New MP Missions In The Works – I Need Some Help Please

[suBB]

Hi, long time no see :p


Well, here I go:

Since Conflicting Interests V1.01 I’m (slowly) getting into the mood of editing again, but I need some assistance with something 1st. But 1st, I need to tell you what I have in store. The next set of maps will include a 3 map set involving infiltration, missile deployment and survival of a lone 688 up against anywhere from light to heavy RU defenses where AI platforms can be influenced by human playables. The problem is I need to find a good area for this to take place, which is where you guys come in. Maybe someone can find an area that might recreate a scenario in a book you’ve read or something. Meanwhile I’ll start looking as well.

The following are the parameters I have in place already, I just need a play area.

MISSION TITLE:

TBD

PLATFORM:

DW on 1.04 / LWAMI ONLY. However, the map can be played on stock, but quality and integrity of the experience can’t be guaranteed.

RUN-TIME:

4 hours which will involve the requirement of achieving safe distance unharmed, ROE compliance / violation, patrolling, intel gathering, POSID and authorization, asset management, human influence over AI platforms.

PLAYABLES:

1.. 1 x 688i

2.. 2 x Akula 2 (maybe 3)

AREA: (TBD)

Three separate MP maps: For this to fly I need a ‘general area’ of sorts that will be patrolled / defended by RU forces, where RU AI will be influenced by human playables. Random patrol routes by AI platforms (air and surface) will include passive buoy and ASW mine deployment. I need the 688 to be able to approach from various entryways into this general area. 688 will be required to infiltrate RU defenses unharmed. RU will be required to patrol, classify and eliminate the 688 if/ when found. If detected, the presence of the 688 could lead (random events) to additional RU assets (asw maritime patrol, surface, etc) dispatched to the area(MAP A only). Map A will include light to medium RU defenses depending on the 688 skippers’ abilities of remaining stealth while in transit and avoiding detection. Map C will include the same mission statement for the 688, except this time RU defenses will be heavy, and possibly a 3rd RU platform added. MAP B will be a strike mission for the 688 where intel must be collected and authorization must be granted to attack and will then be required to reach safe distance unharmed. RU will attempt to prevent any action(s) of the 688, as well as attempt to eliminate the 688 once located, POSID’ed and authorized to do so.

POSID:

ALL MAPS - RU must attempt to POSID the 688, radio in the contact to neighboring units and wait for authorization to attack. Which means any sort of randomness I decide to spawn from that will require the detecting RU playable to achieve comms depth in order to be triggered.

MAP B – If possible, 688 must POSID target of interest with UAV and radio in the contact(achieve comms depth).
If 688 fails to POSID target of interest, 688 must abort mission and reach safe distance.

ROE:

Map A - RU ROE will be HOLD until POSID on 688, followed by authorization of attack and elimination of the 688. For the 688, ROE will be HOLD but subject to change if any RU weapon comes within critical distance of ownship. When this occurs, the 688 will be authorized to attack, however still required to reach safe distance, in this case infiltration into general area.

Map B – RU ROE will be HOLD until attacked, followed by POSID and authorization. The 688 will be required to gain intelligence of a target of interest, by means of a submarine launched UAV (credit to MaHuJa), POSID, authorization, deploy missiles and reach safe distance unharmed. ROE is therefore HOLD until intel is obtained followed by authorization.

MAP C – both sides ROE FREE but with RU heavy defenses. Human RU will have influence over AI platforms and required to locate and destroy the 688. The 688 will be required to reach safe distance unharmed, be it by means of stealth or shooting its way out in the progress.

ACOUSTIC CONDITIONS:

Surface duct - Through extensive testing of various SSP, sea state, weather, seasonal and bottom types, the SSP type is really the contributing factor to acoustic conditions. However the terrain chosen for this mission combined with said SSP will create a mixed acoustic environment in shallow waters, forcing a bottom limited SSP into existence, until deeper water is achieved.

