Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side note to posture stances

 
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 >> Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side note to posture stances Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side not... - 6/18/2014 9:00:29 PM   
Rongor

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 3/25/2014
Status: offline
Please let us group different side's units.
We have multinational task groups out there. Of course I could just enter all units of SNMCMG1 (roughly a dozen units or more)being in a "NATO" side. But this group gets regular replacements of new units, while facing other units exiting the group, probably returning home or towards other tasks.
At present we would then have to delete that exiting "NATO" unit and replace it at the same location with the national unit, being identical of course. Same in the other direction, when getting a replacement merging with the group.

Enabling this feature wouldnt need to check side postures at all. It may then technically possible to enter hostile units in the same group, but I dont think a mission designer would seriously do so, so you could possibly abstain from entering program code for that checking. If you would have the program requiring different sides to share friendly posture to group units of different sides, this probably would restrict mission designing in an unwanted way (with the present amount of different postures). In real life we have german, brazilian and indonesian units in the UNIFIL-MTF. These work together at the coast of Lebanon, but does this imply they are allies all over the world? Rather not.
An alternative could be to have grouping units beginning with friendly stances and also to add a new posture named "ally" that is beyond friendly and a true global effective mutual stance.

< Message edited by Rongor -- 6/18/2014 10:22:40 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side... - 6/18/2014 9:57:01 PM   
Pergite!

 

Posts: 448
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: The temperate climate zone
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rongor

Please let us group different side's units.
We have multinational task groups out there. Of course I could just enter all units of SNMCMG1 (roughly a dozen units or more)being in a "NATO" side. But this group gets regular replacements of new units, while facing other units exiting the group, probably returning home or towards other tasks.
At present we would then have to delete that exiting "NATO" unit and replace it at the same location with the national unit, being identical of course. Same in the other direction, when getting a replacement merging with the group.

Enabling this feature wouldnt need to check side postures at all. It may then technically possible to enter hostile units in the same group, but I dont think a mission designer would seriously do so, so you could possibly abstain from entering program code for that checking. If you would have the program requiring different sides to share friendly posture to group units of different sides, this probably would restrict mission designing in an unwanted way (with the present amount of different postures). In real life we have german, brazilian and indonesian units in the UNIFIL-MTF. These work together at the coast of Lebanon, but does this imply they are allies all over the world? Rather not.
An alternative could be to have grouping units beginning with friendly stances and also to add a new posture named "ally" that is beyond friendly and a true global effective mutual stance.


Side does not equal nationality. You can put all nations you desire in on group as long as they belong to one side, i.e working together for a common goal like multinational task forces usually are supposed to do. To create allies you just create a different side but with a friendly posture. They will then be allied to your side. I do believe you are describing a problem that does not exist, since this is an operational level simulation.

(in reply to Rongor)
Post #: 2
RE: Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side... - 6/18/2014 10:19:33 PM   
Rongor

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 3/25/2014
Status: offline
If sides do equal nationality in a mission, because the mission designer wants it that way, the problem is right there ;)
What you describe is exactly what I don't want to do since I don't use this simulation limited to operational levels.

< Message edited by Rongor -- 6/18/2014 11:20:05 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Pergite!)
Post #: 3
RE: Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side... - 6/18/2014 10:50:31 PM   
Pergite!

 

Posts: 448
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: The temperate climate zone
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rongor

If sides do equal nationality in a mission, because the mission designer wants it that way, the problem is right there ;)
What you describe is exactly what I don't want to do since I don't use this simulation limited to operational levels.


I wrote that sides does not equal nationality. If Holland has given up command of a frigate for service under the EU flag in the gulf of Aden, then that ship would be best put in a " EUNAVFOR" side. The other Dutch frigates patrolling in the Atlantic are most likely in the side "Holland", or if they are under NATO command "NATO". If a scenario maker only puts one nationality in a side, then I guess the purpose is that you only have command of those units , since you only can command one side.

I however wish you the best of luck if you are doing some global grand strategic mission within the game.

(in reply to Rongor)
Post #: 4
RE: Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side... - 6/18/2014 11:02:07 PM   
Rongor

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 3/25/2014
Status: offline
I understand what you wrote. Please accept that my suggestion would help mission designers like me, who actually want to have a side per involved nation. This is very useful for plotting real world deployments in this sim. CMANO is an excellent tool to do that. It is not uncommon guys roam OSINT sites all day to feed their CMANO scenario with present OOB situations. This is a lot of work, that might enable us enjoying up to date community scenarios quickly released after corresponding real world developments occur.
You are right, it is rather unlikely one would face the need to edit in or out single units of a goup when running a limited scenario. But the suggested feature definitely helps those who keep recent developments updated in their CMANO installation, to be able to offer convenient exports or playable scenarios right on the topic if stuff runs hot anywhere on the globe.

_____________________________


(in reply to Pergite!)
Post #: 5
RE: Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side... - 6/18/2014 11:39:58 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1351
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
While I understand why you might like this...I see no issue with limiting the number of sides. I see no game purpose for not group allies when needed. It's one of those nice to haves that most likely only the smallest minority will use or see the benefit in. I hope other things that impact gameplay and the editor take some precedence.

(in reply to Rongor)
Post #: 6
RE: Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side... - 6/19/2014 12:45:33 AM   
Rongor

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 3/25/2014
Status: offline
It is hard to understand why people bother to post negatively voting comments to suggested features they don't want to use but won't affect their gameplay at all.
If you don't want to use this feature it is fine for you, simply don't care for this thread. To add your disbelief might be a valid opinion, but to post it in a quality for no other cause than to prevent a feature getting implemented is not only pointless, it also somewhat egoistic. You don't have to be afraid that your fun in playing the game might decrease by this feature, so why not simply grant that "smallest minority" the benefit of a feature that you are allowed to ignore? If the developers determine, that this feature is not matching the philosophy of this simulation and/or the effort to implement this don't stay in any reasonable relation to the feature's value, they will simply reject it.
As this is a simulation, CMANO and future scenarios will benefit from a preferable widest amount of freedom and changeabilty, I will support any suggestions that add features that can be used to design scenarios. Even because no one can really anticipate what creative scenario designers in this community will create in the future, we should be happy about any tool that gets implemented by the developers.

_____________________________


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 7
RE: Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side... - 6/19/2014 2:09:49 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1351
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I am looking at it like a poll. There are a bunch of things in the poll that the community wants. I think the devs deserve a counter argument as to how important this is. We'll let a moderator decide if only agreements to a suggestion can be posted.

They can throw it upon the poll thread if they like and you can vote. Until that happens, I think I should be able to say I don't think that is as important as some of the other things out there like ToT planner or fixing range circles.

(in reply to Rongor)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Suggestion: grouping units of different sides, side note to posture stances Page: [1]
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

0.078