RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests

[Primarchx]

Change Mission action. This action would move a specified unit/group to a specified mission even if they're already assigned to another mission or unassigned. For example I could use a Support Mission to send a unit on a given route to approach an area and when they reach that area a trigger can assign them to a Patrol or Strike mission.

[Vark]

I'd like to second snowburn's request for a trigger, condition, and event that lets us use custom variables.

Also another request:
A trigger that can check the # of weapons of a specific type on a unit. Combined with an action to change the current mission (already on the poll), we could, for example, have a sub on a land strike mission until it runs out of LAMs, then it switches to ASW patrol. Or perhaps this isn't an editor request. Maybe this is a mission planner thing? eg. strike mission ends/dissolves when all assigned units are out of appropriate weapons.

[Randomizer]

I had posted this over on the Developer Forum some time ago but am bumping it over to here.

Please see below for your consideration.

Request:
The ability to edit side names in the editor so that you can have identically named sides (potentially with different postures) when the scenario is run.

Current Situation:
Each side in CMANO must have a unique name that is displayed to the Player once unit identification has been made by whatever means.

Rationale:
CMANO offers unprecedented ability to manage ROE and Player-AI interactions when creating scenarios. The problem is that it also provides the Player with too much information, particularly once the actions of any side has been identified as hostile. In real intervention situations the tactical commander might face situations where it is only possible to divine the status of any faction unit solely by its actions. This may occur in a civil war scenario or where outside forces are sent to intervene. In CMANO currently, since each side must display a unique name that appears as part of the Unit information available to the Player and so it is easy to tell one faction in a civil war situation from the other(s). This gives the Player a tremendous advantage that is probably lacking in the real world particularly in the early stages of an intervention.

Consider the following example. Side-B has collapsed into civil war or revolution and the Player's Side-A must intervene to support it. Once the game starts to run, rebel forces can appear as Side-B1 or whatever but each unit on Side-B1 would automatically be identified as such and so be legitimate targets for Player forces within the scripted ROE. However, if ALL units, regardless of faction could be identified as only Side-B this would go some way towards increasing the Fog of War (and hopefully the scenario difficulty) for the Player. The scenario author could create multiple sides that would display as Side-B, some friendly or neutral to the real Side-B and others friendly or neutral to Side-B1. This can set up situations where the Player' actions might unintentionally escalate the situation out of control merely by over-reacting and destroying a "friendly" faction unit. The possibilities are endless.

Allowing multiple sides displaying the same name also greatly facilitates a "rogue-commander" or mutiny scenario. Imagine the classic "Red October" situation where in a sea of "Soviet" units only one is the target and its posture can only be determined by its actions. This allows for the creation of Cold War scenarios that can escalate (thanks too the Event Editor) if the Player reacts too strongly or attacks a unit from the side that does not have the requisite posture but has the same side-name as the rogue/mutineer unit. The combination of the variability provided by side Postures and the Event Editor create a vast potential for confounding the Player with problems faced in actual military interventions. The ability to have multiple sides displaying the same name to the Player would improve the ability of CMANO to simulate these types of situations.

Not a priority request but offered up as an idea. Thanks.

-C

[VFA41_Lion]

Its my hopeful wish that we can place custom labels on the map, with the additional UI option of toggling them on/off.

[Dimitris]

Removed "Event Action: Assign or unassign unit/group to/from a Mission" as it has benn implemented in Build 574. If you voted for this you can now vote again.

[Meroka37]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Removed "Event Action: Assign or unassign unit/group to/from a Mission" as it has benn implemented in Build 574. If you voted for this you can now vote again.

[&o][&o]

[Blas de Lezo]

[&o][&o][&o][&o]

[Pergite!]

I agree with the [&o]


"The ability to set altitudes for patrol missions" is something I would like to add in the poll. As of now the AI have a hard time finding anything when its ordered to conduct some kind of ISR / IMINT sortie, since its flown at max altitude. I believe I have raised this before somewhere. If its been resolved, please disregard!

[Meroka37]

Good, but... where is the B574 available, I can't find it in the beta forum....Eager to put my hands on it.

