Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] Page: <<   < prev  26 27 28 29 [30]
[Poll]

RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]


Downed pilots / CSAR (without using the EE)
  9% (66)
Higher-resolution relief layer
  6% (46)
More sound effects
  5% (36)
Improve weather modelling (local fronts etc.)
  8% (57)
Dedicated sensor page on DB viewer
  2% (18)
Intermittent sensor settings
  4% (27)
TOT planner/Advance Strike Planner
  19% (133)
Display weapon firing arcs in DB viewer
  1% (7)
Custom draw on map
  2% (14)
Additional contact info for passive sonar contacts
  0% (5)
Clickable log messages
  2% (19)
Ability to group ref points
  0% (2)
Ability to name grouped ref points
  0% (6)
Range circles for aircraft
  2% (16)
Sprint and drift while on mission
  0% (6)
Order weapons with active datalinks to self destruct
  0% (1)
1/3rd rule option for strike missions
  0% (1)
Multiple map windows
  1% (12)
WEGO MP
  3% (22)
Real-time MP
  5% (39)
Mid-flight mechanical breakdowns on aircraft
  0% (1)
Make Terrain types affect detection
  1% (10)
Geometric sonobuoy patterns
  0% (2)
Expand space ops (Shuttle / Skylab, armed sats etc.)
  1% (7)
Quick Battle Generator
  3% (25)
Sunrise/sunset/nautical twilight calculator
  0% (1)
Option to enable a message when a vehicle reaches a specific waypoint
  0% (3)
Ability to change color of grouped refpoints and shaded patrol areas
  0% (2)
Dynamic campaign (events on one scen affect the next)
  2% (20)
Aircraft Maintenence and Support Crew Modeling
  1% (7)
Deeper land combat model
  4% (32)
Player's Alarm Clock
  0% (0)
Collateral Damage Zone (CDZ)
  0% (1)
Unit proficiency affects adherence to ToT
  0% (0)
Optional "Beginner" GUI
  0% (6)
Make sonobuys and refpoints unselectable when invisible
  0% (0)
Ability to deactivate (destruct) sonobuoys
  0% (0)
Use "Areas" or "Routes" to simplify refpoint management
  0% (1)
Display unit thumbnail image right next to unit icon
  0% (0)
Customizeable soundslot per unit-type (hear a sound when select a unit
  0% (0)
Display time at current rate to charge SSK batteries to full
  0% (0)
Lag in obtaining info from non-realtime intel/recon assets
  0% (3)
Line-of-sight tool
  0% (1)
Hotkey to change sonobuoy visibility
  0% (0)
Attack a Reference Point
  0% (4)
Show unit weapons list (nominal) for identified contacts
  0% (0)
Reverse targeting vectors (show who is targeting selected contact)
  0% (3)
Helo in-flight refuelling (from ships)
  0% (3)
Apply the 1/3 rule to Ferry Flight missions
  0% (1)
Extra filter on DB-viewer for platform sub-type
  0% (0)
Group logged messages by type (general, contact, damage, warning etc.)
  0% (1)
Refuel Option: Set amount of fuel to take on
  0% (1)
Ability to resize icons so big icons in small countries don't overlap.
  0% (0)
Message Log option to hide messages that break fog of war.
  0% (0)
Hover (RAST) refueling for helicopters
  0% (1)
Filtering and search added to add cargo dialog
  0% (0)
Ship Towing
  0% (2)


Total Votes : 671


(last vote on : 4/17/2019 3:58:59 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests ... - 1/30/2019 3:11:19 PM   
AlphaSierra

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 2/13/2017
Status: offline
Amen... Great Idea

_____________________________

I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. -John Paul Jones

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 871
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests ... - 1/31/2019 12:22:56 AM   
apache85

 

Posts: 1365
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AKar

What I'd like to have as an important, gameplay affecting addition would be accidents. Weapon malfunctions are already there, but having a real non-zero chance of losing airplanes in particular for mishaps would add something to the planning. Obviously, the model should be sensitive to the conditions: attempting something like NoE flying at high speed in poor weather with aircraft not well suited to it should carry significantly elevated risk of something going wrong in comparison to cruising at 35000 ft. Operations such as in-flight refueling should be something in between.

Thinking out loud. :) Accidents do account for a significant portion of the losses in real ops.


