RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
Marder
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:03 am

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - OOB search criteria

Post by Marder »

Has the following ever wanted?
I would love the OOB window have the ability to sort by unit type. (e.g. list all flyable objects, list all ships etc.)
Also Different search criteria would help me to keep track of my units in great scenarios better.
Rory Noonan
Posts: 2419
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:53 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - OOB search criteria

Post by Rory Noonan »

On the topic of the OOB window, is it possible to set the default 'nesting' option to closed? Scrolling through miles and miles of units to hide all of the units associated with a large airbase takes a long time and needs to be done every time the window is opened.
Image
zaytsev
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:03 am

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - OOB search criteria

Post by zaytsev »

I have two more/less simple requests, just visuals:

1. Truncate long unit names into two rows.
2. Make cursor status box display (left/right) side forced selectable , as it is, it overlays unit name more often

Thanx
zaytsev
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:03 am

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - OOB search criteria

Post by zaytsev »

Ok, one more :)

For unit in the group, eg. ships, manually plotted course for specific unit(s) in the group, gets saved in save game.

On loading eg. autosave, if I have altered course for some unit in the group, it is always reset on loading autosave.
I guees this is by design, it always have been so.
But can you add this to the list, if no objections...

This is the problem description (big picture),
-in a mission there is a mine field , and I have managed to create, one pass small narrow passage, by two side by side MCM ships, through it
-now I need to transfer whole fleet through that narrow channel
-so, not to break default formation, I have manually plotted course for every ship except "LEAD" through that passage, in unit view
-they are slow and didn't pass through that passage in few sessions
-now, I have to plot course again and again for every ship on every load, because that manually plotted course is not saved , and it gets reset
by default group course and formation

So is it possible that you can implement this, or is it problematic, for some reason, so it is left as it is from the beginning?

Thanks








DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - OOB search criteria

Post by DWReese »

If a group of planes on the GROUP SCREEN are all being jammed it won't indicate that by having "JAMMED" next to the group. You can tell that they really are all being jammed because if you go to the UNIT SCREEN it individually indicates "JAMMED" next to each one. If possible, could "JAMMED" be placed on the GROUP SCREEN, too, to indicate that the group is being jammed?

Thanks

Doug
Zaslon
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:52 am

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - OOB search criteria

Post by Zaslon »

Customize any platform with sensors and weapons is great, fantastic, but ATM is only possible create in the sea (ship/submarine) or in the air (aircrafts).

I think that can be great if these customizations can be saved in Delta.ini and the database can read this customizations in a special tab for fill piers and air bases with this customized units.

For example, I created a MiG-23MLK with the weapons system from MiG-29 Fulcrum-A but I want to fill my airbases with this customization unit in one or some scenarios and ATM I cannot do that.

This customization units must be outside the DB...like now, with a delta template...but would be accesible in a special tab for any scenario when u are adding a unit.

Thanks.
Image
Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China
jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by jimcarravall »

Stop refueling operations at airbases when ground fuel storage capacity is destroyed.
Take care,

jim
Gerbilskij
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:24 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by Gerbilskij »

DISREGARD

As of now, the carrier capability is just a binary option, either an aircraft is carrier capable or not and either a ship is able to lunch/recover aircrafts - Carrier (Aviation Ship) - or not.

I propose to add a more realistic representation of the actual capabilities of each ship/aircraft, according (tentative) to four simple categories:
(1) VTOL only
(2) STOVL
(3) Sky Jump and arrested recovery
(4) CATOBAR.
User avatar
Mgellis
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:45 pm
Contact:

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by Mgellis »

A request...

Would it be possible to have a map overlay that shows territorial waters and another one that shows EEZ boundaries? (There is a .kmz file for Google Earth that shows EEZs, although I have no idea how to convert that into a map overlay.)

