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% (137)
AMP - Continuous coverage planner
  1% (7)
Scriptless downed/stranded crew (for CSAR)
  2% (12)
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% (26)
AMP - Ability to edit flightplans prior to takeoff
  3% (18)
Implements full unit edit capability (loadouts, calcs) into ScenEdit
  6% (32)
Warning shots
  1% (9)
Scriptless boarding actions
  0% (3)
Integrated speech-to-text (SeaHag-style)
  2% (11)
Tacview - AAR mode
  4% (22)
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 : 475
(last vote on : 10/18/2021 9:44:22 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


ChickenSim -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (8/31/2020 3:46:20 PM)

I'd like to see better FARP operations. Right now, there is no way to avoid a 6-hr ready surge timer for aircraft stopping at a non-home airfield for fuel (but not rearming), or for both fuel and ordnance. These should have their own timers and exceptions.

Max number of turnarounds for FARP operations ought to be tied to pilot crew day (say, 10-12 hour "vul" windows) or some similar metric. The U.S. Marine Corps can and does have aircraft refueled and rearmed in <30 minutes. These can vary depending on whether the aircraft are undergoing "hot pit" or "cold pit" operations, the former meaning the engine never turns off, counting as another sortie for the books but not requiring any additional mission planning, rebriefing, or maintenance on the aircraft.

Not having an adequate FARP mechanic limits our ability to use helicopters and VSTOL aircraft to their expeditionary advantages, both extending range and offering the capability to "Yo-Yo" back and forth between the target and a well-staged forward site to truck more bombs and missiles in.




Rory Noonan -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (8/31/2020 11:49:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChickenSim

I'd like to see better FARP operations. Right now, there is no way to avoid a 6-hr ready surge timer for aircraft stopping at a non-home airfield for fuel (but not rearming), or for both fuel and ordnance. These should have their own timers and exceptions.

Max number of turnarounds for FARP operations ought to be tied to pilot crew day (say, 10-12 hour "vul" windows) or some similar metric. The U.S. Marine Corps can and does have aircraft refueled and rearmed in <30 minutes. These can vary depending on whether the aircraft are undergoing "hot pit" or "cold pit" operations, the former meaning the engine never turns off, counting as another sortie for the books but not requiring any additional mission planning, rebriefing, or maintenance on the aircraft.

Not having an adequate FARP mechanic limits our ability to use helicopters and VSTOL aircraft to their expeditionary advantages, both extending range and offering the capability to "Yo-Yo" back and forth between the target and a well-staged forward site to truck more bombs and missiles in.

Doesn't the quick-turnaround function solve this problem? I ran a test with some AV-8Bs off LHA America with a 'Support Plt (Helicopter Expeditionary Refueling System)" unit as a FARP. 3 sorties at 15 minutes turnaround each, was able to fly from the LHA, drop ordinance, rearm at the FARP, drop ordinance, rearm at the FARP, drop ordinance then return to the LHA.




ChickenSim -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/1/2020 3:59:21 PM)

Apache,

If that's the case then great! I had posed the question in the discord whether this had been possible/fixed and was directed here. I remember trying to do the same thing you tested in another scenario and found myself hitting 4-6 hour turnarounds for landing at airfields that weren't their homeplate, despite quick turnaround being selected. I will give it another test.

Another aspect of the problem could be that I had also separately tried to ground laager aircraft at forward refueling sites to preposition them for strikes, and also tried making those forward sites their new homeplates, and was also hitting mandatory timers as a result.

Chicken




cmanouser1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/2/2020 9:45:31 PM)

Proposal for "Table of contents" in the database, for easy navigation

New section in the top box, stays visible when scrolling

[image]https://i.imgur.com/aLbEqjo.jpg[/image]




tylerblakebrandon -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/3/2020 12:20:35 PM)

I would like to request an option similar to the "use SAMs in ASuW mode" for AAMs.

