RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

[Dimitris]

Removed "Per-unit proficiency level" as this has been added in Build 586. If you voted for this you vote again.

[ChezDaJez]

How about geometric sonobuoy patterns like those use by P-3's, Nimrod and other airborne ASW assets. The current "Sherwin Williams" tactic of painting the ocean in sonobuoys is a huge waste of ordnance and computer resources.

The player should be able to specify the type of pattern and orientation desired. For example, a player could tell the aircraft to lay 16 sonobuoys oriented SW starting at a point selected on the map. The spacing would be based upon the predicted detection range (or player definable). Some suggested patterns would be a circle, line, double line, sawtooth or box. A line barrier pattern is a must for chokepoints.

[hellfish6]

In relation to the aircraft damage option, any chance that there may ever be damage/deadlined aircraft without requiring combat damage? I'm thinking of something like you pick an aircraft to launch and as they're maneuvering it on deck, something breaks, delaying launch for x hours. Or upon landing, a tire is blown and the aircraft isn't destroyed, but is inoperable from that point on. Small stuff like that, optional of course.

[Dutchie999]

May I request two new features for the next version of C:MANO?
1) the ability to group aircraft in the mission editor. So that the computer side has a realistic CAP not of 1 aircraft but consisting of 2 or more airplanes.
2) the ability to control the aircraft's altitude for their mission in the mission editor. Once again as a human player you can easily adjust this but for the IA side this will create more realistic and interesting strike or CAP missions.

And I would also like to report a bug. In the mission editor airplanes assigned to a mission don't react if you change mission speed.

[Marder]

ORIGINAL: Dutchie999


May I request two new features for the next version of C:MANO?
1) the ability to group aircraft in the mission editor. So that the computer side has a realistic CAP not of 1 aircraft but consisting of 2 or more airplanes.
2) the ability to control the aircraft's altitude for their mission in the mission editor. Once again as a human player you can easily adjust this but for the IA side this will create more realistic and interesting strike or CAP missions.

And I would also like to report a bug. In the mission editor airplanes assigned to a mission don't react if you change mission speed.

+1

[Staneth]

I have a couple suggestions for UI changes.

1) Enhance the "Detach Unit(s) from Group" command so it functions on groups and not just individual units. The new functionality would completely dissolve the group into single units. This would save having to switch to unit view and detaching each unit one by one.

2) Display somewhere on the unit info panel on the right side the current state of "Ignore plotted course when attacking" and "Hold fire" for that unit. Ideally I would like checkboxes similar to the Speed and Altitude manual overrides so they could also be controlled from the info panel. This would save having to open the Unit Orders->Attack Options menu for each unit to check the current setting.

3) Add the ability for the player to define the default settings for each mission type in the mission editor. I'm thinking the simplest option from a UI perspective would be to add a button in the mission editor to save the current settings as the default for the currently selected mission type. For example, for the ASW Patrol mission I have four different mission and EMCON settings that I almost always change from the default. Especially when creating multiple missions that repetitive clicking can add up.

Thanks

[Tomcat84]

ORIGINAL: Staneth
1) Enhance the "Detach Unit(s) from Group" command so it functions on groups and not just individual units. The new functionality would completely dissolve the group into single units. This would save having to switch to unit view and detaching each unit one by one.

If playing in the scenario editor, selecting a group and hitting the delete key once dissolves the group. Perhaps this functionality can be added to the normal playing mode? (as long as it doesn't work on AI groups haha)

[Mgellis]

An idea for a new gameplay feature (which may require some additions to the databases)...

Space operations

* Depending on the era, it should be possible to employ anti-satellite weapons to eliminate satellites. Among others, I believe the SM-3 missile is capable of taking out satellites in low orbit.

* Possibly add the Space Shuttle and Skylab to the databases as "satellites" that could be used to spot things

* Make it possible for the space shuttle (and possibly other vessels in orbit like the X-20 Dyna-Soar) to launch anti-satellite weapons and/or carry lasers. Naturally, some satellites might themselves be anti-satellite weapons. The first phase of a scenario might begin with a couple of critical satellites blinking out just when the data they were providing was needed...

I'm sure there are other things that could be done with satellites in Command, but I can't think of them at the moment.

Anyway, it was just a thought. Comments? Suggestions?