There are a LOT of scenarios where being able to know this would be extremely useful. Thanks!
ccruler
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun May 13, 2001 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by ccruler »

I understand there is probably never going to be the option of making our own units (making up our own ships, aircraft, etc.) but a feature I would like to see is the ability to create your own aircraft loadouts. Currently you can change out weapons via the editor while in the air, but once it lands, it will no longer have that type of loadout available. I'd like to make my own customized loadouts in some scenarios which would not need to be set through the editor over and over and over again.
FoxZz
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:37 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by FoxZz »

Linked to the "missile range and altitude thread", I want to propose an enhancement of the current missile model/ weapon energy stuff.

Basically, max range and PH of a missile are linked to several factors like target behaviour, missile onboard fuel, aerodynamics, flying profile and seeker/INS performances, but also launch platform altitude and speed. All is about energy managment, everything that will impact the missile energy will impact its final range and PH.

Currently, the target behaviour and the missile performances are pretty well modelled, however altitude and launch platform speed impact on missile kinematics are only partially modelled and this make this aspect of the game significantly different from reality. Indeed, fired at low altitude, where the air is more dense, missiles max range can be reducced as much as 70%-80% because of the increase drag : http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... s/aam.html. In the same way, a missile/bomb fired at very high speed can have much better range. The height difference between the plane and the target plays also a role.

That's why I'm proposing several solutions :

- 1) Change the Missile "fuel pts/sec" value for the different altitudes bands. The lower bands would make the missile spend a much bigger part of its "fuel/energy" than the higher bands, in the same manner than aircraft spending more fuel at lower altitudes.
The surface systems like the SAM batteries would also be affected by this system but their fuel levels should be increased so they can still reach their maximum theorical range against high flying planes while their range against a low flying target would be reducced as it should.

- 2) Each altitude band crossed upwards by the missile on its path to the target would modify the final PH calculation by -5% or -10%, crossing bands downwards could either give a bonus or not change anything. The surface systems like the SAMs batteries would not be affected by this.

- 3) To help the player visualising the huge hit on the theorical missile range linked to altitude, the size of the "pink circle" would change in the different altitude bands, it would represent the max theorical range of the missile on a head on target situated in the altitude band of the launcher plane. The surface systems like the SAMs batteries would not be affected by this.

I've been told that the speed issue will be fixed in coming upgrade, so I will not talk of it.

Thanks for considering this or an alternative solution that the devs thinks will work better for correcting this issue.
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5503
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by Gunner98 »

A request for the 'Mission Editor', this may already be in the plan but if not please consider.

For Ferry missions, it would add some realism if an air unit could have a different loadout on either leg of a cycling ferry mission. For instance a ferry mission between a land base and an CVN could have a tonnage based load on the way out but a ferry load on the way back to land. Than, when cycling, the AC would pick up the tonnage again and ferry it out to the ship.

Quite a few applications but mostly aesthetic in value.

Tx

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/
User avatar
lowchi
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:39 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by lowchi »

Please consider Ferry missions for ships/subs now that we have boat docking.

Thanks!

Regards Lowchi
Image
USSInchon
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:43 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by USSInchon »

I would like to see borders for states and provinces on the map.
FoxZz
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:37 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by FoxZz »

@USSInchon, you can already, you just have to tick the option Borders and coastlines in the settings I think.

Also, would it be possible to remove the features that have been included from the list, so it's clearer ?
thewood1
Posts: 6871
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by thewood1 »

I think they already do that.
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
Vici Supreme
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 6:06 pm
Location: Southern Germany

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by Vici Supreme »

A useful addition for the Mission Editor would be Prosecution Areas for Air Intercept Missions. That would be very cool!

Supreme
Image
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by DWReese »

I would like to see a more definitive revelation involving the results of Electronic Warfare; at least through the Editor function. This, of course, would involve jamming (and the jamming effects), TALDs, MALDs, OECM mobile units, etc.
deepdive
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:42 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by deepdive »

Please reinstate the ability to change midcourse, as you set a course, you can later click midway between two waypoints course settings and drag and create a new waypoint. It should also be possible when creating zones and mission area so you could click, hold and drag between two waypoints to expand area of zones/missions.

Bjørn
USSInchon
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:43 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by USSInchon »

They do have international borders, however I was more interested in domestic borders like the borders of Mississippi and Alabama or Quebec and Ontario.
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”