CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests

[thewood1]

"Separate training levels for air, land and naval forces, not just a global "veteran", "cadet" etc."

Doesn't the scenario designer already have that ability? I assume you mean proficiency.

and

"Add deployment times to self propelled units - SAMs, artillery etc. From a few minutes to several hours. Also include in unit model if they can fire on the move or must stop first."

I thought at least mobile SAMs have a deploy and breakdown times. I might not be remembering it correctly.

[Parel803]

The ability to carry units over from one scenario to the next will allow a long requested 'Linked Campaign', something that would add a layer of depth to the gameplay experience.

I support this statement

Me too

[KC45]

The ability to carry units over from one scenario to the next will allow a long requested 'Linked Campaign', something that would add a layer of depth to the gameplay experience.

I support this statement

Me too

Don't we have this already? As merge scenario function. I have never used that one, so I am not 100% sure but I think we have this.

[Parel803]

I support this statement

Me too

Don't we have this already? As merge scenario function. I have never used that one, so I am not 100% sure but I think we have this.

Worth trying to see if this can be used for that purpose. Good idea.

[tylerblakebrandon]

Just a few suggestions
1. Aircraft on airfield, SAM and ground unit decoys (eg. During the Kosovo conflict the USAF hit as many Serbian decoys as they did real targets)
2. Separate training levels for air, land and naval forces, not just a global "veteran", "cadet" etc.
3. In the scenario editor, a menu that shows aircraft capacity by size - X# extra large, X# large etc.
4. Add deployment times to self propelled units - SAMs, artillery etc. From a few minutes to several hours. Also include in unit model if they can fire on the move or must stop first.
5. Underground/mountain a/c shelters for VL aircraft.
6. Ground unit entrenchment containers - dug in, overhead cover etc
7. Anti helo mines, land minefields
8. Balloons, aerostats etc for area denial, EW, surveillance, recce, AD, anti-rotary wing nets, barrage balloons etc

1. You can do this already, just put in maintenance aircraft at an airbase, or ground units w/ empty magazines. The opposing side won't be able to tell the difference b/t the "real" and "decoy" units.
2. Proficiency can be set to individual units.

5. Seems like a DB request for weapons/facilities.
6. Seems like a DB request for weapons/facilities.
7. Seems like a DB request for weapons/facilities.
8. Several surveillance and early warning aerostats are already in the DB. You could modify a generic one with sensor payloads for your desired purpose. Otherwise, this seems like a DB request.

[Quark73]

When a weapon gets destroyed while it still mounted or not fired yet it gets a probality of a cook-off event which causes lots of damage to the affected unit (more than the used weapon) and does area damage in vincinty. This idea is inspired by turret tossing of russian tanks in ukraine and the one hit kill of the HMS Hood by the Bismarck in 1941.

[Bashkire]

I've submitted a loadout change / creation request on the GitHub but I want to suggest this to prevent users having to create reams and reams of change requests in the future.

In the Mission Editor screen, for strike missions, I suggest adding boxes to specify ingress, attack and egress altitudes and speeds to override the default loadout settings. Leaving the boxes blank would use the default settings, of course. This will allow scenario designers to create missions against players that are harder to detect and create more of a challenge, as well as allowing players to reduce the amount that they are required to micromanage their units by specifying parameters during the mission planning stage and maintain a grand overall picture, instead of waiting for a unit to take off, select it, and go into the unit settings to adjust speed and altitude.

If there are questions, please do ask and I'll do all I can to defend this idea and I hope to see it implemented in the near future!

[KC45]

I've submitted a loadout change / creation request on the GitHub but I want to suggest this to prevent users having to create reams and reams of change requests in the future.

In the Mission Editor screen, for strike missions, I suggest adding boxes to specify ingress, attack and egress altitudes and speeds to override the default loadout settings. Leaving the boxes blank would use the default settings, of course. This will allow scenario designers to create missions against players that are harder to detect and create more of a challenge, as well as allowing players to reduce the amount that they are required to micromanage their units by specifying parameters during the mission planning stage and maintain a grand overall picture, instead of waiting for a unit to take off, select it, and go into the unit settings to adjust speed and altitude.

If there are questions, please do ask and I'll do all I can to defend this idea and I hope to see it implemented in the near future!

I believe we already have this feature as Flight Planner currently in beta.

[Bashkire]

I've submitted a loadout change / creation request on the GitHub but I want to suggest this to prevent users having to create reams and reams of change requests in the future.

In the Mission Editor screen, for strike missions, I suggest adding boxes to specify ingress, attack and egress altitudes and speeds to override the default loadout settings. Leaving the boxes blank would use the default settings, of course. This will allow scenario designers to create missions against players that are harder to detect and create more of a challenge, as well as allowing players to reduce the amount that they are required to micromanage their units by specifying parameters during the mission planning stage and maintain a grand overall picture, instead of waiting for a unit to take off, select it, and go into the unit settings to adjust speed and altitude.

If there are questions, please do ask and I'll do all I can to defend this idea and I hope to see it implemented in the near future!

I believe we already have this feature as Flight Planner currently in beta.

In that case, if this is true, please disregard my request
Cheers for bringing this to my attention.

[orca]

The recent addition of enabling resizing of port area is very helpful. Is it possible to also enable users to adjust/expand the arc of single unit ports and piers including up to 360 degrees?

[Quark73]

A would like a drawing lines for the range and bearing tool for easier cross bearing calculations.

[TitaniumTrout]

I have only one request for CMO and that's to include the Tacview option currently only in the PE version, as in the ability to record and playback mission replays for ACMI analysis so we can finally have a proper record for AAR's.

When I bought CMO I thought this was a standard feature included in the Tacview Pro bundle - it would've been nice if this was made more obvious on the store page when I bought it that it was missing. Better still, just add the option, thanks!

I'll second this. I play a decent amount of flight sim's and a 10 minute Tacview ACMI file can teach you so much about how your flight failed or how you made that amazing evasion. It's not just the visualization but being able to move the moment back and forth observing from different angles.

I'd propose limiting the ACMI to a limited time window, say no more than one hour or even less. Just enough to get that wicked sweet dogfight and observe all the cool new missile behaviors.

[thewood1]

I would like the "Load Recent" button on the opening load menu. Saves a few clicks.

[RickDNiu]

Add various fuel on/offload capabilities as weapons, enabling adding such capabilities to aircraft.

[captainwolf]

Add the ability to rename multiple Reference Points at the same time, Example:
- Select 4 reference points, and rename "CAP A 1": The first RP would be named CAP A 1, the 2nd RP would be CAP A 2, 3rd RP would be CAP A 3, etc.

It would probably be best to add this as a separate command from the normal rename, so people don't accidentally rename random reference points they forgot they had selected.

[RickDNiu]

I would that we should also be able to rename aircrafts this way.