’s or aircraft to the mission.
  • Consider hunter-killer pairings. Aircraft and UUV/USV may have payload constraints so please review loads to make sure you actually have units that can detect and units that can kill mines. If it’s the case that a loadout can do one or the other please do assign both types.
  • Keep in mind the difference between a ROV and UUV. ROV equipment is tethered to the mothership. When a mothership is assigned to a mission all hosted ROV units will be assigned as well and launch once in the patrol zone or if a killer type once the mothership detects a mine. Keep in mind the tethers have a limited range which will constrain how far the ROV can travel from the mother ship and also means the mothership may have no choice but to move into the mined zone. On the other hand UUV and USV units are independent units that can be assigned directly to a mission within the mission editor. This is modeled this way to reflect their independent nature and lets the mothership standoff.
  • Do not create massive search areas when creating mine clearing missions. The patrol paths are random and the larger the area the more dispersed they are. Try to create search boxes smaller than 40 nautical miles (even smaller if just sweeping a lane) for best results and then create new ones or move the existing reference points to move ahead and shift the search area. If you don’t like a current plot you can just hit F3 for a new one.
  • If mines are smaller larger ships could be used to sweep with their own structures. You run an absolute risk of losing those ships but it’s a valid strategy that was utilized during the Iran/Iraq war.

Conclusion

We hope we’ve covered most of the basic questions about how the game models mine warfare and provided enough information for you to devise your own strategies. Please do feel free to contact us with any further questions!

New Command video: Mines in the Hormuz straits

July 17, 2011 · Posted in Command, Uncategorized · Comment 

Build 160 of Command was released today to the internal testing crew, and it features a significant new feature: Individual naval mines. Command is the first air/naval wargame of its class to model individual mine objects (as opposed to abstract “minefield” objects commonly employed in similar games, both on paper and computer) so this event marks a new milestone for the genre.

There are several reasons why mine warfare, an absolutely essential part of air/naval operations, has been poorly represented in games of this scale so far: Laying, hunting and sweeping mines is a slow, tedious process typically performed by positively unsexy platforms. Properly modeling a non-trivial minefield requires placing and tracking up to thousands of mine objects, a work that can extremely time-consuming (on paper) or CPU-killing (in computers) or both. Finally, public documentation on mine seeker & activation systems, underwater shock mechanics and mine sweeping/hunting technologies and countermeasures is less extensive than on other naval weapons.

The Command development team has applied a number of solutions to the above problems and has produced a “Mk.1” implementation which, albeit limited in several ways (see below) still sets new standards for simulation fidelity in its category.

Let’s take a look at a common what-if scenario for mine aficionados: Interdicting the straits of Hormuz. (Watch in full-screen HD for better detail)

 

A small USN amphibious group (an Essex LHD and a Mars replenishment ship, escorted by a Ticonderoga cruiser and a Burke destroyer) is about to enter the straits in order to transit to the Persian Gulf. Unknown to them, we are laying a pre-made minefield using the relevant scenario editor functionality. We are laying approximately 500 mines, half of them moored and the other half floating ones. Despite stumbling on some of the mines and setting them off, the group crosses the minefield seemingly intact – however, close examination of the ships’ damage reports reveals that most of them have suffered substantial hull damage and many of their critical systems have been damaged or destroyed; the group is thus now a significantly easier target for follow-up attacks or may even have to abandon its mission altogether.

Several things to note:

  • Platform-initiated minelaying and minehunting/sweeping is not included in this implementation, so only “pre-existing” minefields are supported. As can be seen, however, laying such minefields is literally a few clicks’ job.
  • Four mine categories are currently supported: Floaters, moored, mobile and bottom-laid. Rising/rocket mines (like the very dangerous Chinese-made, Iranian-owned EM-52) are included as part of the moored category.
  • Emphasis has been given on making the mine operation efficient in terms of CPU/RAM resources. A scenario author can place even thousands of mines or more and still get good performance (depending on the hardware of course).
  • Each mine category (and indeed in most cases each individual mine type) has its own operating depth restrictions. This, combined with the fact that most seabeds are non-uniform in their depth, means that laying a single-type minefield is frequently impractical. A multiple-type minefield is both easier to lay and tougher for an adversary to sweep.
  • The mines are assumed to have a generic pressure/magnetic fuze with a nominal detection range of 150-200m, modified by the size of the ship/submarine being detected. As minehunting/sweeping is introduced in later revisions of the model the seeker types & capabilities will have to be explicitly defined.
  • Most modern mines follow a two-step arming & detonation logic: First the detection of an incoming valid target “wakes up” the mine, and only when the distance to the target opens (ie. the target is passing its nearest point relative to the mine, almost certainly beam-on) the warhead detonates. This protects the mine against simple “prodding” sweeps, retains the element of surprise and ensures the maximum damage to the target. Command models this faithfully.
  • After this video was published, a flaw was discovered in the code that models the underwater shock generated by a mine detonation. This resulted in the shock being less powerful than in real life (dissipating at a faster rate, in fact). This was rectified in Build 161 (under development) and as a result mines are now much more damaging than what is demonstrated on the video.
  • The “killer bubble” effect is not yet represented; this is a future addition.

We will be providing more updates in the future on this significant feature as additional aspects of mine operations are implemented, such as realistic laying and hunting/sweeping performed by suitably equipped platforms.

Countdown to War Planner: Simulation Additions & Improvements

January 5, 2023 · Posted in Command · Comment 

Command’s “War Planner” update (aka “Tiny”) is set to release just a few days from now. Are you ready for Command’s biggest update yet?

In this multi-part series we take a look at the various key features introduced in this massive, FREE upgrade to Command.

We have already seen in sequence the “headline” major new features of this release; this time turn or attention to various smaller-scale but still critical additions & improvements on the simulation engine, who altogether raise the fidelity and power of Command as a wargaming and simulation tool to new heights.

This article concludes our pre-release coverage of the War Planner update and its major enhancements. We would like to thank everyone who assisted in the public beta of this massive release and provided useful feedback. You have been very much a part of this update – so enjoy it!

In this series:


Simulation Additions & Improvements

NEW FEATURE: Energy-based flight model for boost-coast missiles

Boost-coast anti-air missiles (ie. most tactical missiles that are not powered continuously) now use a much more realistic flight model that distinctly models the initial boost-sustain and post-burnout regimes, and takes into account the effects of gravity (shedding speed while climbing and regaining it when diving) and aerodynamic drag. The drag changes with altitude, built-in drag coefficient and whether the weapon is maneuvering (pitching/turning) or not. This change makes it possible to apply real-life “exhaust the threat” tactics and further constrains edge-of-envelope shots.

