CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests

[KLAB]

Mentioned this in the LUA Scen_edit thread but SAR and CSAR loadouts should have crew load limits without resorting to LUA and script.
Currently a SAR helicopter could be repeatedly be used to pick up crew after crew with no reflection of cabin or size constraints.
Please can SAR and CSAR loadouts be set to limit how many survivors (crew wrapper) can be recovered.
By example a SAR configured Wildcat could recover 3 to 4 survivors and obviously cabin size will matter.
Haven't checked if this has been requested, so apologies in advance.
K

[Dimitris]

EVERYONE: When the old forum was migrated to the new system, the existing poll was not carried over.

With the help of the M/S crew we have now restored the most popular requests and re-instated the poll.

We have also removed requests that have been fulfilled in the meantime (strike planner, pre-flight flight plans, local weather fronts, intermittent emissions etc.).

So, cast your votes!

[TitaniumTrout]

Excellent to see Omniscient side. Would be great to see it work with TacView. Also be able to color code different sides in CMO, rather like can be done with RP's now.

[cmanouser1]

Vote casted for multiplayer, namely:
* real-time
* cooperative, as in multiple players can play the existing scenarios together against the AI (this exists in e.g. Hearts of Iron IV, Europa Universalis IV, Anno 1800, ...)

[DaveFromCTX]

Operating / Transit Areas for Missions:

Missions have third, optional area (mission, prosecution) = nav zone. Can have altitude/depth min and max. This setting, like mission area, can be changed via drop-down to "path" instead of area. Useful for controlling ingress/egress for continuous coverage missions (CAPS, tankers, standoff strikes).

Hybrid between patrol & prosecution, use to keep certain units (most a/c) from wandering.

No more standoff bombers proceeding towards target only to get swatted by SAMs. No more defenseless ISR navigating through a combat zone to get to their station/RTB. No more fighters using more fuel to get to tanker (that isn't near them) than going direct RTB.

Yes, I realize that some of what I'm describing could be solved through meticulous mission planning. At the operational altitude the software lives, making asset protection easier saves time and resources.

[Quark73]

I suggest to rework the Flight Plan page.

FlightplanPage2.png (138.55 KiB) Viewed 733 times

As you can see there is a plenty of dead space and a endless horzontal scrollbat for the spread sheet part in the dialogue.

Here is a clumsy scatch of my suggestion:

FlightplanPage.png (139.61 KiB) Viewed 733 times

Since I am not a UI guy it's not very elegant. But I will explain the general idea. Use the dead space in the upper part, that now just contains buttons relevant for the entire flightplan for waypoint related settings too. The table is only used for number stuff and where the sequence matters. I divided it in three areas left for general Way point/ Timing / Maneuver and Formation stuff. Middle for Air to Air refuelling related stuff. Right for Doctrines /WRA/ EMCON etc. This is just a general concept and you may find a way better arrengemant.
The "something like F1 + shift" button means a linke to the manual attack dialog or something similar where I can select which and how many weapons are assigned to a certain target.

I understand that just one ToT is supported by now but a multi target flight plan would be nice, e.g. for the Peeling the Onion Tutorial first kill the radars with clusterbombs and then the SAMs with HARMS in one plan.

Furthermore it would be handy if the way point related Edit Doctrine / EMCON/WRA dialogue had a back and a next button to navigate through the way points (like ind Edit Speed /Altitude).

[lumiere]

Torpedo cruise depth configurable before launch

Currently torpedo after launch always cruises at the depth of 32.8ft/10m until torpedo reachs waypoint and begins search. However this logic ruins "launch torps from opposite side of layer" tactics against target above layer, and generates some issues.

1) Detection of target is sometimes hindered due to sonar masking effect from torpedo. You will be blind against target until torpedo seeker detects target.

2) Target with proper sonar can instantly detect torpedo at the morment of launch. He can then begin evasion, swith to active sonar, or even launch ASW missile against Possub contact.

It is possible for player to manually set torpedo depth by throttle/depth setting window (as long as torpedo is wire guided), but it's some micromanagement, and more importantly, non-player side cannot enjoy such "player cheating".

So the suggestion; torpedo cruise depth will be configurable from Doctrine setting.

Setting option can be:
1) Same as shooter (default)
2) Same as target (same as shooter if unknown)
2) shallow or current 32.8ft/10m
3) Above layer (under surface duct)
4) Inside layer
5) Under layer
6) As deep as possible (sea floor if torpedo can go)

For non-wire guided anti-surface only torpedo (like WWII era straight runnder or Russian 53-65K) this setting is ignored and torpedo will always run at 32.8ft.

Thanks!

[MausMan2]

My wish would be to be able to replace the Stamen map service by having the ability to point the game to another online map tile service, like, perhaps my own style built outside of the game. Right now I can only bring in small areas in as custom layers, which is not ideal. Just would rather not have any labels, but still the definition a map provides. ..and more control of the order and scale dependency of the border-coast line layer.

[lumiere]

Again about torpedo:
Torpedo autofire range WRA is configurable beyond its pratical range,
up to kinematic max range (10nm, 12nm, 15nm... 20nm)

Sometimes I want to fire torpedo at closer range even I set torpedo to fire by kinematic range (human side could wait and manually launch torpedo but computer cannot).
For Example, it is almost suicide to close 8nm (pratical range for most torpedo) if target is running at creep and using active sonar. I could switch torpedo range doctrine in such situation, but at the same time I don't want to fire torpedo at its kinematic max range and get be outrun (and firing at closer range enable to use faster speed of torpedo).

