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: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

 
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: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
[Poll]

RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]


Downed pilots / CSAR (without using the EE)
  13% (72)
Improve weather modelling (local fronts etc.)
  12% (66)
Dedicated sensor page on DB viewer
  3% (21)
Intermittent sensor settings
  5% (28)
TOT planner/Advance Strike Planner
  29% (155)
Display weapon firing arcs in DB viewer
  1% (7)
Custom draw on map
  3% (16)
Additional contact info for passive sonar contacts
  1% (6)
Ability to group ref points
  0% (2)
Ability to name grouped ref points
  1% (6)
Sprint and drift while on mission
  1% (6)
Order weapons with active datalinks to self destruct
  0% (1)
1/3rd rule option for strike missions
  0% (1)
Multiple map windows
  2% (12)
WEGO MP
  4% (26)
Real-time MP
  9% (48)
Mid-flight mechanical breakdowns on aircraft
  0% (1)
Expand space ops (Shuttle / Skylab, armed sats etc.)
  1% (8)
Sunrise/sunset/nautical twilight calculator
  0% (1)
Option to enable a message when a vehicle reaches a specific waypoint
  0% (3)
Ability to change color of grouped refpoints and shaded patrol areas
  0% (3)
Aircraft Maintenence and Support Crew Modeling
  1% (10)
Player's Alarm Clock
  0% (1)
Collateral Damage Zone (CDZ)
  0% (2)
Unit proficiency affects adherence to ToT
  0% (0)
Optional "Beginner" GUI
  1% (6)
Make sonobuys and refpoints unselectable when invisible
  0% (0)
Ability to deactivate (destruct) sonobuoys
  0% (0)
Use "Areas" or "Routes" to simplify refpoint management
  0% (2)
Display unit thumbnail image right next to unit icon
  0% (0)
Customizeable soundslot per unit-type (hear a sound when select a unit
  0% (0)
Display time at current rate to charge SSK batteries to full
  0% (0)
Lag in obtaining info from non-realtime intel/recon assets
  0% (3)
Hotkey to change sonobuoy visibility
  0% (0)
Attack a Reference Point
  0% (4)
Show unit weapons list (nominal) for identified contacts
  0% (0)
Reverse targeting vectors (show who is targeting selected contact)
  0% (3)
Helo in-flight refuelling (from ships)
  0% (3)
Apply the 1/3 rule to Ferry Flight missions
  0% (1)
Extra filter on DB-viewer for platform sub-type
  0% (0)
Refuel Option: Set amount of fuel to take on
  0% (3)
Ability to resize icons so big icons in small countries don't overlap.
  0% (0)
Message Log option to hide messages that break fog of war.
  0% (0)
Hover (RAST) refueling for helicopters
  0% (2)
Filtering and search added to add cargo dialog
  0% (0)
Ship Towing
  0% (4)


Total Votes : 533
(last vote on : 2/3/2022 4:12:52 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/7/2015 3:17:17 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

They would either show up as yellow (unidentified) or dark blue (identified as friendly but cannot share information).



Why not using square (not diamond which is for unfriendly and hostile postures) like neutral? I think it will easily remember that it is on your side, but not involved or share anything with it.

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 451
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/7/2015 7:19:02 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

They would either show up as yellow (unidentified) or dark blue (identified as friendly but cannot share information).



Why not using square (not diamond which is for unfriendly and hostile postures) like neutral? I think it will easily remember that it is on your side, but not involved or share anything with it.


So either yellow square (unknown), green square (known but neutral), or blue square (friendly but no communications)? That could work. I was just trying to figure out how to model something that is "more than neutral"--if it KNOWS you are there and that you're in trouble, it will go after the bad guys, but in most cases it will be on its own, not in communication with you, not knowing everything you know, and it won't automatically know if you are being attacked, etc.




(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 452
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/8/2015 1:57:56 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline 		Exactly what I thought. The only question is does US or NATO have such familiar destination to be realistically implemented in CMANO. If not, adding blue square would be little confusing for military servicemen presenting it.

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 453
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/10/2015 12:33:18 PM   
corporal342

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 5/15/2015
Status: offline 		I would like to ask for a tweak to the formation editor. A list of formations to choose from would be nice. Simple line ahead, line abreast, echelon right/left, wedge, and so on. This would make switching a formation to line ahead to form a gun line or transit a mine field easier. Another tweak would be the ability to designate positions in the formation by bearing and distance from lead, or adjacent ship. This would make setting up a tight box convoy a snap.