The onboard fuel (and thus boost duration) varies with the type of missile propulsion. Most AAW missiles (e.g. Sidewinder, Sparrow, all Standards, pre-D AMRAAMs etc.) still rely on the “traditional” boost-(optional sustain)-coast sequence, in which case the rocket motor is active usually for a few seconds. Some missiles (SA-4, SA-6, Sea Dart, Meteor etc.) use ramjet propulsion to provide for a much longer burn duration, and this allows them both a much higher average speed-to-target but also a higher energy state on the terminal engagement, which increases their chance of impact. Other new systems like the AIM-120D use “dual-pulse” rocket motors to again achieve a substantially higher overall energy state.

(NOTE: On missiles that use this model, the “fuel bar” indicator now represents only the remaining boost-sustain fuel, NOT to the total remaining energy. After burnout, the fuel bar is removed and the weapon will coast until it reaches its stall speed.)

 

Significant changes in default aircraft defensive maneuvers

Instead of beaming and diving to the deck by default, now they will first try to outrun an incoming missile while matching its relative pitch (i.e. climb if the missile is below them, or dive if it’s above them), and if the missile closes the distance they will then attempt to beam it (or its parent guidance) while also reversing their climb/dive.

To counter these counters, new additional WRA firing-range settings (including “No-Escape Zone”) are available, offering a much more comprehensive set of range options (see the UI improvements article). A2A and S2A missile engagements are, as a result, both more dynamic and far more realistic now.

(NOTE: These two changes have been arguably the most controversial ones during the public beta of the War Planner. The typical complaint by many players is “My AMRAAMs are now useless unless if fire them almost at point-blank range”. Our response to this is: EXACTLY. Welcome to the real-world kinematic limitations of most AAW missiles (against agile & alert targets, at least). This part of the reason that most (all?) real-life BVR kills have been achieved at significantly less-than-nominal launch ranges. Watch this BVR tactics video from F4 BMS and note how on each case the missiles are dragged-out rather than outmaneuvered.  WRAs and configurable firing ranges are a thing – and with the new percentage-based settings and NEZ they are more powerful than ever. Learn them, practice with them and use them. Or get used to becoming your adversary’s chew-toy, first by the enemy AI and later by other human players as MP comes to commercial CMO.)

 

NEW FEATURE: Passive Coherent Location System (aka “Passive Radar”)

The term “passive radar” has grown to broadly encompass two significantly different concepts; one is ESM/SIGINT-based air-surveillance systems and the other is multistatic radars with third-party emitters. The latter is called Passive Coherent Location System, and for a general background on the technology and CONOPS see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar

PCLS systems can be very capable against VLO targets (if the geometry is right), and their passive nature makes them inherently less vulnerable to SEAD attacks (although of course the emitters-of opportunity may themselves be targeted). On the other hand the geometry restrictions can be a tough taskmaster (the emitter, the receiver and the target must form a clean-LOS triangle otherwise there is no detection) and the signal propagation geometry sharply reduces the effective detection altitude. Therefore such systems are most effective when combined with other traditional active & passive surveillance sets rather than operating completely on their own.

The v488+ releases of the DB3000 database contain several “non-detecting emitter” platforms such as radio, TV, and cellular antennas or navigation beacons such as LORAN. It also contains a prototype PCLS vehicle that can be used in testing and as the basis for operational variants.

 

NEW FEATURE: Distinct mobile ground units

In addition to modelling mobile forces as “aimpoint facilities” (see: https://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1159 ), it is now possible to explicitly model individual vehicles with their own customized properties such as armor, propulsion, mounts, sensors etc.

The new-style ground units have unlocked certain brand-new capabilities, such as true amphibious vehicles (with distinct speed & fuel consumption properties overwater and on land).

 

NEW FEATURE: Intermittent emissions

This band-new feature allows to control the behavior of emitting sensors so they emit in intervals instead of only continously or never.

Alert levels

The first thing to do is to configure a unit’s interval according to the alert level. The alert level is set in the EMCON setting of any unit and affects the whole side. Below, in the “Active Emission Interval” we have the intermittent emission configurations for each alert levels. The side’s alert level will determine which intermittent emission configuration to use:

Emission Intervals

Let’s configure an EMCON behavior for the yellow’s alert level. By default, the interval type is set to continuous, this is the usual behavior in command where an enabled sensor will emit continuously. Emission Duration is the duration in seconds of an emitting phase. Interval is the duration in seconds of a silent phase between 2 emitting phases. Interval random variation is the random duration in seconds we add to an interval. This allows unpredictability of the cycle and is particularly useful to disrupt the enemy’s plan:

The action of waking up mean that the radar will temporarily turn into continuous and ignore intermittent behavior, until time until sleep mode is elapsed. The Wake when detecting threat checkbox controls this behavior, a threat is a unit defined by the checkboxes group includes stance and includes ID. If the radar detects an unfriendly or hostile or unknown contact with any identification level, then we wake up the radar.

If you want a unit to inherit all configuration from its parent check Use parent group parameters:

NOTE: intermittent emission will NOT make a radar active or inactive as depicted below:

Intermittent emission controls whether or not an active radar will be silent or emitting at a given moment.

Custom emission intervals configuration

If you want to use all alert level, you will need to define each interval configurations, and perhaps you want a way to override the alert level and have some units feel special and use their own rules:

To do this, populate the Custom interval tab as you will and make sure the Use custom preset only checkbox is checked.

 

NEW FEATURE: Custom Environment Zones 

Multiple & moving weather fronts? Check. Bend the laws of physics on a localized area? Can do. Specify carefully hand-picked weather, terrain and other environmental properties in order to test or compare sensors and other environment-dependent components? Yup. Unleash your inner nature wizard with this puppy.

Using this new feature, you can define a zone where you can tailor the environment & weather properties. This can be useful if you want a “controlled environment” for sensor checks, mobility & damage tests etc., but can also be used as a localized “weather override” for scenario purposes. 
To create a CEZ, bring up the Refpoint Manager and switch to the “Cust Env Zones” tab. Create a zone as usual, and then click on “Edit”. A new window should appear, in which you can define the weather & environment properties:

 

NEW FEATURE: Palletized weapons and other stores

This is a new capability that has been making the public rounds lately, as a result of a series of videos by AFRL  on the Rapid Dragon concept. using pallets packed with guided weapons, aircraft not usually associated with frontline attack operations (such as transports) can contribute to the firepower volume allocated at enemy forces.

As usual, there are caveats. The fact that weapons are fired from released pallets, rather than individually fired from the parent platform, means that weapon allocations must happen in batches; if a single missile in say a 12-pack is allocated, the full dozen has to be allocated either on the same target or others. (There exists of course the theoretical option of allocating only the desired amount of weapons and just sacrificing the rest of the pack, but the cost of the majority of modern weapons makes this an unlikely scenario).

