RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

[Poll]

CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests


AMP - Time-on-target automatic strike generator UI
  28% (134)
AMP - Continuous coverage planner
  1% (7)
Scriptless downed/stranded crew (for CSAR)
  2% (11)
Local weather fronts
  10% (48)
Scriptless intermittent sensor settings
  1% (9)
Custom draw on map
  2% (11)
WEGO MP
  3% (17)
Real-time MP
  10% (51)
Scriptless carry-over of units between scenarios
  4% (19)
Ground operations: Make units recognize and use roads
  5% (25)
AMP - Ability to edit flightplans prior to takeoff
  3% (18)
Implements full unit edit capability (loadouts, calcs) into ScenEdit
  6% (30)
Warning shots
  1% (9)
Scriptless boarding actions
  0% (3)
Integrated speech-to-text (SeaHag-style)
  2% (11)
Tacview - AAR mode
  4% (21)
Chemical & Biological weapon effects
  1% (9)
Display real-time sonar/self-noise data
  0% (4)
Make A2A-refueling options a doctrine setting
  0% (2)
Have WRA ranges for weapons set in percentage of range rather than 5nm
  0% (2)
Unit "Scoreboard"
  0% (3)
"Search" tool for the cargo list
  0% (1)
Weather/Day-night affects air sorties
  1% (8)
Allow Lua scripting on Losses/Expenditures (for player-tailored stats)
  0% (1)
Enable borders/coastlines at close-in zoom
  2% (12)
Hotkeys for built-in map layers
  0% (1)


Total Votes : 467
(last vote on : 9/16/2021 2:13:32 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


thewood1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (6/6/2021 12:21:26 AM)

I think this is an issue with scenario design. I don't see anything too wrong with players being able to set loadouts at the beginning, but there are circumstances where a scenario designer might have wanted a player to have to decide whether to go with what they have loaded or reload their aircraft. The point is that its not as cut and dry as just letting all players be able to set loadouts at the beginning of any scenario.




KnightHawk75 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (6/15/2021 4:39:14 AM)

I've mentioned this a couple time in various threads but keep forgetting to put in here in the more specific \ official('ish) one.

Feature Request:
LUA - An added function or method for disengaging | disengaging-all upon a unit, such as exists in the GUI. This would compliment the ScenEdit_AttackContact() function.

Notes:
Something like the following (just possible suggestion\example):
-- (side and unitname) | guid = These params function same as most functions for lookup. id's the unit to operate on.
-- contacts= Table of string names or guids of the contact wrapper(s) from unit's side perspective which to drop engagement on. 
--           or could just make it only take a single string value per call. 
-- [dropall]= If true ignores contact field and just drop's all engagements the unit has. 
ScenEdit_DisenageContact({[unitname='unit1'],[side='side1'],[guid='unitguid'],contacts={'ctguid1','ctguid2'...},[dropall=true|false]})

OR perhaps a method on the unit wrapper
-- second parameter optional defaulting to false.
UnitWrapper:disengageContacts(contacts={'CtNameOrCtGuid1','CtNameOrCtGuid1',...},[true|(false)]);

There are cases (and not obscure ones) where scene designers\script authors need a simple, non side-effect inducing way to issue a break engagement\current orders command to a unit. Even if if the system in some cases may automatically re-engage the unit a second or two later under some cases this function would be incredibly valuable to have available for all primary unit classes (perhaps including weapons) to at least temporarily stop what they are presently doing and reset their logic cycle. It's especially needed on the ground unit side, where there is no "base" assignment, such that an often used workaround for the lack of this feature is the use of "rtb" (despite some side affects, or other trickery), which doesn't apply there.

Also, ideally when doing a "drop all" besides 'engagements' I think it should apply in a near blanket fashion to any significant current activity\order it is currently doing. Such as "dropping-off|picking-up|maneuvering to refuel|refueling|engagement|dog-fighting|early-landing cycle|etc. Again often even if the unit may re-trigger back to what it was doing on the next evaluation at a later point in time, the a provided momentary window to make needed changes to the unit or it's orders\missions\etc and influence behavior. Now ideally I would suggest a more broad IssueUnitOrder request were we could actually specify lots of different options like disengage|disengage-all|lay-chaft|drop-buoy-active-over|drop-buoy-passive-under,etc but that's much bigger lift i imagine for doing and testing. The above disengage specific request keeps things more simple (I think??) and can probably piggy back mostly on what exists already(gui option). If done on the unit wrapper, I don't think it would precludes some fictional broader command coming along at some point far away in the future.