[mikerohan]

For planes in "Engaged offensive", range circle for NEZ of main missile against their target.

I know that NEZ is dependent on type of target among other things, but once is calculated to know if the missile should be fired or not, if could be drawn (I presume... )

[Quark73]

Make altitude setting the Throttle & Altitude dialog (F2) context sensitive. That means if it flies it should be positive altitude means it flies 10000 ft AGL/ASL or so. If it dives it should be a positive number too. Means the sub dives 69 ft deep or so.
Because at least my simple brain is inclined in that way, it would be helpful for if I had an option to choose in game settings. At least a plausibility check if someone like me tries to fly a submarine around would be nice.

[Parel803]

Good evening,

Kindly request more data on some sensors in the DB:
RF bands RESM/RWR, RF bands CESM, direction accuracy ESM, ...
Maybe sensitivity and loss or this might be giving to much info?
Knowing what SEI is, wondering if this adds something in the game to the ESM? Is this precisionid cap?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8#p5079688

Best regards GJ

[artao5]

I'm surprised 64-bit isn't on here.
So .... I voted multi-player cuz, well ... I mean c'mon now. It's 2023. (ditto re: 64-bit)
My 2ndary would be Weather/Day-Night Affects Air Sorties. I'm surprised that's not implemented. A bit disappointed even. Pretty essential for realism. But multi-player adds much more.
Still tho, being able to send aircraft that aren't night-capable IRL out in the pitch black moonless dark of the remote oceans; not to mention being able to fly in ... well ... a hurricane I suppose. (I haven't tried, as I'm still in "tutorials mode." Didn't realize this isn't implemented)
I can't imagine your military customers would accept the lack of this, so I can't help but wonder if this is ANOTHER "feature" that's restricted to the Pro version.
Thirdly: A proper formation editor.
Then chem/bio weapons. Scriptless carry-over of units between scenarios. Custom drawing on the map. And finally TacView AAR mode. That's only not higher up the list cuz I can't afford TacView Advanced. Well. Moreso I can't justify the expense. But yegads! That really shouldn't be restricted to the Pro version, which most people can't even get and I'm sure is rather expensive.

[thewood1]

"Still tho, being able to send aircraft that aren't night-capable IRL out in the pitch black moonless dark of the remote oceans; not to mention being able to fly in ... well ... a hurricane I suppose. (I haven't tried, as I'm still in "tutorials mode." Didn't realize this isn't implemented)
I can't imagine your military customers would accept the lack of this, so I can't help but wonder if this is ANOTHER "feature" that's restricted to the Pro version."

While an interesting feature, its not critical. Its completely up to the player and scenario designer to not potentially use aircraft that aren't really capable of night action at night. I suspect the PRO users have enough discipline to not be tempted to screw up a simulation. Again, completely up to the player to not do this.

[thewood1]

Having the discussion about formations reminds me of a feature I have been thinking about. Have the name formation as part of the ROE settings or part of the mission setting. It would have some extra steps when setting new missions that need a new formation. Right now, I have to swap a mission and then drop a line of lua to set the new formation in a plan.

[Dimitris]

I'm surprised 64-bit isn't on here.

There is a reason for that.

[HalfLifeExpert]

With the most recent list of choices, I vote for Chemical and Biological Weapons.

I'd like to round out the selection of weaponry in Command.

Although I personally think they are just pointless methods of killing large-but-limited groups of people, their use was/is a real possibility, and it's fair to complete the pallet of potential bits of warfare from 1945 to the present.

Mainly I think the effects could or would be similar to Comms disruption, where instead of knocking out radios/datalinks, it's reducing or killing the crew of a platform. In cases where the whole crew is not killed or incapacitated, you could model it with reducing unit proficiency to rock bottom, representing half or more of the crew dead.

[Gunner98]

Mainly I think the effects could or would be similar to Comms disruption, where instead of knocking out radios/datalinks, it's reducing or killing the crew of a platform. In cases where the whole crew is not killed or incapacitated, you could model it with reducing unit proficiency to rock bottom, representing half or more of the crew dead.

I think that after a certain point (mid 50's or so) Chem/Bio would have very little impact except for air ops at bases and carriers, which would slow down a lot. Once ships started getting sprinkler systems, aircraft were over-pressured and NBC suits became common, the impact would be transient and not very deadly.

The slow down at bases and on carriers is because people have to work in the open and in suits - that sucks. A distinction would have to be made between persistent and non-persistent agent as well.

[Dimitris]

Question, and if the answer is no, consider it a feature request... [;)]

In COW you introduced what you call cargo operations, but what is really units, not cargo. What I would consider cargo is munitions delivery to resupply bases or carriers. Is that something you've added in or are considering for CMO?

This has been added in v1.05.

[Dimitris]

Didn't get any answer to my question. May be the reason is in my horrible English skill.)
Or does AMP already include functionality for cruise missiles route generation and ETA coordination, within one salvo? I hope so.

Cruise missile doglegs - not ATM. TOT coordination - yes.