Threat Analysis & Intel

Threat Analysis Schema in WZ

Introduction to "TA-X"

• PREMISE: It is a worthwhile goal for a player to be able to effectively control at least 3 deployed, Commander led Combat Groups in multiple theaters of ops - simultaneously.

• Thus the Player is afforded the scope to act more as a Field General than a micro-manager of an RTS base economy.

• The GCI (or Global Command Interface) is one aspect of this effort & is fully explained in its own dedicated Wiki space.

• This space will focus on Threat Analysis-X or "TA-X".

• "TA-X" represents the proposed mechanisms by which Combat Units (& especially Commanders) will behave with more military "intelligence" on the field of battle when NOT be scrupulously attended (or baby-sat) by the Player.

• "TA-X" is also fundamenatally linked to Rank & Experience mechanisms detailed elsewhere (as is the "GCI") but will here be treated inclusive of, without elaborating on, those 2 other components of this grand schema.

• More details will follow.

"TA-A" Ala Rman & Anolis

• This is by way of a prelude.

• Let's dub it Threat Analysis - A

• An elementary system where a number is assigned to each unit to assess how dangerous they are and thus which should be attacked first.

• Would be a start routine to use for Threat Assessment.

• But there must also run a second routine where each unit is assigned a 'pack' or 'swarm' number and if that number exceeds that of the most dangerous single unit, then those 'smaller' units should be targeted first.

• OK... that's just to get us warmed-up.

• Now WZs Component Design & Assembly Schema of units presents a level of compexity that at first blush strikes one as daunting.

• But we shall address that in the forthcoming Threat Analysis - X

• Stay tuned..... :)

• Rman

"TA-X" Pts. 1 & 2 Ala Rman & Rasta

• As mentioned in the Prelude of this topic, Threat Analysis-X dovetails with Commander Theory detailed in "GCI GUI" AND New "Experience & Rank Mechanisms" also expanded upon in its own Wiki space.

• In addition it introduces a NEW-Type of ECM that doesnot exist in WZ.

• A Discourse on Real Time Threat Analysis-X" In the Context of Warzone 2100

• PART 1 of 6:

• Definition:

• When a commander analyzes the potential outcome of an engagement based on the initial observations of the forces present, with respect to standing orders.

• 'In the context of WZ, this analysis consist of a number of stages:l

• Firstly, the analysis of the firepower potential of the enemy.

• Weapons:

If units are within visual range, and are fitted with weapons that have already been researched, a commander can assume a default set of appropriate parameters such as range, damage and rate of fire. If the weapon is unknown and has not been fired yet, it would give the opposition a bonus of some kind.

• Units beyond visual range (BVR) will be tagged as unknown until such time as they make themselves known.

• PART 2 of 6:

• Accuracy:

It will be impossible at first glance to quantify the rank of individual opposing units, so a default rank would be presumed.

• This assumed rank might be a function of commander personality; a brave (foolhardy?) or experienced commander may assume a lower rank; while a fearful commander may assume a high rank.

• This assumption of rank will be used for establishing the likely accuracy of each enemy unit.

---

• Secondly: the analysis of defensive strength of the enemy.

• Armour - As with firepower, units within visual range can quickly be identified as to body shape and traction configuration, assuming the body type has been researched.

• Kinetic and thermal armour characteristics can be assumed, as can power output. BVR units must be assumed.

• Speed - A smaller part in defensive analysis is the speed of a unit. In conjunction with it's own weapon range, it is an assessment of it's ability to "strike and fade".

• Hit points - The general condition of a unit aka "Health".

"TA-X" Pts. 3 & 4

• PART 3 of 6:

• With this analysis complete, and a similar analysis of the commanders own forces, the survivability of the encounter can be established.

• Roughly speaking, each side could be given a score, based on the following rough rules:

+ Friendly Score = Friendly Strength / Enemy Firepower

+ Enemy Score = Enemy Strength / Friendly Firepower

• The likelihood of the winner being the friendly side is roughly as follows:

+ Likelihood = Friendly Score / Enemy Scores

• If the Likelihood is greater than one, it is more likely that the friendly side will win.

• The higher the value, the less damage the friendly side is likely to take.

• Conversely, the lower the value, the more likely it is that the enemy will win and will sustain less damage.

• PART 4 of 6:

• Consider the simple example of two equally matched units on level terrain.

• Each one will fire in turn until the other is destroyed. All things being equal, whichever unit fires first will eventually destroy the other; although at the point it would be so weak that one more hit from another equal enemy would destroy it also.

• In this case, each sides score would be equal and the likelihood would therefore be exactly one.

• This highlights another modifying factor - that of initiative.

• Now consider three units; two of one side and one of the other. The single unit will be destroyed in half the time, having only been able to inflict half the damage on whichever unit it chose as a target.

• The score of one side would be double the other; if we assume the two units are friendly, then the likelihood is two.

• However, only a quarter of the damage is done, so it is clear that the relationship between likelihood of success and damage taken is actually an inverse square law.

• A force of three to one would take one ninth of the damage, etc.

"TA-X" Pts. 5 & 6

• PART 5 of 6:

• So the calculation can be re-arranged to calculate the rough amount of damage that will be taken in an encounter thus:

+ Damage = ( Enemy Score / Friendly Score ) 2

+ Or, to remove scores:

• Damage = ( ( EnemyStrength * EnemyFirepower ) / ( Friendly Strength * FriendlyFirepower ) ) ^ 2

• This is fundamentally simplistic; but it can be used as a simple indicator of the outcome of an engagement.

• The next consideration is the sequence of targeting, on both sides.

• Logically, it makes sense to target all firepower on the most destructive of the oppositions units.

• Units should now be assessed using a score system of firepower divided by strength.

• This way, the highest scores will be attributed to units with high firepower and low strength: which should be considered primary targets.

• PART 6 of 6:

• So units should sorted in two orders: firstly by firepower divided by strength, then further by firepower.

+ For example, if there are four units, and two have twice the firepower but half the strength of the other two, all scores will be equal.

* But the high firepower units should clearly be first on the target list. 

• Intelligence:

• The attachment of a sensor unit to a commander would automatically make that commander more decisive in any calculations.

• Sensor turrets could be replaced by Intelligence Turrets that would gather information on the ROF, power, range of enemy weapons, thus allowing you to predict their technology level.

• That's far as it has gone....... Any INPUT folks ?

• Rman

"TA" Provisos by Willis

• Concerning the Threat-Matrix & Reckless vs. Skilled reflected in Ranking / Experience.

..................

• Trying to bring things full circle. . . what experience a unit receives should also be decided on the threat-matrix.

......................

• Meanwhile on our belief of "reckless vs skillfull" - looking at the big picture to "see" how things played out.

Rman's Answers Provisos

• I think herein lies the solution.

• To wit:

• 1. "Threat-Matrix" AND

• 2. "How things played-out"

• The components for a "Threat-Matrix" are there already.

• Though one thing that has been discussed is making the benefits of experience "continuous".

• If the mechanic for "How things played-out" were implemeted then the benefits of experience would have to be "discontinuous".

• At least, that's the extent of my understanding.

• And yet, it is possible to bracket engagements (by a cease-fire interval) so that the "Threat-Matrix" calcs are done shortly after the end of an engagement.

• In that scenario there would be a "discontinuity" in reaping the benefits of experience.

• Though it would be very short and I think the modeling of "Reckless vs. Skillful" would be more robust.