stww2 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (6/24/2021 8:32:54 PM)

For units using sprint and drift, I think it could be useful to have an option to only use active sonar during the drift phase (assuming an active sonar EMCON is set). From what testing I've done, active sonar seems to be essentially useless while travelling at flank speed, so I think it would make sense to not give away one's position for no benefit during the sprint phase ,but still get the benefits of active sonar EMCON during the drift phase.




p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (7/14/2021 10:53:56 PM)

QoL suggestion - allow "mark position" functionality for own-side units

Example usage - measure distance of travel of a unit without altering its original waypoints

Thanks,
P




p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (7/15/2021 6:06:25 PM)

QoL suggestion - Currently, in my install (v.29 - though I noticed this effect in recent earlier versions, not sure exactly when.), the mission list in the mission editor page scrolls 1-2 whole "page lengths" per "bump" of my scroll wheel. I do recall a time not long ago when the scroll wheel behaved more normally.

I am in the process of developing a large scenario with over 200 missions in the enemy AI, meaning I have to manually drag the scroll bar carefully to find a mission, which can be a bit fiddly.

IIRC, this also affects the OoB page too.

Other pages, for example the various event handler windows, still scroll in a more "normal" way, allowing you to explore even a long list comfortably (my scenario also has a large number of events, actions and triggers).


Thanks,
P




charlee22009 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (7/17/2021 2:34:19 PM)

CMO badly, in my opinion, needs a before-departure (or takeoff) built in flight planner.

Able to see fuel consumption, range at various altitudes, time to steer points, time on station before bingo fuel, as well as set speeds and altitudes for various units all along the flight path.

While these things could maybe/possibly be calculated by the player… it’s *extremely* labor-intensive and requires math and spreadsheets where the CPU could easily calculate these things for you and present them graphically and/or numerically to the player.

Civilian, military, airline pilots all have an idea of fuel consumption and range prior to takeoff… as it’s a fundamental aspect of aircraft performance and AirPower. Some aircraft are valued for their range… while others sacrifice range for performance or maneuverability.

CMO in my opinion should do this much better.

Just a suggestion thank you.




SunlitZelkova -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (7/18/2021 12:36:28 AM)

Before I make my request I would like to note this is by no means intended to be a high-priority request. It is something that would be nice to have, but I am not "demanding" it. If it seems to be unneeded or unworkable, I myself do not wish for you to pursue it.

I would like to request the expansion of space operations. This would include the following-

1. Launch of spacecraft
2. Orbital ASAT systems/space combat
3. Adjustable orbits
4. Space strike systems (X-20 Dynasoar bomber variants, SDI orbital ABM platforms, etc.)

Launch of spacecraft would entail being able to launch spacecraft (satellites and crewed spacecraft) into orbit.

Orbital ASAT systems and space combat would be the addition of such units. The USSR and Russia have their own series of orbital ASAT systems. The USSR possessed the IS inspector/killer satellite, while Russia currently continues to work on the Nivelir inspector/killer satellite project. The US and USSR each had their own proposals for crewed ASAT spacecraft, and these could be implemented as hypothetical units in the Cold War DB.

Adjustable orbits would be as it is- the ability to control the orbits of spacecraft. Rather than manually controlling the orbit similar to how altitude and speed are for aircraft, it would be best to implement it as a control panel where one simply types the parameters in (apogee, perigee, eccentricity, etc.) to change it. Of course, it would be absurd to require players to learn orbital mechanics just to use the system, so missions, that is, missions that can be created using the mission editor, would be available to use for satellites. There is only one type of mission I can think of right off the bat- Intercept. Intercept would have the player simply select a target spacecraft, similar to setting up a land strike mission, and the game would automatically calculate the maneuvers needed to intercept the target. This would avoid forcing the player to make complex calculations to attack an enemy satellite.

Doctrine would be available for spacecraft. The only doctrine setting I can think of as of this post is "Avoid Contact". Much like the setting for ASW warfare, this will tell the satellites to avoid contact with enemy satellites. So for example, if the orbit is set to cross with an enemy satellite- potentially an inspector/killer satellite- the friendly satellite will move out of the way in advance.