Therefore, accurately modelling this new capability (and the decisions & restrictions it enforces) to Command has been a lot of work. Here’s what we’ve come up with:

  • Pallet Weapon: the paradroppable system (usually a pallet, but may also be a container etc.) containing the payload
  • Pallettized Weapon: the content of the pallet, the actual weapon that will be delivered

Pallet Weapons can be fired by specific aircraft that are equipped with suitable loadouts (C-130, C-17 etc.). Several new representative loadouts have been included in the DB3000 database:

 

Pallet and Weapon Allocation

Pallet Weapons can be allocated to a target both as a Pallet or by assigning a single target for every Palletized Weapon in the aircraft Loadout. When allocating a whole Pallet, all the weapons within it will be added to the salvo, and all of them will share the same target as the Pallet:

Single (individual) Pallettized Weapons can also be allocated clicking on the relative node in the tree:

NOTE: As mentioned, due to the nature of the weapon system the whole Pallet is dropped even when some of the weapons within are not allocated. So take care to allocate the full pack! A message will serve as a reminder in order to avoid wasting weapons:

 

When the Pallettized Weapons are allocated separately, the system will recognize how many Pallets are needed to fill the requested salvo quantity and will drop the appropriate amount of Pallets:

Pallet and Weapons Behavior

When dropped from an aircraft, the Pallet will align itself following the correct loitering pitch, and after reaching that pitch it will deploy the parachute and start to loiter. After the Pallet starts to loiter, all the allocated weapons are fired from the Pallet:

Example with multiple Pallets:

Pallets have one more tick up their sleave: Because they remain in coms (datalink) with their parent aicraft, you can allocate additional weapons remaining in them while they are para-dropping. Obviously this can be very useful for delayed fires against targets as the tactical situation evolves. This can be done simply by clicking on a Pallet and then allocating its hosted weapon(s) as usual:

ZueeFXi.png (1017×609)

Effect on WRAs

All the WRA will now include the weapon info for the Pallettized Weapons. Since the Pallet itself is just a carrier, it is not subjected to any WRA and will follow the WRA of its hosted Pallettized Weapons:

 

New facility category: Surface + Underground

This new facility category represents facilities that are buried underground but also have major access from the surface in order to operate. Examples are all ballistic missile silos, some command bunkers, retractable coastal-defense turrets like ERSTA etc. These facilities are vulnerable to damage/destruction both from direct weapon impacts on their surface area and also from underground shock from near misses by penetrator weapons (or exceptionally powerful surface detonations e.g. from a multi-megaton warhead or asteroid impact).

 

Significant improvements on ballistic missile kinematics 

Ballistic trajectories have been reworked from the ground up, using true Kepler equations to reflect the movement of planetary bodies. This produces true-to-life boost-phase profiles and overall trajectory parameters (this is important in order to more faithfully model the abilities & limitations of BMD systems).


Improvements in ABM DLZ calculations

ABM systems have additional fail conditions in their DLZ evaluations compared to normal SAMs. A prime example is the intercept “hard floor” for exo-atmospheric systems. For instance, SM-3 cannot make intercepts under 100km in altitude (because its “warhead”/kill-vehicle is effectively a miniature spacecraft with a very sensitive IR seeker and no aerodynamic control, and thus cannot function within the atmosphere). This factor severely restricts the system’s intercept window: If the estimated intercept point is within the atmosphere, it is already too late to shoot. This screengrab from a LM THAAD-ER promo video illustrates this well:

In addition, the case of “intercept will happen within weapon minimum range” has been added as a fail condition to DLZ checks.

 

Overhauled Reaction Times

The differences in reaction times, and their effects, are now more critical than ever. All units use common-reference “Combat System Generation” (“Cockpit Generation” for aircraft) to model the modernity of their combat systems, combined with an “Ergonomics” value to handle intra-generation differences (the atrocious switchology on early missile-age aircraft will most definitely get you killed now). Older, WW2-era ships may take up to 5 minutes to engage a target, while Aegis cruisers fire in <20 seconds. Cold War fighters will be beaten to the draw by modern, fifth-generation fighters. Overmatch, that ever-elusive dream, is now possible – but beware, it goes both ways.

Until now, the existing OODA model was hobbled by two major problems. First, most values were way too fast. Detection, targeting, and/or evasion usually took less than 20 seconds. This works for ships equipped with modern combat systems, e.g. upgraded Aegis; not so for Cold War clunkers (or, heaven forbid, a pre-WW2 battleship). Second, having to manually set OODA values per-ship meant inconsistent reaction times across combat system generations.

For the revised model, we’ve added a new component to ships: the Combat System Generation (CS Gen), which can range from Gen 1 (1945-1950) to future Gen 7 (2030+). Whether you’re plotting contacts on a plotting board, federated CPUs, or an integrated system – and the age of the components making up those systems – will have a huge effect on your ability to quickly react to and engage targets. A modern Aegis ship can spot, track, and engage a contact in about 20 seconds; for a ship with a WW2-vintage CIC, the process balloons upwards to almost five minutes. If your first detection of an incoming missile comes from your own radars, it may not be enough.

There is an exception for small craft, which regardless of age generally have extremely fast reaction times (this is because their targeting process essentially consists of shouting at the guy on the MG to “shoot that guy over there RIGHT NOW”). However, this is mitigated by their comparatively less powerful sensors and weapons: being quick on the draw doesn’t help much when the Mk1 Eyeball on your RHIB spots a Hellfire inbound.

“But wait,” we hear you object. “Doesn’t this mean that, given an especially old ship and a modern threat, I may find myself completely helpless against an incoming missile?” The answer is yes: those Final Countdown scenarios are going to play out very differently now. This was a major concern for naval planners during the Cold War (the development of NTDS, the US Navy’s first automatic data-exchange system, was driven by classified exercises & wargames in which USN ships were consistently sunk before they could react to incoming air & missile strikes).

For aircraft, the flying equivalent to the “Combat System Generation” for ships, the “Cockpit Generation” is a way for us to approximate pilot load – and subsequently reaction times – based on cockpit design. Aircraft can be assigned one of six cockpits: “Basic Instruments Only,” intended for the simplest aircraft; “Steam Gauges, ” as for WW2-era fighters; “Complex Steam Gauges,” for the nightmarish mid-Cold War fighters; “Partial Glass Cockpit,” for transitioning aircraft of the ‘70s-90s; “Glass Cockpit,” for most modern aircraft; or finally a “Panoramic Cockpit Display,” representing the new single-screen touch displays coming to a fifth-generation fighter near you.