Just some food for thought.

Thanks

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 454
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/10/2015 6:24:51 PM   
Excroat3

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline 		In the mission planner, there is already a "keep at least ___ number of aircraft airborne", but can we have a "keep at most ____ number of aircraft airborne"? I have had instances where I try to set up an AEW mission and let the number to 1, and all the planes will take off, because they are all ready. Having the option that I just proposed would eliminate that problem. Thanks for considering!

(in reply to corporal342)
Post #: 455
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/28/2015 1:29:25 PM   
ColonelMolerat

 

Posts: 479
Joined: 9/23/2015
Status: offline 		I mentioned this elsewhere, but it may be better suited here:

Could there be an option to quickly show/hide custom layers?

At the moment, if you want to hide custom layers so you can see the relief layer (for instance), you have to manually unload each custom layer, then when you want them back, manually reload each one.

Custom layers are great, but switching like this can be a pain. I'd love to be able to toggle them on/off when I want to see a different layer.

(in reply to Excroat3)
Post #: 456
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 11/5/2015 6:38:17 PM   
ColonelMolerat

 

Posts: 479
Joined: 9/23/2015
Status: offline 		Eep. I was the last post here too. Hope I'm not being too demanding!

Could there be a way to set a unit in a mission so that it won't leave the patrol area, but it WILL shoot outside of it?

For example, I want to set a zone outside of enemy AA range. I want my planes to stay within this zone, but still be able to shoot at contacts they see who are within the enemy AA area, if those enemies get within range.

Perhaps it could work like this if you have a patrol area away from the AA, but a prosecution zone extending within it, and 'Investigate contacts outside of patrol area' is switched off? At the moment, having a prosecution area with 'Investigate contacts outside of patrol area' turned off is no different to having no prosecution area, is it?

---

Also, could it be possible to disable the dropping of sonobuoys on an ASW mission (perhaps under the doctrine window, like with 'Use Nuclear Weapons'?), so that only dipping sonar etc is used - that way the buoys can be saved for when they're most needed.

< Message edited by ColonelMolerat -- 11/18/2015 1:08:02 PM >

(in reply to ColonelMolerat)
Post #: 457
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 11/10/2015 9:28:37 PM   
CCIP-subsim


Posts: 695
Joined: 11/10/2015
Status: offline 		Two quick suggestions/requests on game mechanics:

1) I really like the weapon calculation logs, but I've had to turn them off because they ruin the "fog of war" in many scenarios - because even if you're launching at a suspicious Goblin, it'll immediately tell you that the torpedo is attacking "Biological Tuna Fishes", which immediately removes all ambiguity.
Would it be possible to add an option to remove/obscure target IDs from weapon/attack calculation logs?

2) Pulse rates, sync and "high fidelity" mode: so, I'm not sure if it's just my particular processor (which is a high-end i5), but one issue I have is that while my system runs the "high fidelity" real time mode just fine and at a good refresh rate, it ends up running in slow-mo - 1 second of game time lasts 2-3 seconds of real time. Accelerated time is still accelerated. Turning off high fidelity, I get a 1 sec=1 sec time ratio exactly, but lose the smooth refresh rate. Is it possible to add some sort of tweak, even a possibility of having 1/2 the "high fidelity" pulse rate, to force the game to stay in "real time" rather than "slow mo"?

(in reply to ColonelMolerat)
Post #: 458
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 11/20/2015 3:23:48 PM   
JPFisher55

 

Posts: 589
Joined: 11/22/2014
Status: offline 		IMO, if the player could select which tanker aircraft an a/c needing refuel to use would solve most refueling issues with a/c. Then, the player, not the AI, would be responsible for difficult refueling missions.

< Message edited by JPFisher55 -- 11/20/2015 4:23:06 PM >

(in reply to CCIP-subsim)
Post #: 459
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 11/24/2015 10:08:19 PM   
gattomatto

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline 		Didn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere, so I'm voting to have configurable hotkeys.

Default ones are difficult to use on a non pc-standard, non us-layout keyboard.
I have a laptop and, as an example, can't get the increase-decrease time compression shortcuts. Pretty annoying.

I'd really have a mean to assign my own.

ciao
Guido

(in reply to JPFisher55)
Post #: 460
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 12/11/2015 5:18:27 AM   
magi

 

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline 		I have the side… The feature I want more than any other… First… Is better screen resolution ......