Space strike systems would entail the addition of satellites and spacecraft armed with weapons intended to strike targets on Earth. For example, spaceplane bombers have been proposed- namely the X-20 Dynasoar. There are Soviet counterparts that may have been intended to carry strike weapons as well. In addition, the SDI program envisioned a number of orbital ABM platforms designed to destroy ICBMs. These could be added too.

There would be three types of spacecraft within the DB- Satellite and Spaceplane. Satellites consist of both uncrewed satellites (KH-11, RORSATs, etc.), conventional spacecraft like the Apollo CSM and Soyuz, and space stations. Due to their similar nature, they are included all together.

Spaceplane would be similar to submarines in that they are capable of travel/operations in two environments- in the case of subs, underwater and on the surface, in the case of spaceplanes, in space and in the atmosphere. Spaceplanes are capable of diving into the atmosphere to use aerodynamic maneuvers to adjust their orbit- or to release weapons on a target. Spaceplanes would also be capable of landing at an airport- and if the launch pad unit is grouped as part of the air base, perhaps being serviced and then sent back into combat (launched again), although such a feature is not a necessary part of this request.

Two core mechanics would be that of launch and reentry. Reentry would be a set altitude at which satellites cease to function. This would be 100km for sake of standardization. 100km is the internationally recognized boundary of space, and in any case, none of the spacecraft that would be added to CMO have real life orbits below this limit. Upon hitting the 100km boundary, the spacecraft will simply be destroyed, and a message will appear in the message log indicated it has reentered the atmosphere and is breaking up. No in game mechanic will be added to simulate crewed space capsules splashing down/landing, however, two units- a facility and a ship- could be added; Generic Space Capsule (Soyuz, Shenzhou, Starliner), which would be a facility represented a landed space capsule, and Generic Space Capsule (Apollo, Gemini), which would be a ship similar to the recently added debris units (lost shipping container, buoy) that could drift. Both would be targets to task the player with recovery of the capsules, or targets for players to destroy or capture the capsules. Lua could be used to spawn these units in the vicinity of where the corresponding spacecraft in the scenario reentered, to simulate both reentry and splash down.

Launch would be done through a control panel, much like orbital adjustments. The direction of the launch, orbital parameters, and eccentricity would be adjustable. The launch from then on would be completely automatic, with no player input needed.

Both the launch and orbital adjustment control panels would be similar to the altitude/speed control panel/window. Although a launch/finished button could be added for the launch and orbital adjustment windows respectively, simply closing the window will apply the changes/initiate the launch.

I suggest the following spacecraft to be added in addition to the satellites already present in game-

Satellites-

14F150 Nivelir [Napryazhenie] Interceptor Satellite with Soyuz 2.1v rocket (Info- https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3709/1)

IS Interceptor Satellite with Tsyklon-2A rocket (Info- http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html)

14F10 IS-MU Interceptor Satellite [LEO] with Tsyklon-2A rocket (Info- http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html)

75P6 IS-MD Interceptor Satellite [GEO] with Tsyklon-2A rocket (Info- http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html)

*SDI Orbital ABM Satellites* - There are a number of these, so I cannot make a list at this time

Space stations-

Manned Orbiting Laboratory (1971, Cancelled) with Titan IIIM rocket (this was an Air Force space station, with a return capsule derived from the Gemini spacecraft)

Skylab with Saturn V rocket (this could theoretically serve as a very basic/primitive photoreconnaissance platform)

Salyut 3 [OPS, Almaz] with Proton-K rocket (this was a military space station equipped with full fledged reconnaissance equipment and a 23mm cannon for self-defence)

OPS-4 [Almaz], Grounded with Proton-K rocket (this was the next version of the Almaz military space station. It was equipped with SAR, a built in crew return capsule, and the Shield-2 grenade system for self-defence)

Spacecraft-

*Various Soyuz transport variants* (a number of variants have been used over time for space station transport, I cannot make a list at this time)

Apollo CSM and Saturn IB rocket

Soyuz PPK and 11A511 Soyuz rocket (Info- http://www.astronautix.com/s/soyuzppk.html)

Spaceplanes-

X-20 Dynasoar (1963, Cancelled) and Titan IIIM rocket (this would come in two versions: Dynasoar II, a reconnaissance variant, and Dynasoar III, a bomber variant)

Although most of the Cold War era vehicles are hypothetical, I do think that the DB3000 could benefit from the addition of Soviet and Russian ASAT satellites, while the hypothetical SDI platforms would be interesting to have as well. Such "space-space" combat, as the Soviets referred to it as, has become more and more likely, and therefore I think there is reason to consider the addition of it into CMO.