Just as a ship is only as good as its CIC, your aircraft are only as good as their cockpits – and whether your pilots are forced to fiddle with a forest of knobs, switches, and dials or able to glance at an easy-to-read LCD will affect their performance. Of course, the difference between aircraft cockpit generations is far less than the difference between ship CS generations, measured in seconds rather than minutes – but in an aerial engagement, seconds do count.

For submarines, facilities and mobile ground units, we have followed a similar path. We split submarine combat systems into six distinct “generations,” ranging from the early Mk1/3/4 TDC used in WW2 to the modern AN/BYG-1 and future witchcraft as featured in SSN(X). Facilities and ground units required a slightly different system: rather than using multiple “generations” as with ships and subs, these annexes distinguish between fixed and mobile systems and whether said system uses manual or assisted guidance. For example, radar-assisted AAA (e.g. Skyshield) will be faster to engage than a manual gun (ZSU-57); both (towed) systems will be slower at evasion than a SPAAG. The same is true for manually laid artillery vs. those with digital fire control, towed artillery vs. SPGs, etc. While less detailed than our system for ships, subs, and aircraft, we felt this was “good enough” for the level at which these platforms are simulated in Command. (And, of course, we always have the manual override for when we have specific platform data.)

This is obviously is a major set of changes and potentially game-breaking for older scenarios. For this reason, the SBR tool now also includes the ability to preserve “legacy” OODA values when migrating scenarios to v494+ databases. For pro users, the DB Editor also offers the ability to explicitly set custom values and selectively override the generation-derived ones.

Extra wrinkles: Ergonomics

Not every aircraft built with steam gauges was equally difficult to fly; not every ship built in a certain decade could react with identical speed. Certain platforms gained a reputation for being especially easy to operate (the Viggen, for example, had a remarkably well-designed cockpit); others, like the Komar-class missile boat, were the bane of their operators. Much of this can be ascribed to ergonomics, the consideration (or lack thereof) of human factors in design.

The new “ergonomics” field – ranging from “Awful” to “Excellent” – is intended to reflect these intra-generation differences, acting as a sort of OODA “buff/debuff” and giving the ability to adjust values to reflect upgrades, etc. without needing to take the drastic step of upgrading the combat generation.

And, of course, you still have proficiency in the mix. Players now have an interesting mix of factors to consider:

– “Tech generation,” e.g. CS/cockpit generation: when was your platform designed/built, and what sort of tech was in play at the time? Are you working with ancient WW2 plotting boards or Aegis?

– Usability/ergonomics/design: are you working with beautiful, top-of-the-line COTS human interface tech or the nightmare that was mid/late-Cold War Soviet systems?

– Proficiency: Do you have well-trained, well-rested/motivated crews, or are you dealing with bottom-of-the-barrel conscripts?

Those three factors will all have to play into your operational planning.

 

Radar & IR Stealth Modifier Improvements

Sensor improvements come coupled with a massive overhaul of signature modifiers in the DB, which significantly improve the realism of our stealth model by drawing clearer distinctions between shaping and RAM generations.

Prior to the v494 DB releases, we could classify an aircraft as having “light,” “medium,” or “heavy” stealth shaping … and that was it. These modifiers were applied always in all aspects (no ability to define e.g. a frontal-only reduction modifier). Modeling of IR signature suppression (IRSS) techniques was even more limited.

In v494+ we completely overhauled our existing VLO modifiers to account for shaping and RAM generations. In addition we also added several special flags to indicate the presence (or lack thereof) of certain stealthy design features. This allows us to model not only general, whole-craft stealth but also context-specific or aspect-specific features such as S-shaped intakes, exposed fan blockers, active cancellation, and stealth pylons. For example, S-shaped intakes reduce the likelihood of being detected head-on, while LO pylons reduce the impact of externally-carried stores.

This overhaul also extends to IR modifiers. As with radar stealth, we completely rewrote our “general” modifiers to represent whole-aircraft IR signature suppression techniques (distributed vs. conventional fuel tanks, low-E coatings etc.) and added several additional aircraft codes to represent specific IRSS features. These codes include shielded “anti-Strela” exhausts, masked exhausts, heavily masked / slit-shaped exhausts, and peak temperature reduction or “cool-air mixing”. Note that certain IRSS features come with downsides and limitations: slit-shaped exhausts, for example, will make you harder to spot but paradoxically easier to lock on to with IR weapons due to back pressure penalty; in another example, anti-Strela exhausts are most effective against someone trying to get a lock from below.

The full list of added signature modifiers is:

  • RCSS – Active Cancellation
  • RCSS – S-Shaped Intake(s)
  • RCSS – Exposed Fan Blocker(s)
  • RCSS – Stealth Pylons
  • IRSS – Shielded Exhaust (Anti-Strela)
  • IRSS – Masked Exhaust
  • IRSS – Heavily Masked / Slit-Shaped Exhaust
  • IRSS – Peak Temp Reduction (Cool-Air Mix)

We’ve backfilled all LO/VLO aircraft in both DBs with these features as best as we could determine. (Naturally, in many cases and especially with contemporary stealth fighters, exact details are sometimes hard to come by.) These changes mean that various LO/VLO aircraft are now much harder (or easier) to detect than you may be used to. We have solid confidence in the results; comparisons with known real-world RCS & IR data yield accurate numbers. However, we’re also open to feedback: expect tweaks in future DB releases as we hone the new values. Pro users can of course manually input their precise classified figures as before.

 

IR & Visual Sensor Improvements

Closely related to the above, this was initially presented and discussed in the professional edition context (see presentation side to the right) but applies equally to the commercial edition.

IRSTs and high-mag cameras are no longer near-magical counter-VLO sensors. They may still be your best bet for detection, but you won’t be volume-scanning for stealth fighters at >100nm anymore. (You can still spot/track them pretty far enough IF something/someone else first cues you there). Abhirup Sengupta broadly explains the tech background behind this limitation well in this Quora post.

The relevant sensors now have a dual value in the search range listing in the DB value, to make it more explicit where their volume search extends to. For example, this listing for the PIRATE IRST system on RAF’s Typhoon Tranche 3:

…indicates that the system can perform un-cued volume search out to 20nm, but can track already-detected targets out to 100nm (both cases under ideal conditions).

Visual and IR checks are now also susceptible to look-down clutter. For example, it is easier for an IRST (or the plain Mk1 Eyeball) to pick out an aircraft over the horizon line than against the surface background.

 

Degree-Definable Sensor Arcs and Vertical Scan Limits

This is a seemingly small but important improvement to our sensor modelling: at last, sensor arcs can optionally be defined in degrees, rather than just in “pie wedge” set sectors. We’ve also implemented vertical sensor arcs, which were especially important during the Cold War. Older air-to-air radars were often limited to a small chunk of vertical space (20 degrees or so), which meant that fighters would struggle to detect aircraft far below or above them. For air planners, this meant “Low CAPs” and “High CAPs” were necessary. Soon you too will have to consider altitude in your CAP coverage.
(Note that current DBs do not have vertical sensor arc data backfilled, so this won’t have an immediate effect on gameplay until we can do a bit more research. Expect to see an RFI in the public Github for arcs and scan limits.)

