RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD

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 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/13/2015 5:22:47 PM

Vici Supreme

Posts: 558
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Southern Germany
Status: offline

_____________________________

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 61

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/13/2015 5:37:48 PM

Primarchx

Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

CGN 42 FTW! And cranked arrow Vipers! Awesome!

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 62

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/13/2015 5:44:37 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Yeah, the XL is one of the great what-ifs of that generation. (And its descendant, the F-16U, even more so).

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Primarchx)

Post #: 63

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/13/2015 5:50:02 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Yeah the F-16XL was a pretty strange aircraft. It only had ONE pylon per wing capable of carrying a 2000lb-class weapon or fuel tanks. But it had 12 hardpoints for 750lb bombs, 4x semi-recessed AMRAAMs and two wingtip rails for Sidewinders. So although it could carry the same number of Mk82s as the Strike Eagle, it could only mount half the number of Mk84s and no drop tanks.

So strange plane all round

Will be interesting to see what our scen designers gonna do with it!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Primarchx)

Post #: 64

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/13/2015 6:45:30 PM

AdmiralSteve

Posts: 270
Joined: 3/28/2011
From: Red Bluff, CA
Status: offline

Such a great wedding anniversary gift to me. Thank you team.

_____________________________

�There are no extraordinary men...just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.�
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 65

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/13/2015 10:11:15 PM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nudnik

I was playing the Tanker Wars scenario and send out a Seahawk for recon. I RTB'd early so could use the quick turnaround.
After landing i got the following message:
15.04.2017 17:06:08 - USA: Tallboy #1 has flown 1 of 3 sorties. Total airborne time is 1 hrs 3 min of allowed 4 hrs. The loadout is day-only quick turnaround capable and it is currently night. Because of this the aircraft needs to stand down.

The loadout AGM-114M is day and night, lim all-weather capable. Same thing happens with a clean scenario and DB 429.
Is this correct or do i understand some thing completly wrong here?

The issue is that the loadout is only able to do quick-turnaround during the day. These restrictions are noted in the air-ops window.

(in reply to nudn1k)

Post #: 66

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/13/2015 11:39:17 PM

Usili

Posts: 14
Joined: 9/25/2014
Status: offline

God bless you. God bless you developers.

I've been waiting on the Intruder II and Aegis Virginia. Thank you so very much. You've made my week. :D

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 67

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/14/2015 11:09:30 AM

OnFire

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

Great update!!! Thanks alot devs

_____________________________

(in reply to Usili)

Post #: 68

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/14/2015 12:17:52 PM

Zaslon

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline

Interesting update. Thank you very much!

< Message edited by Zaslon -- 6/14/2015 6:48:24 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to OnFire)

Post #: 69

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/15/2015 6:57:14 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Command v1.08 Release Candidate 4 (Build 678.13)

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B205vpZC1pGmVmMzMEZiOW5RRms/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 v1.08RC3 / B678.12
======================================================
Fixed #9546: Submarines surface when engaging surfaced submarines
FIXED: Grouped Mission Aircraft Do Not Release Weapons on first pass
Fixed #6427: Showing Targeting Vectors Issue for groups when showing ghosted units

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 6/15/2015 8:01:12 AM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 70

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/15/2015 9:16:43 AM

strykerpsg

Posts: 277
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Yeah the F-16XL was a pretty strange aircraft. It only had ONE pylon per wing capable of carrying a 2000lb-class weapon or fuel tanks. But it had 12 hardpoints for 750lb bombs, 4x semi-recessed AMRAAMs and two wingtip rails for Sidewinders. So although it could carry the same number of Mk82s as the Strike Eagle, it could only mount half the number of Mk84s and no drop tanks.

So strange plane all round

Will be interesting to see what our scen designers gonna do with it!

I didn't find the XL in the database. I ensured to pull down real and hypothetical US aircraft with the latest DB build as of the last RC release. Was it introduced with this latest RC4?

Thanks for otherwise outstanding work guys. It just make my original investment a very sound investment.

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 71

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/15/2015 12:55:07 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Its in there...unit #4190.

(in reply to strykerpsg)

Post #: 72

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/15/2015 5:03:28 PM

nocacounsel

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

I didn't find the XL in the database. I ensured to pull down real and hypothetical US aircraft with the latest DB build as of the last RC release. Was it introduced with this latest RC4?