The tools are there for scenario designers to add this kind of behaviour via Lua. If you have a specific idea in mind post in the Lua Legion subforum and I'd be happy to talk through it with a demo.

I'm not saying it can't/won't be done, or even that it's not a good idea to incorporate into the general infrastructure (haven't formed an opinion on that actually ); just that it's actually possible to do right now.

_____________________________


(in reply to AKar)
Post #: 872
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests ... - 1/31/2019 1:49:59 AM   
Excroat3

 

Posts: 414
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline
Requesting the ability to load weapons from ship's magazines into aircraft as cargo. Was recently playing through a scenario where my carrier ran out of AMRAAMs, but my LHD still had plenty. If I had the option to load some into cargo helicopters and ferry them over that would have been a game changer.

(in reply to apache85)
Post #: 873
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests ... - 2/6/2019 3:31:50 PM   
AKar

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 3/18/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85

quote:

ORIGINAL: AKar

What I'd like to have as an important, gameplay affecting addition would be accidents. Weapon malfunctions are already there, but having a real non-zero chance of losing airplanes in particular for mishaps would add something to the planning. Obviously, the model should be sensitive to the conditions: attempting something like NoE flying at high speed in poor weather with aircraft not well suited to it should carry significantly elevated risk of something going wrong in comparison to cruising at 35000 ft. Operations such as in-flight refueling should be something in between.

Thinking out loud. :) Accidents do account for a significant portion of the losses in real ops.

The tools are there for scenario designers to add this kind of behaviour via Lua. If you have a specific idea in mind post in the Lua Legion subforum and I'd be happy to talk through it with a demo.

I'm not saying it can't/won't be done, or even that it's not a good idea to incorporate into the general infrastructure (haven't formed an opinion on that actually ); just that it's actually possible to do right now.

Nothing specific in my mind in what comes to any particular scenario. What I'm actually thinking is similar option like the current ones, detailed gunfire, and aircraft damage, that would 'enable accidents'. If enabled, aircraft flying fast and very low over terrain would have elevated risk of crashing. More so if poorly equipped for such operations and if at night or in poor visibility. Of course, crew proficiency should affect this very much as well. This would add some value to the aircraft that are specifically equipped for low-lever, or even NoE flying and would carry a penalty in a form of added risk for using less suitable airplanes in such a way - in particular if crewed with novices.

As a result, a flight of Panavia Tornados with expert pilots could pull off an extended distance of minimum altitude flight even in poor conditions and over difficult terrain with just moderately elevated risk. Trying this with generic F-4s with novice crews would carry a risk that is elevated enough to seriously consider other options.

(in reply to apache85)
Post #: 874
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests ... - 4/3/2019 8:48:58 PM   
BenTheVaporeon

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 4/3/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3

Requesting the ability to load weapons from ship's magazines into aircraft as cargo. Was recently playing through a scenario where my carrier ran out of AMRAAMs, but my LHD still had plenty. If I had the option to load some into cargo helicopters and ferry them over that would have been a game changer.



i also would like this idea if it means anything


... i kind of thought cargo missions were meant to do this, but they are more like landings


-----

as a side note, you can still move the weapons from one ship to another by making 2 separate 1 way ferry missions, and loading a plane with the desired weapons and then having it transfer to the other ship, and then switching to the "ferry" layout on the big carrier and then returning to the LHD , and then repeating the progress until the missiles have been transferred, although it takes a lot of time, and ties up fighter planes(probably harriers in this context), that could be used in other missions, and it makes more sense to use helicopters that are said to carry cargo(i still have to look up if they are used to carry supplies to ships or if only ships do that)

-------------

i looked it up now, helicopters Do help with moving weapons and supplies from cargo ships to warships

< Message edited by BenTheVaporeon -- 4/3/2019 10:22:04 PM >

(in reply to Excroat3)
Post #: 875
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests ... - 4/3/2019 9:07:09 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 3859
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

you can still move the weapons from one ship to another by making 2 separate 1 way ferry missions,


This is a viable means if there are no transport helos available but it is tedious and slow as you mention if there are cargo helos available.

A scenario designer can make missions work with Lua but cannot predict all things a player wants to do. You can fix this in the editor and be realistic about it:

As a simple rule of thumb you can take the cargo load of the Helo and make a simple spreadsheet to figure out how much to transfer:


1- The weight of each missile is listed in the DB

2- I add 10% for packaging and salvage material

3- I always round it off to two's of a munition as this is usualy how they are shipped and used.