 

Parallelized attack salvo calculations

The creation of attack salvos is now largely run in parallel instead of sequentially.

Some background to this: Until now, the creation of attack salvos was done purely sequentially. Unit-1 examines if it can attack (both doctrinally and physically) a contact; if yes, it creates a new salvo or adds its weapon(s) to an existing one for the same target with same weapon ID. Then Unit-2 does the same, etc. etc. until a suitable salvo for the given target is filled to capacity. This presents a number of issues:

  • Because of the sequential nature, a potential “Unit-3” which perhaps is better located to attack the same target, or perhaps has a more suitable weapon for it, may not be considered at all (if a suitable salvo for the given target is filled-to-capacity by previous units). This can lead to problematic situations like this.
  • Again because of the sequential calculation, this process does not exploit multiple CPU cores and can significantly slow down a pulse execution in a large/busy scenario.

Units now perform the salvo evaluations in their own individual threads and submit “firing proposals” to their side. The parent side groups firing proposals per-target and selects the most promising one, based on criteria that depend on the nature of the target (e.g. for aerospace targets an important factor is time-to-impact). Once selected, the salvos are executed as usual.

 

Weather effects for surface ship speed

This is an optional new feature. When enabled, deteriorating weather conditions (and especially increasing sea state) has an adverse impact on the maximum speed that ships can travel. This effect is particularly acute on small-displacement ships. Depending on sea state and ship size, a ship may be forced to run at 3/4, half, 1/4 speed or even heave (effectively remain stationary).

The information about the weather-related limitation is shown in various ways:

Because this feature can potentially unbalance existing scenarios, it is optional (can be toggled on the “Scenario Realism Features” window) and is “ON” by default when making a new scenario, and “OFF” by default when loading an existing scenario.

Aircraft maximum airborne endurance

 

This fixes the “aircraft may stay up indefinitely by multiple A2A-refuellings” realism flaw. Aircraft are now limited in their total airborne endurance depending on their size, type and crew complement. The information about current airborne total time and maximum endurance is listed on the fuel panel and is color-coded for at-a-glance evaluation (dark red is bad). If an aircraft reaches it max endurance limit, it enters an “RTB – Exhaustion” state, turns straight for its home base and will refuse any manual orders to change course or engage in any other activity.

 

Other simulation bits and pieces

– Added new ASuW doctrine option: “Use missile waypoints” (NO by default). When set to Yes, ASuW missile shooters will use the missile’s waypoint/dogleg capability (if present and if the range allows it). If set to No, ASuW missile shots will always go “straight in” (for old-timers, this is the default CMANO pre-v1.10 behavior).

– Non-ABM-optimized AAW missiles (e.g. Stunner) use a direct-flight profile when engaging ballistic targets (even if they have a lofting/cruise altitude set in the DB)

– An AAW missile’s attitude control type is now taken into account when determining Ph reduction due to reduced terminal energy:

  • Interceptors with non-aerodynamic control (e.g. SM3, THAAD) have no reduction at all
  • Interceptors with aerodynamic-only control (ie. most SAMs) have the as-standard reduction
  • Interceptors with combined aero & non-aero control (e.g. Aster 15/30, 9M96) halve their Ph reduction (the non-aero control diminishes the negative effect of low terminal energy on maneuverability)

– Optional speed improvement: Do not share-and-deduplicate contact messages between allied sides.

  • HOW TO ENABLE: On Command.ini, under the category [Game Preferences], add this: “DedupAlliedMessages = False”
  • PROS: In scenarios with numerous sides allied to each other, this can provide a significant boost to sim performance.
  • CONS: When this is enabled, sides do not receive contact-related messages (new contact, contact status change, contact lost etc.) from their allied sides. NOTE: The contact data itself is shared as always, it’s only the log-messages that are not shared. This may or may not be a significant hindrance depending on your gameplay style.

– Ships & submarines now attempt to evade incoming torpedoes more realistically, following these guidelines. Submarines will additionally alter their depth to avoid the torpedo(es) if appropriate.

– Added new sonar sub-type: Vertical Flank Array (DB v494+ required). These have been present in some Russian sub classes for a while, and are now backfitted on the Ohio class and earmarked for future US SSNs. They provide improved tracking capability (can establish a high-quality TMA track sooner).

– Expendable UAVs (and weapons/decoys) can now have their plotted course programmable in throttle & altitude

– Surface targets are now affected also by underground explosions, though not nearly as much as underground facilities (they receive much less of the transmitted shock). This makes it possible to damage/destroy buildings through near misses by penetrator weapons.

– New simulation feature: Certain weapons occupy their launcher while they are enroute (e.g. most wire-guided torpedoes & ATGMs). The mount cannot be reloaded before the weapon is destroyed one way or another. (Requires DBs v489+)

– ADDED: RWR detection of SARH/TVM illumination auto-generates an (incoming) missile contact, even if the missile itself has not yet been detected yet. This provides realistic ahead-warning (and thus evasion opportunity) to the targeted aircraft.

– New simulation feature: Daisy Chain-type weapon datalinks (DB v489+ required). This allows weapons to communicate directly with each other instead of being slaved to a datalink platform.

– The AI can now employ Mobile Air Decoys (MALD/TALD) (DB v489+ required).

– Support missions can now be created without a ref point (with a visual warning). Example use: Turn on ground based radars without having to turn them on the side-level or individually.

– AI improvement in wingman logic: Distances when evaluating contacts is measured from the group LEAD (not from itself), so the wingman will not chain-investigate away from lead. Also, wingmen do not investigate contacts alone if some other aircraft in the same mission is checking it. So if there are more unknowns than flights, wingmen may start breaking off to investigate them when they are in weapons range of their lead, otherwise they will not.

– Dual-seeker ARMs (e.g. AARGM) can now be fired (non-BOL) against non-emitting targets

– Relaxed the “have reached formation station” check threshold for aircraft (makes them less eager to throttle up to get to station)

– Ship attack AI tweak: When attacking with a contact bomb (ie. saboteur or kamikaze), if possible use flank throttle to minimize the target’s reaction window.

– The visual & IR signature modifiers of in-flight missiles have been tweaked so that they are picked up at shorter ranges. This prevents unrealistic early detection of incoming missiles and thus too-effective maneuvering against them.

