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: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: Kushan04
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]
[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: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 6/6/2021 12:21:26 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6108
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to stww2)
Post #: 301
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 6/15/2021 4:39:14 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 1211
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: online
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.

< Message edited by KnightHawk75 -- 6/15/2021 4:40:02 AM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 302
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 6/24/2021 8:32:54 PM   
stww2

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 5/23/2017
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by stww2 -- 6/24/2021 8:33:24 PM >

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 303
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 7/14/2021 10:53:56 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
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

(in reply to stww2)
Post #: 304
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 7/15/2021 6:06:25 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by p1t1o -- 7/15/2021 6:10:14 PM >

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 305
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 7/17/2021 2:34:19 PM   
charlee22009

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 6/28/2015
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 306
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 7/18/2021 12:36:28 AM   
SunlitZelkova

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin

(in reply to charlee22009)
Post #: 307
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 7/24/2021 11:14:41 AM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2382
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
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?


< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 7/24/2021 11:23:07 AM >


_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 308
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 7/25/2021 1:23:02 PM   
Parel803

 

Posts: 437
Joined: 10/10/2019
From: Netherlands
Status: online
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.

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 309
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 7/26/2021 1:19:59 AM   
gennyo

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 4/3/2019
Status: online
I want a 64-bit build of CMO

(in reply to Parel803)
Post #: 310
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 7/27/2021 8:18:06 PM   
BeirutDude


Posts: 2382
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 311
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 7/27/2021 10:02:16 PM   
Tiramisu

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 11/23/2018
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Tiramisu -- 7/27/2021 10:03:17 PM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)
Post #: 312
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 8/12/2021 8:16:25 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
(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

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tiramisu)
Post #: 313
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 8/13/2021 1:32:32 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 1211
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: online

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.

(in reply to Tiramisu)
Post #: 314
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 8/17/2021 10:28:33 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
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

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 315
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 8/21/2021 8:57:02 PM   
beads

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 2/23/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 316
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 8/22/2021 6:25:49 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6108
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to beads)
Post #: 317
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 8/28/2021 2:53:13 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6108
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 318
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 8/31/2021 7:05:03 PM   
Blast33


Posts: 314
Joined: 12/31/2018
From: Above and beyond
Status: offline
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





Attachment (1)

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 319
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 9/3/2021 11:25:54 AM   
Count Sessine

 

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2003
Status: offline
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 :)

(in reply to Surtur)
Post #: 320
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 9/9/2021 7:11:23 AM   
robertqin

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 8/24/2021
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Count Sessine)
Post #: 321
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 9/15/2021 8:33:08 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
Very small QoL suggestion:

Collapse All/Expand All buttons for OoB window.

Thanks!
P

(in reply to robertqin)
Post #: 322
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 9/15/2021 9:56:10 PM   
mikkey


Posts: 3126
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
p1t1o, "Num +" is used for "Expand all units" in OOB window and "Num -" is used for their collapsing.

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 323
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 9/16/2021 1:11:39 AM   
gennyo

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 4/3/2019
Status: online
Customizable hotkeys, any one?

(in reply to mikkey)
Post #: 324
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 9/16/2021 10:39:20 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5323
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Check out our 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 gennyo)
Post #: 325
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 9/16/2021 1:38:27 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to mikkey)
Post #: 326
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 9/20/2021 8:04:26 PM   
KLAB


Posts: 298
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline
Not sure if its a feature request but could "crew" and or "Ejector"(or something which indicates if the vehicle has an escape means) be added as a wrapper property please?

For CSAR/SAR if would make downed aircrew easier to create and easier to create crew specific numbers. F-16A 1 pilot ejecting versus E-3 13+ baling out etc.

I appreciate you can use LUA ~= to elimnate UCAV/UAV's with no crews and the bulk of helicopters which are unlikely to create survivors etc from the mix but of course some Helos do have ejector seats (KA52/Mi-28?) and some aircraft are hard to escape from using the bale out methods of old?

Would be nice.

PS I only checked the wrapper properties for a Be-12 in the scenario I have running so if its already there and I missed it - apologies in advance.

Regards

K

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 327
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 9/21/2021 2:50:08 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 1211
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Not sure if its a feature request but could "crew" and or "Ejector"(or something which indicates if the vehicle has an escape means) be added as a wrapper property please?

For CSAR/SAR if would make downed aircrew easier to create and easier to create crew specific numbers. F-16A 1 pilot ejecting versus E-3 13+ baling out etc.

I appreciate you can use LUA ~= to elimnate UCAV/UAV's with no crews and the bulk of helicopters which are unlikely to create survivors etc from the mix but of course some Helos do have ejector seats (KA52/Mi-28?) and some aircraft are hard to escape from using the bale out methods of old?

Would be nice.

PS I only checked the wrapper properties for a Be-12 in the scenario I have running so if its already there and I missed it - apologies in advance.

Regards

K



Alternatively if QueryDB was finished out for each unit type (only mount, sensor and weapon are implemented atm), or even just aircraft added, we could just pull the crew value from that, as well as a couple other things that are of interest.

(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 328
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests - 9/21/2021 1:31:55 PM   
Tcao

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 10/10/2013
Status: online
How about add a simple version of more advanced Air to Air DLZ?
In current game, the one that fly low and fly slow doesn't have any penalty in BVR engagement. On the contrary, it could benefit from full agility check. So I am wondering if it is possible to add one more check on weapon final calculation:
When a missile released, it will record two data. 1st is the shooter's altitude, 2nd is the shooter's speed. And please bring these two data in the final weapon calculation. Guess put them behind range check should make more sense.

my 2 cents

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 329
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]
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

0.406