Technical question regarding Recon in a split scenario

[Red2112]

16 hours ago, Colebrook said:

The save in progress and edit  a mission was not working  properly in last version,and I dont see anything about fixing that in the current version notes, so you are going to have a lot of problems when playing online (on SP works good).

Other problem I see is that usual mission maps are too small for what you want, in big map of 20x20km, you  need like 20 min to cross half map, at that point you will be already in contact,and with a lonely recon unit you need to stop the mission.

I'm sorry for being so pessimistic, I like the idea but I dont think is going to work, anyways we can try, its free.

 

 

Time to NAI would also depend on terrain and what vehicle you are using for recce, and by that I mean it´s max speed. So those 20min your talking about can be discussed. As for "in contact" and "alone", that can also be discussed. The whole point of recce, or that´s how they taught me, is to not be seen (my unit were on jeep´s in the 80´s), you have zero to none armor, so you avoid direct contact as that´s not your job. You also have support which will fill your overwatch (frog-leap) as you move on, so your not totally alone.  Maps could have a part of them with "intel" while other parts would still be left for area recce.  There are ways to do this Iam sure, if you think "out of thr box".

[Nike-Ajax]

I would tend to agree with @Red2112 

 

This is Recon not advance to contact or a Thunder Run.

 

Our overall goal is to see if we can tweak it, and I think we can. Like I wrote previously, then there is a way if you are creative and have the will.

Like Red stated then what we were also trained to see without being seen.

If we were seen, then both mission and own forces were compromised.

 

I am nothing special or fancy. But this will happen if at all possible - we just need to find the way.

 

Sure there are challenges. But not so big as to hold us back I think.

And the important thing is that it seems clear to me that we can do this without intruding into other peoples space, gameslots or the way they want to play.

 

So as I see it no losers and only potential winners.

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Nike-Ajax

[Gibsonm]

Well ...

 

An "Advance to Contact" is a recon task.

 

You are trying to find the enemy so the main force can deal with it.

[Nike-Ajax]

That MIGHT be one of the tasks, sure.

 

But overall I think we will be exploring a lighter footprint. Mostly because it havent been done so much before.

 

Moreover because engaging the enemy would fit less well with the concept we are trying to do. 

 

[Gibsonm]

Yes it is one of many recon tasks.

 

Anyway happy to chat about it in 11 mins.

[Nike-Ajax]

Done

 

 

[Apocalypse 31]

 

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

An "Advance to Contact" is a recon task

If I told my Scout platoon leader "advance to contact" he would look at me funny.

 

Maybe different Armies = different languages, but for us, recon is used to confirm information requirements that drive decions.

 

We also define contact in 8 forms, to include visual, direct fire, Indirect fire, obstacle, non hostile,etc..

 

On the other hand, a "movement to contact" is a type of attack used when little is known about the enemy, but not really a scout or recon task. I wouldn't want to risk recon forces unless it was a recon in force, but even then I would have named and targeted areas of interest linked with specific reporting requirements.

1 hour ago, Nike-Ajax said:

But overall I think we will be exploring a lighter footprint. Mostly because it havent been done so much before

The tempo can be dictated for reconnaissance and defined by stealthy and deliberate or rapid and aggressive. Not every type of recon is sneaky-peaky.

[Nike-Ajax]

I think we are talking a little bit in circles here or past each other. 

 

Or as you stated different backgrounds different words.

 

So leaving semantics aside:

 

We WILL try this and adjust form, context, vehicles  and approach - to suit both the given mission and to cope with the technical challenges inherent in SB, per the experience we get from testing. As have been stated previously, then this will not impact our Sunday Games nor those not into the Recon phase. 

 

So its really a technical question of how to do it in SB and to a lesser degree a tactical one of how to do it within that frame.

[Gibsonm]

Happy to devote this Thursday's BG ANZAC session to this?

 

Or a similar time but on my Monday night or Friday night?

[Red2112]

Obviously there´s more to recce then "sneaky-peaky", and we should also consider some SB limitations for the PE version, but I don´t think players should need to read the FM 3-98 or whatever FM in order to play Steel Beast.  As much as I like milsim, I also consider that it´s a tool and not real life, but Iam sure some will argue with that. 

[TSe419E]

FM 17-95 for a cold war take Cavalry operations (conveniently found in the download section).