I remembered this interview with a Brit Phantom driver who mentioned practicing with the Sparrow as an ASuW weapon off Vieques with the USN. He referred as well to the friendly fire incident when the USAF hit HMAS Hobart and USS Boston. Which I believe is also what Clancy was referring to in RSR when the F-15s said they were out of missiles when they strafed the Fucik. Plus the A2G abilities of AIM-9X and IRIS-T.

I was thinking about how this could be implemented in Command. The F-102 with A2G Falcons is in the CWDB as a specialized mod aircraft. Rather than make numerous specialty mod units or loadouts I was thinking that a WRA flag of "use AAMs in ASuW role" could be added and when checked any missiles with the capability could be employed against ground or surface targets.

https://hushkit-net.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/hushkit.net/2017/07/31/flying-the-f-4-phantom-ii-british-style/amp/?amp_js_v=a3&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15910624491184&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fhushkit.net%2F2017%2F07%2F31%2Fflying-the-f-4-phantom-ii-british-style%2F

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Boston_(CA-69)

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29158/the-aim-9x-sidewinder-may-finally-evolve-into-a-completely-new-and-longer-range-missile

http://www.janes.com/article/66304/diehl-develops-air-to-surface-capability-for-iris-t-aam




BeirutDude -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/3/2020 10:12:57 PM)

1. Option for ASW aircraft to drop Passive only sonobuoys, maybe as a Mission option. Never understood the mix of Active and Passive sonobuoys dropped by the aircraft.

2. More discrete weather systems. Allow the scenario designer to set weather systems with highs and lows and central conditions for both then let the weather conditions extrapolate between the two. For longer scenarios give the weather system a path and speed like a unit. So over a two day scenario you can have a Hurricane sneak between the CONUS and Bermuda with clear skies in both locations! The one size fits all weather is a major limitation for large scenarios. Seems like Harpoon had something like this but I don't remember how well it worked.




Rory Noonan -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/4/2020 6:10:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
2. More discrete weather systems. Allow the scenario designer to set weather systems with highs and lows and central conditions for both then let the weather conditions extrapolate between the two. For longer scenarios give the weather system a path and speed like a unit. So over a two day scenario you can have a Hurricane sneak between the CONUS and Bermuda with clear skies in both locations! The one size fits all weather is a major limitation for large scenarios. Seems like Harpoon had something like this but I don't remember how well it worked.


Harpoon did have a system like that, however weather actually had no in game effect.




Rory Noonan -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/4/2020 6:12:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChickenSim

Apache,

If that's the case then great! I had posed the question in the discord whether this had been possible/fixed and was directed here. I remember trying to do the same thing you tested in another scenario and found myself hitting 4-6 hour turnarounds for landing at airfields that weren't their homeplate, despite quick turnaround being selected. I will give it another test.

Another aspect of the problem could be that I had also separately tried to ground laager aircraft at forward refueling sites to preposition them for strikes, and also tried making those forward sites their new homeplates, and was also hitting mandatory timers as a result.

Chicken

Let us know if you need help [:)]




KnightHawk75 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/4/2020 12:56:41 PM)

quote:

For longer scenarios give the weather system a path and speed like a unit.


What if weather systems\fronts were something like 'zones', we could just move the related RP's via script as little or as much as needed over time to handle speed and direction, including enlarging or shrinking them. Just a thought that might reuse constructs that exist already, much like ever moving no-nav zones that one can do already.




Blast33 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/4/2020 7:10:21 PM)

Would it be a nice one to make a distinction between doctrine and proficiency of Air, ground and naval forces?
In most scenario's it is wise for fighters to use their radar and attack targets of opportunity, but ships want to keep quiet.. If you select it now, all the ships will start to fire their Tomahawks and that is not what you want. [;)]

Also the proficency of an, lets say a navy force, can be very different from the countries airforce. To select all Air, than Navy and then Ground units by hand is quite a boring and lengthy work.