Thanks for otherwise outstanding work guys. It just make my original investment a very sound investment.

It may not appear if you are in a scenario/saved game and haven't yet updated that scenario/saved game with the latest database (from the Editor). Otherwise, just start a blank scenario and then hit the database--you'll then see the new entries.

I've mistakenly missed a new unit because I didn't do the above as well. :/

< Message edited by phatstar -- 6/15/2015 6:03:50 PM >

(in reply to strykerpsg)

Post #: 73

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/15/2015 6:15:56 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Correct, if the scenario has not been rebuilt, its using an old version of the db, most likely.

(in reply to nocacounsel)

Post #: 74

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/15/2015 9:06:34 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Command v1.08 Release Candidate 5 (Build 678.14)

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B205vpZC1pGmekJmbHh0aGt0WU0/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 v1.08RC4 / B678.13
======================================================
Fixed: Grouped A/C fire still won't fire as a group
Fixed again: ASW Aircraft unable to line up on target

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 75

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/15/2015 11:17:19 PM

DismalPseudoscience

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

Hello! Loving lots of the changes, but there seems to be a major issue- a lot of land-attack weapons, like Tomahawks and LRAP gun rounds, have apparently lost their anti-airfield abilities. For instance, when I open up Brass Drum and select one of my ship groups, and then give a manual attack order on an airfield, the Tomahawks don't show up as an eligible weapon to attack runways and runway access points. This changes the dynamics of quite a few scenarios.

The issue appears to be that it has lost anti-runway targeting / now needs to be able to target runways to attack these. It seems a little strange to me that weapons that can target mobile units and fixed structures, like Tomahawks and JASSM, would not be able to attack runways and runway access points, even if they weren't always the most effective weapons in that role. Would you please consider allowing all weapons capable of targeting fixed structures to target runways as well?

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 76

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 4:16:13 AM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Yeah we changed the anti-runway capabilities to reflect the way these weapons are used in real life. Using a $1 million weapon to punch a single hole in a runway is a bit weird.

What's everyone else's opinion on this?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to DismalPseudoscience)

Post #: 77

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 8:09:05 AM

caron

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

I think the big issue is...we can't target "Single unit Airfield" too...that's a major drawback. Still...despite the fact that I agrre that using a tomahawk to dig a hole in the ground is not a clever solution, on the other hand...using some of em to shut down an air force, even for just some hours, could be a better and cheaper option instead of sending in a whole manned strike force.

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 78

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 9:54:58 AM

strykerpsg

Posts: 277
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: phatstar

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

I didn't find the XL in the database. I ensured to pull down real and hypothetical US aircraft with the latest DB build as of the last RC release. Was it introduced with this latest RC4?

Thanks for otherwise outstanding work guys. It just make my original investment a very sound investment.

It may not appear if you are in a scenario/saved game and haven't yet updated that scenario/saved game with the latest database (from the Editor). Otherwise, just start a blank scenario and then hit the database--you'll then see the new entries.

I've mistakenly missed a new unit because I didn't do the above as well. :/

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Correct, if the scenario has not been rebuilt, its using an old version of the db, most likely.

Okay, So I just updated the Kuril Islands and saved it. Do I need to do every scenario or do they come updated with each scenario bundle released? I often find myself modding may of the scenarios to suit some needs to alter an event or trigger rather than make mine from scratch.

Thanks for all the quick replies.

(in reply to nocacounsel)

Post #: 79

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 10:24:38 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Yeah the game won't auto update your scenarios on its own although we do ship updated versions with game updates.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to strykerpsg)

Post #: 80

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 10:26:48 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caron

I think the big issue is...we can't target "Single unit Airfield" too...that's a major drawback. Still...despite the fact that I agrre that using a tomahawk to dig a hole in the ground is not a clever solution, on the other hand...using some of em to shut down an air force, even for just some hours, could be a better and cheaper option instead of sending in a whole manned strike force.

These were never designed to be targets but guess people are using them that way. We'll look at the implications of enabling.

Thanks

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 6/16/2015 11:27:11 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to caron)

Post #: 81

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 10:42:52 AM

strykerpsg

Posts: 277
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Yeah the game won't auto update your scenarios on its own although we do ship updated versions with game updates.

Mike

Just for clarification of your statement, when the next official update is released, not the release candidate, all scenarios will be automatically updated to latest DB?