TRANSIT DISTANCE:

Transit Distance (TBD) will be feasible and achievable by the 688 at cruising speeds that allow the 688 to maintain a sense of stealth. RU playable will have the entire general area to patrol with assistance of / influence over AI platforms

OUTCOME CONDITIONS(subject to occur at any moment based on the state of the situation in real-time):

MAPS A & C:

1.. 688 must reach safe distance unharmed within 4 hours. If reach safe distance unharmed, mission ends.

2.. If 688 does not reach safe distance within 4 hours. RU has technically prevented the 688 from reaching safe distance, mission ends.

3.. if 688 is destroyed by RU or careless action, mission ends

4.. if ROE is violated by RU, mission ends. (MAP A only)

5.. If ROE is violated by US, mission ends (MAP A only)

MAPS B:

1.. if 688 gain intel, wait for authorization, deploy missiles, successfully destroy target(s) and reach safe distance unharmed, mission ends.

2.. If 688 fails to gain intel, 688 must abort and attempt to reach safe distance. If 688 reach safety after abort, mission ends.

3.. if 688 destroyed mission ends

4.. if ROE is violated by RU, mission ends.

5.. If ROE is violated by US, mission ends

6.. If 688 does not reach safe distance within 4 hours. RU has technically prevented the 688 from reaching safe distance, mission ends.

DYNAMIC LOCATIONS:

688 spawn – various entry points into general area, MAP B

RU spawn - playables within the general area. RU AI TBD, MAP B

RANDOMNESS:

UAV spawn - simulate various flight plans (dynamic group)

RU surface – RU surface and maritime patrol, passive buoy deployment, asw mine deployment. (dynamic group)

Target spawn – simulate reliability of intelligence, forced to abort operations if not reliable. (dynamic group)

LAST MINUTE THOUGHTS:

I think deployment of the UAV in MAP B could justify RU ROE to change from HOLD to FREE, w/o need to classify the 688.

Since I have a laptop, full function testing will require two people minimum.

Due to the availability of MP mission objective players, map will be created for MP only and not coded for SP (AI coding), which will lead to faster completion time.

Need to figure out how to allow the 688 to deploy UAV at will based on certain conditions (might need doctrine)


That’s all I have for now.. I appreciate the help / feedback….


Thanks,

suBB

[Molon Labe]

This sounds like it's going to be an interesting project.

As far as possible OpAreas go, choices are somewhat limited by the fact that Russia only has 4 points of access to the worlds oceans: the barrents/arctic, the baltic, the black sea, and okoskt. Chosing between those is going to depend on your backstory and the tactical situation you want to create.

As far as backstories go, your strongest candidate is the Baltic, followed by the Black Sea. Russia has been freaking out the Baltic states as of late, and with a little bit of imagination, you can apply similar pressures in southwestern asia that might cause Russia to come into conflict with the Ukraine, or more likely, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. Turkey would likely side with G/A/A over Russia, which means NATO has access to the Black Sea. The barrents isn't bad, but the White Sea (S. of arctic, E. of Barrents) and Okhost don't seem to be areas where naval conflict is plausible.

In terms of assets, the Barrents is strongest, since that's where most of the sub fleet is based--akulas in particular. Of course, with a little bit of strategic pretext, those assets can be redeployed. The Black Sea is going to be the worst off in terms of assets present without being redeployed, sub assets in particular.

Tactically speaking, I think depth is going to be a consideration, since you'll probably want a layer to play with. This will be a major blow to the baltic and barrents. It'll hurt the White sea as well, but it does have some deep canyons. The Black Sea and Okhost can both get quite deep.

[Molon Labe]

Oh, by the way, DW doesn't "force a bottom limited SSP into existance." If the SSP is set to SD or CV but is in fact, limited by the bottom, the surface duct in the upper layer will still exist.