– Aircraft AI tweak: When in normal loiter mode (no mission flight or plotted course), wingmen ignore their formation station and just stick close to the leader

– Added: Fuel resupply and rearm for submarines

– Tweaks to sonar cavitation model:

  • Cavitation is now dependent on desired speed (ie. screw turn rate) rather than current vessel speed
  • The noise boost from the onset of cavitation is now gradual (instead of all or nothing), and its magnitude depends on how much above the cavitation threshold the desired speed is

– Aircraft will now pitch up/down as necessary if weapon release is blocked by vertical boresight limits

– When undetected units fire gun/missile weapons, their visual signature blooms temporarily and they are susceptible to detection.

– BOL-fired torpedoes will snake if they are able to

– Added new navigation doctrine option: “Direct path” for ground units. This causes land units to head straight towards their destination without any pathfinding considerations.

– Added: Mine-Clearing mission can now also use “repeatable loop” movement style (so e.g. use explicit sweeping lanes)

– MIRVs are now released from ballistic missiles in sequence, one every 5 seconds (instead of all together)

– ARMs are less effective against low-band emitters (increased chance of a miss)

– Active sensors on aircraft are temporarily de-activated when approaching a target tanker for refueling (this is a safety measure to avoid igniting the tanker’s fuel).   

– ALARM parachute loiter capability added (this requires DB3000 v489+)

– Vehicles now use cargo load/unload time calculation similar to aircraft

– Cargo transfers now attempt to keep grouped units (that are stored in cargo) together when possible.

– Amphibious vehicles assigned to an active mission but stored in cargo will be checked against available docking facilities on their host unit. If available, they will self-unload into the docking facility. This is currently checked every 30 seconds though only one unit can self-unload per check. Amphibious vehicles cannot use davit type docking facilities.

– Docked amphibious vehicles that are assigned to an active mission will launch automatically if they’re in range of the mission area. This is the same behavior as boats currently perform for cargo missions, but amphibious vehicles auto-launch for all mission types.

– Ground Units can now perform cargo missions.

– Added “X days underway” tracking value for subs (example).

– Tweak to radar clutter logics: AESAs which refresh/revisit existing target tracks can narrow their beams and effectively cancel-out clutter altogether. This does NOT apply to volume-search scan against not-yet-detected targets.

– Implemented distinct horizon propagation values for different sensor types. Typical factors are 1.23, 1.5, and 1.06 for radar, ESM, and EO/IR respectively. These parameters are defined in the “Electronic Warfare and Radar Systems Engineering Handbook”.

Triple whopper: Updated Community Scenario Pack with 28 new scenarios

October 16, 2020 · Posted in Command · Comment 

It has been a busy week, that’s for sure. Yesterday we had the release of the massive v1.02 update and the new Command-LIVE “Sahel Slugfest” scenario, and today it’s the turn of another Command stable, the Community Scenario Pack (CSP). Brandon Johnson (Kushan) has updated the pack with updates & refreshes to existing scenarios, as well as 28 brand-new creations. Let’s take a look:


Airstrikes on Zinder, 2025 – This scenario assumes that in the near future Niger will experience a civil war.  An organization known as the ZLA seeks to establish a separate country in the Nigerien territory of Zinder.  It has already occupied the largest city in the region, also known as Zinder, and is presently operating as a de facto state.

Assalto in Pakistan, 2018 – After the multiple terrorist attacks by Pakistan .. NATO has decided to teach him a lesson .. by sending the nearby Italian fleet.

Baltic Fury 2 – Borscht on Bornholm – In this scenario you are playing the Soviet side and are charged with conducting an airborne and amphibious landing on Bornholm. NATO is on the backfoot so this should be a quick and relatively simple operation, but it’s essential that the island is seized and secured rapidly to allow for future operations.

Carrier Hunt, 2024 – China’s surprise attack hit every US-alliances in North-East Asia. While major military assets in Japan and South Korea took severe damage by Chinese ballistic missile strikes, Chinese forces have captured the Japanese Okinawa Islands and seized control.
Although the United States and its allies have suffered significant losses, they are still far from beaten…
This is a medium, single-sided battleset scenario with a duration of 2 days. You have two US Carrier Strike Groups with mostly three anti-ship weaponry: AARGM, LRASM, and Multi-Mission Tomahawk. Your primary target is Chinese Carrier ‘Shandong’ around Okinawa.

Galveston Gets a Mission, 1960 – Nikita Khrushchev believed that the role of the Soviet Navy was to support the Army, and once referred to surface warships as “molten coffins.”  He did, however, believe that submarines, especially those armed with nuclear missiles, were a good idea.
During the Cold War, both the Soviets and the Americans used submarines to gather intelligence on each other and often tried to sneak submarines close to the territory of their rivals as possible.  They also used cruisers and destroyers to find those submarines and to chase them away.

Greek-Turkish EEZ Conflict, 2021 – In late November, 2019 a diplomatic crisis erupted between Greece and Turkey when Turkey announced it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Libya outlining their maritime boundaries. This particular dispute, amongst all of the other conflicts simmering between the two rivals involved an agreement between Turkey and Libya that defined oil right for a newly found oil field in an area Greece claimed as part of its Maritime Zone (MZ).

Hell of the East, 2019 – In this alternate future, the dispute and arguments between Turkey and the United States of America lead the Presidential Republic to leave NATO in favor of its alliance with Russia.
Due to growing military actions from the Turkish armed forces in the contested waters, Greece agreed to allow the Italian forces to field it’s air defense batteries and part of it’s air force in Greek territories and move it’s Ocean-Capable fleet in International waters.

Leathernecks are Watching, 2025 – This scenario assumes that Indonesia is going through a period of civil unrest.  Separatists in western New Guinea have renewed their efforts to force Indonesia to give them independence.
There is evidence that China is providing the rebels with financial and material support.
The rebels recently seized control of the town of Jayapura and nearby Sentani Airport.  They have also taken two groups of American civilians hostage.
The only American vessels in the immediate vicinity are a surface group centered on (LHA 6) and the attack submarine (SSN 766).

Nile Delta Strikeback, 2012 – Israeli-Egyptian relations, in a grudging peace for 33 years, have once again flared into war. The Israeli Navy has deployed in force off the Nile Delta. Opposing it is only a pair of old Romeo submarines. Command either side for a different experience.

Operation Cachalot, 2023 – Pakistan is in the middle of a civil war between the loyal moderate government and the islamic radicals and the latter are winning. European Union, with France on the front line, is helping the loyal and trying to defuse the situation. Radicals allied groups conduct a surprise attack to France forces in Djibouti and hijack the French research ship Cachalot with 50 sailors on board in the Gulf of Aden, asking for France disengagement and sailing toward Pakistan. The negotiations do not produce any useful results and in a few hours the French merchant Cachalot will reach the main Pakistani port of Karachi. The French carrier group centered on Charles de Gaulle just arrived in the area of operation and is ready to take the merchant back and teach the Pakistan radicals a harsh lesson.

