COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC8 - B678.17 [FINAL?])

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

daft
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 4:05 pm

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD

Post by daft »

Guys, seeing you push build after build and trawling the forums to find bug reports and db-issues is inspiring. You guys are doing a great job. :)
User avatar
Schr75
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:14 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD

Post by Schr75 »

+1

It took less than two hours to fix the Sealance.

That´s impressing.

Søren
Dimitris
Posts: 14773
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD

Post by Dimitris »

Command v1.08 Release Candidate 6 (Build 678.15)

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B205vp ... sp=sharing

How to install: Simply download from link and unzip to main Command installation folder. Answer "Yes" to any overwrite requests. Backup your current Command.exe, just in case.


Changes from v1.08RC5 / B678.14
======================================================[/b]
Fixed: B678.14 CTD
Fixed: Deleted units still listed on airbase/OOB
Fixed: ICBM stuck in OODA loop
Fixed: Failure to Release Weapons - Redux
Fixed: Mission Aircraft Do Not Release Weapon
DismalPseudoscience
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:34 am

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD

Post by DismalPseudoscience »

I feel like the engine punished that appropriately before, since Tomahawks bounced off of runways ineffectually. But they were still pretty useful against the squishy access points, which were often the more critical targets.

My biggest complaint about this, though is that it really limits player flexibility. Sometimes you just don't have a lot of weapons with anti-runway tags available, but the ones you do have would smash access points very easily. Some penetrating weapons like JASSM are very good against runways as well. I'd rather spend $10 million on missiles than lose a $60 million aircraft because I have to fly low and drop Durandals or somesuch. Sometimes a runway just has to die regardless of the cost.

I think also that a lot of scenarios were designed on the assumption that a much broader range of weapons could attack runways and access points than currently can. Well, that's my 2 cents on the issue.

Thank you guys for all you hard work on the game!
User avatar
OnFire
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:51 am

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD

Post by OnFire »

ORIGINAL: DismalPseudoscience

I feel like the engine punished that appropriately before, since Tomahawks bounced off of runways ineffectually. But they were still pretty useful against the squishy access points, which were often the more critical targets.

My biggest complaint about this, though is that it really limits player flexibility. Sometimes you just don't have a lot of weapons with anti-runway tags available, but the ones you do have would smash access points very easily. Some penetrating weapons like JASSM are very good against runways as well. I'd rather spend $10 million on missiles than lose a $60 million aircraft because I have to fly low and drop Durandals or somesuch. Sometimes a runway just has to die regardless of the cost.

I think also that a lot of scenarios were designed on the assumption that a much broader range of weapons could attack runways and access points than currently can. Well, that's my 2 cents on the issue.

Thank you guys for all you hard work on the game!

+1
jodi319
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:37 am

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by jodi319 »

Is Command v1.08 Release Candidate 1 (Build 678.10) the latest stable version of the game ?
If it is; how do I update my current version? - is it as simple as: "How to install: Simply download from link and unzip to main Command installation folder. Answer "Yes" to any overwrite requests. Backup your current Command.exe, just in case."

jodi319
Jonathan
Casinn
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:12 am

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by Casinn »

yeah Jodi, just unzip it over the top of your existing files. Will replace anything thats changed and you're good to go.
Dimitris
Posts: 14773
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by Dimitris »

Command v1.08 Release Candidate 7 (Build 678.16)

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B205vp ... sp=sharing

How to install: Simply download from link and unzip to main Command installation folder. Answer "Yes" to any overwrite requests. Backup your current Command.exe, just in case.


Changes from v1.08RC6 / B678.15
======================================================[/b]
Fixed: Failure to Release Weapons - Redux
1Eddie2
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:24 am

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by 1Eddie2 »

Will the Chinook HC4/5/6 be added to the United Kingdom (RAF), and the Merlin HC4 to the Royal Navy (RAF Merlin HC3s have been given to the Commando Helicopter Force and will be upgraded to Merlin HC4)? Also the Merlin Crowsnest upgrade will be designated ASaC5, not 1/2.
thewood1
Posts: 9107
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by thewood1 »

Why don't you put them in the db request thread?
1Eddie2
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:24 am

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by 1Eddie2 »

Oh, I will then.
Dimitris
Posts: 14773
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by Dimitris »

Command v1.08 Release Candidate 8 (Build 678.17)

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B205vp ... sp=sharing

How to install: Simply download from link and unzip to main Command installation folder. Answer "Yes" to any overwrite requests. Backup your current Command.exe, just in case.