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 461
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 12/11/2015 4:27:45 PM   
FoxZz

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 4/28/2015
Status: offline 		I'd like to propose a new thing to the list.

Would it be possible to make the altitude indication refering to the ground level and not the sea level up to the medium altitude bar (3000m +) ? From 0 to 3/4000 meters the altitude would be indicated refering to the ground altitude, past this bar it would be indicated refering to teh sea altitude.
For example when you set your plane altitude to 500m it would mean 500m above ground level, and if you're flying above a 200m high hill, it would be equal to an 700m altitude above sea. But if you set your plane to an altitude of 5000m it would be 5000m above sea. Currently the minimal altitude preset works that way, and it would be usefull to extend this feature to all the low altitude presets. Since when you are at low altitude what interest you is the space ebtween you and the surface level, not the theorical sea altitude.

This would be very usefull concerning low altitude flights and minimal weapons release altitude. Those are indicated in ground altitude, while the plane altitude is indicated in sea altitude. Thus it often results in approximationon on the right altitude to set to allow weapon release, and thus, the aircraft tend to overclimb and be shot at. Basically, when you use low flying altitude you want to fly as low as possible and thus you need precise indications on your actual altitude from surface.

I hope my point was clear enough :p, thanks to consider this.

(in reply to magi)
Post #: 462
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 12/11/2015 4:34:07 PM   
FoxZz

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 4/28/2015
Status: offline 		I also have another proposal :

When you add a sensor or a weapon to a unit, you have to check all those boxes to set the angle of firing or detection, etc. Would it be possible to add one box saying "check all", so that if you want to set a 360° coverage you would only have to check on box instead of twelve ? And if you want a 280 coverage, it's only a few box to uncheck rather than checking a dozen.

(in reply to FoxZz)
Post #: 463
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 12/11/2015 4:57:05 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline 		I would really like to see this also - one click instead of 16. On a similar note, would it be possible to select multiple units to be assigned to a mission by selecting the first unit, hold down the shift key and select the last unit so that all the units between them would be picked? There are times when there may be say 36 F-15s available for and AAW mission but I only want to use the first 18 (or 12-24). This would obviate the need to select all 18 individually. Thanks for considering this.

Wayne Stiles

(in reply to FoxZz)
Post #: 464
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 12/28/2015 6:43:44 PM   
PoorOldSpike


Posts: 228
Joined: 4/19/2008
From: Plymouth, England
Status: offline 		Ships with CIWS and guns won't automatically turn to bring them to bear on incoming anti-ship missiles in the CIWS/guns blind spots, even though the missiles are detected at 10 nm or more and the ships have therefore got plenty of time to turn, so the sooner this is fixed the better because it's a real game-killer for me.
Suggestion- the devs could do a spot of re-programming to get rid of blind spots so that CIWS/guns have 360-degree coverage and can engage "abstractedly", i.e. we can assume ships are turning even though we can't actually see them doing so.

_____________________________

"Fight with your brain first and your weapons second!"

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 465
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 1/6/2016 3:12:12 AM   
AlexinCT

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline 		I would like a lua command that allows me to add, remove, or modify weapons content at a facility. Specifically the ammo storage sites. This would be even more powerful if the recently introduced lua command that allows you to make units switch sides would do so with grouped facilities too. You can then with this combination simulate landings and facilities being captured and reused by the force that captured that facility.

(in reply to PoorOldSpike)
Post #: 466
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 1/6/2016 4:10:28 AM   
WBailey

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 1/6/2016
Status: offline 		I wish I could vote for multiple things on this list! I didn't notice dynamic campaign until after I voted, I think I would prefer that over my previous first choice (aircraft damage model).

(in reply to AlexinCT)
Post #: 467
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 1/6/2016 12:27:32 PM   
Primarchx


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

ORIGINAL: AlexinCT

I would like a lua command that allows me to add, remove, or modify weapons content at a facility. Specifically the ammo storage sites. This would be even more powerful if the recently introduced lua command that allows you to make units switch sides would do so with grouped facilities too. You can then with this combination simulate landings and facilities being captured and reused by the force that captured that facility.


I've wanted methods that allows you to a) change a unit's side (accomplished!) and b) add a unit to a formation. This is so I could create a side called Logistics which whose units (Ammo facilities with magazines) would be teleported in, switched to a given side and grouped with a given unit on a certain trigger. Your request is cool, too, as it would allow you to add/delete/modify existing content in existing units, too.