[mikmykWS]

Still in the works:)

[Tomcat84]

Awesome! Wonder if I can use it as a sort of placeholder "change emcon" action by creating two identical missions, one with active emcon and one passive. Interesting

[VFA41_Lion]

devs

[mx1]

It is great to hear that add/remove unit to mission is in B574. [&o]

Any word on the other two most important features mentioned in this thread, that is:
- ability to combine triggers with logical operators (AND, OR, NOT)
- variables - this can be now achieved with score adjustment action/trigger for simple cases, but variables would really simplify implementation of a lot of use cases

?

[Tomcat84]

Really liking how the closed beta build is shaping up with the new changing mission feature, so I finally got to vote again [:)]

I now re-voted for "AND / OR operators on event conditions"

But really I dont so much want that for just event conditions as for "triggers". Also, similar to what mx1 is posting here above this post, I would love to be able to have more logical fuctions etc.

For example the ability to set "logical flags" (I think the DCS World editor has something like this).

You could set an event action to set a flag to true or false. (for example Event Action set logical flag 2 to true) (and you have logical flags 1 through 20 to play with).
Then, you can make a condition for other events (Logical flag 1 must be "true") or (logical flag 1 must be "false")

Similar to this I would like the ability to have triggers not default to OR behavior as they do now but also be able to select AND behavior. (not just Eagle #1 or Eagle #2 is destroyed as a trigger, but Eagle #1 AND Eagle #2 destroyed).

Big picture example of how this could be used:

My enemy IADS is pretty robust, it has several EW radars searching, which means the SAMs keep their radars powered down until the enemy is in range inside their prosecution area, so as not to give away their position. Also, the enemy has a central HQ bunker as their Air Defense Headquarters.

So the SAMs are keeping their radars down, but there are two cases where I want them to power up:
- When too many EW radars are down, they have to go autonomous or will be ineffective cause no one will be detecting targets.
- When the Bunker is taken out, I want them autonomous for five minutes, then go back to silent to simulate chaos when the HQ is hit and then backup systems coming online allowing them to go quiet again.

With what I am requesting I would make it kind of like this:
Radars down event:
Trigger: Tall king 1 destroyed AND Tall king 2 destroyed AND Big bird 1 destroyed AND Tin Shield 1 destroyed
Action: SA-20 1, SA-17 1, SA-10 1, SA-10 2 SA-17 2 assign to mission SAM-autonomous (or if avail: action EMCON radar active)
Action2: set logical flag 1 to TRUE

Bunker event:
Trigger: Air Defense HQ Bunker damaged 75% or more
Action: SA-20 1, SA-17 1, SA-10 1, SA-10 2 SA-17 2 assign to mission SAM-autonomous (or if avail: action EMCON radar active)
Action2: teleport marker "timehack" to area x (somewhere other side of the globe)

Bunker back in action event:
Trigger: marker "timehack" remains in area x for 5 minutes
Condition: Logical flag 1 must be false
Action: SA-20 1, SA-17 1, SA-10 1, SA-10 2 SA-17 2 assign to mission SAM-quiet (or if avail: action EMCON radar passive)

The AND for triggers make sure SAMs dont go active after just one radar is down (it is possible but tricky right now to manipulate this with scoring on the non player side by giving score when units go down, but if there is multiple things going on it is hard to generate exact behavior)
The logical flag going to true when the radars go down makes sure that, if the radars go down BEFORE the HQ goes down (and so the SAMs need to be autonomous), after the bunker goes down and 5 minutes go by, the SAMs dont just shut down and go blind (since their EW is gone). They should only do that if EW is still intact enough.

Hope this jibber jabber makes sense


p.s. I still really would dig the option to set an altitude / speed (choosing from presets or exact value entry) for all missions (especially patrols but others (like support, although that already has speed, but not altitude yet) too.

p.s. 2 somehow being able to hack a clock / use a timer in events would be cool too. Now I have to do it by teleporting a marker and going for a unit remains in area event.

[Dimitris]

Removed "Event action: Set weather properties" as it has been implemented in Build 580. If you voted for this you can re-vote.

[Michal Pielaszkiewicz]

Tomcat84 => Yes Yes Yes! +1 from me.

[Dide]

+2 [&o]

[Dimitris]

Removed "EE action: Add Unit" as it has been implemented in Build 582. If you voted for this you can now re-vote.

[Dide]

Thanks again Sunburn, the new beta will be released this week? (I'm suffering!) [:(]

[Dimitris]

Removed "Event Action: Side Changes Posture" as it has been implemented in Build 584. If you voted for this you can now re-vote.