Changes from v1.08RC7 / B678.16
======================================================[/b]
Fixed: Failure to Release Weapons - Redux
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by Primarchx »

BTW, how is a runway-attack-capable weapon designated in the DB these days? I see the Durandal has eligible targets as being "Runways" but the Mk82 has Ground Structures (Hard) and is NOT able to attack runways (at least according to my test in 678.14 ... really?). I think the Israelis will have a hard time knocking out airfields in '67...
ComDev
Posts: 3116
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 1:20 pm
Contact:

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by ComDev »

The Israelis used special bombs for the runways, not vanilla Mk82s [8D]

The Mk82 is not an anti-runway weapon. It just isn't.

So should we make it anti-runway capable in the sim? Seems to be different oppinions on that. I think they shouldn't.
Image

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!
User avatar
MR_BURNS2
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:19 am
Location: Austria

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by MR_BURNS2 »

ORIGINAL: emsoy

The Israelis used special bombs for the runways, not vanilla Mk82s [8D]

The Mk82 is not an anti-runway weapon. It just isn't.

So should we make it anti-runway capable in the sim? Seems to be different oppinions on that. I think they shouldn't.

Yes, every iron bomb should be able. If you have no other munitions for the job or you simply dont wanna risk flying low you use gravity bombs.
Windows 7 64; Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.7GHz; 6144MB RAM; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970;


User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by Primarchx »

ORIGINAL: emsoy

The Israelis used special bombs for the runways, not vanilla Mk82s [8D]

The Mk82 is not an anti-runway weapon. It just isn't.

So should we make it anti-runway capable in the sim? Seems to be different oppinions on that. I think they shouldn't.

I suppose so, they are light for the job. I was more referring to GP bombs in general, but it looks like the MK83 & Mk84 do effect runways.
User avatar
.Sirius
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:21 pm
Contact:

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by .Sirius »

A nice Nuke could work wonders on Airfield landscaping heh
Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law
p1t1o
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:35 am

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by p1t1o »

I've been searching high and low for some kind of picture which shows Mk82/3/4 performance against a concrete surface, or any information on their penetration characteristics but without much result.


To be honest I'm quite skeptical on their effects on a runway surface:

Iron bombs are generally not fused with the time delay necessary to cause a subsurface burst.

Unconfined explosions against a hard surface (even moderately hard) tend to have a large amount of their energy reflected away from the surface.

Their bomb casings are not in any way designed for penetration - not that that is relevant due to the first point.



I agree, they would not leave a runway *completely* untouched, but they did invent anti-runway weapons for a reason - because minor damage can be very quickly repaired.

Personally I think that if you have no anti-runway munitions, your aircraft are probably better used for shooting down aircraft rather than sending them on a risky direct attack for most likely only minor damage.

**edit**

PS: I suppose technically they should be able to be used against runways in-sim, but for light damage only. You should have a hard time attacking runways/hard targets with them.
caron
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:35 pm

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by caron »

There is a book titled "Effects of Mk 82 and Mk 84 Bombs Against Simulated Runway Surfaces", U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, 1990
I think it could be the answer :D

another thing is few words by a .doc you can find online...at some point it states:

...French Jaguar As actually dropped Durandels on the first day of the Gulf War.
F-111Fs attacked the vast Iraqi airfields repeatedly, using LGBs almost exclusively. They
had great success in making the runways and taxiways unusable by detonating 2,000-lb LGBs
at their intersections from an altitude safe from ground fire...

but the term "LGBs" could very well describe penetrators so...nothing sure here.
I personally think that a 1 Ton Mk84 will indeed dig a hole deep enought to disable a runway/taxyway for quite a lot...but I'm just guessing.
Zaslon
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:52 am

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC5 - B678.14)

Post by Zaslon »

Caron, surely F-111F launched BLU-109s.
Planners had several options regarding airfield attacks. One was to use the American CBU-89, an anti-personal and anti-armor cluster mine, to deny or impede access to the runways. This approach had two drawbacks. First, tests in the mid-1980s showed that CBU-89 experienced a high failure rate when dropped above several hundred feet against on
crete surfaces. Another problem was that on a flat surface, such as a runway, it was relatively easy to clear with high-pressure water hoses. A second option was to use general-purpose bombs to crater runways, making them unusable. Well-constructed runways would have required penetrating bomb bodies ( Due to ricochet, broaching,and bomb body breakup upon impact, general purpose bombs are unsuitable for thick or reinforced concrete structure). Some planners suggested penetrating bomb attacks followed by CBU-89 drops. Instead, planners turned to JP-233, which combined both of these features into one munition.

Source:THE "CAPABILITIES GAP" IN DESERT STORM: A COALITION AIR CAMPAIGN CASE STUDY BY FRANK J. ROSSI
Image
Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”