Operation El Dorado Canyon, 1986 – A highly detailed recreation of the April 1986 US air strikes on Libya.
On the 5th of April 1986 terrorists detonated a bomb in a Berlin nightclub. The bomb killed 2 American soldiers and a Turkish woman and injured 229 others, 79 of whom were American.
In response, citing evidence that the government of Libya was responsible, US president Ronald Reagan ordered airstrikes against Libya on the night of April 14/15, codenamed OPERATION EL DORADO CANYON.

Operation Locusta, 1990 – Following the invasion and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq, on September 25, 1990, the Italian Government sent eight multi-role Panzer Tornado IDS fighters (plus two in reserve) belonging to the 6th, 36th and 50th Wing in the Persian Gulf. Operation Desert Shield, which were deployed at the Al-Dhafra air base near Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.
The use of Italian aircraft in the Desert Storm operation represented the first operational use in combat missions of Italian Air Force aircraft after the end of the Second World War.

Operation Northern Stork, 2018 – Four EuroFighter aircraft from the Italian Air Force took off yesterday from the Grosseto military airport to the airport of Keflavik, in Iceland, to launch the NATO Interim Air Policing operation, called “Northern Stork”. The aim of the operation is to preserve the integrity of NATO’s airspace by strengthening Iceland’s skies surveillance, which does not have the capability and autonomous air defense structures. Italy contributes, with periodic shifts with the other countries of the Alliance, to this NATO mission.

Putin’s War – In the Jaws of the Bear, 2022 – The time had come to take the war to Russia. MAG-31 was to launch SEAD attacks from its base in Norway attacking from the landward flank. The USAF aircraft in Iceland would fly a circular route north of Jan Mayan Island launching a SEAD attack with their decoys, jammers and JASSMs and the USN would follow up that attack with a Tomahawk strike on the major Kola Peninsula naval bases and air fields.

Putin’s War – Midnight Sun, 2022 – The Baltic Crisis finally erupted into a full-scale NATO-Russian/Belorussia conflict on the morning of June 6th. The Baltics and the Suwalki Gap were rapidly overrun by the evening of the 7th with Russian forces reaching Kaliningrad by advancing west along Highway A16/E28 from Vilnius to Kybartai. They then turned southwestward reaching Highway 63 in Poland on the 11th, where they paused.
Under the midnight sun on the 7th Russian air forces bombed the Norwegian expeditionary air base at Banak and ports near Nordkapp.   The war above the Arctic circle had begun…

Putin’s War – Operation Exodus, 2022 – After the onset of Russian military operations against Norway it was decided to move Norwegian Vessels, under maintenance or damaged, to Royal Navy ports and shipyards in the United Kingdom.  Norwegian and British yard workers worked 24/7 to get as many of the vessel’s systems up as possible, and propulsion back online. By the 14th escorts were in place and the exodus to the UK ready.

Putin’s War – The Bodo Express, 2022 – On the morning of the 7th Russian air forces bombed the Norwegian expeditionary air base and port at Banak, near the Nord Kapp. By afternoon Russian paratroopers had seized the air field with Northern Fleet’s 61st Naval Infantry Brigade conducting a follow up landing at the port that evening. The 200th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade crossed the Norway-Russian border that morning brushing aside the tripwire Norwegian outposts. More follow up forces from 80th Independent Motor Rifle Brigade follow on advancing west.

Putin’s War – Threading the Needle, 2022 – As chaos continued to descend upon the Baltic all three nations jointly invoked NATO Article Five asking Brussels for aide. Debate raged in NATO General Council during the late week (June 1st and 2nd) until it was proven on Friday (June 3rd) that “Little Green Men” were appearing more and more frequently in the growing civil unrest. To date, the crisis had been confined to the Baltic States but at 18:00 UTC a French satellite pass noted the Russian SSBNs getting underway from the Kola Peninsula and other satellite passes confirmed the rest of the Northern and Baltic Fleets getting ready to stand up…

Royal Problems, 1962 – Following the Coup of September, 26th, 1962. Egypt immediately recognized the newly declared Republic of Yemen. Supposedly concerned over a possible Saudi intervention from the north and a British move from the south from the Protectorate Aden, Egypt actively supported the new Republic of Yemen.
In October 1962 the situation escalated quickly as the pro-royalist forces gained more and more support from Saudi Arabia. Additionally the United States of America sent weapons and aircrafts to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

South Atlantic War, 1982 – Sneaky Beakies in South Georgia – Following the successful Argentinian occupation of the Falklands Islands and South Georgia, the first steps in the UK military response was to start to gain ground-level intelligence on the occupying forces.
This scenario is playable by the UK side only and re-creates the covert insertion of SBS reconnaissance teams by the SSN HMS Conqueror on the night of 18/19 April 1982.

Sumatra Crisis 1 – Mayday, 2022 – Indonesia is under a civil war, facing separatist rebels in North Eastern Sumatra, getting extensive support from abroad, against the official government. To stop the foreign assistance, Indonesian Navy started to board and inspect some merchant ships passing through Strait of Malacca and along the western Sumatran coast that could provide help to the rebels. More than one time ships coming and going from Singapore port were harrassed, causing considerable concern and tension. After a few days Singapore Navy started patrols along their line of communication to ensure freedom of navigation. The next time an Indonesia patrol boat stops and inspect a friendly merchant, hopefully Singapore Navy will be in position to perform a show of force.

Sumatra Crisis 2 – Trade Paralisis, 2022 – After the strong Singapore reaction to Indonesia inspections and harassment to merchant traffic around Singapore, Indonesia government stopped using ships for the activity and resorted to submarines, sinking any vessel suspected to bring equipment to the rebels in the Strait of Malacca. This is a inacceptable limitation for Singapore lines of communication, heavily dependent on naval traffic transiting in the strait. A special task force is immediately assembled to hunt the enemy submarines.

Sumatra Crisis 3 – Singapore Surprise, 2022 – In a final step to reduce merchant traffic providing help to Sumatran rebels, Indonesian Navy started placing mines East of Palau Lingga Island in Malaccan Strait. Singapore Navy immediately moved heavily escorted mine countermeasures vessels (MCV) to remove the weapons and establish full freedom of navigation in the area. This time Indonesia forces are ready to react in force and teach Singapore a harsh lesson.