4- Assume sling load so bulk should not be an issue


Set the appropriate loadout of the Helo, send it on a one way ferry mission, when it arrives go into the magazine of the old ship and deduct the appropriat number and add them to the new unit.


This is a bit of a pain but it is not difficult and you are not cheeting - so I think it is fair ball.

B




_____________________________

Check out our upcoming novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour! http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to BenTheVaporeon)
Post #: 876
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests ... - 4/4/2019 5:50:07 PM   
BenTheVaporeon

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 4/3/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

quote:

you can still move the weapons from one ship to another by making 2 separate 1 way ferry missions,


This is a viable means if there are no transport helos available but it is tedious and slow as you mention if there are cargo helos available.

A scenario designer can make missions work with Lua but cannot predict all things a player wants to do. You can fix this in the editor and be realistic about it:

As a simple rule of thumb you can take the cargo load of the Helo and make a simple spreadsheet to figure out how much to transfer:


1- The weight of each missile is listed in the DB

2- I add 10% for packaging and salvage material

3- I always round it off to two's of a munition as this is usualy how they are shipped and used.

4- Assume sling load so bulk should not be an issue


Set the appropriate loadout of the Helo, send it on a one way ferry mission, when it arrives go into the magazine of the old ship and deduct the appropriat number and add them to the new unit.


This is a bit of a pain but it is not difficult and you are not cheeting - so I think it is fair ball.

B







maybe, but by the point were you would open it in the editor already changes the scenario a lot

i just mentioned the ferry method because it can be done during an already started scenario most of the time (assuming you still have the planes needed)

but still UNREPing with aircraft is a good feature to ask for, as it is done in RL, and would be very helpful in missions

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 877
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests ... - 4/11/2019 3:12:25 PM   
lumiere

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 3/19/2019
From: Japan
Status: offline
WARNING: This post is just vengeance for Paveway LGB or Hellfire missiles.

I suggest decoy for laser guided weapons, just like IR or rader-guided weapons.

My poor knowledge says it can, just like "Shtora-1" on T-80/T-90, or Type-90 (Japanese) tank with
laser warning receiver which could trigger smoke discharger.

Also, for naval vessel, pamphlet of Saab illustrates that laser warning receiver cues "countermeasure" (I don't know this means smoke discharger).

In game, this can be modeled using "Generic Smoke discharger" like flare or chaff just before resolving hit (tech level, i.e. incomplete combustion or white phosphorus is good).
also, unit with laser warning reciver (AN/AVR-2, for example), it could give crew a cue to evade and also works as decoy with infinity ammo.

here is example.

Decoy (Shtora-1 [Smoke]; Tech: Late 1990s) from T-90 Tank Platoon is attempting to seduce sensor:
Laser Spot Tracker (Tech: Early 2000s)(Guiding weapon: AGM-114M Hellfire II #464). Final probability: 15%.
Result: 16 - FAILURE

Decoy (Shtora-1 [LWR]; Tech: Late 1990s) from T-90 Tank Platoon is attempting to seduce sensor:
Laser Spot Tracker (Tech: Early 2000s)(Guiding weapon: AGM-114M Hellfire II #464). Final probability: 5%.
Result: 4 - SUCCESS


To tell the truth, I think smoke by fire or smoke from funnel of the ship with full/flank speed should also be considered, but
it will increases burden for devs and they are for next time...

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNmTmVP8brw

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_90.htm

https://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/naval/electronic-warfare/naval-laser-warning-systems/nlws/nlws-product-sheet.pdf

https://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/09_Electronics_Evans.pdf

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=3lpTDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA495&lpg=PA495&dq=naval+vessel+laser+warning+receiver&source=bl&ots=UwB6x2uKfb&sig=ACfU3U2PYRK1D-ENHm1SM-Dzs9Hqh9z5lg&hl=ja&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin-PLemcjhAhVT6bwKHaoiBWwQ6AEwEnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=naval%20vessel%20laser%20warning%20receiver&f=false

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-avr-2.htm

_____________________________

Only the dead have seen the end of war.

(Attributed as) Plato

Q. NCA: Where are the carriers?
A.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/where.htm

(in reply to BenTheVaporeon)
Post #: 878
Page:   <<   < prev  26 27 28 29 [30]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] Page: <<   < prev  26 27 28 29 [30]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.143