Therefore a selection button for doctrine and proficency per force would get my kudos!




cmanouser1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/5/2020 8:59:43 AM)

Requesting a high resolution Command logo when starting the game / on the menu. The current one is too low resolution with jagged edges (my resolution : 1440p)




conradcolon -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/11/2020 5:23:53 AM)

AIR STATIONS
The ability to add air stations relative to the position of the launching platform. A great feature that was found on Janes Fleet Command. Quick and easy way to assign a patrol area from a platform without having to assign Reference Points to a fixed area.




Scorpion86 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/11/2020 5:30:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: conradcolon
AIR STATIONS
The ability to add air stations relative to the position of the launching platform. A great feature that was found on Janes Fleet Command. Quick and easy way to assign a patrol area from a platform without having to assign Reference Points to a fixed area.


Couldn't you just used relative reference points to do that? Just make reference points relative to the carrier, it's what I usually do.




cmanouser1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/12/2020 2:11:13 PM)

Quality of Life :

Define Line added to the menu accessed from CTRL right-clicking on the map (next to define AREA rectangle). That would help defining 2 points quickly.




guanotwozero -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/12/2020 7:30:15 PM)

Request: Display satellite orbital period.

If this could be shown, then it's relatively simple to estimate where it will be on the next pass. For example, if a polar satellite has a period of 120 mins, then it will appear 30 degrees further west on the next pass as the Earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour. The exceptions would be geostationaries and those with high eccentricity, but I'm not aware that the latter is even modelled.




Filitch -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/13/2020 12:52:53 PM)

Request - delay or latency of communication lines. An unit will transmit new contact, contact's details not immediately but with customized delay.




jmlima -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/18/2020 4:11:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rory Noonan


quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
2. More discrete weather systems. Allow the scenario designer to set weather systems with highs and lows and central conditions for both then let the weather conditions extrapolate between the two. For longer scenarios give the weather system a path and speed like a unit. So over a two day scenario you can have a Hurricane sneak between the CONUS and Bermuda with clear skies in both locations! The one size fits all weather is a major limitation for large scenarios. Seems like Harpoon had something like this but I don't remember how well it worked.


Harpoon did have a system like that, however weather actually had no in game effect.


If this is the case then Matrix is putting out some seriously misleading info on their manuals (effectively telling us the game they are selling is something that it actually is not). Page 114 of the H3 ANW manual states the following:

quote:

...The relative movement of these pressure cells also generates wind speeds, which affect the sea state for that area.

One of the most important things about weather in H3ANW is its effect on sensor performance. Radar and other electromagnetic sensors (including eyes) are affected appropriately by precipitation and visibility levels. Sea State is another example; it has a terrific effect on sonar performance, both passive and active.




stilesw -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/18/2020 4:50:20 PM)

quote:

If this is the case then Matrix is putting out some seriously misleading info on their manuals (effectively telling us the game they are selling is something that it actually is not). Page 114 of the H3 ANW manual states the following:

Joao,

Quote from website Home of the Underdogs: "Despite the considerable commercial success of Harpoon and Atomic Games' V for Victory Series, complete failure of lavishly-produced but esoteric Theatre of War and lack of funds brought the company to its knees in early 1994. The Harpoon license continues to prove lucrative with Harpoon 2 in late 1994 and Harpoon Classic in 1997, both developed outside Three-Sixty with the designers' permission, but the company is gone for good."

The Harpoon license was acquired by Matrix sometime subsequent to 360ís demise. While it is still being sold by Matrix the last release was in January 2013 and the last update to the manuals was circa 2010 and updates are no longer being maintained. Any manual information was created by the original Harpoon developers and, as you point out, may contain errors and can not be extrapolated to CMO operations.

The Harpoon series is the ancestor of the current CMANO/CMO simulation but any of its documentation can not realistically be inferred to apply to CMO. For now, weather applies globally but it is a feature that the Devs have on the list for potential future local area implementation. Currently, cloud cover does effect target visibility from the air especially laser targeting.