The Desperate Hours December, 1985 – World War Three is entering its third month. Amazingly neither side has yet resorted to nuclear weapons but the balance of power is gradually shifting. Younger members of the Politburo prevented the old guard from implementing the “Seven Days to the Rhine” plan with its first use of over 600 nuclear weapons, arguing the Warsaw Pact’s conventional forces can carry the day.
In Moscow, the balance of power is shifting, the ministers who opposed the “Seven Days to the Rhine” plan have now been discredited and the nuclear war hawks have neutralized them. NATO intelligence begins to pick up indications of Soviet preparations for a nuclear strike on the Continental United States (CONUS), Alaska, the UK and France. NATO navies are out of position for this with most forces involved in the Battle of the Atlantic and reinforcing Israel in the Med. USS Pharris FF-1094, charged with defending the GIUK Gap, and a few P-3s are all that stands between a Soviet Yankee reinforcing Soviet nuclear forces in the Atlantic and maybe the tipping point in the balance to nuclear war.

The Laser Dance, 2024 – A few hours ago, China declared war on the United States and its two major alliances in the Pacific. Right after the war declaration, a massive Chinese ballistic missile strike had initiated. Many air bases in Japan and South Korea have neutralized, their air forces in the region suffered critical losses.
When a large scale of Chinese naval activity is detected near Okinawa Island, the United States Pacific Command made a decision to save one of its hidden cards, a Surface Action Group which was conducting tests of new weaponry in the region.

The Missiles of October Part Deux, 2020 – During the Spring of 2020, the new Coronavirus “COVID-19” strain caused serious disruption to the world order and economic systems, diverting the West’s attention from military matters to lock downs, market crashes and sealed borders. Quietly ties between Russia’s President Putin and Partido Comunista de Cuba (PPC), First Secretary, Raúl Castro warmed over this period of disruption. By late May, Russian engineers began construction on a series of bunkers south of Habana (Havana) which bore a striking resemblance to similar bunkers recently completed in Kaliningrad.
In mid-August Russian antishipping missiles took up position along the Florida Straits. Between 15 to 25 September, as chaos reigned in American and European cities, several Russian ships docked in Cuban ports disgorging Intermediate Range Cruise Missiles and their Transporter-Erector-Launchers (TELs). Satellite imagery took several days to analyze, due to the virus, but by October 3rd it was obvious that Iskandar missiles were being positioned in Cuba. The clock had been turned back 58 years!

The Olutanga Rebellion, 2020 – The Philippines has long struggled with civil unrest.
This scenario assumes that a separatist group has seized control of much of the island of Olutanga.

Two Cutters in the Gulf of Mexico, 2020 – In war and peace, the United States Coast Guard wages an endless battle to protect America and Americans from criminals and, sometimes, their own stupidity.


The new community scenario pack is, as always, available for download at the WS site: http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=1876 , and also on the Steam workshop.

The CSP now proudly counts 549 scenarios in its stable!

Stay home and play: Twelve new CMO community scenarios

March 23, 2020 · Posted in Command · Comment 

Kushan has released the updated version of the Command community scenario pack. In addition to updated and refreshed versions of existing works, the new release includes twelve new scenarios:


119 Squadron Makes a Little Noise, 2021 – This scenario assumes that Syria is using local militias to support its political agenda in Lebanon. There is compelling evidence that the militias have conducted terrorist operations both in and outside Lebanon and are planning attacks on Israel.

Air Battle over Metema, 2019 – Hostilities have erupted between Sudan and Ethiopia.

Assault on Banak, 1985 – A “Bolt out of the Blue” Warsaw Pact assault on NATO began at 04:00 utc/Zulu time this morning. Since then airfields and army units in northern Norway have been hit hard. You have been ordered to get your Type 207 Class submarine r underway ASAP and interdict a Soviet amphibious group rounding Nord Kapp destination Banak Diversionary Airfield. Your mission is to engage and destroy as many Soviet Amphibious vessels as possible and still bring your crew home!

Fiery Cross Reef, 2021 – The world is at war… After three weeks of fighting the fronts are stabilized on fronts, except in the Middle East where Israel is driving into Southern Lebanon and Damascus. The time has come for the West to take the offensive and the first move will come against the PRC/PLAN with the Spratly/Paracel Islands as your target.

Hormuz, 2020 – Iran decides to close the Straits of Hormuz.

Operation Quiet Rodeo, 1994 – During the 1990s, the United Kingdom and Libya provided support to different factions during the Civil War in Sierra Leone. This scenario assumes the situation escalated. British and Libyan forces have become directly involved in the conflict and, on occasion, have engaged each other in combat.

Senkaku Islands Clash, 2019 – The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are disputed by the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan and Japan, with Japan currently controlling the islands. For decades they were little more than navigational markers and a fishing grounds until in the late 60s when oil reserves were discovered near the islands. This increased in 1971 as the United States turned over control of the Ryukyu Chain, including the Senkaku, to Japan. Jockeying for control of the islands really began in earnest in the 1990s with the situation becoming more nationalistic during the 2010s. By 2016 the dispute had reached a fever pitch when the United States confirmed it was committed to assisting the Japanese Self Defense Forces with the defense of the Islands.

The Battle of Vogel Seamount, 1981 – This scenario assumes hostilities erupted between NATO and the Soviet Union in 1981.

The Corfu Channel Episode, 1946 – The historical Corfu Channel Incident does not make a very good war game scenario. It involves several British ships conducting a Freedom of Navigation Operation. Two British ships were damaged by mines and more than forty British sailors were killed. This version assumes that the British have more information and have sent two minesweepers to clear the mines and a surface action group to protect them. The scenario is set at about the same date as the actual Incident and the SAG includes most of the historical vessels involved.

Vikrant goes to War, 1971 – You are Commander, Eastern Fleet of the Republic of India’s navy with war against Pakistan considered imminent. After deliberate preparations, the Fleet has sortied with your flagship INS Vikrant and you have been briefed by the Chief of the Naval Staff on the Chief of Naval Operations intentions for your force.

Northern Fury #40: ‘Tongs’ – The new global war between East and West has been raging for a month, NATO is on the offensive but the Warsaw Pact is far from defeated and still has the ability to counter attack. The ground war in Europe continues to be brutal and deadly. Conflicts in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean have stabilized in NATO’s favour. Commander STRIKFLTLANT has set in motion a series of attacks designed set up the conditions for upcoming amphibious operations in central Norway – Operation Thor’s Lightning. This is one of those actions.

Mediterranean Fury #4 – Secure the Flank – Three days into World War Three and you as Commander 6th Fleet are finally able to focus your efforts. It looks like the Turks are solidifying their position on the Bosporus, although it will be a while before the Soviets are finally dealt with; Libya and Algeria have been neutralized, at least for now; it’s been very quit in the Balkans and Aegean Sea; and the sting has been taken out of Syria’s offensive capability. Now it is time to make sure Syria is pummeled into submission!


The new community scenario pack is, as always, available for download at the WS site: http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=1876 , and will also soon be available on the Steam workshop.

The CSP now proudly counts 521 scenarios in its stable!

Next Page »