BeirutDude -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (7/24/2021 11:14:41 AM)

Take Off Time in addition to Ready Time for aircraft.

Right now you have to try to space take offs for on station aircraft using 2, or more on station aircraft (AEW for example) and varying ready times. As it stands now (and especially for a for distant missions) if you have one aircraft on station the replacement passes the returning aircraft en-route. You can try to use ready times but that gets sketchy in longer scenarios

My suggestion is...

Aircraft............Status.......Mission............Loadout.........................Time to Ready...Takeoff (Ready + Time)
Blue Kn1ght #1......Parked.......Distant AEW........Airborne Early Warning (AEW)....Ready...........00:00:00
Blue Kn1ght #2......Parked.......Distant AEW........Airborne Early Warning (AEW)....Ready...........00:02:00
Blue Kn1ght #3......Parked.......Distant AEW........Airborne Early Warning (AEW)....00:02:00........00:02:00
Blue Kn1ght #4......Parked.......Distant AEW........Airborne Early Warning (AEW)....00:04:00........00:02:00

So if I thought this through correctly...
Blue Knight #1 takes off immediately
Blue Knight #2 takes off in 2 hours as it's replacement
Blue Knight #3 Takes off in 4 hours (likely as Blue Knight #1 starts to return)
Blue Knight #4 Takes off in 6 hours (Blue Knight #1 lands and begins to ready taking off again as soon as it is able and meets on mission numbers)

Hope that made some kind of sense?




Parel803 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (7/25/2021 1:23:02 PM)

Good afternoon,
I'm remembering reading it before and in that case I second the wish. It not more than that, a wish.
To have the sensors in the DB, like weapons.

I'm modifying sometimes units with there sensor suite. I have the Excel with there corresponding ID, wich is nice to use. For me unfortenally is not always easy to find a sensor with the specs I wish to add.

best regards Gert-Jan

if it's a useless request, please delete.




gennyo -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (7/26/2021 1:19:59 AM)

I want a 64-bit build of CMO[:)]




BeirutDude -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (7/27/2021 8:18:06 PM)

Event "Conditions" should be expanded to include some of the trigger functionality.

For example Unit Destroyed and Unit Damaged would be very useful. I believe the reason this class of events is not used to it's fullest because there is little in there and if you're not a Lua specialist (most of us aren't) it is very difficult to use.




Tiramisu -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (7/27/2021 10:02:16 PM)

Could we get some copy-paste features please? The simplest thing would be copy pasting missions. We don't even need extra UI for that. Ctrl+C or +V should be sufficient when the mission editor window is active.




p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (8/12/2021 8:16:25 PM)

(I have a niggling feeling I posted this already but cant find any evidence that I did, if this is a duplicate, feel free to remove)

I'd really love more control over the dog-leg courses that many cruise missiles/AShMs take. It makes it hard/impossible to concentrate a salvo in time, or to exploit even large gaps in defences and very often sends missiles unecessarily into harms way. One must assume that IRL there is intimate control over this.

See attached screenshot for illustration.

A simple "yes/no" checkbox would be one fix. Player-adjustable min/max angle-off would be a more complex but more flexible approach.
However any control at all would be a much appreciated addition, if only to avoid the less-than-ideal situations like the one pictured.

Thanks!
P




KnightHawk75 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (8/13/2021 1:32:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiramisu

Could we get some copy-paste features please? The simplest thing would be copy pasting missions. We don't even need extra UI for that. Ctrl+C or +V should be sufficient when the mission editor window is active.


A 'clone' for missions would indeed be handy.




p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (8/17/2021 10:28:33 PM)

Very small QoL suggestion:

In weapon allocation screen, at the "Allocate weapons to selected target(s):" function - Make the user-editable number-of-weapons selector default to 1 instead of 0.

Would save a few clicks. 1 is often needed (potentially most often), 0 possibly never.