[hellfish6]

An out there, long term request: a Quick Battle Generator. Something that'll build a quick scenario to shoot stuff (preventing me from getting carried away in the scenario editor, losing hours upon hours playing around). I don't even necessarily need player-selected parameters - give me 2-3 units against 2-3 opposing units and let me see what I can do with it.

[lowchi]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis


* Depending on the era, it should be possible to employ anti-satellite weapons to eliminate satellites. Among others, I believe the SM-3 missile is capable of taking out satellites in low orbit.

the ability to deploy asat´s against sattelites is already ingame. i think baloogan also made a Video about it.

Did a testrun a little while ago, i tried the sm-3 against one, didnt work, but maybe the sattelites Orbit was too high

[CV60]

In addition to better weather modeling, could the game include a small sunrise/sunset/nautical twilight calculator? This would be very helpful, especially for the cold war scenarios. I know such calculators are on-line, but having one in the game would help for strike planning.

[AlexGGGG]

I'd like to see adjustment of engagement ranges.

Let's consider CAP fighters engaging incoming aircraft. Once enemy closes in, at some point fighters will fire AAMs, normally two per target. This happens at some "default" range. Now missiles PH drops with range, sometimes radically. If the incoming aircraft are fighters, that's OK. If it is the bombers that are incoming, which cannot shoot back, I would like to engage at much shorter ranges, so as not to loose PH. So I would like an option like "adjust engagement range" and then, like "Default", "3/4 default" and "1/2 default". Harpoon CE I recall had this for SAMs. This might be a doctrine setting, so it can be applied at all levels from side-wide down to individual units. Effectively, I'm looking for a setting to balance between maintaining maximum standoff and achieving maximum kills per weapon fired.

[Dimitris]

Removed "More variable cloud cover" as this has been available for a while now.

[Dimitris]

Removed "Ordnance transfer to bases" as this has been available since at least v1.05.

[hellfish6]

I'd like to ask for a "recon" mission, which is essentially a patrol, but prevents your recon units from engaging enemy forces. I ask because I have an allied unit providing recon support for my side, but I had to put it on an ASW patrol mission inside Germany because the recon planes were making gun runs on targets and going Winchester when all I wanted them to do was provide target detection/assessments for my strike force. It's a crude workaround, and doesn't allow those recon units to adequately investigate the contacts they discover (unless, of course, I plop a submarine in the Rhine).

[Grondoval]

I would like to make a suggestion:

How about the option to enable a message when a vehicle reaches a specific waypoint (in the waypoint menu you could select IF you want to be notified and in the game menu you could select HOW you want to be notified - per message log or time-stop-pop-up). You could plot some complicated ingress route for a strike and enable the pop up message for the last waypoint before target and dont miss out details of the strike.

Something that says (Unit XY or Group XY has reached Waypoint XY)

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: hellfish6
I'd like to ask for a "recon" mission, which is essentially a patrol, but prevents your recon units from engaging enemy forces. I ask because I have an allied unit providing recon support for my side, but I had to put it on an ASW patrol mission inside Germany because the recon planes were making gun runs on targets and going Winchester when all I wanted them to do was provide target detection/assessments for my strike force. It's a crude workaround, and doesn't allow those recon units to adequately investigate the contacts they discover (unless, of course, I plop a submarine in the Rhine).

Isn't this possible with a patrol mission with weapons-tight?

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: hellfish6
I'd like to ask for a "recon" mission, which is essentially a patrol, but prevents your recon units from engaging enemy forces. I ask because I have an allied unit providing recon support for my side, but I had to put it on an ASW patrol mission inside Germany because the recon planes were making gun runs on targets and going Winchester when all I wanted them to do was provide target detection/assessments for my strike force. It's a crude workaround, and doesn't allow those recon units to adequately investigate the contacts they discover (unless, of course, I plop a submarine in the Rhine).

Isn't this possible with a patrol mission with weapons-tight?

Can that be done on an AI-controlled side with most of the aircraft still at base?

[thewood1]

I would think a support mission on a single loop of an area would work. Keep opportunity fire off for the mission. At worst, use Lua to keep weapons tight, but I don't think you have to. Lua gives you a lot of flexibility to manage those missions for the AI, but even without it I would think it would work.

[Tomcat84]

I agree. A support mission or maybe even a patrol mission with Weapons Hold/Tight (e.g. engage opportunity targets NO, engage unknowns, NO, Unit hold fire (no ai attacks) selected (possibly Lua enable this one) and it should work?