[suBB]

Thanks a bunch molon, I’m checking depth in these areas in the editor. And yes I’m definitely interested in a layer as well deep canyons. Also if you can point me in the right direction as to the actual filenames for various .wavs used (such as check for radio messages) that would save me the trouble(and .zip file size) of custom sounds. I know there is a list somewhere out there I can’t seem to remember where I saw it last.

thanks

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by suBB

Thanks a bunch molon, I’m checking depth in these areas in the editor. And yes I’m definitely interested in a layer as well deep canyons. Also if you can point me in the right direction as to the actual filenames for various .wavs used (such as check for radio messages) that would save me the trouble(and .zip file size) of custom sounds. I know there is a list somewhere out there I can’t seem to remember where I saw it last.

thanks

http://www.subguru.com/DW_missions/m...itorsounds.zip

[suBB]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

This sounds like it's going to be an interesting project.

As far as possible OpAreas go, choices are somewhat limited by the fact that Russia only has 4 points of access to the worlds oceans: the barrents/arctic, the baltic, the black sea, and okoskt. Chosing between those is going to depend on your backstory and the tactical situation you want to create.

As far as backstories go, your strongest candidate is the Baltic, followed by the Black Sea. Russia has been freaking out the Baltic states as of late, and with a little bit of imagination, you can apply similar pressures in southwestern asia that might cause Russia to come into conflict with the Ukraine, or more likely, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. Turkey would likely side with G/A/A over Russia, which means NATO has access to the Black Sea. The barrents isn't bad, but the White Sea (S. of arctic, E. of Barrents) and Okhost don't seem to be areas where naval conflict is plausible.

In terms of assets, the Barrents is strongest, since that's where most of the sub fleet is based--akulas in particular. Of course, with a little bit of strategic pretext, those assets can be redeployed. The Black Sea is going to be the worst off in terms of assets present without being redeployed, sub assets in particular.

Tactically speaking, I think depth is going to be a consideration, since you'll probably want a layer to play with. This will be a major blow to the baltic and barrents. It'll hurt the White sea as well, but it does have some deep canyons. The Black Sea and Okhost can both get quite deep.

It looks like the black sea will be the op area for the 3 map set and here are some things to consider:

1.. for what I have in mind, the black sea offers a number of entryways spanning over a 280nm stretch, on a longitude roughly at the RU / Georgian boarder. So for map A, the 688 approach could be anywhere from the south along that stretch. Considering the maritime support, buoy deployment, 2 AK2s, and influence over AI platforms(mainly air units), with the right planning RU shouldn’t have a problem covering the entire area. But if the 688 is detected, I’ll spawn another maritime unit and have it dispatched into the general area of RU forces, since air support can arrive much faster than anything else. I do have concern that appears to be almost a dead giveaway, and that is POSID conducted by AI platforms. I’ll need to test human influence over AI but 9 out of 10 AI gets the class dead on 100%, at least this was my experience in conflict of interest v1.00 on 1.03 and lwami < 3.08. For this reason I would like POSID conducted by human drivers, but still I need to test human influence on v.104 / 3.08. Also when ROE comes into play, if by default ROE is peacetime, AI will class a hostile as friendly and not engage, when they should class as unknown(I think) since intentions aren’t very clear at that point. But in wartime, AI will class as hostile and engage. So when attempting to influence AI platforms, always use unknown until otherwise, or AI will violate ROE.

2.. we could enter the area from the east anywhere on a 144nm stretch of latitude, same level of support as (1) but when air assets come into play for RU I think 144nm can be covered much faster than 280nm. For that reason the experience may be short lived.

3.. deep waters and layer present in the black sea, but no canyons to be found anywhere in areas suggested. Too bad we can’t edit our own land formations. Moving forward the baltic and barrents will serve purpose for a future project involving shallow water ops, so I’ll keep these areas in mind.

4.. back story-wise there is no need to consider the white sea or Okhost, so for those reasons I left them alone. Based on your suggestions, the black sea could lead to yet another project but different mission parameters, mainly for akula missions, but that is TBD.