Thanks!
P




beads -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (8/21/2021 8:57:02 PM)

One of the features of Harpoon ANW I used a LOT was multiple windows, including tracking windows.

I could have the main window showing the overall battle area with another tracking window to show my CVBG, as well as other windows I could set up to follow an ASW engagement for example. Very useful!

Hotkeys for views isn't the same, you can't track a unit or group.

I would love to see multiple windows including tracking windows in CMO.




thewood1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (8/22/2021 6:25:49 PM)

I would agree with this. I have played with the minimaps a little today and they have very limited use, let alone a substitute for an independent tracking window of some kind. The fact you can have multiple ones running is helpful. But the lack of detail on them and the inability to zoom or pan them seperate from zooming and panning the main window really limits how I would use them. They are really only useful as kind of an early warning.

An addon to the above suggestion would be a window that opens up at a predetermined zoom on a message that pops up.




thewood1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (8/28/2021 2:53:13 PM)

A useful feature for managing manually plotted units would be to have altitude/depth plus speed setting at clicked-on or hovered-over waypoints on a plotted course.




Blast33 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (8/31/2021 7:05:03 PM)

Some rationale for the request subject: time-on-target control:

F-16D circles the target after dropping 4 Collaborative SDB's during the 2nd Golden Horde demo. CSDBs are carrying networked collaborative autonomy payloads that allow them to collaborate with each other while executing a playbook and achieving time synchronized strike.

In a follow on demo, USAF expanded this collaboration from 4 CSDB's to 6. Additionally, a messaged was communicated from outside the swarm to re-route to a new higher priority target. Finally, the demo involved 2 CSDBs performing a synchronized time on target attack on one target.
https://twitter.com/MIL_STD/status/1432053166066044932


[image]local://upfiles/61749/5D0E503CFD0C4E2393D2194A4B1B3A20.jpg[/image]




Count Sessine -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/3/2021 11:25:54 AM)

The ability to carry units over from one scenario to the next got my vote. Local weather fronts in next on the list I think, but there are so many nice things that it is hard to choose :)




robertqin -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/9/2021 7:11:23 AM)

Three QoL requests:

1. Able to sort ac/boats in the air operations/boat operations window. The ability to sort by ready time/load out would increase QoL by a lot. I don’t believe this function is currently here. The manual does not seem to mention it and I played around with the window a bit and cannot figure out how to do this. There is a thread from 2013 requesting this feature and the dev said it was logged so if this is already in, I apologize.

2. Ability to hide ac on maintenance. They are not available anyway, so a button to just hide them from the list would be great. They are still there in the airport of course and can be destroyed,

3. Show how much capacity each hanger/tarmac/revetment/open parking is filled by a number or percentage in air facility tab. Currently it shows which aircrafts are parked at each parking space, but for some large hangers (like the ones in CV or single point airport) it is inconvenient to count ac one by one. It would be better to have this number displayed. Since ac have different sizes and occupy different spaces, a percentage would also be very helpful. This helps in managing filled up airports.




p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/15/2021 8:33:08 PM)

Very small QoL suggestion:

Collapse All/Expand All buttons for OoB window.

Thanks!
P




mikkey -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/15/2021 9:56:10 PM)

p1t1o, "Num +" is used for "Expand all units" in OOB window and "Num -" is used for their collapsing.




gennyo -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/16/2021 1:11:39 AM)

Customizable hotkeys, any one? [:D]




Gunner98 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/16/2021 10:39:20 AM)

I may have asked before, cannot remember.

It would be useful to see pilot quality in the Air Ops window (F6). Not important if a side has a universal proficiency level but if there are varying proficiencies the player should be able to chose who is launched in a group (aces together for a super group, Vet with a Cadet to share the wealth etc)

Having a readily visible readout of this setting will make it more tangible and will make players appreciate skill level more and encourage designers to adjust proficiencies a little more often.

I also note that in the Order of Battle menu you can no longer adjust multiple unit proficiencies at once. I think this was a think once and would make it a little easier to do. Not a biggie.

B




p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/16/2021 1:38:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikkey

p1t1o, "Num +" is used for "Expand all units" in OOB window and "Num -" is used for their collapsing.


Dang, shoulda checked.

Awesome though, thanks for the heads-up.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.273438E-02