Thanks for the quick reply Mike.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 82

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 11:18:25 AM

caron

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

These were never designed to be targets but guess people are using them that way. We'll look at the implications of enabling.

Thanks

Mike

I see the point and I agree. More often than not I rebuild the scenario every time I see a Single Unit Airfield...but this kinda spoiler it. Is there a way to make a weapon "selective" in the damages it causes? I mean...Is there a way to make a tomahawk hit the unit and only inflicts damage points to, say, hangars, bunkers, ammo shelters and not runways? Cause...you know...you could have a Burke in the area and not a JDAM equipped aircraft in range. Or you may need the aircraft to sead the path of the tomahawk strike.
Just wondering here...cause I don�t like the "go with tomahawk for everything" way...but still need em for that kind of work.

btw...Keep Up with the great job you all are doing...love this game.

< Message edited by caron -- 6/16/2015 12:23:08 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 83

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 12:35:56 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by emsoy -- 6/16/2015 1:37:47 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to caron)

Post #: 84

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 12:41:57 PM

Vici Supreme

Posts: 558
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Southern Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Yeah we changed the anti-runway capabilities to reflect the way these weapons are used in real life. Using a $1 million weapon to punch a single hole in a runway is a bit weird.

What's everyone else's opinion on this?

If I can cut in at this point.

I fully agree with your view. But I also think that those decisions should be up to the player. I still like to use Tomawhawks on single-unit airfields, pretending these are targeting airport infrastructures such as towers, hangars, fuel storages...

Just my 2 cents.

_____________________________

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 85

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 1:12:51 PM

deepdive

Posts: 125
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

If I can cut in at this point. I fully agree with your view. But I also think that those decisions should be up to the player. I still like to use Tomawhawks on single-unit airfields, pretending these are targeting airport infrastructures such as towers, hangars, fuel storages... Just my 2 cents.

(in reply to Vici Supreme)

Post #: 86

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 1:47:10 PM

tmammela

Posts: 14
Joined: 6/12/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: deepdive

1+

2+

Player should do the decisions, whether it is a weird one or not. Game engine then calculates, what results from that decision.

(in reply to deepdive)

Post #: 87

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 1:55:15 PM

p1t1o

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

I'm of the opinion that if a tomahawk would not be used IRL to target runways, either because they are best saved for more appropriate target, or because of lacklustre performance vs. a runway, then we shouldn't be able to either. Note that after a massive volley of cruise missiles opened desert storm, aircraft were still used to strike runways.

I'd also prefer single-unit airfields to be un-attackable, I see them as placeholders for when a planner needs some aircraft for whatever reason and neutering the airbase is not within scope of the mission, saving on unit count. Whenever I see one I think, right, best not waste any precious tomahawks on that target then.

To prevent them from being arbitrarily used as targets by designers and causing awkward "should-I-shouldn't-I" moments for the player, I think their purpose as "withholds" should be strengthened.

**edit**

quote:

ORIGINAL: tmammela
Game engine then calculates, what results from that decision.

Fair point, but in my head the game should "calculate" my advisors having conniptions and my military career put in jeopardy for poor use of tactical assets and financial capital! I assumes thats what crashes-to-desktops are, not bugs, its just me being fired by the game.

< Message edited by p1t1o -- 6/16/2015 3:06:31 PM >

(in reply to Vici Supreme)

Post #: 88

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 1:55:54 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

While true, even theater commanders can have weapon usage restrictions placed on them. And cost is a factor sometimes. Not arguing against, just pointing it out.

(in reply to tmammela)

Post #: 89

RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD - 6/16/2015 2:28:25 PM

Vici Supreme

Posts: 558
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Southern Germany
Status: offline

The problem with single-unit airfields as non-attackable placeholders only is, that you instantly know if your own airfield might be the target of a surprise attack. I can imagine that some of you might think now: "Well, use multi-unit builds then...". I say this. I'm working on a massive scenario involving North Korea and basically all its neighbours+US. AU count was at 6000 with all the DPRK airfields being multi-unit airfields. I managed to get the AU count down to 3000 by only replacing those airfields with single-unit bases. In this case, it was a necessary sacrifice since all of those airfields are intended to be targeted.

At least, that's the way I'm looking at this.

_____________________________

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 90