Good stuff, Molon … I guess I’ll get cracking with testing.


Thanks!!!

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by suBB

1.. for what I have in mind, the black sea offers a number of entryways spanning over a 280nm stretch, on a longitude roughly at the RU / Georgian boarder. So for map A, the 688 approach could be anywhere from the south along that stretch. Considering the maritime support, buoy deployment, 2 AK2s, and influence over AI platforms(mainly air units), with the right planning RU shouldn’t have a problem covering the entire area. But if the 688 is detected, I’ll spawn another maritime unit and have it dispatched into the general area of RU forces, since air support can arrive much faster than anything else. I do have concern that appears to be almost a dead giveaway, and that is POSID conducted by AI platforms. I’ll need to test human influence over AI but 9 out of 10 AI gets the class dead on 100%, at least this was my experience in conflict of interest v1.00 on 1.03 and lwami < 3.08. For this reason I would like POSID conducted by human drivers, but still I need to test human influence on v.104 / 3.08. Also when ROE comes into play, if by default ROE is peacetime, AI will class a hostile as friendly and not engage, when they should class as unknown(I think) since intentions aren’t very clear at that point. But in wartime, AI will class as hostile and engage. So when attempting to influence AI platforms, always use unknown until otherwise, or AI will violate ROE.

The AI doesn't handle very many different versions of ID. It's pretty much on or off. So, to make sure that enemy platforms would engage players at more or less the same time that platform would engage if a human was controlling it, the distance that ID occurs at is longer than you might be used to in LW/Ami.

3.. deep waters and layer present in the black sea, but no canyons to be found anywhere in areas suggested. Too bad we can’t edit our own land formations. Moving forward the baltic and barrents will serve purpose for a future project involving shallow water ops, so I’ll keep these areas in mind.

If you're dead set on canyons, the White Sea may be the place to go. That sort of area is usually only used for under the ice boomer hunting though. And depending on what you want to do, the canyons might not be well placed.

[suBB]

You think(IIRC) the “plot solution” script will work on land-based targets, I can’t see why it wouldn’t? If so, that script + approach goals = UAV real-time data for map B.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by suBB

You think(IIRC) the “plot solution” script will work on land-based targets, I can’t see why it wouldn’t? If so, that script + approach goals = UAV real-time data for map B.

I used the solution script in Taiwan ARG to provide the 688I the precise location of SSM batteries. They show up as surface instead of land, but you can put the waypoint over it just as easily.

[suBB]

Update 092807

All is well with Map A over LAN connection (MP) except for one thing, and that is, the Big Bad Bear is emitting. In qualification testing he can be picked up on ESM, but I don’t think there is a way to shut it off or disable using scripts.

Also, for heavier defenses, I need some RU surface platforms capable of deploying sonobuoys, but can’t seem to find any. The USNI reference makes no mention of any RU surface equipped with sonobuoys, but I guess if said platform is equipped with the KA-27 Helix, it too is also capable of sonobuoy deployment.

I think there is nothing that can be done about the bear emitting, and I guess ill dig a little deeper in finding the surface platform(s) I need.

ya later

[suBB]

Molon,

You ever witness AI aircraft breaking the specified search tactic and loiter like we saw in the data? Because that’s the best way I can describe whats going on w/ the new buoy deployment design. It’s like he attempts the tactic, then after he rebounds off of the boundary, he decides to loiter, and no matter what tactic or combination of transit / transit search / tactic, I can’t seem to control it.

The only solution I have in mind is have the bear fly waypoints over the area, which contributes to predictability, but randomly select cruise speeds each time the map is loaded. If I have to do this, then there needs to be more randomness (the bear) elsewhere to try and offset predictability. Maybe there is enough randomness of 688 spawn along 264nm that the bear w/ waypoints may not be bad after all.

