Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also, to keep it more partial, each decision the judges make would have to be largely based on the information the members presented and on how
convincing/solid their information and case was.
The difficulty that arises is the stickiness of source trustworthiness. What is a trustworthy source? Of course, this is up to the judges, but
nonetheless someone is going to have to decide. An argument properly done would be constructed of a combination of a) commonly accepted facts here
(F-16 is more maneuverable than F-14) and b) specific facts that are sourced (The 117S engine is currently mounted on the Su-35 Prototype. See the NPO
Saturn website under 5th-generation engines.). Either way, the facts as the writer would see it would mean exactly the same thing to the writer as to
the judge, since they would be actual facts. Actual facts are invariably inarguable.
The problem arises with the ambiguities, and the particularly nasty ones where we know a range of values that a particular specification could be, but
everywhere in between is disputed. Even with a judge, the problem is that the end ruling will be what the judge(s) decide, which can only be at best a
guess unless the actual fact is identified and confirmed.
The point would be to challenge members to come up with creative arguments, information and actions within a set of equal
I don't know exactly what creative arguments will be around. I assume that if you're simulating something you start out with a fixed set of
parameters with which you can work (aircraft numbers, loadouts, air defenses, intelligence, reinforcements, etc.), but then everything else is
basically a reaction to evolving data. BVR combat usually turns out to be "Get intel. Look for enemy. See enemy. Fire missile. See tiny 'SUCCESS'
on HUD. Repeat from step 2.", and missiles fly left and right. WVR combat is significantly more tactical, I'll give it that, but it's pretty
consistent over ATS that WVR is not a likely scenario unless someone epically fails.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am really trying not to burst bubbles here. But we've tried doing a couple simulations over ATS involving 1 aircraft
against 1 other aircraft. These have been difficult. What you're proposing is not merely a tactical scenario, but a much more strategic overview. The
amount of variables involved is absolutely colossal. There's more variables than there are viewers of American Idol! I don't personally think that
it will turn out quite how you expect. However...
Still, if this is going to take place, I'd put forth the following ideas (These are to the community, not to anyone in particular):
-Agree on the capabilities of all aircraft PRIOR to engaging in a simulation. I think it's positively necessary to know exactly how everything
(Aircraft, armament, air defense, intelligence, airfields, refueling, geography, I mean EVERYTHING) is going to work before setting about. This will
minimize any squabbles over what can do which and whatnot.
-If directing the actions of aircraft, be specific to a T. Rather than "My squadron attacks your squadron", I'd say exactly what each aircraft
targets, fires, and especially how they move. This will make combat much more a) realistic and b) comprehensible for those that aren't involved.
-Define a massive map of the battleground. Know which airfields are where, where the Early Warning stations are, where the air defenses are, where the
patrols will be at what times, and where different aircraft are stationed. This will tell you what resources are in a given tactical area and, more
importantly, what the response times of active aircraft, and aircraft ready for scrambling and response for enemy attack.
That's all I can think of for now. Sorry for the long post.
Oh, and if you can get the ball rolling, I'm definitely in.
[edit on 12/8/2007 by Darkpr0]