[Nike-Ajax]

To get some perspective on this then my intent was to try this out with a handful of guys and see if it worked. And if it was fun. 

 

And doing it without disrupting anything else. So open for all input and thoughts, but only practice will tell how practical and interesting it will be to try a greater integration with the Kanium Sunday Sessions.

[Red2112]

On 2/11/2018 at 8:32 AM, Ssnake said:

In all fairness, Steel Beasts does not yet lend itself very well to scenarios that rely on sneaking.

We simplified the target identification process so that if line of sight exists AND if the unit is actually detected (and repeated tests make that a certainty, the question is only how long it takes), the unit will be immediately identified as a foe, and its location will be transferred into the antagonist party's hive mind. That's okay-ish for combat scenarios (for which SB was originally designed) but had we known that SB would soldier on as a tool for tactical instruction in a much wider context decades later, I guess we would have refined the detection algorithm to allow for false-negative identification (mistaking enemy as friendly), and a "limbo" zone between detection and ID range, where targets are already recognized, but not yet identified. Only then is does the attempt of infiltration promise a reasonable chance of success.

 

I hope that we can address this issue in a future (major) revision of SB Pro.

 

Right now recon is made much harder than it would be in real life, close to impossible - unless conducted during hours of darkness, if the recon party is equipped with thermals while the enemy is (largely) not.

If I understand this correctly, detection is made by two factors in general, LOS and area trigger?  Most likely more factors under the hood but for practical reasons, knowing if so would be enough for the purpose.  Also, is FoF always detected as foe by the OPFOR?  Basically because if both are correct, then this would rule out recce against the AI alltogether, and would only be practical against a real life OPFOR.

 

Forgot to ask, do helos ID OPFOR in SB and relay to map updates, as UAV do? Iam sure they do but worth to ask for recce purposes.

 

Red

--

Edited November 4, 2018 by Red2112
added content

[Ssnake]

Not sure what you mean by "area trigger". Detection algorithms are entirely independent of mission design. A unit isn't more likely to be spotted if it's in a certain region. Rather, its behavior is taken into account (movement increases detection likelihood), atmospheric conditions, time of day, background. Even with all the factors in your favor, there simply is no mechanism that would make computer-controlled (enemy) units ignore you/accept you as one of their own. It may take a while, but sooner or later you WILL be detected (and immediately identified) as the enemy that you are.

[Red2112]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Not sure what you mean by "area trigger". Detection algorithms are entirely independent of mission design. A unit isn't more likely to be spotted if it's in a certain region. Rather, its behavior is taken into account (movement increases detection likelihood), atmospheric conditions, time of day, background. Even with all the factors in your favor, there simply is no mechanism that would make computer-controlled (enemy) units ignore you/accept you as one of their own. It may take a while, but sooner or later you WILL be detected (and immediately identified) as the enemy that you are.

Thank you Ssnake. I meant by area trigger, if a unit enters a certain area that would trigger a action by the OPFOR, if so set by the scenario designer, but I see it´s more then that. Not familiar with the editor yet, so sorry for not fully understanding the concept of building missions.  Will try in the future for sure.

 

Thank you.

[Ssnake]

Well, there's two conditions that you can use in scenario design about the presence of enemy units in a certain region; you can refer to "known enemy" ... which implicitly requires that they must have been spotted before. The other is to refer to "enemy" units in a region. Only the first one can be used to trigger a scripted response (the second you can use in score point formulas). But in any case the detection of units is an entirely different subsystem.

[Red2112]

13 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Well, there's two conditions that you can use in scenario design about the presence of enemy units in a certain region; you can refer to "known enemy" ... which implicitly requires that they must have been spotted before. The other is to refer to "enemy" units in a region. Only the first one can be used to trigger a scripted response (the second you can use in score point formulas). But in any case the detection of units is an entirely different subsystem.

Again thanks Ssnake, for taking the time to explain these two detection conditions that can be applied in scenario design.  As I see it, it is very important to know how this works, up to some extent of course, without giving to much away, in order to figure out how we can have recce play a role in the most realistic maner. Within the limits of the detection algorithms and/or handycaps of course. Those limits could be framed within the scenario design (just saying), thus changing the way one designs a scenario may be the solution. Or, maybe the only solution (because of the AI algorithms), is to play both sides of real life opponents.  Just some thoughts and in all good health for gameplay.

 

Thank you Sir. <S>