Any ideas?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by suBB

Molon,

You ever witness AI aircraft breaking the specified search tactic and loiter like we saw in the data? Because that’s the best way I can describe whats going on w/ the new buoy deployment design. It’s like he attempts the tactic, then after he rebounds off of the boundary, he decides to loiter, and no matter what tactic or combination of transit / transit search / tactic, I can’t seem to control it.

The only solution I have in mind is have the bear fly waypoints over the area, which contributes to predictability, but randomly select cruise speeds each time the map is loaded. If I have to do this, then there needs to be more randomness (the bear) elsewhere to try and offset predictability. Maybe there is enough randomness of 688 spawn along 264nm that the bear w/ waypoints may not be bad after all.

Any ideas?

I think with fixed-wing aircraft, the waypoint tolerances (created automatically by the sim for the tactic assigned; not anything you see in the editor) are too tight for the AI navigation routines to meet. Aircraft trying to go to a specific point as part of the tactic end up missing it, turning around and missing it again almost endlessly. So what we end up seeing just looks random and senseless.


If you want to do assiged waypoints, what I would suggest is to use dynamic groups or dynamic locations to spawn the bear. If you use DL's, the waypoints will move relative to the placement of the bear. That would allow you to have it fly the same pattern, but in different places for different spawns. If you use dynamic groups, you will be able to set waypoints for each spawn.

I think what I would do here is to assign the bear an area to cover, with buoy spawns in that area as you have been doing. (Or maybe even abstract a bit and place the buoys instead of spawning them; refresh them after 2 hours.... essentially, simply assume the bear has the buoy loadout to cover that area continuously for 4 hours). But, using what I've described above, make that area different with each spawn. My suggestion would be to do this with dynamic groups, so that the spawns of the subs would compliment the assigned area of the bear rather than just being totally random. This would allow you to simulate a coordinated screen, maximizing the effectiveness of the assets in a manner similar to what players would accomplish if we had a playable bear, while at the same time not revealing to anyone ahead of time where the bear and buoys will be.

I think the way this plays out is the 688I player uses ESM to guestimate where the bear is covering, then avoids that area and ends up having to try to slip past one of the Akulas. So one of the two akulas should have a chance at seeing some action.

[suBB]

I think with fixed-wing aircraft, the waypoint tolerances (created automatically by the sim for the tactic assigned; not anything you see in the editor) are too tight for the AI navigation routines to meet. Aircraft trying to go to a specific point as part of the tactic end up missing it, turning around and missing it again almost endlessly. So what we end up seeing just looks random and senseless.

I’ll run with that, because the same search tactic used for the helo in CI v1.00 worked like a charm, which was random search box.

If you want to do assiged waypoints, what I would suggest is to use dynamic groups or dynamic locations to spawn the bear. If you use DL's, the waypoints will move relative to the placement of the bear. That would allow you to have it fly the same pattern, but in different places for different spawns. If you use dynamic groups, you will be able to set waypoints for each spawn.

Now keep in mind that this map (beta map A) is a two-in-one package, where in the beta phase it’s pretty much entry of the 688. For this reason I rather not have the bear randomly spawned w/ DL, to me that means he is already airborne and in the area, which isn’t a bad idea for the exit attempt so this may play well for map C. But for map A I rather have the bear deployed from inland where I’m currently using RSB around the airport to randomize departure times. At 1st I did attempt to use DL for the same reason, but somehow it was causing the map to crash, and that is where RSB came in. Further, I rather not toy around w/ the bear and DL since it caused me nothing but problems. For some odd reason I can pull DL even combined with RSB w/ anything but aircraft.

I should have been more specific(sorry) that waypoint assignment was intended for buoy spawning, which also brings up another good point you mentioned, and that is ‘the playable bear’ In that regard I can’t see why we couldn’t use waypoints as if is WERE playable. And considering the mission tasking I know I would fly well ahead of the zone and start working my way backwards for close range support. I think it would be somewhat lame to plot waypoints through every last buoy, but with some imagination we can make it as such that the area is covered and the bear means business.