-Wayne
Moderator




jmlima -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/19/2020 8:34:57 PM)


quote:

... Any manual information was created by the original Harpoon developers and, as you point out, may contain errors and can not be extrapolated to CMO operations.
...



Ok, I was letting this one pass because quite honestly, it's hardly worth the trouble for any of us, but what the heck, might just as well say my piece and then go away. I'm sorry to say, but that's hardly excuse to put out erroneous information on the manuals of games that are published by Matrix. Either the manual is correct, or it's not. If it's not, then Matrix should strive to remove from it the portions that are (effectively) false advertisement. Also, the claim that the manual is solely by the original developers is incorrect as the manual states (page 2, emphasis mine):

quote:

Manual content is (C) Advanced Gaming Systems Inc with extensive value-add provided by Matrix Games.


Which means that Matrix had some level of involvement with the manual.

As an aside, I would ask, what else is wrong with the manual then? What else is in there that is supposed to be functional but actually does bugger all or does not even exist in the code? And is this a common occurrence on Matrix's games?






stilesw -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/19/2020 9:37:40 PM)

quote:

Ok, I was letting this one pass because quite honestly, it's hardly worth the trouble for any of us, but what the heck, might just as well say my piece and then go away. I'm sorry to say, but that's hardly excuse to put out erroneous information on the manuals of games that are published by Matrix. Either the manual is correct, or it's not. If it's not, then Matrix should strive to remove from it the portions that are (effectively) false advertisement. Also, the claim that the manual is solely by the original developers is incorrect as the manual states (page 2, emphasis mine):

quote:

Manual content is (C) Advanced Gaming Systems Inc with extensive value-add provided by Matrix Games.

Which means that Matrix had some level of involvement with the manual. Well, I cannot argue with that other than to say that the "value-add" likely had more to do with game play and the documentation did not get an extensive review.

As an aside, I would ask, what else is wrong with the manual then? I do not know the answer to that but believe that at that time the CMANO/CMO concept was being designed and the Matrix staff was focused on that rather than expending update effort on an eight year old game/simulation from a defunct publisher. What else is in there that is supposed to be functional but actually does bugger all or does not even exist in the code? And is this a common occurrence on Matrix's games? My own observation is that current WarfareSims/Matrix development staff is very concerned about having correct CMO product documentation and has quickly responded to notifications of problems.


Perhaps review and problem reporting of current documentation is more valuable than focusing on a legacy product with no support staff. The presence of errors dating as far back as 1989, which were introduced by a completely different staff, does not mean that there is a lack of concern for detail in current products. Iím sure there are errors in CMO documentation but forum members, such as yourself, can help tremendously by identifying and reporting them.

Similarly, this has now been pretty much beaten to death and I too shall shall refrain from continuing. I'm sorry if this has become a game stopper for you.

-Wayne Stiles




Rory Noonan -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/21/2020 12:31:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blast33

Would it be a nice one to make a distinction between doctrine and proficiency of Air, ground and naval forces?
In most scenario's it is wise for fighters to use their radar and attack targets of opportunity, but ships want to keep quiet.. If you select it now, all the ships will start to fire their Tomahawks and that is not what you want. [;)]

Also the proficency of an, lets say a navy force, can be very different from the countries airforce. To select all Air, than Navy and then Ground units by hand is quite a boring and lengthy work.

Therefore a selection button for doctrine and proficency per force would get my kudos!

If I were trying to model major differences in operational experience and practice between different arms of a military, and didn't want to just write a quick Lua script to assign the proficiency, I would set them to different sides and use the side proficiiency and doctrine. This would also go some way to modelling comms between sides etc.

