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: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD

 
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 Operations series >> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 3:42:52 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Fair, but those units have no damage functionality at all

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Vici Supreme)
Post #: 91
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 6:41:45 PM   
caron

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 12/17/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Fair, but those units have no damage functionality at all

it seems it is not the case...I just bombed a Single Unit Airfield, switched to editor,switched to enemy side...and saw pretty convincing damages in the "damage Control" panel on hangars and stuff...maybe they are not FULLY implemented but damages "per facility" are indeed modeled in that kind of collective units

maybe I misinterpreted your statement? could be...english is not my first language :)

< Message edited by caron -- 6/16/2015 7:46:57 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 92
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 9:14:08 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Yeah you're right there is some modeling but it is pretty much a probability-based model rather than warhead impact blast & frag stuff

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to caron)
Post #: 93
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 10:47:03 PM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline
quote:

Fixed: Grouped A/C fire still won't fire as a group


I got the problem that the group now fires all their payload at a single target, thereby wasting their ordnance.
I get that problem no matter what WRA I use...

(in reply to Vici Supreme)
Post #: 94
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 11:00:14 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Confirmed. Sorry guys. Stay tuned.

_____________________________


(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 95
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 11:18:57 PM   
kaburke61

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Confirmed. Sorry guys. Stay tuned.


Hmmm...that might explain what I saw recently. I was testing my ASW stuff (1.08RC5 I think) and
all the helos that targeted a VERY unfortunate sub dropped all of their torpedoes at once (5+)...

Needless to say, it didn't survive.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 96
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/17/2015 7:01:12 AM   
erichswafford


Posts: 602
Joined: 5/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

As for 'Single-Unit Airfields', these lack proper modelling of sub-component damage and should not be used for airfelds that may come under attack The purpose of these units is to increase game speed by skipping the intra-base infrastructure and logics in ASW scens or one-sided strike scens, etc.

So if we were to change anything it would be to make Single-Unit airfields not attackable at all.


Man, I really hope that all scenario designers read this. I vote to make them not attackable at all in order to discourage their (ab)use as frontline airfields.


< Message edited by kondor999 -- 6/17/2015 8:04:15 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 97
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/17/2015 3:40:58 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2049
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kondor999

Man, I really hope that all scenario designers read this. I vote to make them not attackable at all in order to discourage their (ab)use as frontline airfields.



This makes sense, although there may be a bunch of scenarios where things work differently (or not at all) if the single-unit airfields can no longer be attacked. That's not a huge issue. Designers will just have to go back and update these scenarios after the change is made and/or as players report "bugs."

Interestingly, I don't think there is a need to add "generic" airfields that still can be attacked. There are so many detailed airfields already in the database that if one needed airfields that aren't already there, one could just add some of the existing ones and then move and rename them.


(in reply to erichswafford)
Post #: 98
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/17/2015 4:52:39 PM   
Meroka37

 

Posts: 768
Joined: 7/31/2009
Status: offline
As a designer I always use this rule, if one airbase is gonna be attacked  in the scenario I never use a generic one; If the base can't be (for any reason) a target in the scenario I put a generic, but this just a personnal rule of course.

_____________________________

'Better honor without ships, than ships without honor"

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 99
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/17/2015 7:19:43 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Yeah okay the weapon qty issues should be fixed in the upcoming B678.15.

Thanks all!

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Meroka37)
Post #: 100
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/17/2015 8:18:49 PM   
daft

 

Posts: 406
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline
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. :)

_____________________________


(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 101
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/17/2015 9:02:15 PM   
Schr75


Posts: 795
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: online
+1

It took less than two hours to fix the Sealance.

That´s impressing.

Søren

< Message edited by Schr75 -- 6/17/2015 10:09:32 PM >

(in reply to daft)
Post #: 102
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/17/2015 9:14:37 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13183
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
Command v1.08 Release Candidate 6 (Build 678.15)

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B205vpZC1pGmRmVuZkpwZmhncUE/view?usp=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
======================================================
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

_____________________________


(in reply to Vici Supreme)
Post #: 103
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/18/2015 3:05:25 AM   
DismalPseudoscience

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 10/10/2014
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 104
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/18/2015 6:23:10 AM   
OnFire


Posts: 79
Joined: 6/12/2014
Status: offline

quote:

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

_____________________________


(in reply to DismalPseudoscience)
Post #: 105
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/18/2015 1:10:24 PM   
jodi319

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 4/18/2013
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 106
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/18/2015 6:08:08 PM   
Casinn

 

Posts: 343
Joined: 7/27/2013
Status: offline
yeah Jodi, just unzip it over the top of your existing files. Will replace anything thats changed and you're good to go.

(in reply to jodi319)
Post #: 107
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/18/2015 8:18:55 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13183
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
Command v1.08 Release Candidate 7 (Build 678.16)

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B205vpZC1pGmRVdsY3ZRWTRTMmM/view?usp=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
======================================================
Fixed: Failure to Release Weapons - Redux

_____________________________


(in reply to Casinn)
Post #: 108
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/18/2015 11:25:05 PM   
1Eddie2

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/7/2015
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 109
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/18/2015 11:30:40 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6324
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: online
Why don't you put them in the db request thread?

(in reply to 1Eddie2)
Post #: 110
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/18/2015 11:32:51 PM   
1Eddie2

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/7/2015
Status: offline
Oh, I will then.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 111
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/19/2015 5:44:08 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13183
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
Command v1.08 Release Candidate 8 (Build 678.17)

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B205vpZC1pGmWHRadEhkRWVURjg/view?usp=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
======================================================
Fixed: Failure to Release Weapons - Redux

_____________________________


(in reply to 1Eddie2)
Post #: 112
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/19/2015 12:02:31 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3100
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
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...

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 113
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/19/2015 1:30:18 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
The Israelis used special bombs for the runways, not vanilla Mk82s

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.

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 114
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/19/2015 1:56:18 PM   
MR_BURNS2


Posts: 974
Joined: 7/18/2013
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

The Israelis used special bombs for the runways, not vanilla Mk82s

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;



(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 115
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/19/2015 2:03:50 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3100
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

The Israelis used special bombs for the runways, not vanilla Mk82s

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.

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 116
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/19/2015 3:31:04 PM   
.Sirius


Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 117
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/19/2015 3:38:16 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by p1t1o -- 6/19/2015 4:39:53 PM >

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 118
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/19/2015 9:46:03 PM   
caron

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 12/17/2014
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by caron -- 6/19/2015 10:59:04 PM >

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 119
RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (CURRENT: RC... - 6/19/2015 10:43:25 PM   
Zaslon

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline
Caron, surely F-111F launched BLU-109s.

quote:

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

< Message edited by Zaslon -- 6/19/2015 11:45:27 PM >


_____________________________


Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China

(in reply to caron)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
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

0.770