I think what I would do here is to assign the bear an area to cover, with buoy spawns in that area as you have been doing. (Or maybe even abstract a bit and place the buoys instead of spawning them; refresh them after 2 hours.... essentially, simply assume the bear has the buoy loadout to cover that area continuously for 4 hours). But, using what I've described above, make that area different with each spawn. My suggestion would be to do this with dynamic groups, so that the spawns of the subs would compliment the assigned area of the bear rather than just being totally random. This would allow you to simulate a coordinated screen, maximizing the effectiveness of the assets in a manner similar to what players would accomplish if we had a playable bear, while at the same time not revealing to anyone ahead of time where the bear and buoys will be.

Well, an area has already been assigned and that is the restricted area, of which at 370 to 400 kts he should be able to cover. And w/ the new buoy design, it's very likely now than before but stills need tweaking. The red subs currently use DL / RSB combo within the restricted across the longitude, where each sub covers 50% of the area. Blue sub uses RSB across the longitude just outside the restricted area. As long as the bear is doing his job w/ buoys, more than likely the bear will have 1st detection if the 688 is noisy enough or unluckily has a buoy ‘dropped’ on top of him or the bear picks him up on MAD while in route. Until I get to the bottom of why DL w/ bear was causing the map to crash, that’s not going to be an option. For now lets try and ponder other solution(s) not involving the bear & DL

I think the way this plays out is the 688I player uses ESM to guestimate where the bear is covering, then avoids that area and ends up having to try to slip past one of the Akulas. So one of the two akulas should have a chance at seeing some action.

That is a possibility but I’m trying to establish a sense of freedom in the scenario and not attempt to force things to happen while in the same place drivers in situations where they are accountable for their own actions. After the 688 brief and if he decides to snoop around on-the-clock, well he asked for it when the crap hits the curb. I mean, look what we went through in testing in trying to find the 688. Still its too soon to make a call on red side until the map is up to par again, which now needs tweaking. You also realize that foogle screwed up his NAV calculations, placing him in a situation to make up for the lost time. In doing so he was flank for most of the time, and IF i stayed with the plan of patrolling east and the bear was working, more than likely we could have intercepted.

And don’t think the 688 is out of reach even over 55nm x 264nm. If the map was working the way it should(hopefully it will be shortly) and was detected, the 688 could have been easily intercepted by either one of us. And you were farther away from him then I was. With link data provided, clearance to fire and about a 45 nm stretch on your part (1:15 at flank) would have placed you in position for a coordinated attack using stallions, at least, followed by the bear rallying or sent(ai influence) to the area. My 1st concern about red force was tactical options, which at 1st I was dumbfounded and overwhelmed by the coverage, but looking back and considering the akulas’ wonderful line-up of ordinance, there were a few options available for both of us or individually. Actually I could have done better that time around, molon I spawned near the border and wasn’t thinking clearly when I should have closed farther south then start my search.

Considering my hang-ups w the bear and DL, I think if we can come with a way using waypoints for buoy spawn, that isn’t cheesy yet effective, there is still room for randomness, then that would be an accomplishment. Let’s chalk it up as a custom search tactic.

[Molon Labe]

Well, if you're assigning the bear waypoints, then the buoy field is going to be the same every time. The only thing you change using just an RSB is when the bear gets to the waypoints. DL or DG lets you use waypoints and get a different field. I don't think there are any other tools than those three, so I'm not sure where you want to go after the waypoints tactic is chosen.

[suBB]

Got it fixed with random box and let's just say loitering is a thing of the past. And don't ask me how or why, but setting the tolerance of the waypoint BEFORE entering the tactic to 8nm smooths out the course changes WHILE using the tactic, thus preventing the loitering around missed waypoints.

But I need more proof so I'm collecting data in time compression over various sets. So far, results are consistant and dynamic over 3 sets.

ya later