Alternatively, to single out a type of unit to apply proficiency to:

quote:

local typeOfUnit = 'Aircraft'
local side = VP_GetSide({side='Spain'})
for k,v in ipairs(side.units) do
local unit = ScenEdit_GetUnit({guid=v.guid})
if unit.type == typeOfUnit then
ScenEdit_SetUnit({guid=unit.guid, proficiency=3}) --0 Novice | 1 Cadet | 2 Regular | 3 Veteran | 4 Ace
print(unit.name)
end
end




Blast33 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (9/21/2020 7:52:41 PM)

Oef..that lua is something I will have to dive into..
A bit scary, but maybe I should take the jump..[X(]

Thanks for showing the way!


[image]local://upfiles/61749/6488CDA83D95473A9CCEE48AC6074A5E.jpg[/image]




BDukes -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (10/2/2020 8:47:16 PM)

Could we have air launched drones? Look like major powers already looking at. Implementation seem like giving aircraft ability to host aircraft like ships or if can model as weapon in loaout fine too.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/unmanned-unmanned-teaming-us-army-demos-area-is-altius-600-air-launched-effects
https://defense-update.com/20160419_tobs.html
https://dronedj.com/2020/05/22/u-s-army-black-hawk-can-now-launch-spy-drones/
https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/10/10/future-attack-recon-aircraft-will-use-air-launched-drone-and-long-range-missiles-to-defeat-air-defenses/




guanotwozero -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (10/3/2020 11:12:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Could we have air launched drones?

There are already some. I'm playing Beirutdude's Fiery Cross Reef and it features MALD-Js, ITALDs and Perdixes, so it may just be a case of adding more to the database & loadouts.




BDukes -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (10/3/2020 1:08:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero


quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Could we have air launched drones?

There are already some. I'm playing Beirutdude's Fiery Cross Reef and it features MALD-Js, ITALDs and Perdixes, so it may just be a case of adding more to the database & loadouts.


I know ITALDS but Perdixes don't seem to be an available loadout despite being in aircraft names. Do you have a version where perdix work?

Thank




guanotwozero -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (10/3/2020 2:19:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
I know ITALDS but Perdixes don't seem to be an available loadout despite being in aircraft names. Do you have a version where perdix work?

Yes, in the above scenario I can launch them from P-8A Poseidons. I can't vouch for how well they work, but launchable is a good start.

Edit: I'm using the recent version from the scenarios thread, in case the earlier default one is different. I can't remember if they were there.




KnightHawk75 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (10/4/2020 12:12:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes


quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero


quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Could we have air launched drones?

There are already some. I'm playing Beirutdude's Fiery Cross Reef and it features MALD-Js, ITALDs and Perdixes, so it may just be a case of adding more to the database & loadouts.


I know ITALDS but Perdixes don't seem to be an available loadout despite being in aircraft names. Do you have a version where perdix work?

Thank


The Perdixes are actually part of the counter-measures mounts on certain (more recent) f/a-18 models (they might be on a couple others p-8 etc). They function as both that and drones. You launch them manually via BOL.

That said, and it might be fixed now (either newer db's or code), some time ago (march?) they're were kinda a cheat because it seemed few if any aircraft could shoot them down so if you launched them once they were spotted by the ai the ai aircraft would endlessly get stuck in a engagement loop trying to target them till perdixes ran out of fuel which, was lasting like 45 minutes if I recall correctly - quite the distraction for ai, but super useful at the time I was playing Putins War - Bodo Express scene.




thewood1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (10/23/2020 11:31:12 PM)

Interface change in CMO...

If we could have the buttons along the top that open attack, speed, course, sensors, etc. windows also close the same window, that would be a useful change to using the mouse. Not a huge deal and maybe not worth the expended effort, but I am constantly clicking on them to close out of habit from other apps.




DWReese -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (10/23/2020 11:42:21 PM)

AMP--Flight Mission Planner




BDukes -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (10/25/2020 4:13:28 PM)

Interface Change in Editor mode

Could the fuel bar allow you to edit unit fuel in editor mode by clicking on it and then dragging out the amount on the bar?

Thank!




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0859375