(in reply to AlexinCT)
Post #: 468
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 1/6/2016 2:46:36 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline 		One more pop to the top of the stack for a request for an LOS tool.

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 469
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 1/8/2016 9:29:57 PM   
ThornEel

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 12/23/2015
Status: offline 		Does extended space operations include the Soviet Polyus-Skif orbital laser? The more hypothetical Project Thor? Orion battleships? Orion orbital 3000 MT nuclear weapon?

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 470
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 1/10/2016 5:14:20 PM   
ColonelMolerat

 

Posts: 479
Joined: 9/23/2015
Status: offline 		A small thing - could the database perhaps have a clearer range listing for units' weapons (such as a separate field)? It would be nice if, when viewing a unit, I could tell at a glance how close it needs to be to fire. At the moment, the range can get a little lost in the other info.

< Message edited by ColonelMolerat -- 1/15/2016 2:00:15 PM >

(in reply to ThornEel)
Post #: 471
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 1/26/2016 4:22:03 PM   
Vici Supreme

 

Posts: 558
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Southern Germany
Status: offline 		Could there be a misson editor option to make the 1/3rd rule apply to all aircraft of various types rather then only aircraft of the same model when assigned to patrol missions such as ASW, ASuW or Sea Control? NATO's SNMGs are a good example, carrying a bunch of different helicopters (in some rare cases two of same type). Setting up an ASW box with three different ASW helos in 1/3rd rotation assigned will not really work here since the AI currently launches all three helicopter then. Especially in big scenarios, it would come in very useful if Command could handle this so the player could focus his attention on other things going on.

Thanks for considering!

Supreme

_____________________________


(in reply to ColonelMolerat)
Post #: 472
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 1/26/2016 8:39:31 PM   
skorpio667

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 10/24/2013
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline
Today I posted a spreadsheet for strike planning and one of the posters mentioned the progress of the in-game planner. Then a thought hit me: perhaps it is possible for the dev's to implement a stage were we can set a launch time for a strike (already possible with the mission planner) but also set a manual plot before a mission is launched?

Then we could enjoy multi axis strikes with a orchestrated time of impact with the use of external strike planners and manual control over speed and altitude!

Skorpio

(in reply to Vici Supreme)
Post #: 473
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 2/25/2016 8:41:02 PM   
iborg

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/22/2016
Status: offline 		I voted for ToT planner.
AN idea I didn't see (I think) mentioned : being able to set escorts for patrol and support missions. Example : setting a support mission with a tanker or AEW plane, and assigning a fighter escort to it.

(in reply to miller7219)
Post #: 474
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 3/10/2016 5:04:21 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline 		Removed items added in v1.11

_____________________________



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

(in reply to iborg)
Post #: 475
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 3/21/2016 2:01:04 AM   
tjhkkr


Posts: 2428
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline 		Does the staff look at this poll any more?
I am more curious than anything... you guys already do so much for this game.

_____________________________

Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 476
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 3/26/2016 10:56:04 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		I haven't seen this request yet...

Be able to create multiple use profiles. Profiles would include all sensor settings, vector settings, view settings, and maybe even game settings. This would allow a player to create multiple profiles that can be quickly loaded on scenario start.

For example...I might have an ASW profile that turns off certain range circles and keeps sonar and ASW weapons turned on.

The genesis of the idea is that I spend 10-15 minutes every sceanrio adjusting and changing all the settings to match the type of scenario or size of scenario.

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 477
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 3/27/2016 12:15:14 AM   
Graf Leinsdorf

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 9/27/2007
Status: offline 		As already proposed in an other thread, I wonder whether with 1.11 or following some other improvements may be devised, especially in details of feedback after battle.
More often than not the player has troubles in discovering which platform has destroyed or damaged what, getting only the overall losses but not knowing which of his assets has achieved each one. This information doesn't seem to be got entirely through running message logs, where damage suffered is detailed but not the platform which caused it. Would it be possible to add a tag to the losses report with this kind of data? Or include it in lines of the message log?

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 478
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 4/2/2016 4:05:53 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Request:

Changing simulation Stop/Start hotkey from F12 to spacebar. It'd be very convenient to many users, I'd think. Especially when on laptop F12 is vry small key.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Graf Leinsdorf)
Post #: 479
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 4/2/2016 9:45:15 PM   
Gizzmoe


Posts: 155
Joined: 8/24/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Request:

Changing simulation Stop/Start hotkey from F12 to spacebar.


Yes, that would be very convenient.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
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

1.672